Talk:Sulfoxaflor

Sulfoximine class
With respect to these edits, please bear in mind that sulfoximines are a separate class of insecticide compared to neonicotinoids according to sources for scientific content such as this: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048357513000989

This is a rather basic chemistry fact, so what exactly is unclear here? Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Additionally, please keep in mind that when it comes to scientific fact, newspapers are not reliable sources (see WP:SCIRS). It's fine for reporting that the case overturned sulfoxaflor's approval, but that's about the extent such sources could be used for. For descriptions of chemistry, toxicology, etc. we need peer-reviewed journal articles, etc. In this case, the court seemed to decide that more testing is needed related to bees, but current sources aren't exactly descriptive on details there. We'll probably get more info on the coming days in better scientific sources, so it's probably best waiting until new information comes out before going more in-depth than just saying the approval was overturned in content. 0Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In this most recent edit, we have a claim that sulfoxaflor should be regulated as a neonicotinoid. This isn't in either source. It does go on to talk about neonicotinoids, but that current piece of content wouldn't be correct with this source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to avoid any additional edit warring, I'm putting the justification for my removal of the newly proposed content. At this point we are at the discussion phase of WP:BRD,0 so we'll need to gain consensus for new content rather than edit war it back in.


 * In the first edit, I removed the claim that sulfoxaflor is a neonicotinoid. We have two scientific reliable sources stating it is a sulfoximine where one is a review making the statement (mixed bag since it is industry co-authors, but reliable for basic statements like this) and one from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, which is entirely independent. We cannot use a newspaper to "debunk" that, nor are courts arbiters of scientific fact. While entirely unwarranted, to nip any further attempts of WP:ASPERSIONS in the bud, I'm skeptical of how it's different than neonicotinoids, but this is currently how it's classified by scientific sources, so we'll report that until they show otherwise.


 * With respect to, "The court found that sulfoxaflor should be regulated as a neonicotinoid, overturning the original classification that had been confirmed by a lower court." this is not in either source listed. We need a source that actually discusses such content rather than misrepresent the sources currently cited. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thomas C. Sparks works for Dow. Accordingly, I will be removing the source as hopelessly COI. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I added it back because we don't inherently consider such sources unreliable, especially for basic fact. The source still underwent peer-review, so we don't consider it quite the same as some industry rag piece. Since it's paired with an independent source corroborating it, there's no reason to remove it. This is the point to stop edit warring though. You wanted to make changes and you don't have consensus for them. That means it's time to discuss specific new changes first lest we need to lock down the page in order to force you to do that. The burden is on you as you are wanting to add the new change, so you need to gain consensus for that here. At this time, you were trying to claim sulfoxaflor is a neonicotinoid, yet two secondary sources dispute that. I'm not sure why you are so insistent on adding this, but the claim isn't in strong enough sources you are bringing. Maybe the classification will change in the future, but that currently isn't reflected in reliable sources for scientific content yet. Do you have other sources per WP:SCIRS that would justify this change in content? Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I also went and checked the IRAC website (one of the main advisory bodies for insecticides), which lists sulfoxaflor as a separate group as of last May on page 6.
 * The Dow source is a massive COI. It cannot be in the article. I will simply view its reinsertion as vandalism or paid corporate editing. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:COI. It doesn't apply to content in this manner. The fact is that that multiple sources dispute this claim you keep trying to make even when you exclude the Dow source. It mainly serves to give the added background information on the chemical. If it was the sole source making the claim, I'd be much more skeptical. Please self revert at this point as you are violating multiple policies such as WP:OR trying to insert this content as is (actual discussion on crafting content would have avoided that). Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A court found it to be a neonictinoid. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You edit warred content in again. As before, newspapers are not reliable sources for supplanting scientific sources. More reliable sources treat them as separate classes. Please stop grabbing low quality sources and find sources that are appropriate for replacing ones such as IRAC and MDA. Just so things don't get lost in the shuffle, the sources we currently have are:
 * IRAC
 * |title=Sulfoxaflor MDA
 * Sparks et al.
 * The last one is intended as supplementary to the previous two for this content, but we definitely can't be using a newspaper article against an organization like the IRAC. Please find sources reliable for scientific content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The court said that Dow lied. There was a trial. Witnesses were called. We sure as hell will take the court's finding over a paper written by a Dow scientist. Abductive  (reasoning) 13:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Courts do not get to dictate scientific fact. We leave that up to scientists. In case you forgot in your focus on Dow, that is not the only source being discussed here. If you have something better than the IRAC, please present it. At this time, independent sources still consider it different than a neonicotinoid. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, but they do. The court called scintific witnesses, who were sworn to tell the truth. Your sources are all tainted by Dow. Abductive  (reasoning) 13:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't be silly. You're trying to claim a state government and one of the main scientific advisory groups in the field are unreliable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your IRAC source calls it a neonictinoid and says nothing about sulfoximine. You have lost. Abductive  (reasoning) 14:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please actually read the source. Both are clearly labeled as Nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR)competitive modulators, but neonicotinoids and sulfoxaflor are listed in different groups (4A and 4C). Sulfoxaflor is clearly labeled as not a neonicotinoid in that case. The content you want would be similar to calling nicotine or butenolide both neonicotinoids. Also, please don't engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. We're not here to win or lose. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * According to IRAC's website, Dow is a member/sponsor. IRAC is not independent. A corporation with a major product cannot be trusted as a source of scientific "fact" (scientists never say anything is a fact, right?). But courts do make findings of fact. Abductive  (reasoning) 14:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Experts in the group come from industry, government, and universities. Please don't cherry-pick. You can't get industry just trying to make whatever statements it wants through the group. Plus, other competitors would love to see the product classified as something not unique if it was just a big industry cabal. It's one of the major authorities in the field that independent researchers use and is one of the checks and balances against companies pushing to sell as much insecticide as they possibly can. Given the nature of the group, it would have a predisposition towards lumping chemicals into one group for resistance management rather than the other way around. As for courts, they make findings of fact in terms of law. If for instance a court claimed there's no evidence for global warming as part of some case, that would not be considered part of the scientific discourse. That's a decision for scientists, not judges and lawyers who are non-experts in weighing the evidence and wouldn't be considered reliable.


