Talk:Atrazine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mid-West USA

Can anyone add to its affect in the Mid-Western US? There was a big EPA study gren グレン 03:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Something about the structure formula: the triazine N atoms seem missing. Have a look at [1] for comparison.

Problem addressed and solved. --Shaddack 17:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

UC Berkeley prof Tyrone Hayes found that even in very small levels atrazine was an endocrine disruptor. Ecorisk (sygenta) who funded his study attempted to prevent publication of his work. atrazine most popular herbicide. Article should reflect this. TitaniumDreads 22:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

There's an excellent article on this: William Souder, "It's not easy being green: Are weed-killers turning frogs into hermaphrodites?", Harper's August 2006, p.59-66. Someone working on this article should have a look. - Jmabel | Talk 19:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Advocate Tyrone Hayes article.

Hopiakuta 16:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

New Tufts University Study

Could someone that works on this article please include this study in the article.

Early Exposure To Common Weed Killer Impairs Amphibian Development ScienceDaily (Apr. 18, 2008) — Tadpoles develop deformed hearts and impaired kidneys and digestive systems when exposed to the widely used herbicide atrazine in their early stages of life, according to research by Tufts University biologists.

The results present a more comprehensive picture of how this common weed killer -- once thought to be harmless to animals -- disrupts growth of vital organs in amphibians during multiple growth periods.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416091015.htm Gandydancer (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• I added this information.Gandydancer (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Synonyms etc

There are freakin buckets of them here. Since this list already takes up about 25% of the article, is there any way to compact this before I expand it (if it's worth expanding)? I initially was going to sort out all the capitalisations but found the extra names. I can't really see a way to reduce the list. Freestyle-69 (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't there's any need to list every name atrazine has ever been sold under, or every product that it's in. I think it would be best to just pick out the 3 or 4 for most notable synonyms/products, note them in the lead and/or chembox, and then provide a link to the list of other names. Alternatively, perhaps the synonyms section could be rendered in a collapsible box. Yilloslime (t) 05:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest cutting out the entire section entirely. The first few are badly/arbitrarily formed variations of the IUPAC name. The rest of the list is probably quite arbitrary as well. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've ditched the section but added a link to an external page- a) it's easier, and b) it lowers the marginally-relevant info in the article, but the collapsible box idea is good too- just out of my league... Freestyle-69 (talk) 08:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Please put in a more complete description of how atrazine kills

Yah folks. It would be nice to know what inhibiting the photosynthesis 2 pathway does to the plant when treated. Probably only needs a sentence or two in the Uses section where this is originally described. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primacag (talk • contribs) 16:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing uncited statements

I came across a few major claims without citations, and I'm listing them here in case anyone gets motivated:

1. However, the EU scientific review stated, “It is expected that the use of atrazine, consistent with good plant protection practice, will not have any harmful effects on human or animal health or any unacceptable effects on the environment.”[

A very similar product to atrazine, called terbuthylazine, is used in the EU today.

1. Effects were however significantly reduced in high concentrations, as is consistent with other teratogens affecting the endocrine system, such as estradiol.

II | (t - c) 06:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

In the section under Controversy, the last sentence in the second paragraph is the statement, "However at least one study was unable to reproduce the results". I have read the link that is offered, however I do not feel that the article refutes the previous information. I'd like to remove that line, but I'd like some input first. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Effect on amphibians

Edit removed as source does not meet wikipedia standards as an expert in this field or an acceptable source. Re Avery:

Director, Center for Global Food Issues, Hudson Institute Advisor, American Council on Science and Health Advisor, CFACT (Committee for A Constructive Tomorrow)

Avery, a supporter of biotechnology, pesticides, irradiation, factory farming and free trade, considers himself an expert on an impressive range of subjcets, including "agriculture, environment, world hunger issues, biotechnology and pesticides, trade, and water issues." In addition to his self-professed areas of expertse, Avery comments frequently on global warming science and policy.

Avery is the author of Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic(Hudson Institute, 1995). Avery is the editor of Global Food Quarterly, the newsletter of the Center for Global Food Issues and writes a nationally syndicated weekly column for the financial newswire "Bridge News". Avery's article, "What's Wrong with Global Warming?" was published in the August 1999 issue of Reader's Digest. (http://www.cgfi.org/about/davery_bio.htm#2) Avery is responsible for the erroneous and often reported "fact" that organically grown food is many times more likely to cause E. coli poisoning than conventionally grown food. For more information, view a compilation of articles at http://www.gmwatch.org/p2temp2.asp?aid=48&page=1&op=1. Gandydancer (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

European Union

I posted the following: The European Commission (EC) excluded atrazine from a re-registration process in 2003 because the registrants did not supply sufficient water monitoring data. It is frequently asserted that atrazine has been banned in the EU. This is an incorrect interpretation of the EC decision. Atrazine has not been assessed and de-registered because of a human health or environmental concern. It is not on any EU ‘banned list” and could theoretically be reregistered in the EU should the product registrant provide all the required data. Terbuthylazine, a herbicide very closely related to atrazine is registered in the EU.

which Yilloslime undid and said "colloquially, this is a "ban."

I disagree and would like feedback. We're dealing with facts here, not informal conversation. A ban is defined as an "official prohibition or edict against something." As you can see from the Australian government's data, it hasn't been prohibited. It just wasn't registered. I think that's an important differentiation.

Any comments? Thanks. Califdreamn28 16:36 21 April 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC).

There might be a better word than "ban", I don't think the giant paragraph you replaced with is really an improvement. Accuracy is paramount, but we can't ignore readability and we should strive to be as concise as possible. The situation in the EU is described as a "ban" in numerous reliable sources so our use of the word seems appropriate. You used to be able to use atrazine in the EU, now you can't--most people understand that as a ban.Yilloslime ^T_C 21:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are talking about what people think is a ban then is fine, but if you are talking about European law, use a European law link, otherwise this will be incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.127.97 (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Effect on mammals?

No effects on mammals? I found this article: Suzawa M, Ingraham HA (2008) The Herbicide Atrazine Activates Endocrine Gene Networks via Non-Steroidal NR5A Nuclear Receptors in Fish and Mammalian Cells. PLoS ONE 3(5): e2117. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002117 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.127.97 (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Effect on amphibians

In the section under "Effect on Amphibians," the first sentence claims that "Atrazine is a suspected teratogen..." I found the following information that says the opposite. "A World Health Organisation (WHO) committee concluded, for example, in 2007 that atrazine is not teratogenic (does not cause malformations of an embryo or a foetus)." [2] So I'd like to remove the teratogen comment. Any comments? Thanks. Califdreamn28 14:50 14 April 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC).

I agree with this change, though perhaps instead of completely removing the sentence it could be changed to read "Evidence indicates that Atrazine is unlikely to act as a teratogen..." or something along those lines. I found a couple other sources (research in animal models) that corroborate your quote [3],[4]. However, some sources do find some indication of teratogenicity [5].Veronica Davé (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Outdated science

This article is fairly out of date, with a lot of reliance on discredited science and a heavy amount of information that doesn't reflect the scientific consensus on atrazine. I'd prefer not to hack the article to bits, how should we progress? Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you give links to the new information and studies? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Prior to my recent edit, the last point made appeared to be from 2010. The Forbes article in the page gives an overview, as does this and this. I'm at a starting point right now, which is why I brought it here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Gandy, have you reviewed these links? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Gandydancer (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

So why are you pushing EPA information from 2006/7 when we have 2013 information available? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Please point out the edits that you find problematic. Gandydancer (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This edit made by Thargor Orlando: The current scientific consensus is that atrazine is safe, restrictions too severe, and has prompted the WHO to significantly raise the allowable amount of atrazine in drinking water has been edited to suggest that an op-ed in Forbes written by a man who is not a scientist does not constitute adequate authority to refute the EPA and numerous peer reviewed studies regarding the safety of atrazine. Gandydancer (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Introduction misleading

The current introduction reads: "Atrazine, 2-chloro-4-(ethylamino)-6-(isopropylamino)-s-triazine, an organic compound consisting of an s-triazine-ring is a widely used herbicide."

I would argue that this sentence structure is:

(a) unnatural
(b) highlights the word organic
(c) fundementally misleading to a non-scientific audience

I would suggest replacing it with something more along the lines of: "Atrazine is a widely used herbicide with the chemical structure 2-chloro-4-(ethylamino)-6-(isopropylamino)-s-triazine."

prat (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Manufacturer/Trade Names

I think this section could benefit from the addition of a few sentences regarding common trade names for Atrazine and links to articles on the major manufacturers of the chemical (i.e., Syngenta and perhaps others?). It took me a few searches to find what company manufacturers Atrazine and this seems like information that should be in the article itself. Veronica Davé (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree but would encourage estimated sales volumes / relative size of production to be included, also. This prevents hiding behind "one of the companies that produces" type vaguaries. prat (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Study summary misleading

"But a 2005 study, requested by the EPA and funded by Syngenta, one of the companies that produce atrazine, was unable to reproduce these results"

This is apparently also a very poor summary of the whole story, eg.

(a) Syngenta hired a firm to systematically pressure the EPA leadership to achieve this result
(b) Downplays the significant of Syngenta as apparently either a primary or the global primary producer of atrazine

Source: New Yorker article

I would suggest replacing it with: "A 2005 study, funded by Syngenta (the most significant commercial supplier of atrazine to the US market, where it is the second most widely used pesticide, with estimated yearly sales of $x), unsurprisingly failed to reproduce these results."

prat (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The proposed text is less neutral—it reads like it's seeking to make a point. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Review article needs incorporation

Review articles that synthesize primary literature are generally considered more reliable than individual studies (which can show incongruence with each other and be susceptible to cherry-picking: see WP:SCHOLARSHIP). The following review article should be discussed under Health and environmental effects, as it has implications for fish, reptiles, lizards, and mammals as well as amphibians. In the interest of neutrality, of course, criticism from reliable sources may be included. An op-ed piece from Jon Entine might not the most reliable source for balance (see WP:NEWSORG. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hayes, Tyrone B. (October 2011). "Demasculinization and feminization of male gonads by atrazine: Consistent effects across vertebrate classes". The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 127 (1–2): 64–73. doi:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2011.03.015. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Why is this section virtually repeated from the section above? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Human error :) Fixed. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

EU chemical use wording is "banned"

The current reference for the words "Although it is banned in the European Union,[4]" is the APVMA and that specifically says that says "It is frequently asserted that atrazine has been banned in the EU. This is an incorrect interpretation of the EC decision. Atrazine has not been assessed and de-registered because of a human health or environmental concern. It is not on any EU ‘banned list’ and could theoretically be reregistered in the EU should the product registrant provide all the required data. Terbuthylazine, a herbicide very closely related to atrazine, is still in use in the EU and is under assessment (external site).". Consequently I will change "banned" to "not registered for use" as that would reflect that APVMA reference. Fromthehill (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• I retract my claim - we should use the link,

http://edexim.jrc.ec.europa.eu/list_annex_chemical_details.php?type=S&annex=108&id_part=1

This is EDEXIM Annex I Part 1 Substance Information and use limitation according to Annex I, Council Regulation No (EC) 689/2008 and atrazine is specifically banned for Annex 1 part 1 subcategory "pesticide in the group of plant protection products" and Annex 1 part 2 category "pesticides" lol Fromthehill (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the APVMA reference and added the EDEXIM link and this supports the use of the word "banned" in Wikipedia as that is what it says right there on the web page of the relevant EU authority. The APVMA can argue with the EU as to the wording used but that's not our fight. Fromthehill (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Intro Not Neutral

It does not seem the EPA study should be in the lead paragraph. This article is also now likely to receive more attention as a result of Hayes story being posted to slashdot.org

If no one objects I would like to rewrite the intro with a more NPOV. I would remove the EPA study and keep it more general. Also, I suspect this article has significant issue due to corporate PR firms editing it. Would this be a candidate for more attention from admins? Beakermeep (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree the intro should be more general; highlighting particular research in the intro could be viewed as a form of cherrypicking. More generally, I suspect that all articles about products which have suspected deleterious environmental effects, could be targets of corporate PR editing. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried updating the intro to make it more general information and left some about the controversy. If someone can frame it better, please feel free.

