Talk:2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Controversies

>The powerful defoliant and herbicide Agent Orange, used extensively throughout the Vietnam War, contained 2,4-D. However, the controversies associated with the use of Agent Orange were associated with a contaminant (dioxin) in the 2,4,5-T component.

2, 4-D is a known teratogen so how come there are no controversies associated with it also?

Jabbi 01:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There are controversies, namely associated birth defects, very akin to those associated with Agent orange in fact. The better question might be why the controversies aren't mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.236.140 (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

List Brand Names

The article says "2,4-D is sold in various formulations under a wide variety of brand names", but fails to list the brand names. This would be a handy resource for those wishing to avoid such a chemical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.113.21.141 (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

TruthProvider says: Thanks for your suggestion. As requested, I've added some of the common brand names... —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthProvider (talk • contribs) 22:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Auxin activity

I think that there should be mention about physiologic activity of that molecul in plant body. I am not sure, what effect kill the plant, but I am sure that 2,4-D has strong activity of auxin molecules. In fact it is classified as synthetic auxin (but with some special effects). Reo ^ON | +++ 22:36, 20 June 2005 (Discussion moved - Reo ^ON | +++ 20:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

Alternatives

The article presently states that:

"It continues to be used for its low cost, despite the availability of more selective, more effective, and less toxic products."

It might be nice to name some of these alternative products.

TruthProvider says: Done, added a reference to Corn gluten meal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthProvider (talk • contribs) 14:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

dichlorprop redirect - Wrong?

My "Scott's Turf Builder Plus 2 (R)" bottle lists three active ingredients:
2,4-Dichlorophenooxyacetic Acid - that's 2,4-D, right?
2-(2-methyl-4-Chlorophenoxy)propionic Acid- known as mecoprop, right?
and 2-(2,4-Dichlorophenoxy)propionic Acid - known as "dichlorprop", right?
So dichlorprop should not redirect here, should it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc3 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. Dichlorprop and 2,4-D are not the same thing. I'll fix the redirect. Thanks for pointing this out. Yilloslime (t) 00:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Missing words?

Are there words missing from this sentence from the lead?

"2,4-D is also important synthetic auxin, often used in laboratories for plant research and as supplement in plant cell culture media such as MS medium."

Wanderer57 (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I got it[1]. Does that fix it? Yilloslime (t) 04:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I made another mod. Wanderer57 (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved from article (on patents)

CORRECTION, BY PROF. KARL MARAMOROSCH:

In 1939 2,4-D was patented as a weed killer by Zimmerman and Hitchkock, plant physiologists, working at the Boyce Thompson Institute in Yonkers, New York. Their patent was only for the United States. To their surprise, Dupont Co. in Wilmington, Delaware, also applied and received the same day a patent for 2,4-D for the whole world, except the United States. . A sum of $140,000 was paid by the Dupont C. to Boyce Thompson Institue in 1939/40, which rescued the Boyce Thompson Institute, that otherwise would have to close. During the peak of the Great Depression, income from Boyce Thompson endowment, mainly from brownstone houses on New York City's West Side had almost stopped and the agreement with Dupont saved the institute from closing.

At a regional meeting of the American Phytopathological Society (APS-NE Division) Zimmerman, after having applied through a Yonkers lawyer for a patent, gave a paper in which he and Hitchkock described how broad-leaved plants were killed by the newly discovered herbicide. In the audience was a Dupont scientist - and this was most likely the source that resulted in Dupont's application for a world-wide patent, excepting the United States.

Since the Boyce Thompson and Dupont agreement predates the work of Quastel by several years, credit for the discovery of the weed killing action of 2-4D is definitely due to Zimmerman and Hitchkock. However, Quastel made his discovery independently, working for the British Research Council. The work was kept as a secret during the war and only revealed after World War II ended.

I've moved this from the main page, for verification. Once verified we can put it back up, with an appropriate citation. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw this recent edit and thought it needed follow-up, too. I have obtained the article "The Discovery and Development of 2,4-D", Gale E. Peterson, Agricultural History, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Jul., 1967), pp. 243-254 and will use it as a source to verify, update, and/or correct the history section soon. ChemNerd (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Respectful Suggestion

I believe that it would be helpful if someone could add a paragraph to the article explaining exactly what the name '2,4-D' refers to. I am certain that for most if not all of the scholars who have contributed to this article, it is blindingly obvious what the two numbers and the letter mean, but for readers such as myself who have no chemistry background, it is a mystery. I can only guess that it must refer to the quantity of atoms of some kind that are in the chemical - perhaps it has 2 atoms of one type and 4 of another type?