 * We're still at the point where multiple sources that cannot be supplanted by newspapers still say this insecticide is not a neonicotinoid. Please either bring equivalent sources under our sourcing policies and guidelines that say otherwise so we can work on different content, or wait for the idea you're pushing for right now to come to fruition in reliable sources for scientific content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Newspapers? It was the Ninth Circuit. Wikipedia's rules (not your interpretation of scientific fact) say Wikipedia articles must have independent secondary sources. All your sources are dependent, or primary, or both. All mine are independent and secondary, save the one scientific article which did call it a neonicotinoid. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, newspapers are not considered reliable for scientific fact. They get stuff wrong all the time even if the original person being interviewed said things correctly. Our science guidelines such as WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS make that pretty clear. I've pulled from a review, a state government paper on the chemical (no question on independence there), and a statement from the IRAC, all secondary sources. We currently don't have that equivalent for claims of it being a neonicotinoid. You came in here trying to insert material completely unsourced, and are now reaching for any sources you can find that agrees with that. That is not how editing is done according to our policies and guidelines. Again, please stop edit warring (in violation of 3RR now) and find sources from literature reviews or respected organizations in the field such as scientific organizations and government agencies. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So, you are claiming that the New York Times got it wrong when they reported that the court found that the chemical was a neonicotinoid? See, that court overturned the EPA, and that, by the way, also means that your MN Dept of Ag source is no longer relevant. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Courts aren't in the business of declaring scientific fact. They weigh on law. The court itself didn't overturn the chemical classification. Scientists classify chemicals like this in the literature and through scientific organizations. That's where you'll find a change if it occurs. There's a lot of nuance in this topic as to how pesticides are labeled (e.g., they're both nAChRs described previously), and newspapers are not reliable for that accuracy. Please just slow down and read about the actual distinctions made between neonics and sulfoxaflor mentioned in sources. Being similar to neonicotinoids does not make it one. If you really want the idea to stick, you need to bring scientific sources as I mentioned previously and carefully craft content here with an understanding of how chemicals are labeled. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Courts find scientific facts all the time. They also find financial facts, even though they are not financiers, criminal facts even though they aren't criminals, etc. Anyway, I have now put, "acts like" instead. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, please stop violating 3RR at this point. Discuss proposed edits here first to work things out, and we need to stay focused. On the note of the court, I went and looked at the actual source. Neonicotinoids are listed only in one paragraph, and that's a background section of the opinion one one judge. Neonicotinoids are not the focus of the source and only get a brief mention that cannot be used to disregard other sources. For the edits you made, we still need to call out the class of insecticide, and it's better to describe the mode of action rather than just say it's like neonics. It's time to take a pause, not blaze ahead with more edits. Please just work from the status quo version proposing individual edits so we can get somewhere. I don't have more time to put into this afternoon, so I do suggest self-reverting while the AN3 case is ongoing and approaching the content from square one. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the New Scientist source, which as you may note, calls it a neonicotinoid. So, again, the secondary sources are lining up with the interpretation of the court. You are trying to interpret the court ruling yourself, which is WP:OR. I am citing secondary sources that call it a neonicotinoid but I am compromising a bit in the lead and saying, "acts like a neonicotinoid" and is actually a sulfoximine. At the bottom I say, "the court found it to be a neonicotinoid", cite multiple independent secondary sources, and leave it to the reader to infer that sulfoxaflor isn't exactly a neonicotinoid (or is, if they want). Abductive  (reasoning) 22:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, please stop the edit warring. I'm not going to attempt to game the system per WP:3RR, but you're making more edits that won't stick here without gaining WP:CONSENSUS for them. You added another unreliable source for scientific content with the New Scientist source (still a newspaper), and you're still falsely claiming the court actually found it to be a neonicotinoid. It made no such ruling. This rush to insert content is becoming disruptive as you're missing some nuanced details in the sources. Please self revert so we can work through content piece by piece from the start. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Resetting back to content and where to really focus on building it, we can demonstrate reliability of the IRAC source per WP:USEBYOTHERS if there's even any question about it by use by others in the field, such as researchers at Iowa State (S6:E19). More instances of this can be provided if needed, but we're dealing with one of the most commonly used references by insecticide researchers across the board. The MDA source has only previously been questioned here due to the recent court ruling, but that would only apply to claims it is currently approved for sale, while nothing else in the source would be dated by those events. We still have the chemical class and IRAC code (more IRAC usage) and the various information from that source which hasn't been fleshed out here yet.