Beakermeep (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

WEIGHT

The WP:WEIGHT being given to the toxicity risks of atrazine is really off, especially after this series of edits by User:GandyDancer today. This article is becoming a train wreck. We need MEDRS compliant secondary sources to establish WEIGHT here. Not the press. I reverted the addition of the long quote from Center for Democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) 23:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

beetle study

i reverted the beetle paragraph in this dif with edit note based on policy and guideline: "removed paragraph on beetles. we don't base any wikipedia content on primary sources, much less health-related content, unless there is some extraordinary reason.".. user: Gandydancer reverted in this dif with edit note stating: "this study may be included in the article)" but no basis in policy/guideline. Gandy please explain. thx Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I will copy the abstract here for discussion:

The role that endocrine disruption could play in sexual selection remains relatively untested, and although estrogens occur in insects, little information exists about their biological role in insect reproduction. Atrazine is a commonly applied herbicide that mimics estrogen in vertebrates. Tenebrio molitor were raised from egg to adult under a gradation of environmentally relevant atrazine exposures and a non-treated control. Atrazine was delivered in the drinking water ad libitum. Female T. molitor were provided with a choice between unrelated males raised under three levels of atrazine exposures. Female preference for males demonstrated a non-monotonic inverted U-shaped response to atrazine exposure. There was no significant difference between the control and the high exposure to atrazine. Excluding the control, female preference increased as exposure concentration increased. These results have important repercussions for nonlethal effects of endocrine disruption on populations, their capacity to interfere with sexual selection, and the role of estrogen in pheromone communication among insects.

Are you suggesting that it relates to humans rather than just beetles because it may also relate to humans? That seems odd but I can't imagine why else you have pulled "health" into the issue. Gandydancer (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

hey gandy. first of all, even under the plain RS policy, we are supposed to use secondary sources, not primary ones. second, the section is called "Health and environmental effects" and throughout it, human and animal effects are intermixed - the overall message is building an argument that atrazine's biological effect, in every species you look at, is endocrine disruption. i would probably push less hard on this if the discussion of potential human toxicity were more cleanly separated from potential toxicity on wild species. But as i wrote below, biology is biology, and all the literature suffers from the same difficulties. It is not good to ever rely on primary sources in Wikipedia, and especially not when it comes to biology. Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, in the first place, you say the section was "building an argument that atrazine's biological effect, in every species you look at, is endocrine disruption", I did not see that...perhaps because there is no need for it since the EPA has already said that presently it does seem to be an endocrine disruptor. (But I do, BTW, find it interesting that you hold that concern...) And re your continual warnings about using primary sources, etc., please figure out that the others here can read the guidelines as well and make what they want of them. Your opinion is only that. In my opinion the beetle study is fine. Gandydancer (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Effect on amphibians section

This sentence was there: "Hayes was formerly part of the SAP panel, but resigned in 2000 to continue studies independently." supported by this ref: Weedkiller 'threatens frogs', BBC News. 31 October 2002. That ref says nothing about any panel nor Hayes resigning from it. The panel that Hayes resigned from ~2000 was Syngenta's, not the EPA's. I deleted the sentence. Jytdog (talk) 11:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Εntine paragraph

i deleted the paragraph describing Entine's views on endocrine disruption in general and atrazine in specific in this dif, as per my edit note, we shouldn't be turning the discussion of toxicity into a partisan battleground - we should be following MEDRS compliant sources for this content, and not hanging claims on quotes from non-MEDRS sources. Jytdog (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Your behavior concerns me. You are quite ready to delete non-compliant copy when it does not agree with your position but ignore a glaring instance of an extremely obvious non-compliant section, a Forbes journalist with no credentials at all, making a very positive statement about atrazine. And then, rather than reply in the section where I brought it up, you start a new section where you crow about removing it along with more warnings about using proper sourcing. Calling my editing "a train wreck" and power games like this can cause ill feelings on the talk page and it is unfortunate. Gandydancer (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

oh crap i am sorry i missed your comment above. yep i agree with you there. I am not ignoring the paragraph at all - i deleted it (as you wanted too). sorry again that i missed your comment above. Jytdog (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Alert for potential corporate cover-up campaign

According to The New Yorker article of 10 February 2014, Syngenta has been employing and continues to employ various tactics aimed at suppressing information about its product, atrazine.

• "...The [Syngenta] P.R. team suggested that the company “purchase ‘Tyrone Hayes’ as a search word on the internet, so that any time someone searches for Tyrone’s material, the first thing they see is our material.” The proposal was later expanded to include the phrases “amphibian hayes,” “atrazine frogs,” and “frog feminization.” Searching online for “Tyrone Hayes” now brings up an advertisement that says, “Tyrone Hayes Not Credible".”
• "David Michaels, the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, wrote, in his book Doubt Is Their Product (2008), that corporations have developed sophisticated strategies for “manufacturing and magnifying uncertainty.” In the eighties and nineties, the tobacco industry fended off regulations by drawing attention to questions about the science of secondhand smoke. Many companies have adopted this tactic. “Industry has learned that debating the science is much easier and more effective than debating the policy,” Michaels wrote. “In field after field, year after year, conclusions that might support regulation are always disputed. Animal data are deemed not relevant, human data not representative, and exposure data not reliable".”
• "...Syngenta began holding weekly “atrazine meetings” after the first class-action suit was filed, in 2004. The meetings were attended by toxicologists, the company’s counsel, communications staff, and the head of regulatory affairs. To dampen negative publicity from the lawsuit, the group discussed how it could invalidate Hayes’s research. [Syngenta communications manager] Sherry Ford documented peculiar things Tyrone Hayes had done (“kept coat on”) or phrases he had used (“Is this line clean?”). “If TH wanted to win the day, and he had the goods,” she wrote, “he would have produced them when asked.” She noted that Hayes was “getting in too deep w/ enviros,” and searched for ways to get him to “show his true colors".”

[Emphasis added throughout.] It is not inconceivable that the attempts to be economical with the truth are carried over to Wikipedia. Editors should be on guard for conflicts of interest, non-neutral points of view or attempts to fuzzy the issue. Take care, everyone. -The Gnome (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Also please note that we WP:AGF and that WP:MEDRS applies to all health-related content. The science is rarely as black and white as advocates on any side of an issue would like. We need to be sure that this article, and all Wikipedia articles, express a WP:NPOV and give appropriate WP:WEIGHT - advocacy on any side of issues around atrazine should not drive the content in this article. That is always difficult to do, and especially hard when passions get involved. Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The assumption of good faith, as well as respect for the rules about medical research, go without saying. But presentation of scientific subjects, as the link itself you provided clearly states, does not depend on simple, arithmetical majority opinion. Wiki rules demand that "we present any prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles or in textbooks or in some forms of monographs." Having said that, let me point out that an article in a major US-based periodical, The New Yorker, reporting that the atrazine maker is engaging in tactics aiming to obscure scientific truth is significantly noteworthy! And this is all that this warning is about. We need read no more into it. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

yep, the consensus is indeed not defined by "majority" opinion; it is not that simple at all. Please also note that the Aviv article mostly discusses Syngenta's plans and that most of those plans involved communications with the public. There is only one scientific paper mentioned that Syngenta may have influenced, and that is Coursey's paper on the economics of banning atrazine, which is not relevant to health. (i am not counting the letters to the editor, which we don't use as sources on wikipedia) Further on that, the article says that Hayes noticed that "Syngenta was speaking directly to the public, whereas scientists were publishing their research in 'magazines that you can’t buy in Barnes and Noble.'" In any case, yes we rely on expert secondary sources and statements by major medical and scientific bodies for health content. Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Have our guidelines re medical RS now been extended to cover the health of frogs? Gandydancer (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

there are lot of ways to turn that over. the underlying fundamental issue with MEDRS is the science of biology, which is immature compared to other fields. that is what makes medical sciences so ambiguous and difficult, which is why MEDRS emphasizes using expert summaries. veterinary sciences suffer the same problem. MEDRS doesn't specifically discuss vet med. The issue has been mentioned at MEDRS talk but there has not been extensive discussion about explicitly including vet sciences in MEDRS. So the guideline is ambiguous. because a) the underlying science is the same, and is as difficult and ambiguous for animals and for humans; b) animal studies are often used, as they are here, to make arguments about human health, i think MEDRS should be used, so that we provide readers with the most reliable information we can. it is a question we can take to MEDRS Talk, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog wrote: "...most of those plans [by Syngenta) involved communications with the public." Well, Wikipedia is precisely a medium of communication by the public, for the public. It is not a project of scientific research. I'm raising the issue of a potential deliberate corporate campaign for misinformation. This is what this is all about! You go on about the difficulties of making strong statements in biology and medicine, and that is all fine and good (and mostly correct), but you seem to get upset when a simple warning for this kind of corporate behavior (previously unheard of? let's not get too silly) is brought up. So, please, let us focus on what is at stake here. The question of atrazine's side effects is not what is discussed here. I highlight the documented intentions of Syngenta to obscure and muddle the scientific discussion. Wiki editors should be made aware of this. That is all. The rest is your work.

Jytdog wrote: "There is only one scientific paper mentioned that Syngenta may have influenced, and that is Coursey's paper on the economics of banning atrazine, which is not relevant to health." According to the reportage (that appeared, I repeat, in a major US magazine which a fully reliable source per Wiki standards), Syngenta did try to discredit the scientific credentials of people disputing its products' safety and the work itself, through "fuzzying" the issues. One of the key aspects of evaluating a medicine's value to society is the cost/benefit analysis (let's set aside for a moment, the debate as to whether this criterion is properly used) and that analysis was, as you also point out, been influenced by Syngenta! To their interests, I might add, and not necessarily to the interest of Truth. So, it is truly beyond my understanding how you can seriously argue that there is no threat that Wikipedia articles on atrazine and other Syngenta pesticides might be the target of the same campaign of misinformation. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond to all this, Gnome. Gandy's question was about toxicity of atrazine to frogs and whether MEDRS should apply. That is what I was responding to above. And I was making an argument that we should use MEDRS-compliant sources - reviews in the scientific literature and statements of major medical or scientific bodies. A cost/benefit analysis should not be used as a source for content about toxicity in Wikipedia; nor should the popular press. (and btw, atrazine is not a medicine, it is a pesticide.) At no point did I argue that that there is no threat. I did say that it is important to AGF and use MEDRS compliant sources and to think clearly about what those sources say. I don't understand how your comments above are productive with respect to moving the article's content forward. Jytdog (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog wrote: "...At no point did I argue that that there is no threat [of a campaign of corporate misinformation]." Then, we are in agreement. This threat is something extraordinary, which I bring up to the attention of fellow Wiki editors. The rules of MEDRS to which you keep referring are on the other hand typical and standard. There is no need to "balance" anything by bringing them up so persistently. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing

I added info from a toxicology expert and it was removed for not being RS. I won't argue that, however this same editor seems to have no problem with using a sizable section written by Jon Entine who called claims that atrazine is an endocrine disruptor a novel theory and that it is quite safe, etc., in Forbes. Gandydancer (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

yes, agreed! didn't see this and added a section below. sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Controversy coatracking

...is spilling over from this article to the Herbicide article but only being presented as half the argument...see this, the history and this talk page thread.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

As of 2001, Atrazine has been...

ShawntheGod, today you changed "As of 2001, Atrazine was the most commonly detected contaminant ..." to ""As of 2001, Atrazine has been the most commonly detected contaminant ..." in the lead and in the body. This is agrammatical. One can say "Since 2001 Atrazine has been" but not "As of". The source provides validation for this comparative fact ("the most commonly detected contaminant") "as of" 2001 which is why I used "was." I am not aware of a reliable source that provides proof for this comparative statement from 2001 to the present. If you have one, please bring it! In any case, would you please fix the grammar and keep the content in line with the source (and any new one you bring)? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. I thought there was source was in the article already that affirmed this statement. Change it back if needed. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

done, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

some recent edits...

