User talk:USEPA James/Archive 1

Welcome
Hi James, Welcome back! Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! bobrayner (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style
 * I think it would be really helpful to have a professional at the USEPA making improvements.
 * A lot of folk are wary of organisations (or their representatives) editing wikipedia articles because of the potential for mischief (for instance, companies sneakily promoting their products). However, you're here with good intent, and have already been quite open, so don't worry about that so much. If you really want to edit through an intermediary, I'm happy to do that (you might want to propose changes on this page), but you can make changes for yourself too, as long as they're neutral and sourced. If anything is problematic, I'm sure somebody will point it out to you; I'll try to keep an eye on your contributions too.
 * You mentioned working on a chemical article. Which one? My background is in physics rather than chemistry, but I'll try to keep up. If you need any help from a subject-matter expert, try asking at WikiProject Chemistry or WikiProject Ecology. (A WikiProject is just an informal group of people interested in a specific area; they don't own articles but they are usually keen to help). bobrayner (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement and ideas, Bobrayner. I'll invite folks from the chemistry project to come over and see what I'm proposing. As to directly editing pages, we may elect to do that eventually. But for this first attempt (which essentially suggests a near-complete rewrite of the content for a contentious chemical) I'm taking a more conservative approach. To kick off our first official foray into Wikipedia editing, I give you the following. USEPA James (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Things to bear in mind for US EPA...
I saw your note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals about helping out with pesticides. You potentially could have a really beneficial impact on Wikipedia. But you need to be careful. Some thoughts (which have no official weight): Happy editing and best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * the main thing is that Wikipedia is not an advice column (see WP:NOTGUIDE), and we do not enumerate safety information (see WP:NOTMANUAL). We do not pretend to account for all 80,000 publications that appear annually in the chemical world. Generally, we defer to the rule that the best sources are secondary (reviews and books, see WP:SECONDARY), not primary literature.
 * It is possible to "flood and drown" any Wiki-article with safety information. This kind of misguided but well-intentioned activity is performed by dozens of drive-by editors weekly. Often such edits are made by chemical illiterates who are legitimately worried about health, environment, and related safety issues.  Thus, editors here often discourage routine safety information (chemical xyz irritates the eyes or abc makes one vomit if you eat a few hundred mg).  We defer most routine safety info to the MSDS and strive not to repeat or compete with MSDS's.  That way the core chemical content is more prominent - structural chemistry, production/biosynthetic routes, reaction pathways, etc.
 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle of the U.S. Thus, while actions by the U.S. government are often noteworthy, in principle they have no more weight than actions by any of the dozens of other stable countries.


 * Thanks, Smokefoot. I appreciate your comments and agree that USEPA needs to approach this cautiously. OTOH, Wikipedians have been citing our web content, memos, and publications for years, sometimes in a curiously selective way. We just want to help Wikipedia accomplish its goal of high quality, neutral content and, hopefully, improve people's understanding of complex issues related to chemicals beyond the core content. In response to your three points:
 * I believe the vast majority of USEPA’s web content and other publications fall into the realm of secondary or tertiary source material. While USEPA does have labs that do original research, our scientists do not conduct research to support pesticide chemical registrations, and we don’t write the laws upon which we base our policies and regulatory decisions.
 * I have no intention to "flood and drown" any Wiki-article with safety information. I also agree that Wikipedia chemical pages would benefit from focusing on core chemical content. But some pages on controversial chemicals get into policy and regulatory issues—and rightly so, I think. It’s these areas where we tend to find substantive misinformation and bias, so these are the areas I will focus on.
 * I understand that Wikipedia is not a vehicle of the U.S. and don’t plan to try and make it one. The only edits you’ll find me making will be after somebody posts biased, incomplete or uncited information that substantively misinforms the world about USEPA or its pesticide regulatory decisions; the clothianidin page and edits I’m proposing for it above exemplify this. I'd be interested in hearing your candid assessment of the clothianidin page both as it exists now and relative to the edits I'm proposing.USEPA James (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Another welcome from me. It's a good idea to stop by and say hi. Some guidelines (structure, content) can be found at WP:CHEMMOS. You mentioned that the US EPA has been selective cited... if you are familiar with the content, one thing you can do is put articles in perspective. Perhaps you can work on List_of_extremely_hazardous_substances as well. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Rifleman 82. I've proposed changes on the clothianidin talk page. As far as the List of extremely hazardous substances, that's outside of my area of expertise. Should this first official foray into Wikipedia editing work out, other EPA offices may be able to help out with topics under their purview.