With the primary source, Culter et al., we don't want use claims made in a primary source such as this (WP:WPNOTRS), and use secondary sources instead when they are available. The Sparks et al. source mentioned above underwent peer-review, so it would be partially independent at least from any obvious skulduggery compared to something from a corporate website if one was worried about that. Could be questionable for more significant claims on efficacy, health effects, etc., but not so much for chemical classification and mode of action. Overall, policy would lean towards the Sparks source for mundane claims unless we find something better.

Lastly, for a new source, I came across this review. It also states we are dealing with a sulfoximine and that it has some differences from neonicotinoids in terms of mode of action. I'll put together some content in the morning dealing with the nuance of the group classification and mode of action. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As of this edit, I don't have any other major additions in mind. I thought about getting into how sulfoxaflor is different than others in this mode of action group (e.g. neonics), but that will get too technical getting into how binding to different subunits work, lack of overall cross-resistance, etc. It's easier for a reader (from our intended audience) to just say they are different citing to the review that states that directly. Could be something to look into in the future though if a source explains it really well in lay-terms. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What about the sources you removed? Strange how the reasons the court overturned the FDA have been sanitized from the article... Abductive  (reasoning) 18:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I generally removed sources that are not reliable for scientific content (such as newspapers) and used more reliable scientific sources. The newspaper is fine for starting the main finding of the court case though as I specifically included that piece of information. As you're just coming off your block, please refrain from accusations like "sanitize" though. We currently concisely say a lot that has been noteworthy within the scope of this article about the chemical so far.