Some efforts have been put into introducing bias into this article. As any experienced editor knows, refs can get lost when edits are made. It is only courteous and is certainly important for keeping an article non-biased to either add tags or look for sources rather than just right off the bat removing information that is not so out of line that it is dangerous. It is no secret that water is a well-known source of contamination for children and this information is easily available. I will look for it as soon as I have time. Gandydancer (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop with the accusations of bad faith. I am asking you politely; this is the last time I will ask so please do consider my request. To the content, information not supported by sources may be removed. That is not a big deal nor is it uncommon. When you find a source on the content about children, please do re-introduce it! Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Since you seem to care so much about who contributes to what, please be aware that you are the #1 contributor to this article; please do not act as though you WP:OWN it. Content you contribute, like anyone's, must be supported by reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

In any case, I found the source for the children content and added it back.Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is a big deal and no it is not common and for one that is constantly reading policy, you know this quite well. Other than bios or cases of obvious error, most editors ask for a source rather than delete material in cases similar to the one in which you deleted information. Sources often get lost when new edits are done and other times a revision in which there were several sources, the "wrong" source may be deleted leaving info not in the remaining source--most editors leave a note saying "info not in source". You know very well that if you went through this encyclopedia and deleted everything that is not sourced a huge chuck of it would disappear. Selective deletion is a good way to bias an article if one wants to go that route. Gandydancer (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

not sure what the purpose of this discussion is. the content is there again, and now is sourced. you are aware that there are "deletionists" and "inclusionists" and that this is a long running debate - both sides have good arguments. neither is completely wrong and accusations of bad faith are only unhelpful. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of this discussion is to remind you of about the only WP policy you apparently do not seem to be aware of, this one:

Tagging a sentence, section, or article

Further information: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles

If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, you can tag a sentence with the {{citation needed}} template by writing {{cn}} or {{fact}}. There are other templates here for tagging sections or entire articles. You can also leave a note on the talk page asking for a source, or move the material to the talk page and ask for a source there. To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with {{verification needed}}. Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{failed verification}} or removed. When using templates to tag material, it is helpful to other editors if you explain your rationale in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page.

Take special care with material about living people. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living people should be removed immediately, not tagged or moved to the talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You are again behaving as though things are black and white, and they are not. The text that you quoted says "Material that fails verification may be tagged with or removed." (emphasis added). I agree that I could have handled it differently but I did nothing wrong. In any case, the material is back in the article, and I don't understand how this is worth your time or mine to keep discussing. I also would appreciate it if you would stop saying negative things about me - it seems like you are now trying to find some way to "bust" me. I am working here in good faith and what mistakes I make, I acknowledge. Live and let live, eh? Jytdog (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

No I am not trying to "bust" you and I find the suggestion that I'm trying to bust you very odd. I am asking that we keep this and all articles fair to both sides of a controversy. For an experienced editor that is very familiar with policy I'm surprised that you defend removing information that you considered "controversial and negative" rather than leaving a "source needed" note for a few weeks as most other editors do. This is especially true if you saw the information as negative rather than neutral because it introduces bias into an article when information you don't like is deleted.

If you reread the sourcing guidelines you will note that removal is the last resort, not the first. I can only hope that you are not editing in this fashion at the Monsanto articles because you are not correct to call it "no big deal" and not worth discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

We are not talking about the content of this article anymore so there is nothing more to say here. as i have said before, if you want to discuss my editing, my Talk page is open to you. I will say it one last time - my editing is not biased and I would appreciate it you stop making accusations that it is. thanks Jytdog (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I will say what I see and in my experience editors do not automatically delete information that they question, unless it is obviously false they tag it or question it on the talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I hear you. Jytdog (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

after all the above, this was a bit surprising. i think the edit was fine, of course. but it was surprising. Jytdog (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

What is so surprising? It was not in the source offered and it was not in a source I found when I googled it. Besides the fact that it is of little importance anyway--it's not like I removed the fact that atrazine is the number one pollutant found in drinking water in the US, for instance. Gandydancer (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

please bring a source for your claim that it is a fact that "atrazine is the number one pollutant found in drinking water in the US". the source, dated 2001, says atrazine was the most common pesticide contaminant in the US, not the most common overall contaminant at that time, and says nothing about now, 13 years later. and in any case now i am doubly surprised since you spoke quite absolutely above about tagging, not deleting, unsourced material. your principles are more flexible than they seemed to be. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh for christ's sake, this is NOT the article and I did not bother to look up the wording EXACTLY. I think that most people would get that rather than turn it into a big deal and question my principles. I really just can't stand to deal with this anymore. Gandydancer (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

You are the one who started with the questioning of principles, said that these principles were a big deal, and pushed it. For christ's sake indeed. And facts do matter. I wanted to end this discussion a long time ago; am glad it is over. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Mention of this Article

This article was mentioned today in a blog I sometimes read, by Hank Campbell:

If you search for atrazine, rather than get the actual atrazine site, the first entry is for Wikipedia and the very first citation in their entry is for that recent New Yorker article (as of April, 2014 anyway). Atrazine has been around since 1958 but the first citation in Wikipedia is a New Yorker article from February of 2014? More strangely, that same article is cited three times before you even get to the table of contents....Since the Wikipedia entry had clearly been hijacked by people promoting that New Yorker article and not science...

Congratulations on this achievement. Geogene (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Attributions

Regarding your reverting of "Kloas study published in the journal Toxicological Sciences in 2009 concluded that" to "The paper concluded", you explained that "we don't need to attribute in this way." Who is we? This article covers a very contentious subject from different and opposing points of view. It is an excellent debate. When reading it dates and authors of certain articles and reports should be in the main text, not just in the footnotes and references. Kloas' study was in 2009 in Toxicological Sciences, Hayes study was in the same journal in 2010. Names, dates, academic journals and page numbers do need to be attributed - in some cases just in the footnotes and references but in other cases in the text itself to provide chronology, etc - to make arguments robust.oceanflynn 01:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to Talk. You are right that this is a controversial topic and we should all work with Wikipedia:Controversial articles. It is my preference (and I recognize it as such!) that we do not turn this into "duelling experts" and we rely on high quality, secondary sources as much as we can, and avoid citing tit-for-tat primary sources. I think you have grounds to call for attribution, but I would rather not go there. Do you see what I mean? Thanks again for talking. Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a long and respected history in academia for using the "according to a who argued in b on date that ...(ref)" and "However c claimed in d that...(ref)" This is not dueling, or tit-for-tat it is how various points of view are presented. They only make sense when contextualized chronologically.oceanflynn 21:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

right... but this is an encylopedia, not academia. our job is to summarize the key perspectives, not provide the blow by blow. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

In addition to what Jytdog mentioned, the attribution method you used is redundant when you already have a footnote reference. When dealing with scientific topics, it's especially important to keep writing concise and avoid fluff. As an encyclopedia, we are summarizing secondary sources, not primary sources. Those of us involved in academia often have trouble getting used to how Wikipedia handles sourcing content from scientific publications when we first start out here, so you wouldn't be the first to be used to academia doing things a different way depending on the field. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

text 2

A 2012 epidemiological study showed that women who lived in counties in Texas with the highest levels of atrazine being used on agricultural crops were 80 times more likely to give birth to infants with choanal atresia or stenosis compared to women who lived in the counties with the lowest levels.

That is the 2nd text Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

discussion

OK, the actual source provided is a press release. Per WP:MEDRS we do not source health-related content to press releases. This was rightfully deleted. Further, the press release was touting a soon-to-be-published paper, which now has published: PMID 23036484. This paper is a primary source, and again per MEDRS we don't base health-related content on primary sources. Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not add this text. MLPainless (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

you restored it here. right? Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you investigate the content BEFORE I started editing the article with the content AFTER I edited the article. It's much easier to converse with editors who carefully assess what they are talking about. MLPainless (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I am doing my best to try to work with you. I don't care who wrote it - you restored it. Do you want to retain the content above or not? Thanks. And as I wrote above, please feel free to open a new section about some other content and sources, if those are more important to you. Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I dd not restore it, I merely moved it around in the article. Please take the time to investigate properly. MLPainless (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you please let me know if you want to retain that text or not? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no feelings about this content one way or another. I believe it's been in the article for some time already ....MLPainless (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, it is out now, so it will stay out. this part seems resolved. Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

text 1

In 2010, atrazine was shown to cause prostatitis and delayed puberty in rats, and demasculinizes male gonads producing testicular lesions associated with reduced germ cell numbers in mammals (and also in teleost fish, amphibians and reptiles). Therefore the case for atrazine as an endocrine disruptor that demasculinizes and feminizes male vertebrates meets all nine of the Bradford Hill criteria.

That is the first text. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

discussion

There is a lot going on here. The first part of the first sentence "In 2010, atrazine was shown to cause prostatitis and delayed puberty in rats," is to me putting a ton of WP:WEIGHT on in vitro studies, which per WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS we don't do. (as an aside, i have been meaning for a long time now to write a guidance article on Toxicology content and sourcing but haven't done it yet. That guidance will describe how to handle animal studies and toxiological claims in Wikipedia. It doesn't exist yet, so all we have is MEDMOS and MEDRS). You supported that statement with source 1 there. Source 1 is very interesting. It some scientists, talking to other scientists, trying to figure out how to do experiments and think about toxicology for endocrine-disrupting compounds. It is beautiful because you can really Science going on here - scientists being honest and strugglng to figure things out. You will note that the discussion of atrazine is a section called "Another controversial low-dose example: atrazine and amphibian sexual development" and you will notice that the discussion is careful and ends with a clear description of what the authors think scientists in the field need to figure out before they can make definitive claims. By using the source to try to make a Very Clear Statement About Reality like you have, you are really abusing the scientific process itself, and the authors' careful work. Do you see that? I am stopping here. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you have a look at the EPA document that references and repeats the information. I think this qualifies as reputable 3rd party [6] MLPainless (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I am addressing the text above, and the sources you provided for it. Do you want to discuss this or not? If there is some other proposed content or sources, please provide a draft in a new section. It is very unproductive to have hand-wavy conversations. Much more productive to propose actual content, with sources. Thanks. Do let me know about the content above. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I provided 1 x primary and 2 x review studies above, and now I'm saying, as I said both on your talk page and on Formerly98's talk page, that an EPA document references the same facts and some of the same studies. I don't see that there is a lot of need to discuss this further. MLPainless (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so you would just add the EPA source to the content above. Where? Please go ahead and add it so we can see. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll reformulate and enlarge the edit, based on the EPA document's inclusion as a source, when I have time. All I'm interested in now is whether there is any substantive objection to inserting data that is backed by primary, review and 3rd party sources? MLPainless (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, please note that the EPA source says "Studies thus far suggest that atrazine is an endocrine disruptor; an agent that has been shown to alter the natural hormonal system in animals." (emphasis added). This does not support the content above... Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I note that you are warning about language ("suggest"), and I will attempt to make it clear that this is the case. MLPainless (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

great. on a controversial topic, nuance and great sources are important. if you want your edits to "stick", always write and select sources that people who think differently (but who follow wikipedia's guidelines and policies) will be able to accept, and avoid "singing to the choir." and remember that the goal is not to "win" but to achieve consensus on great content. This is described in a useful essay WP:Controversial articles that I recommend, if you have not read it. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Edits of Oct 24

(moving from user talk page) I see you removed my edit, which cited both primary and 2 review studies. I now also have an EPA report [7] that confirms, so I may insert the data again. Your edit summary reads: ""Review" is mainly a polemic arguing a very controversial theory is "proven"".

I'm just interested in your interpretation of WP:MEDRS. I haven't read it for a while, but can you point me to any text that encourages editors to avoid review studies that the editor feels are "polemics? This is the first time I've seen cited material, using review studies, removed because the editor does not like the tone of the study. MLPainless (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) MLPainless, would you please discuss on the article Talk page. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I see this more as an issue relating to this user than a content issue. Specifically, I want to know why Formerly 98 has a different view of policy than I have been able to understand from my own reading. Maybe I can learn something without cluttering up the article Talk space. MLPainless (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Painless: I suspected that this reversion would be controversial. I think there are two issues here

• Is the sourcing MEDRS compliant?
• Is there consensus that adding the material imnproves the quality of the article and gives our readers a balanced view of the subject?

What I'm concerned about is this: As I understand it, the requirement for secondary sources is based on the need for validation of the result by an objective, third party reviewer. Third party is defined as "A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter." WP:3PARTY

The two reviews cited here are written by an author who is so emotionally and professionally immersed in the controversy that he has engaged in a campaign of writing harrassing letters to Syngenta scientists. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100818/full/466913a.html and http://www.atrazine.com/Amphibians/Univ_of_CA-7-19-10.pdf

My personal feeling is that he is not the best WP:3PARTY to assess the quality and validity of experiments that support his own strongly held position. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem to know a lot about how Syngenta feels about these studies ("harrassing"[sic]), which is interesting.

Please don't talk about "newspapers" in regard to MEDRS. The text from MEDRS reads: "third-party, published secondary sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies".

Secondly, I used 2 review studies and also now have an EPA confirmation of the data I was adding. This cannot be dismissed as an emotionally involved single scientist's position. Moreover when you talk about the definition of a 3rd party, are you aware that WP:Party and person states "It is common for the third party to be neutral and even-handed, but, in some instances, the third party may have strong opinions about the event."?