Clothianidin Proposed Edits
Note: Some of the suggestions below would become moot depending on the amount of editing done to the page. Since I don't know what the community concensus will be on the proposals, I'm including every item EPA subject matter experts identified as substantively problematic on the page.

Minor recommendations

 * Format Recommendation
 * Formatting & section titles consistent with other pesticide chemical pages would improve the neutrality of this page (for examples see Atrazine and 2,4-D).


 * Link Recommendation
 * Link to source documents unless they are unavailable online. Example: Citations 9 and 10 link to a copy of an EPA memo that is hosted on panna.org rather than to the original memo pdf, which is available in EPA's Freedom of Information Act Reading Room.

Proposed New Content for Clothianidin

 * Clothianidin is registered in many countries as a seed treatment and as spray or dust applied to leaves. As of April 26, 2011, it was registered as a seed treatment in the following European countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and the United Kingdom. (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/intheworks/clothianidin-registration-status.html#international)
 * EPA conducted the U.S. registration process in 2003 under a North American Free Trade Agreement Joint Review with Canada. (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/intheworks/clothianidin-registration-status.html#basic)
 * EPA reviewed more than 100 studies before making its registration decision. (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/intheworks/clothianidin-registration-status.html#risk)
 * Clothianidin is a safer alternative to the organophosphate and | carbamate pesticides it replaces, which are highly acutely toxic to bees and very highly toxic to humans and wildlife. (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/intheworks/clothianidin-registration-status.html#basic)
 * EPA's 2003 registration decision met the risk/benefit and safety standards required by U.S. federal pesticide law (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/intheworks/clothianidin-registration-status.html)
 * EPA required an additional pollinator field study to clarify uncertainties about potential long-term effects, but the additional study was not required for registration. (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/intheworks/clothianidin-registration-status.html#reclassification)
 * The clothianidin registrant carried out the field work for the pollinator field study in 2005, as agreed. (see p.2 at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chemical/foia/cleared-reviews/reviews/044309/044309-2003-03-11a.pdf)
 * EPA completed its review of the pollinator field study report in November 16, 2007 and accepted the study. (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chemical/foia/cleared-reviews/reviews/044309/044309-2007-11-16a.pdf)
 * EPA reclassified the pollinator field study on November 2, 2010, to “invalid” after staff science reviewers discovered control contamination, inadequate pollen analysis, and other confounding factors while processing Bayer’s application for new uses on mustard and cotton (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chemical/foia/cleared-reviews/reviews/044309/044309-2010-11-02a.pdf)
 * A more extensive EPA memo also dated November 2, 2010, reclassifies the field study as “supplemental.” (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chemical/foia/cleared-reviews/reviews/044309/044309-2010-11-02b.pdf)
 * A December 22, 2010, EPA staff memo updates the November 16, 2007, field study analysis and provides more detail about confounding factors and still-useful information in the supplemental pollinator field study. (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chemical/foia/cleared-reviews/reviews/044309/044309-090201-113501-079801-2010-12-22a.pdf)
 * Use of “sticker” for treated seed is standard for the industry in the U.S. (http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/updates/2008/bees-act.htm)