 * Also, please refrain from mischaracterizing secondary sources as primary sources as you did here. If you aren't familiar with literature reviews in science, please read WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:PSTS. I'm not sure why you're opposed to the source in these cases though. It's saying the same thing other secondary sources are saying, nothing controversial that we'd be concerned about in terms of independence as mentioned above (not claims we really would need independent sources for), and offers some in-depth explanation on mode of action as a review. If the source was going to be used on it's own for claims needing a higher bar, I'd be concerned, but that's not the case here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Tense
With respect to this change in tense, that would be incorrect in that sentence. It's still a sulfoximine, and it's still active against sap feeding insects, etc. See DDT for a similar example of tense. That is not affected by the court ruling, which I'm assuming was the thinking for this edit. What is affected is the EPA approval for registration (doesn't affect approved use in other countries), which is covered in the respective section. That section currently has correct tense. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, sorry. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Mode of action
Abductive, with this edit, there are a few issues. First, we already say everything in the group acts on the receptor by saying, "Other nAChR competitive modulator sub-groups." We cannot remove saying that sulfoximines are different from the other sub-groups because that contradicts Casida et al. and other secondary sources. If you look at the sources brought here so far, they describe that the sub-groups (such as neonics and sulfoxaflor) bind to different subunits on the receptor among other comlex interactions. There's a lot of technical information to explain behind that if it was going to be included in the article, so it's much better to just use the summarization the sources themselves use when first introducing the concepts simply saying they act differently.

I'm not sure why the IRAC source was removed (no discussion on that), but WP:USEBYOTHERS had been established above already, but here's more if that' still a concern just from first page Google search.

If there are still changes you want to make in this section, can you state why you think certain changes need to be made in this section according to sources? It doesn't seem clear to me right now what content issue requires removing content or sources as of this edit. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I repeat; IRAC is funded by Dow Chemical. It cannot be used in the article. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So what problem are you insinuating simply by it being funded? That the information there is inaccurate? WP:USEBYOTHERS as explained above indicates it is a reliable source recommended by independent sources for mode of action classification. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Then the IRAC source is superfluous. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How so? It's showing the actual classification of the overall group. None of the other sources we cite quite show that detail and we don't exactly have too many sources being cited. If you are trying to say it's superfluous because other sources cite it, that was in terms of WP:USEBYOTHERS. The citing sources aren't being used for content generation, but to indicate reliability. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The neonicotinoid article says that it too binds to nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. How is it germane exactly how or where on the receptor it binds? In other words, (using secondary sources) what is the difference to the environment, or to non-target species such as bees? Abductive  (reasoning) 05:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As for binding, how something binds to a receptor leads to it being in a different classification. Just as an illustrative example in general, you can get changes to one subunit that cause resistance in for instance neonicotinoids that wouldn't affect sulfoxaflor, but you'd need a change in the another subunit to get resistance to sulfoxaflor. Different species have different binding affinities for certain subunits for certain chemicals, and that's how chemicals get split up. This is all covered in the sources that have been mentioned in the above conversation, so please review them if you are not familiar with how insecticide classification works. This edit for instance is not as accurate as the previous version because it's not just the binding effect, but the later conformation changes of the protein too. I'm not going to nitpick over changing that one right now, but please be careful about language if you aren't familiar with the subject matter. This has happened a few times now that missed significant things sources have said. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, see, it is you that doesn't get it. Wikipedia is not the place for you to publish your WP:OR. I have repeatedly asked you to provide secondary sources. You have not. Instead, you insist on using primary scientific and other articles to make some incredibly minor distinctions about where on a receptor the insecticide binds. Furthermore, the articles on the others; neonicotinoid, nicotine, and butenolide say nothing about this. Meanwhile, you remove true secondary sources on the grounds that they are "wrong". Abductive  (reasoning) 17:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Every piece of content I have added has been from secondary sources or other reliable sources specified under WP:RS and WP:SCIRS. Again, please refer to the sources I've provided previously, especially the reviews (secondary sources) when it comes to the actual biochemistry involved here. If there is something you believe is inaccurate according to sources, please bring it up here specifically so it can be addressed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

5 Ws and an H
According to Five Ws and one H, articles need to explain things fully. Presently, the article does not explain the court ruling. It needs: For answers, only secondary sources should be used, since Wikipedia only reports the consensus of independent analysts. Any thoughts? Abductive (reasoning) 23:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Who did it?
 * What happened?
 * Where did it take place?
 * When did it take place?
 * Why did it happen?
 * How did it happen?


 * When it comes to policy in terms of WP:DUE weight, we may not always need an answer to each of those. In this case we have the when (9/10/15) the who and where (U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) as it has regional jurisdiction, and the what. How isn't really needed as the how of court cases work isn't really unique for this article's scope. Why could be expanded to say that the EPA was overturned because the court determined there was insufficient testing related to bee health (i.e., chemicals toxic to bees can still be approved by law, you just need to have the right studies and remediations in place).