And since the EPA has now noted the endocrinological effects of Atrazine, it seems perfectly logical to note them in the article too. MLPainless (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

MLPainless per the talk page guidelines and the policy, no personal attacks, please discuss content, not contributors. There is no reason to personalize anything discussions in Wikipedia. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

there are 2 chunks of content + sourcing being disputed. I am going to open a separate section for each of them, so we can discuss them concretely. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

MLPainless, what is the source for the "EPA confirmation of the data"? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have access to the full text of that study? (as per yr edit summary comment) MLPainless (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

what are you talking about, MLPainless? Jytdog (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You sd "this is what the source actually says. read it. very last lines". I can only get the abstract. MLPainless (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Gastroschisis

Don't want to set off a firestorm here, but a purported link between atrazine and gastroschisis is popping up in multiple geographies. Has this topic been considered here before? Is there a review we can use to discuss the question? Here are some links:

• NSW
• news
• Vermont
• peer-reviewed CA

Not claiming that these links are sufficient, but it would be great to talk about this somehow. Lfstevens (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

i checked pubmed and there is one secondary source discussing this. PMID: 22383174 called "Hypothesis: Estrogen related thrombosis explains the pathogenesis and epidemiology of gastroschisis" and it puts out some hypotheses to explain "the unusual epidemiology of gastroschisis, a congenital abnormality of the abdominal wall, which has a rising frequency, a higher rate in first and young mothers in whites but not blacks, and a unique negative correlation with obesity." It notes that a "link" with atrazine has been found by others, and says "A link with one such chemical, atrazine, is suggestive, but with hundreds of such estrogen “mimics” in the environment, effects may involve different substances either alone or combined." to me that it is not enough, at this time, to include discussion in WP. Jytdog (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I agree that there is not enough info to resolve the question, but I think it has become an appropriate controversy for this article. CDC notes that incidence doubled from 95-05. It's also weird, because it affects younger women and because it's inversely(!) related to obesity. Lfstevens (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

What is a "CA"? sorry i don't know that). I read that "CA" and its conclusions are clear that 1) it is the most rigorous study to date and 2) it identified no candidates (including atrazine) for further study and 3) it did not find an increase among young women. The CDC does not say anything about atrazine in its page on gastroschisis. In light of that, the review I mentioned above, and and this most recent study you cited, how is it responsible the science to say there is an actual controversy? We could maybe say something like, "There have been preliminary reports of a potential link between maternal exposure to atrazine and a birth defect called gastroschisis, but the link remains tentative, and there are many other factors that could cause the problem." and cite the review. something like that. but even that seems kind of irresponsible to me. in my view wikipedia should not get on the hype wagon for anything. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. CA is California. I agree that there is no scientific controversy visible. There is a political controversy. Many of the GMO controversies apparently lack a scientific basis, so I'm not sure that lack is disqualifying from this piece. Lfstevens (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

ah, gotcha on the CA. thanks. so how about the proposed content and source above? Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that's fine. It probably belongs on the GMF controveries article rather than here. Lfstevens (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

? it has nothing to do with genetic modification. Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's being dragged in: http://voteyesmaui.org/why-it-matters/pesticide-related-birth-defects

that doesn't change the facts. the controversies around GM food are complex, as we have discussed on that page. but confusion is not complexity, it is just confusion, and we don't need to reflect confusion in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 09:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

if some crops had been genetically modified to resist atrazine, the proposed moratorium and the surrounding discussion might be relevant to this page. but none have. the link you posted above, while emotionally powerful (and sad as hell) is actually unrelated to the law that is being proposed, which is entirely focused on GM crops (and for crops that are being engineered to resist pesticides, the use of pesticides they are being engineered to resist, during testing and propagation) see Section 5 of the proposed law here. Jytdog (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

oy... i see you added it. that is not the way we go - we don't do warring primary sources. we rely on secondary sources that give the current view in the field, and state in WP's voice. please do see this section of MEDRS: Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Respect_secondary_sources Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to follow the lead you mentioned above, as neutrally as I could. I tried to avoid creating a false impression. Maybe that's too low a bar, in the "on the one hand...on the other hand..." style. Lfstevens (talk) 07:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you were doing. But that is exactly the thing that WP's policies and guidelines are pushing us to avoid. It is essentially OR for you or me to pull this or that primary source and relate them to one another in this kind of way; instead we rely on experts in the field who have already done that. We are editors, not authors of review articles. The really bad thing that editors do way too often is select just one primary source and try to make a big deal out of that. that really violates OR; we rely on independent experts in the field to tell us in a secondary source, if the conclusions of the primary source are valid, and and how important they are. That is not for us to judge! Jytdog (talk) 11:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The controveries article has lots of primary sources, although their content is not presented as definitive. E.g., the section on Africa. The act of deciding which points to include/exclude in an article is also an act of OR. Here is a relevant sentence from WP:PRIMARY.

"All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

If we say "a study says X" rather than "X", or "a critic says Y" but not "Y", in the absence of secondary sources, I think we can feel like we're being true to our school. I think my two sentences avoid such interpretation. Lfstevens (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me, Lfstevens. MLPainless (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Not particularly a good approach because you are then presenting the study with no context. Secondary sources are what give us weight (in whichever direction) for a study. Otherwise we don't know if there is any legitimacy or concerns about the study design, interpretations, etc. There's no deadline here, so best to wait until either a secondary source reports on the study, or just not mention it at all. Otherwise you (us, etc.) as an editor would be making the call to decide on its validity just by listing its findings, which isn't something we can do as editors even if we had a PhD in that particular field. When you can't yet establish weight on something, it's usually a pretty clear sign it's not time for it to be included on Wikipedia yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

But if we take that approach, studies showing preliminary evidence will be suppressed throughout the project (which is not the case at the moment, btw). I think it's better to include suggestive studies (especially when several different primary studies are all pointing to similar conclusions), but couch the data in appropriately cautious language. It all comes to to context and tone. MLPainless (talk) 03:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate the thoughtful comments. I'm sure this has been hashed out elsewhere and am willing to live by those conclusions. I included the language from WP:PRIMARY because I thought it gave us a way out. And context can be provided to further qualify statements. "A study says" is an initial context in itself. Of course, secondary results are preferable, where we can find them. But WP is full of news reports that are in no way secondary. I.e., the secondary approach is in no way universally honored... Lfstevens (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

In this case there is a recent, MEDRS-compliant secondary source. There is no reason under policies and guidelines to not use it, and use warring primaries instead! Jytdog (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I checked out the article mentioned above. It doesn't read like a secondary. Instead it proposes a novel hypothesis of its own (at least I think it does). Here is part of the abstract:

"A three-part hypothesis is proposed to explain the unusual epidemiology of gastroschisis, a congenital abnormality of the abdominal wall, which has a rising frequency, a higher rate in first and young mothers in whites but not blacks, and a unique negative correlation with obesity. The hypothesis involves:..."

I'm starting to feel like I'm being argumentative, but I really don't see how this is better. I'm happy to present the hypothesis, but it's a review that accepts/rejects the proof of the hypothesis that we should be looking for, no? Lfstevens (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

the article is classified as a review by both pubmed and medline. and if you actually read it, you will see that the bulk of it is review and the section on atrazine is classic review. yes there is some hypothesis generation going on around the review work, but the core is review. and no' we do not look for yes/no black/white ever. What we look for is the current state of the field. Quite often that will not be black and white - very little in the field of health is unambiguous; most everything is context-driven (i.e. "water", even the purest water, is not 100% safe. too much of it in the wrong place will kill you) and especially with things like what this section is concerned about - an epidemiological "link" between substance X and health condition Y, knowledge builds incrementally. The way things go is some initial signal is identified in humans, and then people go back and do careful tox work (well actually i am sure there will also be an onslaught of completely shit experiments where people inject mice with shitloads of atrazine and find problems -- irrelevant dose and irrelevant route of administration make for meaningless data for trying to figure out toxicology) and try to figure out a plausible mechanism of action (in this case, it will have to take into account the specificity of this condition, right? if there is systemic exposure to something, why would it specifically cause Gastroschisis?) and big and rigorous epidemiological followups will happen (similar to the primary we have that found nothing but on a bigger scale) ... and then consensus will start to crystallize around the idea that X is very likely causing Y, and then people will take action. that's how these things unfold (like with asbestos and DDT). Jytdog (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, then. I don't have the full text, so I'll leave it to you. Thanks for continuing the discussion. Lfstevens (talk) 04:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

if you email me (i have an email link in the left column of my Talk page) i can send you the article. that goes for you too, MLPainless. going forward, if a source has been classified as a review by pubmed or medline (especially by medline which has higher standards), you shouldn't argue against its use as a secondary source unless you've read it and have solid arguments that are grounded in policy or guideline..... Jytdog (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

On the GM controversies article, that article still needs plenty of work. Please feel free to remove primaries that you find there. thanks Jytdog (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Mealworm study

Just a heads up that I removed this source and its content from the fish and insects section [8].

Normally I'm very borderline tending towards not using primary sources in these topics, but this one has some very odd findings that really need interpretation from other expert sources. The previous version showed that females selected beetles with intermediate exposure of atrazine and that this was a reduction in fitness. The opposite could be said too though as females could be choosing the intermediate males for increased fitness (i.e., most likely to have some resistance trait at that exposure level). Definitely an interesting study, so I'm sure folks will be commenting on it in review type articles soon, so I'm just listing the source here as a a reminder to check on it and see what's been citing in awhile down the road. Otherwise, it's a little early to try to assess any weight for this study for it's various claims, especially on the American Burying Beetle ideas. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Reviews for effects on fish and amphibians

I'm out for the night, but I just came across three different reviews on the topic. They should be good for replacing the primary sources currently used in relevant sections of the article. I'll see about reading over them and incorporating them, but that may not be until the weekend. Here they are for anyone interested:

1. A Qualitative Meta-Analysis Reveals Consistent Effects of Atrazine on Freshwater Fish and Amphibians [9]
2. Effects of Atrazine in Fish, Amphibians, and Reptiles: An Analysis Based on Quantitative Weight of Evidence: [10]
3. Effects of Atrazine on Fish, Amphibians, and Aquatic Reptiles: A Critical Review [11]

The last one appears to be behind a paywall, so I'll summarize that one first so that's done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks! Formerly 98 (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Those reviews look good. MLPainless (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Just finished reviewing and it looks like we have a treasure trove for content here. Just posting some general findings for each study for summary:

1. Main finding:"As in past reviews, we found little evidence that atrazine consistently causes direct mortality of freshwater vertebrates at ecologically relevant concentrations, but there is evidence that atrazine might have adverse indirect ecological effects."

• "Here we reveal that, for freshwater verte­brates, atrazine consistently reduced growth rates, had variable effects on timing of metamorphosis that were often nonmonotonic,elevated locomotor activity, and reduced antipredator behaviors. Amphibian and fish immunity was reliably reduced by ecologically relevant concentrations of atrazine,and this was regularly accompanied by elevated infections. Atrazine exposure induced diverse morphologic gonadal abnormalities in fish and amphibians and was associated with altered gonadal function, such as modified sex hormone production. This suggests that atrazine should be considered an endocrine disrupting chemical."

2. Main finding:"Atrazine might affect biomarker-type responses, such as expression of genes and/ or associated proteins, concentrations of hormones, and biochemical processes (e.g. induction of detoxification responses), at concentrations sometimes found in the environment. However, these effects were not translated to adverse outcomes in terms of apical endpoints." (i.e., effects in lab with molecular/biochemistry assays, but not at organism level). See Fig. 36 & 37 on pp. 55-56 for really interesting summary graphs.

• Simplified quote in summary: "Atrazine does not adversely affect fish, amphibians, and reptiles at concentrations that are present in surface waters."

3. Main finding: "Based on a weight of evidence analysis of all of the data, the central theory that environmentally relevant concentrations of atrazine affect reproduction and/or reproductive development in fish, amphibians, and reptiles is not supported by the vast majority of observations." We conclude that environmentally relevant concentrations of atrazine do not affect amphibian growth, sexual development, reproduction, and survival. Although fewer data are available, the same conclusions apply to fish and reptiles."

• Background:Estradiol can cause sex reversal in genetic males, with males developing ovaries instead of testes. In some cases, estradiol-exposed animals can exhibit gonads that are intermediate in appearance between testes and ovaries (testicular ovarian follicles). Finding: There is no temporal evidence of any association between atrazine and reproductive effects as indicated by the presence of testicular ovarian follicles in frogs. (i.e., TOFs occurred in similar levels before atrazine was on the market).
• No evidence of atrazine concentration effect on a number of reproductive and developmental endpoints.
• On the Hayes controversy: "With rare exceptions, the only studies that report adverse effects on amphibian development and reproduction are those from the Hayes laboratory." Only effects found were at concentrations not found in the environment.
• "There is no evidence that atrazine itself (or its metabolites) act directly at hormone receptors."