 * Re use of a sticker,according to the report:
 * The formulation of the pesticide clothianidin used to protect seed corn from corn root worm did not include a polymer seed coating known as a "sticker." This coating makes the pesticide product stick to the seed. Although the formulation used in the US also does not require a “sticker” on corn seed, it is typical practice to use “stickers” on corn seed in the US.
 * As a matter of fact I have read that although a sticker is advised it actually is often NOT standard practice in the US. To assume that it is suggests that all or most growers go to the added expense and trouble to do anything that is not required by law. Has the EPA done studies so that it may say with integrity that it is actually standard practice? I would think that it should be simple enough to find out if enough sticker is being sold to cover the amt of clothianidin sold.  However I do not like this sort of discussion re this article going on here in the back room, so as to speak.  This discussion should not be a private conversation conducted on your talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gandydancer. Bouncing some ideas around and and inviting comment on my talk page before actually proposing changes to a chemical page doesn't strike me as unreasonable, especially since I'm a n00b. If this was a "private conversation," I would not have advertised it in the Chemical Project talk page and elsewhere. On the proposed edit to the sticker discussion, since the sticker issue is part of the German incident (ie more of a news item than an encyclopedic one), the entire discussion becomes moot. In fact, it occurred to me that most of the proposed edits above become moot if the outdated (and biased) news content gets deleted from the clothianidin page. At any rate, I will post any *actual* changes I propose to the talk page for the particular chemical, so how about if we just keep the discussion there? --USEPA James (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletions/edits to existing content

 * “[Clothianidin is]absorbed by plants and then released in pollen and nectar to kill pests”
 * This statement omits uptake into leaves, stems and other plant parts and implies that pollinators are pests and, therefore, the intended target species.
 * Suggestion: Clothianidin is a systemic insecticide… (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic)


 * “An investigation revealed that the seed coating of clothianidin had not stayed in the soil but had been introduced to the air.”
 * This statement inaccurately describes the facts and omits others.
 * Suggestion: An investigation revealed that the seed coating of clothianidin had not stayed on the seeds but was instead introduced to the air through a combination of factors, including unusual weather, application equipment quirks, and other issues. (http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/updates/2008/bees-act.htm)


 * “Following the incident, the German government banned the pesticide.”
 * Inaccurately implies a complete ban in Germany, while only corn seed treatments were suspended.
 * Suggestion: Following the incident, the German government suspended the pesticide for use as a seed treatment on corn though other uses remain. (http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/about/intheworks/ccd-european-ban.html)


 * “Other countries banning clothianidin include France, Italy and Slovenia.”
 * Inaccurately implies a complete ban in those countries.
 * Suggestion: Other countries banning certain uses of clothianidin but allowing others include France, Italy and Slovenia. (http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/about/intheworks/ccd-european-ban.html)


 * “In August 2008, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sued the United States Environmental Protection Agency after the latter agency failed to provide records related to studies regarding clothianidin's possible effects on bees”
 * This claim is not supported by the facts.
 * Suggestion: In August 2008, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sued the United States Environmental Protection Agency, claiming the agency failed to provide records related to studies regarding clothianidin's possible effects on bees. In fact, EPA responded to the records’ request as required by law, informing NRDC within 20 days of its request that, owing to the extensive number of records it requested, EPA would need additional time to prepare the records for release.  Ultimately, EPA produced thousands of pages of regulatory records and environmental effects data in response to the 2008 Freedom of Information Act request. There was never a Court order requiring production. NRDC's case was dismissed by stipulation on October 27, 2009. (http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/about/factsheets/protectbees_fs.html)
 * Alternative solution: delete references to NRDC’s 2008 lawsuit that mischaracterize the facts on the clothianidin page.


 * “An internal EPA memo from November 2010 indicates that several EPA researchers have also concluded that the study was flawed,”
 * Inaccurately describes staff in question as researchers when they are actually science reviewers who, consistent with federal pesticide law, review studies submitted by pesticide registrants and applicants.
 * Suggestion: An internal EPA memo from November 2010 indicates that several EPA reviewers have also concluded that the study was flawed,


 * Hi there. I have never seen an editor move the discussion re additions/deletions from an article to their talk page and looked at your talk page only today.  I feel that most of these changes are excellent and in fact they clear up many of the questions that I have had re this chemical.  Good work!  Perhaps this section should be on the talk page as well?  I have a problem, however, with your suggestion to just delete the entire information re the NRDC lawsuit, calling it "old news".  Wikipedia often covers the news reports that result from decisions/studies, etc., involving pesticides and other chemicals that may have negative health effects.  See for instance the talk page for HFCS (near the bottom of the page).  Let's see what we can do to present the NRDC incident in a NPOV manner, OK?  It may not actually be the Truth, but Wikipedia is not about the truth but what can be properly referenced, and the more controversial a subject is the more picky one need be about which refs are acceptable - obviously, all of yours will be acceptable.   Gandydancer (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I only posted this here to let some folks who offered to help eliminate bias from pesticide chemical pages know which issues were of concern on clothianidin. You may also want to check the timestamps--I posted these here prior to proposing changes on the clothianidin talk page. Let's continue this discussion on the clothianidin talk page. --USEPA James (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation Requests