 * With that, I found another more recent source from the Royal Society of Chemistry that should be a bit more reliable than other newspaper-like sources we've discussed recently for describing the overall situation. I made an edit reflecting this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The ruling isn't regional, it's national. And you will not prevail saying that newspapers are not good sources. For one thing, they are reporting legal matters, not scientific ones. Your spurious argument that the New York Times and New Scientist are not good sources is why you are in trouble with Arbcom. I urge you to work with me. Why don't we find claims that we both agree on? For example, do you disagree that the court banned Sulfoxaflor because it found that it harmed bees? Abductive  (reasoning) 04:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The previous newspaper comment was mainly in regard to scientific sources. That's nested in our reliable sourcing policies and guidelines, so there's no issue with stating that. I'm already working with you. I included more content on the reasoning behind the ruling, which is included in all the other sources anyways. This source shows international coverage of the case and is overall more reliable coming from a scientific organization rather than newspapers that tend to not be the most accurate on topics like health and science, especially when law intersects too. I don't see any issue with the previous edit or what you're concerned about there as it accomplishes the same thing with a better source.


 * For your last question on the court, it's not simply because it harmed bees. There's a lot of nuance behind this. Pesticides can get approved even when they harm bees, but they usually get certain restrictions in their approval (i.e. conditional). What the court found was that EPA's Tier 1 tests were marginally acceptable at best for bee health risk and the EPA should have required Tier 2 tests (more testing), but the EPA went ahead with an unconditional approval instead. That is the essence of what was in my previous edit using secondary sources cited and written for our audience here. You can dig into more technical sources or the court opinion itself for background info on Tier 1 and Tier 2 testing for honeybee health if the topic interests you. For now, my last edit seems to be as accurate as we can get the summary until we get some source qualified in law to summarize the more in-depth info for us and readers if we really want to get more technical. I think it's better to say it simply for now. We can always cite the court ruling itself, not for content, but just for readers who want to see it if that helps your concern. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We can't "dig" into the primary references to conduct WP:OR. Provide secondary sources. That is what Wikipedia is built from, even if they oversimplify. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly, that's why I said we need good secondary sources for content above (digging in was reference to personal understanding of the topic). We do need to realize that we are dealing with very WP:TECHNICAL information at this point though, so that does require a general understanding on our part as editors as to what kind of information is being conveyed in the primary or too technical sources for us to use for our audience. That way we can identify sources that can summarize the technical side well for us so additional content can be proposed. We have the core ideas down now, so if we want to expand the periphery, it's time to look for good sources or wait for new ones to come out (it's still early). Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not waiting. Why don't you have your buddies publish something that can't be traced back to Dow? Abductive  (reasoning) 06:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NODEADLINE, especially when we don't have appropriate sources for specific content yet and we had decent content already. Also, please refrain from WP:ASPERSIONS. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This edit made some major changes to the court summary statement that are incorrect. First, at no point are we ever talking about the FDA. The more important issue though is that we lose accuracy describing the decision with the proposed change. The Royal Society of Chemistry source lays it out pretty clearly that the bee health studies didn't justify the unconditional registration.

That has been explained above already, so please first discuss your specific content concerns before making these changes. You still haven't spelled out why you think certain text needs to be changed over most of this time. If you personally are not understanding the kind of language the secondary sources are summarizing from the court case, please read the court opinion not for content generation where we prefer not to use primary sources, but so that you are familiar with the language the sources summarize so we don't inadvertently change the meaning. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How about you read this Mother Jones article? And don't you dare tell me it can't be in the article, or there will be a problem. Abductive  (reasoning) 17:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing from the source appears to justify a content change. Can you be specific? At this point, I don't think it needs to be included since it's not adding anything. Can we anchor this conversation in proposed content changes at this time (made on this talk page) as it seems like we have all the core content down in the article already. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Systemic or non-systemic?
The article on sulfoxaflor states in the first sentence that it's a systemic -- then states in a para below that it's non-systemic. I'm confused.Yetijabba (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

A semi-field study to evaluate effects of sulfoxaflor on honey bee
I thought it might be useful to add one more perhaps? http://www.bulletinofinsectology.org/pdfarticles/vol71-2018-225-233cheng.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.11.109.71 (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)