Looking over the three, they all all review pretty much the same studies. It appears the first one reached different conclusions because it included studies the other two excluded because the excluded studies had poor study design, low sample size, etc. They comment on their selection criteria a bit too, so I'm going to reread that and see if there's more to pull from there. I'll look into putting together some content based on these reviews in a bit. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

EPA 2009 review

The EPA started a new review in 2009 for re-registration purposes. We quote the Agency n the article stating "the agency’s scientific bases for its regulation of atrazine are robust and ensure prevention of exposure levels that could lead to reproductive effects in humans"

This is taken from a longer paragraph here, where the Agency states "During the July 2011 FIFRA SAP meeting, the Panel commented that – while there are still areas of uncertainty – the agency’s scientific bases for its regulation of atrazine are robust and ensure prevention of exposure levels that could lead to reproductive effects in humans. Reproductive effects are the most sensitive effects observed in atrazine toxicity tests and, as such, our efforts to regulate the pesticide to protect against these effects through drinking water exposure will protect against all other effects that occur at higher levels."

While I do not regard myself as a conspiracy theorist or an Agency critic, I'm not clear that the Agency's description of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel's conclusions are strictly accurate. The meeting minutes, found here contain statements along the following lines:

Page 11: "Although there was a consensus among the Panel that it is highly unlikely that the dose of atrazine under discussion (100 mg/kg for 4 days) would have adverse reproductive outcomes, itwas recognized that the outcome of repeated doses, e.g., a second dose occurring 10 days later, was unknown... There was considerable disquiet among the Panel members that despite solid evidence for the mode of action (MOA)for atrazine to attenuate the LH surge, there was a complete lack of knowledge of the underlying neural or molecular mechanisms in the hypothalamus and an absence of direct coupling of LH surge attenuation to Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOP). There was a general consensus that more deta iled experimentation is required...."

Page 14: "the Panel took issue with the statement on page 71 of the EPA Issue Paper that states “the weight of the evidence supports that atrazine is not likely to be carcinogenic in the human population." First of all, there is considerable uncertainty and gaps in the toxicological evidence concerning whether atrazine is a human carcinogen. Second, EPA has not done a comprehensive “weight of the evidence” assessment; instead, the toxicological evidence appears to be used to nullify any positive evidence from the epidemiologic studies. Third, the evidence across cancer sites is mixed, not uniform, with some cancer sites having no evidence for an association whereas other cancer sites having at least suggestive evidence for a causal association."

Page 15: "Many on the Panel believed that the epidemiology data failed to provide compelling evidence that atrazine is not carcinogenic."

Page 16: "The Panel recommended adjusting the conclusion that atrazine is unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans to “inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential.” This category is appropriate given that an association is unlikely with some cancers, but epidemiologic evidence suggests possible associations with ovarian and thyroid cancers."

Page 16: "The inconsistency of animal mechanistic and toxicological data with results from human epidemiologic data does not mean the risk associations identified in human studies do not reflect reality, even though animal experiments are not available or do not support the epidemiologic findings because animal models do not always apply to humans even when they are available. Notable epidemiologic findings (using the framework established in February 2010) should be given greater weight in risk assessments and should suggest avenues for future mechanistic and toxicological investigations if these are lacking, as is often the case."

I'd appreciate it if some other folks could look at this and offer their opinions on whether I've correctly interpreted these two documents as contradicting each other.

Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Misattributed quote from Syngenta website

@Gandydancer: good catch on the Syngenta quote. But in removing the quote, you also took all reference to a peer reviewed article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and a review by Australia's governmental agency regulating agricultural chemicals, which was not necessary for addressing the problem you identified. I restored these, replaced the faux quote with one from the actual source document, and reduced the breadth of the claim describing the quote. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

reference issue

Note to Gandydancer and Formerly 98 - there was a reference issue in the article.

• One ref was called "APVMA" and went to http://www.apvma.gov.au/products/review/completed/atrazine.php (which the site redirects to http://apvma.gov.au/node/12371 - I have updated that)
• the other ref was called "apvma" and went to http://www.apvma.gov.au/news_media/chemicals/atrazine.php, a link that is now dead and also is redirected to http://apvma.gov.au/node/12371. I changed the name of this one to apvma2010 and provided the internet archive link to the page, archived at July 4, 2010 which is here https://web.archive.org/web/20100704154517/http://www.apvma.gov.au/news_media/chemicals/atrazine.php. You both will find that the article content sourced to that site is verified.

That was kind of subtle but all understandable and clear - there was no bad faith editing. Jytdog (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Study funding

Just wanted to give a heads up on this recent revert of mine. [12] In the whole Tyrone Hayes controversy, study funding has been brought up sometimes. While most folks familiar with science may know that being funded by a company does not mean they had a say in study design, writing the paper, etc., not all readers are going to know that. It's a common trope where people dismiss an independent study funded by a company because they aren't aware of the detail I re-added in my edit. Now that's just me talking as a scientist, but taking that hat off any putting my Wikipedia hat on, we do have that COI claim come up in Tyrone Hayes/atrazine related sources. In this single case, the source specifically stating the company's involvement or lack of it is actually pretty important. In most other articles though we'd consider declaration/lack of COI statements standard and unneeded. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It's very unusual to insert that sort of disclaimer into wikipedia. I'm pretty confident it's a poor edit and will not survive.MLPainless (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I dunno, maybe it should be more common. I see again and again these phrases "funded by the manufacturer" thrown out to undercut the credibility of industry funded studies. On first pass, I understand that. But I think it is really a little more complicated that that.

• It neglects the fact that COI is everywhere, and is not always financial in nature. What academic gets tenure, notoriety, invitations to appear on NPR television specials, or awards by investigating the effect of a pesticide on amphibian development and writing a paper that says "Didn't find a problem. Its pretty much exactly as the EPA and the manufacturer described it."? If Hayes didn't report shocking and unexpected results on amphibians, would anyone know his name today? I suspect not. Scientists, like journalists, intrinsically have a career and financial interest in reporting interesting, even sensational, results. And of course his emails to company scientists at this point clearly indicate that the conflict has become a personal issue.
• It ignores the fact that "industry funded" usually means the work was done by a third party who has no direct financial interest in the sales of the product. Industry funding may get you a little spin, but its hardly likely to buy you the 1000x difference in No Observed Adverse Effect Levels seen between Haye's results and nearly everyone else's. Those are testable facts, and falsifying research results performed for regulatory purposes on a pesticide product will buy you jail time.

Formerly 98 (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with KingofAces that there is no need to call out non-involvement of Syngenta in the article preparation as a "disclaimer" in the article. The fact that Syngenta paid for the study and that they were not involved in the research or writing the paper both spring from the same source, which is the paper itself. If it is reliable for one statement, it is reliable for both. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

We (and WP) are not the arbiters of the extent the company was involved in the study. The statement that they had nothing to do with the study, when you consider that this is one of their most profitable products, is essentially a claim, not a verifiable, testable fact, and needs to be couched in some way that shows the wording comes from the source, virtually verbatim. MLPainless (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

And can you point to any other article on wikipedia that carries this sort of disclaimer statement? I know of numerous places where the funding sources of studies are stated, but I have never seen this disclaimer inserted to (apparently) add credibility to the findings of the study, just in case readers suspect that the funding source colored the outcomes. Anyone? Why would you want to do this? MLPainless (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

looking at the history article, the disclaimer about the effect of the funding was a direct response to your adding content about the source of the funding, MLPainless. It was a very predictable response to that. That content is directly sourced from the article and is peripheral to its content, just as the content you added was. It is rare in WP to describe the funding of a study as well. Jytdog (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, there is another instance in the article mentioning Syngenta's funding of another atrazine-exculpatory study (not added by me), if you'd bothered to look before making your comment. It is, in fact, not rare to mention funding sources for studies, especially when the study in question describes a swathe of independent research as being of "poor quality" (this looks like a clear case of funding bias to me, but I cannot be sure). This google search will reveal hundreds of instances of research funding mentions in wikipedia. MLPainless (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Painless,

I realize this is a contentious issue but let's try to be mutually respectful and leave out the language about "bothering to look before commenting".

To address your point:

I do not often see any of the following in articles here

• Repeating the statement of the author of a company-funded study that the company was not involved in preparing the manuscript
• Assertions by one of the parties in the conflict that "all of the studies supporting the comapany's position involve flawed controls and COI".
• Descriptions of experimental results (as opposed to reviews and more opinion-related articles) as "industry funded", which in this case comes across as a thinly veiled and unsubstantiated suggestion of data fraud.

I think given the inclusion of the latter two points, the inclusion of the first makes for a more balanced story. Lastly I'd say that your addition of scare quotes around the "disclaimer" is WP:OR. The statement comes from a WP:RS and you can't just suggest fraud as a way of discrediting any reliable source that you disagree with. If you have a reliable, third party source that has credibly questioned the truthfulness of the author's statement on this specific paper, that might be different. Formerly 98 (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

F98, I've read your comment twice and still do not understand it. Can you be clearer please? MLPainless (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that we want to describe this controversy and not take sides in it. The quote from Hayes calling every study that disagrees with his conclusions COI-driven, combined with systematically calling out each Syngenta-funded study as such, is over the top from my POV. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Also looking at the reviews I mentioned above, Hayes' work may even be on the WP:FRINGE spectrum. I say may because it looks like a potential, but I'd want to do some digging into other sources before really assessing whether that's the case or not. If it is though, comments like work being covered up by big companies, etc. are very common responses of fringe proponents in science, so that's why my red flag is up when thinking about fringe ideas. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not discussing the Hayes section at the moment. I'm discussing the Syngenta review that found many independent studies to be "poor quality". We seem to be talking at cross purposes. MLPainless (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The point was that the calls about funding source appear like they could be coming from a fringe viewpoint. What I was discussing and the discussion of the review you're mentioning are very related. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I was not thinking of Prof. Hayes when I started discussing the wording around the Syngenta review. Let's not conflate the issues. MLPainless (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd reread Formerly's last few posts if you're somehow seeing conflation here. I'm not seeing how you're saying what we were discussing above isn't related. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, Painless, I feel that this is turning into a tempest in a teapot, as the meta analysis is not the only source to reach this conclusion. If you are that unhappy with the current text, and if other editors agree, I could accept the following replacement.

"Available epidemiological studies of atrazine exposure in pregnancy have important shortcomings that limit their utility for drawing conclusions regarding effects in people. A 2015 systematic review of pregnancy epidemiology studies, funded by atrazine manufacturer Syngenta, concluded that the quality of most studies was poor, that no single category of negative pregnancy outcome was found consistently across studies, and that conclusions regarding a positive link between atrazine exposure and adverse pregnancy outcomes were not warranted. Syngenta was not involved in the design, collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data and did not participation in the preparation of the manuscript. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry] (ATSDR) reached similar conclusions, noting that available studies are confounded by exposure to other chemicals. A review by the Minnesota Department of Health stated that currently avaialable studies are insufficient to establish causal relationships between atrazine exposure and pregnancy adverse outcomes due to methodological limitations including poor exposure assessment, the use of aggregate rather than individual measures of exposure, small sample size, limited statistical power for certain outcomes, and inability to control for confounding factors."

However, this strikes me as very long-winded at it takes us to the same place as the original language.

Formerly 98 (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, looking at one of the new sources you're suggesting (the ATSDR source), it's pretty good. It states that "Atrazine may affect pregnant women by causing their babies to grow more slowly than normal. Birth defects and liver, kidney, and heart damage has been seen in animals exposed to high levels of atrazine" and "Liver, kidney, and heart damage has been observed in animals exposed to atrazine; we do not know if this would also occur in humans. Atrazine has also been shown to cause changes in blood hormone levels in animals that affected ovulation and the ability to reproduce. These effects are not expected to occur in humans because of specific biological differences between humans and these types of animals". I'd like to see some of that in the article, actually. It also states:

However, the women in these studies were also exposed to other chemicals that may have caused or contributed to these effects. In pregnant animals, exposure to atrazine causes a decrease in fetal growth and birth defects. Exposure to high levels of atrazine during pregnancy caused reduced survival of fetuses. It is unclear whether or at what level of exposure this might occur in humans.

