User:USEPA James/sandbox

DRAFT Clothianidin page edit proposal

note: "here" in the text below means the clothianidin talk page

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

• Where issues have been reasonably discussed and agreed upon here, I will endeavor to include them in a forthcoming revision (e.g. NY State's 2/2012 list of registered pesticides does not include clothiandin, Intro should closely follow article content, etc).
• Recent edits have made a mess of the citations, which were nearly flawless in the 1/9/12 revision. The first paragraph of the intro is now entirely without citations as are some of the new edits. I will reinsert the citations from 1/9/12 that have been lost and delete new text that is not cited consistent with WP:MEDMOS, WP:CHEMMOS, WP:RSMED, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS etc.
• I will delete the second paragraph of the intro because of:

• weasel words (“Some authorities”)
• text linking clothianidin to colony collapse disorder is not supported by the conclusions of the legitimate cited source and suggests original thought/research. See Wikipedia:OR
• The San Francisco Chronicle is not a recognized authority on bees, pesticides or this chemical; WP:MEDMOS strongly discourages citing non-technical media articles. See WP:RSMED
• The German incident is a chemical accident, coverage of which is discouraged by WP:CHEMMOS; WikiProject Chemical consensus supported only mentioning the accident briefly and linking to its main page. Objectors should express their opinions relative to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.
• The nosema text is only supported by a primary source investigating imidacloprid. See Wikipedia:OR. Nosema is discussed nowhere else in the article and is, therefore, inappropriate in the intro. It might be appropriate elsewhere if there is a reliable, secondary source to cite. Also, citing primary research is cautioned against as a general policy that gives priority to Project policies, with WP:CHEMMOS indicating it is acceptable when no other sources are available (e.g. historical chemistry issues).

• The Contents box reflects unannounced edits, deletions and additions to the section titles that made sense and were previously arrived at by consensus. Now they don't make sense: environmental persistence and risk mitigation are not subsets of toxicity. I'll change those back to the agreed upon headings.
• The Toxicity section previously gave a general overview of clothianidin toxicity and provided context that is frequently misunderstood by non-technical readers. Now it highlights bee toxicity uncertainties and disrupts the explanation of context. I will revert this back to the more NPOV 1/9/12 version and add text that connects toxicity (derived from lab testing) to risk mitigation (i.e. how to avoid toxicity issues when this stuff is used in the real world). Without that context, many people have been misled to believe that tox testing results are the expected outcome from labeled uses.
• Maximum Residue Levels and Human Health Effects have all been rolled into Mammals, which makes no sense. Maximum Residue Levels (tolerances in the US) are unique to pesticide chemicals and are of great importance to many people who eat food. They deserve their own section. Similarly, I can think of no reliable sources or recognized authorities that lump humans in with all other mammals when assessing risks from pesticides. "We" deserve our own section.
• The new bee section relies heavily on primary research on imidacloprid, and synthesizes a connection to clothianidin. See WP:OR The popular media source "linking" clothianidin to CCD violates WP:MEDMOS. The one legitimate secondary source cited, if you actually go and read it, comes to conclusions that do not support the assertions on the current page. I understand that many popular media articles, environmental groups and bloggers hype the primary research that fits their beliefs, but doing so here is an inappropriate use of Wikipedia. See WP:undue weight, WP:OR and WP:RSMED I'll revert this content back to the 1/9/12 version, which hid no controversies, gave them all a reasonable amount of weight and more accurately reflected the current global scientific consensus.
• The Risk Mitigation section has lost its references from 1/9/12 as well as all of the text related to risk mitigation aimed specifically to protect pollinators! I will revert this entire section to the previous NPOV version.
• The "See Also" section links to two articles that are tagged, reflecting poor quality. I will delete them.

Comments? USEPA James (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'll try to address each point...

• Agree with removing the second paragraph of the lede. I think it would be an improvement.
• Moving back to the old section headings sounds reasonable enough.
• Which old version of "Toxicity" do you have in mind? I'm not sure - it would be nice to compare them side by side.
• Happy for humans to be split out from other creatures, if that is supported by sources.
• Sources talking about imidacloprid shouldn't really be used to support claims about clothianidin, unless another reliable source ties them together. If content is not supported by any source, or if it misrepresents what sources say, it shouldn't be in the article.
• Which old version of "Risk Mitigation" do you have in mind? Again, a link would be helpful.
• Which two items in see-also do you have in mind? I'm concerned that there's a lot of overlap between Bees and toxic chemicals and Pesticide toxicity to bees; they might benefit from merging.

More generally, if there has been friction with some other editors, then one massive change is much more likely to be reflexively reverted, and... well, the course of events from there is likely drive us even further from consensus. I think it would be a better idea to make these changes incrementally; if somebody has a concrete disagreement with a specific change then we could have a productive discussion about it, and if they don't have a concrete disagreement then they shouldn't revert. bobrayner (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

James said, I did the research, wrote up the article and left it for review in my sandbox after indicating that's where I was working on it. But I failed to make an explicit announcement here inviting comments on my draft prior to publication. A small group of editors/commenters have indicated their belief this was intentional and, subsequently, that my employment at USEPA is a conflict of interest of such magnitude that my edits cannot be trusted.

James, once again you have completely misrepresented the facts regarding what has been said on the talk page. You said last August that you were working on a rewrite that you would soon present for other editors to review. Then you disappeared for five months and then returned with your complete rewrite. Next you were peeved that I should make any further edits saying I should have voiced my objections while it was in your sandbox. I never once looked in your sandbox and I had no idea what-so-ever that I should have. Furthermore, I did not, ever, suggest that you intentionally "forgot" to mention it. I can't read your mind - I just was not aware that it was there. Also, if you read the talk page you will not find that I subsequently said that your employment at USEPA is a conflict of interest of such magnitude that your edits cannot be trusted. Gandydancer (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the constructive comments, Bobrayner.

Gandydancer, thank you for visiting my sandbox. If you review what I wrote, you'll not see "Gandydancer said..." anywhere. My summary captures all sorts of comments in many places on Wikipedia; it's not all about you (though it is fascinating that you think it is). USEPA James (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

James, perhaps you are the one that needs to review what you wrote. You said But I failed to make an explicit announcement here inviting comments on my draft prior to publication. A small group of editors/commenters have indicated their belief this was intentional and, subsequently, that my employment at USEPA is a conflict of interest of such magnitude that my edits cannot be trusted. You certainly were referring to me re the sandbox problem and any subsequent problems it caused because the other editors were not even here at that time. Perhaps it would help if you quit referring to me lumped with other editors by saying "gandydancer et al" and so on. While I'm sure it was not your intention to lump me with an editor who (IMHO) sounds like he's got a few er..."problems", it may seem to some that you may be attempting to imply that all of those that disagree with you were cut from the same cloth. Gandydancer (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if we all tried to comment on the content, not the editor. Even if you're really sure that you're right and the other guy is wrong (or biased or mean-spirited or whatever), taking the focus off individuals is going to help reduce friction. We're here to build an encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Bobrayner. I appreciate your neutral input on this. I'll modify my proposal per your suggestions and post the individual items over a couple of weeks to the clothianidin talk page. USEPA James (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)