 * Regarding the 2008 German incident:
 * “despite a sticker being present,”
 * “and many farmers may find this additional coating too cost prohibitive.”
 * “the German government… issued a strong warning against using clothianidin.”

I hope my formatting isn't too confusing. Thoughts? USEPA James (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Methyl iodide
It would be great if you could take a look at methyl iodide. There is a lot of interest in this species and its use has been controversial. I would be glad to help out. We dont need your super-expertise, just your normal expertise. Best wishes, --Smokefoot (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Would love to help out on that one but my plate is full. Maybe once clothianidin is done... --USEPA James (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Concerns about your editing style
Another editor has approached me about your style of editing, and in particular about your assertion that it is somehow against our rules to bring up your employment in a discussion. Since it's no secret where you work, it is not "outing" to bring up concerns about your employment influencing the content of your edits. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  16:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention here. It is my understanding that the purpose of article talk pages is "to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." If you review the clothianidin talk page archive and the current talk page, you will see that a couple of editors use that talk page rather extensively as a platform for their personal views on the subject. They also make what I interpret as digs about my employment instead of focusing on building consensus to improve the article with reliable, secondary sources. The following are a few examples of what I feel are inappropriate statements and discussion topics related to my employment that are on the clothianidin talk page:


 * "Frankly James, I consider you the enemy, though I consider the EPA less in the pocket of corporate business than most gov't agencies. If it is your decision to go though all of the Wikipedia articles that the EPA is related to and change them to strictly meet wikipedia guidelines, well then so be it. So it goes, I guess." This op-ed commentary on 22 June 2011 seems to suggest I am a bad Wikipedian because of where I work and because I agree with the general principle that adhering to Wikipedia policies makes better articles. Is this a reasonable use of the article talk page?


 * "You have had the time, in fact you are paid for the time you have spent while I work for free, so as to speak, to look into the finer dictates of Wikipedia policy." A mistaken assumption, first stated on 29 June 2011 but repeated several times since, that everything I do on Wikipedia is "on the clock." (see two similar comments on 1 February 2012) In fact, the vast majority of my efforts here reflect work done "off the clock." Either way, I cannot fathom what this line of inquiry has to do with improving the clothianidin article.


 * "I think what has been going on here is repugnant example of regulatory capture and I am considering discussing this matter with my congressional representation." I was disturbed by this comment from 8 February 2012 because it infers a threat against my employment status if I continue to edit the clothianidin page. A similar inferred threat was made on the talk page of a clothianidin editor on 29 June 2011. But do not threaten people is one of several behaviors that are considered unacceptable, and I believe inferred threats are as disruptive to Wikipedia as direct ones.


 * "I was just informed by the EPA Headquarters Reference Librarian that all EPA employees have access to SpringerLink, so you should be able to read the chapter at [2] on your EPA computer." This statement from 9 February 2012 suggests a Wikipedian digging into details of my employment that I feel crosses the line of acceptable behavior. Incidentally, the editor who made the comment summarized the chapter in question in the clothianidin article based on a narrow reading of one sentence in the introduction to the chapter; the actual conclusions of the source chapter were entirely at odds with the editor's summary. I feel quite strongly that this sort of "misinformation sharing" negatively affects Wikipedia's credibility.


 * And most recently, "Since you are a government worker, you should be able to find this information easier than I can." This 15 February 2012 comment suggested to me that the editor felt I have nothing better to do than to track down sources to back up his or her mischaracterization of what I had actually written. This was the second time this editor had stated the same mistaken and poorly referenced fact about clothianidin not being authorised in France, for which I had already provided references in both English and French (see the discussion 28 June 2011).


 * Please let me know what I can or should do. USEPA James (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)