...which is much more direct and sensible than the strenuous efforts the current wp article seems to be making to give the herbicide a clean bill of health in regard to pregnant women. Using some of this language would improve the article immeasurably. So yes, I would support the use of some of these quotes in the section on mammals. The quotes cut through some of the obfuscation that characterizes the current text in the wp page. MLPainless (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is making "strenuous efforts to give the herbicide a clean bill of health in regard to pregnant women" at all. I think we're all trying just as hard as you are to make this article present a balanced view of the controversy. We just have different opinions on what represents a reliable source. You are worried about a grant funding a meta analysis; I wonder about the objectivity of a scientist who sends emails to company employees referring to his erection and ejaculate and starts a website called "atrazinelovers.com". Both concerns likely have some merit.

I have no objection to expanding the discussion of effects seen in animals a bit, but believe that such reports are meaningless unless the doses at which the effects were observed are included. Unless you are aware of other reliable secondary sources, there seems to be a reasonable consensus that the epidemiological data suggests important areas for further investigation, but is inconclusive due to the issues I described above.

Overall, I think we all need to remember that

• Wikipedia describes controversies and does not take sides in them, and
• Appropriate weighting is determined by the prevalence of different viewpoints among reliable sources

Given the existence of significant controversy, giving this product "a clean bill of health" or giving the impression that there is consensus that current exposures are harmful would both be NPOV and a disservice to our readers. We need to communiciate the ambiguity.

Please take a look at the FIFRA scientific advisory committee meeting minutes that I linked to in the section below. There are some items there that align with your POV that I think could/should be added, and I'm surprised you do not seem to have looked at that document yet.

Formerly 98 (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

FIFRA minutes ... it's an EPA memorandum. Is that even a RS?

• I am not here to impart a POV aspect to the article. I just think inserting sentences like "Syngenta was not involved in the design, collection ..." is a completely unnecessary counterweight to the noting that the company funded the review.
• I'm not sure what the atrazinelovers.com and erection references are all about, and I don't want to know. MLPainless (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Board would be WP:RS, as it is a secondary source and its presence is Congressionally mandated to provide independent input to EPA decisions.

My point with respect to the other two items you mentioned is that it doesn't make sense to single out a study funded by but not conducted by Syngenta for scrutiny with respect to its accuracy and objectivity. We extensively quote a scientist in this article who sent the emails I described. We can call out the fact that Syngenta funded that meta analysis, but the flip side of that is call out the other articles as "performed by a scientist with a readily apparent personal feud with Syngenta". I really think its best if we don't do either. Formerly 98 (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

By saying "Syngenta funded" we are not "singling out" a study for "scrutiny with respect to its accuracy and objectivity". We are simply making readers aware of the funding, which is quite proper and common in wikipedia. And likewise, if this scientist (Hayes) has personal financial gain at stake, then yes, we need to highlight his involvement with the various studies he produced. Does he? MLPainless (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

On the first point, I still disagree. Since our positions are not converging, would it make sense to try to agree on language for an RFC? ON the second point, I found a good review from the EPA that declares "a pox on both your houses" and added it to the article. Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we need an RfC yet, but I do agree that we shouldn't be singling out studies like that. There isn't a reason for describing funding source here (or in most cases really) as funding source isn't particularly relevant to the findings of studies, so that becomes undue weight to focus on it here. It's pretty common for university researchers to get funding from a company to independently evaluate a product and if the company wasn't a little sloppy on their own in-house assessments, the researcher will come back with a publication saying the product just doesn't work, has non-target effects, etc. Focusing on funding source makes it seem important when it's really not. It's only where there is a true conflict of interest that such details become important (such as being involved in study design), but that's the journal's job to assess that, not ours. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the current version of WP:RS allows for pointing out funding sources, particularly when they are from industry. I don't really agree with that, but there it is. The review I just added to the article points out from a regulator's POV where a lot of the non-financial COIs arise, and that article to my mind speaks to why we should not have such a laser like focus on anything that even vaguely looks like it could be interpreted as a financial COI. Its like obsessing about being run over by a red car. You're equally likely to be run over by one that is white, black, or blue. Formerly 98 (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. I was going to describe funding source as a red herring (decided just to keep my post short earlier) because it distracts from where you can find actual problems in publishing. In terms of actual edits for this article, it doesn't seem like there's consensus to include the funding source language. Is there anything that would change that at this point, or would it be better to move on to other topics? Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC):

My feeling is that the attacks on credibility, claims of harrassment, and other attempts by each side to demonize the other are best ommitted from articles. However, there are many editors who don't agree with my opinion, especially when o m e of the parties to the dispute is a large corporation. I then find myself in the awkward position of adding negative material to create balance as it is easier to defend than removing the negative material already present. My preference is to remove all material questioning the reliability of peer reviewed research except to note the existence of conflicting findings, and to remove all other material about harassment and obscene email. But I doubt we can get consensus for that, so my second choice is to leave it as it is, with balanced shitting on both sides. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• "There isn't a reason for describing funding source here" (Kingofaces43). I have to disagree strongly with this. Just let's look at an allied field, medicine.

In Scientific American there's an article called "Bad Medicine, Why Data from Drug Companies is hard to swallow". Some key points: (1) Companies (even the biggest ones) are massaging data to an unbelievable degree to get their drugs approved. This includes excluding data and misrepresenting data. (2) Companies pay the FDA $500,000 for each drug approved. The FDA is therefore approving more and more (useless and sometimes harmful) drugs, even when the studies supporting the drugs are clearly flawed and massaged.

Furthermore, nearly half of all medical school faculty members who serve on boards designed to protect patients enrolled in clinical studies also serve as paid consultants to drug companies and other sectors of the biomedical industry. [13]

And again: "Studies funded by the private sector tend to produce outcomes that are much more aligned with the financial interests of those sectors than studies funded by the government, etc." (Prof. Sheldon Krimsky, Tufts University, author of the upcoming book: Science in the Private Interest)

I'd encourage editors to listen to this: Big-Pharma Funding, Medical Journals, and Bias in Pharmaceutical Studies - "Surprise, surprise — studies where the investigators have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry are usually designed to provide confirmation of a predetermined result — that the drug is effective and side effects are minimal, even when one or both of those things is untrue."

Therefore I don't think you can say that funding is not important, especially when it's been proved so clearly to be important in medicine generally. MLPainless (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I am going to end this discussion because we don't agree and it is highly unlikely we are going to. But I'll leave you with a quote from Guido Rasi, former head of the EMA:

"We do not dispute that financial conflicts of interests (CoIs) may render analyses and conclusions “vulnerable to distortion” [1]. However, surrounding the ongoing debate over sponsor-independent analyses is an implicit assumption that “analysis by independent groups” is somehow free from CoIs. We beg to differ. Personal advancement in academia, confirmation of previously defended positions, or simply raising one's own visibility within the scientific community may be powerful motivators. In a publish-or-perish environment, would the finding of an important adverse or favorable drug effect at the p<0.05-level be more helpful to a researcher than not finding any new effects? Will society always be guaranteed that a finding that is reported as “confirmatory” was not the result of multiple exploratory re-runs of a dataset? We submit that analyses by sponsor-independent scientists are not generated in a CoI-free zone and, more often than not, ego trumps money."

Having spent years in academia myself, this quote captures my observations very well. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll also chime in that if there is truly a COI of any sort, peer reviewers are supposed to be looking for that in a fashion. Anyone with the expertise can technically do that by going through the study's methodology, assumptions, etc. If there is something wrong with the study, it tends to be apparent in the methods and results whether it's financial COI, or most anything else. That's also why I consider funding source a huge red herring. However, we as editors are not considered experts to give that degree of reliable scrutiny, so we need secondary sources to say if the study had some weaknesses in its design. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Atrazine

Hi hi, You reverted my changes to the Atrazine page. I fixed that reference to the primary source, hopefully this appeases you. It seems you are a sort of watchdog for these big agri companies. For me I work in pediatric genetics. We see a lot of congenital defects that can't be explained by genetics, they are not inherited. In fact perhaps only 30% of the cases are genetic, others are likely to be environmental effects. We know so little about epigenetics, in the centuries to come more and more so, but studies like this should be encouraged. They are continuously squashed by these big agri companies, the very makers of the chemical, but these are the children of our species being affected. I am a novice here and willing to learn, let me know how I can strengthen that addition to the page, because I think that study should be included (and there are more coming showing the same about this herbicide!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genomizer (talk • contribs) 18:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks so much for talking and for bringing this here. I take it you have some medical training, so that is helpful. The following may be a bit bizarre to you, so please bear with me. This is an encyclopedia (see WP:NOT (sorry for that, but there are tons of "policies and guidelines" that govern what we do here; they are documents the community has put together over the years, to govern itself. This is place is not a "wild west" at all) But yeah, we are an encylopedia, not a newspaper, not a science textbook. Our mission is to give reliable, neutral information to the public - to present the sum of human knowledge. Grand, i know. almost crazy. Where does that information come from? It cannot be original research - instead, it has to be something that readers and other editors can verify from what we call "reliable sources". For health related content, "reliable sources" are defined in WP:MEDRS - please give that a read.

But I will summarize it, and the reason why we have it.

So.. everything in WP starts with sources. (so essential! garbage in, garbage out, right?) Every policy and guideline we have, urges editors to rely on secondary sources. We are editors here, not authors. We don't write review articles here... instead we read review articles, and we summarize them here - that is what we do as editors. Again, I am assuming you are familiar with the science and the literature.... and if so, you know that the primary literature - the research papers where people publish their experimental data and their conclusions - is littered with papers that are duds. Scientists working in a given field know their literature - they know what papers led nowhere, or were based on false assumptions, and were left behind, and which ones are the rich veins that lead to deeper understanding. And you know which ones everybody is wondering about. Wikipedia editors don't know that - and even if they do - they cannot make decisions about picking that primary source or this one, based on their own authority - that is original research here! So what we use, are secondary sources.

per MEDRS, secondary sources are review articles from the literature, or statements by major medical or scientific bodies.

So .. I reverted your content b/c the content is about health (as you said) but it is based on a primary source, not a secondary one.

happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it most bizarre that you think this page is neutral. And I agree about single papers versus review articles, and the retraction rate is certainly high and seems to be increasing. I suppose I was under the assumption the reader would come to their own conclusions based on peer-reviewed published works, and not be forced to read another potentially biased individuals filtered set of 'secondary sources'. The worries come when the review articles are entirely funded by non-objective entities. That said the page stands out because it doesn't seem neutral, all the articles seem to be in the same vein: in support that this chemical is harmless. I just wondered why so much literature showing the dangers of Atrazine are absent. Why do you think that is? I know you often find yourself defending these corporations, and oddly enough, I rather agree that the GMOs you valiantly defend are harmless to humans when ingested, simply broken down to useful AAs. I think the obvious worry there is ecological, but I digress. I only request that you remain objective on this topic, I am not attacking your company, only want to make sure these papers on the dangers of Atrazine are not overlooked, or worse yet, purposefully removed. So I can happily find more sources, and hopefully they meet all the criteria you have linked here. Genomizer (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

What we do is look at the most recent reviews we can find, and craft content based on them. we do try to be neutral (and btw, please do read WP:NPOV - it does not mean "fair and balanced" - it means that we give the most weight (space and prominence) to what we find to be the mainstream views, less weight to 'significant minority opinions", and we basically keep FRINGE views out. We rely on high quality reviews to tell us that. So really - please look at the sourcing. If there are recent, high quality reviews that are not incorporated, or if you find that we cite the best and most recent reviews, but we skew them, please speak up about about the specific content and sourcing where you see that happening. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

People already believe this page to have been hijacked, and it certainly seems biased. I don't see this as an encyclopedia article, more akin to propaganda. But in all seriousness, these defects are life threatening. I truly do worry about the children affected. Can you help me show their side of the story? What if a single mother started filtering her water to remove this poison, what if a single child could be saved such a defect? I suppose I had a small glimmer of hope that the other side of the story could be told, and the evidence is mounting. This argument is more credible since the EPA has re-opened the review of the effects of this chemical on human health, especially highlighting birth defects. Development is so sensitive! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genomizer (talk • contribs) 21:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

yes the ED controversy is intense and i absolutely understand the worried parent thing. for sure. at the same time, as the lead of WP:MEDRS says, what we don't want to do, is be on the front lines of ringing panic-inducing alarms. I really meant what I said above - really i did. if you are aware of recent reviews that we are not using that show that the risks are stronger than this article expresses them as being, or if the reviews that we are using state the risks more strongly than the current content does, please call those out. Specific things. Please. I mean that. We have been doing the best we can but we may have screwed up. We really do try to follow and be true to the most reliable, recent secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Please find a review that brings out your issues. Without that, it's tough to argue that the article is out of whack. When such reviews surfaced for glyphosate, their content went into the article. The discussion is intense, but it is not futile. Lfstevens (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The lead of the article does currently state that atrazine "was banned in the European Union in 2004 because of persistent groundwater contamination", that "studies suggest it is an endocrine disruptor, an agent that may alter the natural hormonal system in animals" and that "EPA's review was criticized, and atrazine's safety remains controversial". If readers wish to make up their own minds, those statements alone should provoke questions about the EPA's reassurances of safety. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The page is riddled with primary sources and broken links. It is good that the statements PaleCloudedWhite points out are there, but I did notice the EUs decision was based on contamination AND the association with birth defects; the birth defect part purposefully removed or left out. As yet there are no good reviews, the most recent is in 2012 and entirely funded by the manufacturer, so of absolutely no value. I can only keep an eye on the literature, and keep wondering about these kids we see with choanal atresia and stenosis, living here in the heart of the Atrazine contamination. Time will eventually reveal the truth, I only wonder how our population will be affected. Maybe you are just following your rules, but by defending monsters you become monsters yourselves.Genomizer (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

those are very strong words. i understand that you are very passionate about this. Please do keep in mind that we are an encyclopedia; we follow (quite literally) what reliable secondary sources say; we are not out there "in front" on anything. It would be helpful if you could be more specific, but I'll review the sourcing again myself to fix deadlinks, etc. Thanks again, and thanks for the work you do helping people in the real world. Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

"but I did notice the EUs decision was based on contamination AND the association with birth defects; the birth defect part purposefully removed or left out.... Maybe you are just following your rules, but by defending monsters you become monsters yourselves."

Before you toss around these sorts of accusations, it would be good to familiarize yourself with the facts. The document announcing the European withdrawal of atrazine explicitly states:

"The overall conclusion of this evaluation, based on the information available and the proposed conditions of use, is that: ...the information available is insufficient to satisfy the requirements set out in Annex II and Annex III Directive 91/414/EEC. In particular the available monitoring data were insufficient to demonstrate that in large areas concentrations of the active substance and its breakdown products will not exceed 0.1 µg/l in groundwater. Moreover it cannot be assured that continued use in other areas will permit a satisfactory recovery of groundwater quality where concentrations already exceed 0.1 µg/l in groundwater." As for teratogenicity, it is not mentioned.

Similarly, the Natural Resources Defense Council characterized the European withdrawal of atrazine as follows:

"The European Union has a uniform limit of 0.1 ppb for the residue of any pesticide in drinking and ground water... Based on the inability to keep water contamination below this level, European regulators announced a ban on atrazine use in October 2003,13 one week before the U.S. EPA approved its continued use."

Monsters? Perhaps, but at least ones that know how to read. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 21:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

primary

Gandydancer please don't add science-based content based on primary sources. i reverted this. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Effects on insects are not yet well-studied and there are no reviews. It is my understanding that primary sources may be used if used properly and with care. Please give me a link to info that states otherwise. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

this herbicide has been around for ~50 years. it is hard to believe there are no reviews... i'll look some. i started looking at existing refs and found a dead link.. will stay on this - should have something soon. Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

4 reviews in pubmed Jytdog (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm really getting tired of being treated as though I just joined up yesterday or am a student editor...or am just plain stupid. I'm weary of your instructions on how to work as a team or what policy says. Or to use good faith. You reverted my edit six minutes after I entered it - certainly a knee jerk reaction since you obviously did not have time to look into it - with instructions re primary sources as though I would not be aware of our science editing guidelines. Then when I said there are no reviews you came right back with oh there must be. The reviews you have offered are worthless for the insects section. Always saying please and thanks does not make editing with you a pleasant task at all - in fact quite the opposite. I work for free here and would like to find editing more enjoyable and less of an irritation, which as of late seems to happen when you're around. I tried to put off coming back to this article to wait for a time that I could edit with less irritation, but I see that I've come off with a rant regardless. Gandydancer (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

In this instance, I wouldn't consider the findings of primary studies appropriate. Reviews are really needed for toxicological literature for various reasons like assessing study design, weighting the actual findings, etc. Primary sources’ intended audience is other scientists who are expected to judge just that. We can’t do that here as editors. Whether insects are just not well-studied in this topic or just simply aren’t covered in reviews seems to indicate lack of noteworthiness in this topic. I'll do a bit more digging on potential leads on sources (FYI, this topic is entirely outside my little niche) as non-target effects on insects is a big field in entomology. If it's actually noteworthy, this isn't exactly a field where we'd need to be scraping for sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

gandy i am sorry that you think a single study on tox means anything. there is nothing i can do about what you believe. but yes basing tox content on primary sources, is not OK - we have been having this conversation for a long time now.Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we have been having this conversation for a long time now. I have waited for a week but I have not heard any further from Kingofaces. Looking back I note that Formerly 98 added an old (2004) primary fathead minnow study that contradicted the US Geological study, and on 2/4/15 he "[expanded it] to give equal weight". On that date he also removed the recent beetle study that had been in the article for some time (that he had actually even edited to add some material that was IMO too technical and not helpful for the general reader) noting that it was a primary and we needed to wait for a review. Since I didn't hear even a peep from either of you, I assume that he had your approval for those edits. What gives? I'm all for following the guidelines, but let's do it in a fair and responsible manner. Since when do we add an old 2004 primary study for "balance" to a recent US government agency study and yet delete others that have found that atrazine may have harmful effects? I'm going to mention this sourcing problem on Sarah's talk page since I know that she has a lot of sourcing expertise. Gandydancer (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks for pointing those out. i just removed them. this is not a strictly MEDRS discussion (there is no consensus to apply MEDRS to animals) so it is not really relevant to her concern about MEDRS abuse, but take it where ever you like. i am unlikely to respond there. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Gandydancer, what exactly were you waiting for me to reply to here that I haven't mentioned above? For the rest of your comment, I've noticed some primary sources that do appear problematic from the standpoint I take with scientific sourcing (the dueling primaries Jytdog removed was one and was a good move I think), but I just didn't plan on bringing them up at that time (limited time and other articles on my to-do list I'd prefer to focus on first). There was enough contentious stuff going on at the time too that I didn't want to wade into more issues, so that's pretty much why I let it be for the time being. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Gandy, I apologize for the bad edit. I've been (honestly) a little confused about how/if we are using primary sources in this article, and it sounds like I was inconsistent. It was not deliberate. In the aftermath of Jytdog's edits, the article still consists of roughly 30% primary sources. Given the lack of systematic reviews in the subject area, it may be that dualing primary studies is the best we can do here else the article will become thin indeed. For example, I don't think we have secondary sources for any of the Haye's work, and the article clearly would not be complete without mention of that. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 14:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

On reviews, I entirely forgot about this conversation earlier. We do have some reviews to pull from, so it might be worthwhile to give those a look again. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad I am not the only one confused about whether to use primary sources or not, whether WP:MEDRS applies to animals or not. Coincidentally, I have recently written an essay specifically related to primary and secondary sources in biology.Wikipedia talk:Identifying primary and secondary sources for biology articles. It has not even been up for 24 hrs yet, so is well in it's infancy, but it might help us to sort out the primary/secondary issue.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Gandy asked me to comment here on this edit based on this 2015 source from the Journal of Insect Physiology. The abstract says: "This study suggests that atrazine exposure affects male reproductive performance in insects and future studies should aim to understand the molecular mechanisms underlying the fitness effects of exposure."

I don't know anything about the particular issue and can't judge. Regarding primary sources in general, they're allowed on WP (including in articles needing MEDRS), and for certain issues, particularly in history articles, are the best sources to use so long as you're aware of the pitfalls. When it comes to individual studies in science, the danger is that they're not in any way representative or reproducible, and so what weight to give them is a problem, which is why they're best avoided. This unfortunately has the effect that WP is often out of date, but the alternative is that articles would contain whatever conclusions the authors of single studies had reached. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 03:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this 2011 Journal manuscript helps explain some of the problem? [14] Atsme☯^Consult 22:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that elephant has been in the room for several days now and I'm not sure how much longer before that. Gandydancer (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Not an elephant, just a Tyrone!. Haye's viewpoint definitely deserves to be in the article, but it is controversial. It should be given appropriate weight, but his conclusions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. We have a secondary source that calls both Hayes and Syngenta's studies "biased". If anything, we need to attribute some of the material in the article in which Haye's conclusions are currently stated in Wikipedia's voice Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|Proud of my new COI} 01:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, all that and more...very shady stuff...and no surprise that it would spill over into Wikipedia. Gandydancer (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Gandydancer, not sure if the following will prove helpful in this situation, but it is a post by MastCell regarding this very subject, so I would think it should carry some weight here, too: Mixing primary and 2ndary April 20, 2015 Atsme☯^Consult 18:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Eu groundwater

Hi Wuerzele - you fixed a ref with this link in this dif. I found that link too. Can you please tell me where on that page it says anything about the content it is used to support, namely "It was banned in the European Union in 2004 because of persistent groundwater contamination"? I didn't find it there. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I merely undid your removal of sourced content and did not change the sentence that has been here for a long time.the link points to the rule ,which mentions ground water concerns in numerous spots. --Wuerzele (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

can you please be more specific as to how the content in the website supports the claim? i really didn't see it. (if what you are saying is that some regulations are cited, i am sure those regulations cite many things, not just groundwater..... right?) thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

actually i found the directive where they delisted in march 2004 - it is here. i cited that instead. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

actually, re "i cited that instead": not quite. you inserted the delisting link instead of a third EC ref, and you deleted the European Chemicals Agency Database link I inserted. So neither your comment above, nor your edit summary are accurate.

re "i am sure those regulations cite many things, not just groundwater..... right?" sounds a bit like wp:bait. as someone on the WP: COIN you know all too well that any editor must read a source instead of guessing it. Otherwise, it looks to me like an attempt to distract from the fact that you inserted the new york Times as a reference. The doublestandard being, that you have reverted me, when I used newspaper sources on WP:MEDRS topics like this.

In the next edit you summarized "make lead match body on reason for ban in EU; cite NYT there which is accessible and clear". That is plainly inaccurate. The sentense you inserted "when the EU found that the data provided by the manufacturer was insufficient to show that groundwater and soil contamination would not exceed acceptable limits under the intended uses for atrazine" is not found in the NYT , and it is not "accessible and clear".--Wuerzele (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

jytdog did not respond to this.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog deleted the source of the European Chemicals Agency"European Chemicals Agency, Chemical Information for Atrazine". Retrieved 2015-04-28. that now a second time without discussing why. In conjunction with supplying dishonest edit summaries to Wikipedia fellow editors, we find this particulary disturbing. This appears to be an attempt to suppress a perfectly good source.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I have said why.

• I initially removed it b/c it was a dead link
• in a series of edits I added a new ref to the directive that actually banned atrazine, and replaced the database link you found, which has no content about the ban, as i described here and here, and used the NYT ref and the new EU directive reference to support the lead. Yes things were a bit jumbled, but it was plenty clear.

Misrepresenting what other editors say or do is a violation of WP:TPG - please stop. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

we find wikilawyering, not seeking consensus. we find threatening an editor who speaks the truth shining light on several dishonest edit summaries, not jumbled. how many violated WP rules are that ? you should stop´´ throwing stones sitting in the glasshouse. --Wuerzele (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

and now that jytdog is out of reversals fellow editor KINGOFACES is dropping from the sky as usual, reverting me for trivia. what a coincidence ! trying to thwart any changes that may in any way be critical to the product? --Wuerzele (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Your sniping is just getting plain silly and is disruptive from the page. If I was feeling like being pointy, I could paraphrase you and say I won't respond to obvious bait attempts and uncivil prodding. Instead, I'll just ask you what's so different about the content you're trying to add in from the very next sentence that essentially says the same thing? Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 ATSDR statement

The following was added to the article from a 2015 ATSDR summary:

"atrazine is "currently under review for pesticide re-registration by EPA. Therefore, EPA may be contacted for more information about atrazine. OSHA has set a limit of 5 mg atrazine/m3 of workroom air for an 8 hour workday. NIOSH recommends a standard for occupational exposure of 5 mg atrazine/m3 of workroom air during a 10 hour shift to protect workers from a concern that atrazine may cause cancer. The EPA has set a maximum amount of atrazine allowable in drinking water of 3 µg/L. In addition, atrazine is designated as a Restricted Use Pesticide, which means that only certified pesticide applicators can use atrazine."[37]"

Its an odd quote to add because

• The numerical exposure limits mean nothing to the average reader without context
• The statement about "protecting workers from cancer" is taken out of context.

• The exposure levels here are applicable only to a tiny number of people engaged in manufacturing or living near Superfund sites, estimate as 1000 in the U.S. elsewhere in the document.
• Elsewhere in the document it is explained at great length that the overall evidence is not strongly supportive of atrazine being carcinogenic, and that the limits here are precautionary

I've reverted the edit for these reasons. Thanks, Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 12:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It's an important health statement from the CDC. For you to think it is odd is, well, odd. It's a public health statement. Are you implying the CDC doesn't know what they're saying when they inform the public? Are you actually disputing what the CDC is saying? I'm confused. Atsme☯^Consult 12:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, I think my main objections are that the numerical exposure limits don't mean anything to most of our readers (what is the exposure limit for vinyl chloride and other known carcinogens? I'm a chemist and can't put these numbers into context myself), and that the comment about cancer precautions presented in isolation suggests that the compound is carcinogenic, whereas other parts of the same document state that this has not been established despite extensive study. The document actually states that you are very unlikely to be exposed through food consumption (an obvious oversimplifcation, but one that points to the fact that this summary is mainly about occupational exposure). Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 13:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Deborah A. Cory-Slechta quote

Atsme, you've added this quote to the lead:

"The way the E.P.A. tests chemicals can vastly underestimate risks.” The professor has studied atrazine’s effects on the brain and serves on the E.P.A.’s science advisory board. She further stated, “There’s still a huge amount we don’t know about atrazine."

I have several objections to this.

• The lede needs to reflect the body of the article, but this material has been added to the lede only
• We need MEDRS compliant sources to make statements about human health, but all we have here are quotes in newspaper articles. I"m not quite sure why the Tyrone Hayes articles are also cited here, I did not see any research by Cory-Slechta in these articles.
• The criticism is extraordinarily vague. "The EPA does not test chemicals adequately" and "there is much that is not known about atrazine" are unrebuttable statements ("weasel words") because she has not said anything specific. They don't really add anything to the article except the information that Cory-Slechta (who is a former EPA Adcom member, not a current one as stated in the text) doesn't like atrazine.

I've therefore reverted the addition of this text. If you have specific concerns that have been raised by Cory-Slechta and incorporated into secondary reviews on the topic, I think these would be good to add. Thanks Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 13:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Your reason for the revert is not substantive.

1. That paragraph currently reads: EPA's review has been criticized, and the safety of atrazine remains controversial.
2. I added a reason why the EPA has been criticized using inline text attribution that quotes a member of the EPA's science advisory board. You made a mistake reverting, so I reverted it back because it belongs in the article as much as the statement that the EPA's review has been criticized. Atsme☯^Consult 13:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd say this is a tough case. If the citations support the statement "the FDA review has been criticized",that would not need medrs compliant sourcing. But if you start adding specific criticisms of the EPA review to the text, and such statements bear on the issue of human health effects, I think that may need to be medrs compliant, even if attributed. Surely Cory-Slechta has done some research on this subject that has been quoted in a review article somewhere? Also, my objection to the lede not matching the text is not addressed in your response. Thanks, Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 13:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that MEDRS is relevant for criticism of the EPA. The quote seems OK to me. it just can't be in the lead and not in the body. i moved it to the body. the broadside quote is UNDUE In the lead, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read the section on Mammals? The EPA is discussed throughout that section, so please self-revert and stop whitewashing the lead. In fact, more information should be included in the lead to fill a complete paragraph. I'm not convinced a paragraph comprising a single sentence is inline with MOS, not to mention the sentence appears to be incomplete and well...dorky sounding. We don't have to repeat verbatim in the body of the article what the lead states but I have no objection to repeating her quote twice if you think it needs to be included in both places. The criticism of the EPA (and in this case statement of fact by an academic who is on the science board of the EPA) belongs in the lead with inline text attribution. Nice try, but your argument for reverting lacks substance. Atsme☯^Consult 21:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, I guess part of my concern here is that the EPA, the FDA, the EFSA, and similar organizations are able to throw tremendous resources at evaluating a body of registration data that no single individual could sit down and read in less than a year. So I feel to some extent that these agencies deserve a little more credence than to pull out the name of an individual researcher and go into depth as to why that person thinks EPA is wrong, unless there is a special situation, such as their views being representative of a group of like minded experts.

Think about it this way. I can find individual experts who disagree with FDAs decision to pull Vioxx off the market, to label antidepressants for suicide risk, and even one or two opposed to EPAs decision to pull DDT off the market. There will always be a dissenter, and usually at least one on the advisory panel. But unless you can pull up a handful of reviews supporting that persons view as representative of a significant minority groups position, I think simply saying that controversy exists suffices for the lead.

Just my 2 cents. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 22:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Deborah A. Cory-Slechta's quote about the EPA was in the NYTimes (see footnote #13 of the 4 cited). Before I had a chance to fix the paragraph's footnotes, my edits were wrongfully reverted. You are now aware that MEDRS does not apply in this instance, and that Wikipedia:MOS/LEAD is not being followed as the lead is currently written per the following highlights:

1. Do not hint at startling facts without describing them.
2. summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.
3. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, but the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows.
4. calls for well-composed paragraphs.

Deborah A. Cory-Slechta [15] is not some off-the-wall critic from lands unknown. The women is an accomplished expert in her field, a scholar, served on the science board for the EPA, and also served on numerous national review and advisory panels of the NIH, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the FDA, the National Center for Toxicological Research, the EPA, the NAS, the Institute of Medicine, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and the CDC. In addition, she has served on the editorial boards of the journals Neurotoxicology, Toxicology, Toxicological Sciences, Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, Neurotoxicology and Teratology, and American Journal of Mental Retardation. She has held the elected positions of President of the Neurotoxicology Specialty Section of the Society of Toxicology, and President of the Behavioral Toxicology Society. Atsme☯^Consult 01:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

yes, and an outlier. if her POV were shared by the EPA, the EPA would be different. You cannot treat her voice like it is The Most Important One. It is not the mainstream view. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You can't be serious. The woman is mainstream - she was on the EPA Board when she was quoted. You can't just discount what an expert scholar says because you don't agree with it. Everything she said is mainstream. Atrazine is BANNED in the EU and it's controversial in the US. It is currently being re-evaluated, too. Yours is not the mainstream view. You're whitewashing important information that readers need to know. No sir, what you're doing is not right. You are not following MOS/Lead, or NPOV. You do not own this article, so unless you can present a substantial reason for your reverts, please stand down. Atsme☯^Consult 01:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll also agree that we shouldn't be picking out a single person like this when we're dealing with sources available at this level like reviews and government agencies. It does not sound like this person represents the mainstream view. Comments alluding to whitewashing are not helpful here and are ignoring the issues editors are actually bringing up with including the content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiki-links to gastroschisis deleted.

@Kingofaces43:, @Sciencere: I see no justification to deleting wiki-links for gastroschisis. The edit note says:

Wikilinks are generally not used in references. Best to leave them for article text instead.

Please provide policy or guideline that makes such a claim. I have seen wiki-links in a number of references in articles you frequent which you have not deleted. You have even used wiki-links in edit notes. This leaves me to wonder if Sciencere's explanation is the real reason the wikilink was deleted [16]:

This is my second attempt at linking the medical term "gastroschisis" to the Wikipedia page for that birth defect. It appears that someone doesn't want that link to work, probably due to the fact that it's a frightening birth defect that...

I have restored the edit by Sciencere. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Reason given here explains why it should not have been wiki-linked in the ref. Thanks, Gilo1969 . --David Tornheim (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Atrazine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316130312/http://www.epa.gov:80/teach/chem_summ/Atrazine_summary.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/teach/chem_summ/Atrazine_summary.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130601222524/http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/cumulative/triazine_fs.htm to http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/cumulative/triazine_fs.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100111030314/http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/rup/rup6mols.htm to http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/rup/rup6mols.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140305163756/http://www.ncwss.org/about.php to http://www.ncwss.org/about.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625030339/http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/atrazine_combined_docs.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/atrazine_combined_docs.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625030339/http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/atrazine_combined_docs.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/atrazine_combined_docs.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100621142043/http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/22933 to http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/22933

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Alex Jones gay frogs!

gay frogs!

ok, transgender:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC122794/

Family Guy Guy (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Atrazine is an herbicide NOT a pesticide

This page refers to atrazine multiple times as a pesticide, which it is not and needs further review. Much of this is taken directly from other websites and I question the credibility of those sights with such a basic misclassification. There are quotes citing the EPA for pesticides in groundwater that need to be looked at because herbicides and pesticides are completely different things. TexasBeer (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

We actually have an article that addresses this at Pesticide#Definition. In short, herbicides are a type of pesticide since weeds are pests. It's a common mistake, which is in part why that section is up there. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Terrible sources needs fixing.

Referencing Tyrone Hayes, Rachel Aviv and Danny Hakim in a serious article about science really isn't acceptable. SeeRonja R (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC) http://academicsreview.org/2014/03/turning-science-into-a-circus-the-new-yorker-rachel-aviv-and-tyrone-hayes/

https://mylespower.co.uk/2019/02/10/is-atrazine-turning-the-freakin-frogs-gay-3/

Atrazine in Europe

I am puzzled by the statements on the situation in Europe because they seem to contradict the information present in the German Wikipedia article on atrazine (I provide both the German text and the translation in case someone wants to doule-check the translation).

Original text: Da Atrazin und dessen Hauptabbauprodukt Desethylatrazin auch ins Grundwasser gelangen und damit dann auch im Trinkwasser nachgewiesen werden kann, ist die Anwendung von Atrazin seit 1. März 1991 in Deutschland und seit 1995 in Österreich verboten.

Translation: Because athrazine and his main degradation product desethylatrazine may also reach the groundwater and therefore can be detected in the drinking water, the application of athrazine is prohibited in Germany since the first of march 1991 in Germany and in Austria since 1995.

One of the reasons for this prohibition was an incident of october/november 1986 that I can vividly recall because it so to say passed by my home. I live in Bonn (at that time capital of West Germany) located about 20 kilometers from Cologne on the river Rhine. This is what happened:

Original text: Am 31. Oktober 1986 gelangten etwa 400 Liter Atrazin über die Abwässer der Firma Ciba-Geigy in den Rhein, was zusammen mit einem weiteren Chemieunfall der Firma Sandoz bei Basel einen Tag später ein Fischsterben im Rhein auslöste.

Translation: On the thirty-first of october 1986 about 400 liters of atrazine reached the river Rhine in the wastwater of the Ciba-Geigy company. Together with another chemical accident at the Sandoz company in Basel it caused a fish kills in the Rhine.

The incident also influcenced the drinking water supply along the Rhine because much of the drinking water in this region is bank filtrate.

One additional remark: If the description turns out to be correct something else needs to be corrected: No country has ever discontinued atrazine use for health or environmental safety reasons, including the European Union, and is used in more than 80 countries worldwide.

This is not correct because the European Union is not a country but a supranational and intergovernmental union of twenty-seven states.

If the statements in the German WP are in one way or another incorrect please provide sources. I'll then edit that article. -- [[User:Jsde|Jsde] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsde (talk • contribs) 21:25, 5 May 2007‎ (UTC)

Needs a description of who Hayes is and relevance to section

The name Hayes pops up in the controvery section without a description of who he is and how his work is relevant. I am sure he is important in the section, but the section doesn't say how. Someone who knows should fix this so that it scans properly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Primacag (talk • contribs) 12:33, 24 August 2008‎ (UTC)

New Section on Recently Released Data

The data just released http://www.socrata.com/government/2008-Results-Atrazine-Monitoring-Program-for-Commu/5mw6-aae5 from the Huffington post could justify a new section. It shows the levels of Atrazine in drinking water in over 100 watersheds in the US. Some of the levels are quite high. Links could be added for the geocoded data from GeoCommons - Data: http://finder.geocommons.com/search?query=atrazine and maps http://maker.geocommons.com/maps/7808. Perhaps someone with better knowledge on the subject could create this section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Esciar (talk • contribs) 11:30, 23 September 2009‎ (UTC)

Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology: Herbicide atrazine spurs reproductive problems in many creatures

As reported by Phyorg.com. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-herbicide-atrazine-spurs-reproductive-problems.html .— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.234.195 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 28 November 2011‎ (UTC)

Neutrality

The Mammals section is focused exclusively on EPA and Syngenta findings, which, according to some scientists, may be biased. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03, some questions came up on your recent tag here. Did you have any suggested changes in mind when you made that tag? It looks like the bot archived your section prematurely instead of the much older sections, which has been fixed now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)