I suspect that '2,4-D' is probably the most well-known chemical in the world that is commonly referred to by by lay people by using its chemical nomenclature. Heck, probably there are more people in the world who know that 2,4-D is a herbicide than there are people who know that H2O is the chemical name for water. Hence this particular article might be a good place to provide a paragraph that very briefly explains what is meant by the nomenclature, even though it is probably a Wikipedia style guideline that such a basic explanation of what a chemical name means should not normally be provided in an article that describes the chemical.

Respectfully submitted by a reader who never studied chemistry in high school... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.193.175 (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Why 2,4-D didn't get to have a cute name like every other industrial chemical beats me. I've never heard anybody call glyphosate N-phosphonylmethyl glycine in conversation...

The article begins with "2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)", so it's clear what the D stands for, even if the word is gibberish to the untrained eye. Breaking down the name...the far right (in the page picture) of the molecule is acetic acid (CH₃COOH). The left half is 2,4-dichlorophenol. "Phenoxy" means phenol, which is benzene with an OH. Benzene is the hexagonal bit. 2,4-dichloro means there are two chlorines, in the 2 and 4 positions. The 6 carbons in the benzene ring are numbered, with 1 being the carbon with the oxygen on it, and the counting done so the chlorines have the lowest numbers.

Pages with a little more structural information: Phenoxy herbicide, Indole-3-acetic acid, Auxin. I think the most important thing is that it's an analog of the plant hormone auxin, which is mentioned in the first paragraph. The structural similarity could be emphasized.

I looked but neither WP:CHEMMOS nor WP:CHEMNAME seem to give any advice about whether or not to explain the meaning of a systematic name that doesn't have a general name. Thoughts?

– monolemma t – 00:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it was marketed as 2,4-Dow at one point? File:2-4_Dow_weed_killer.jpg But it's pretty moot today. 2,4-D is a simple abbreviation for the full name of the compound. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I edited the image of the molecule to add carbon numbering. – monolemma t – 21:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if we want to number *all* articles, but I guess it is helpful in this instance. Would you do it for 2,4,5-T too? And could you make the numbers bigger? They're too small right now to be visible at a width of 150 or 200 pixels. Thanks. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I certainly don't think it's logical to number compounds that have a common name that doesn't include IUPAC numbers. I'll work on the number size and 2,4,5-T when I get a chance. – monolemma t – 22:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. – monolemma t – 23:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Reference author COI

References with an author conflict of interest may qualify as questionable sources: WP:QS.

It is not uncommon for safety checks of chemicals to be performed by the chemical company that manufactures the chemical. However, considering Wikipedia's policy on author COI, I think it's reasonable to neutrally state the author affiliation. The previous state of the paragraph, something along the lines of "This study was performed by Dow Chemical Company and therefore may be biased" is excessive, but simply stating who did the study seems to me an acceptable compromise. – monolemma t – 21:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

History

The history section makes some broad accusations without citations. Especially the second paragraph:

The new chemical's ability to kill weeds was entirely accidental and not the aim of the research in either country. Because of war-time defense security reasons as well as for international legal reasons, research of this sort was never done openly. Research, production and use of chemical warfare agents were illegal actions under the Geneva Protocol and many other international treaties signed by both the USA and the UK. This meant that a plausible cover story was needed to hide the actual nature of any chemical warfare research. For both the Allies and the Axis powers, the civilian label of agricultural was often used to conceal illegal and/or secret chemical warfare research.

There's a citation (incorrectly formatted) in the previous paragraph. It doesn't mention chemical warfare. --186.221.171.23 (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

sweeping edits removing material

User:Mark Marathon has removed lots of material in a combative, angry sounding editing spree (see his removal reasons). Not only were 2 out of 3 statements sourced, but nothing constructive was added. I agree 37 US manufacturers of 2,4D may be too much for this article but it serves an important point: to detect COI in publications used by many wikipedians on this page and the Enlist Duo- page.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Whether my edits "sound angry" to you really isn't of any importance. Accusing other editors of sounding angry isn't like achieve consensus. What is important is whether the material is appropriately sourced and notable enough for inclusion.

The referenced helath material that I removed did not, IMO, meet WP:MEDRS. You can read the guidelines in full via the link, but in a nutshell: individual papers based upon small trials should not be used as a source for medical information on Wikipedia. If you believe that any of the medical material I have removed does meet WP:MEDRS then by all means, discuss it.

The extensive lists I have removed simply because they aren't notable and have a huge US bias. Your justification that they should be included so they can be used to detect conflict of interest in references is quite clearly an attempt at WP:OR. If a source fails to meet WP:RS only then can it be rejected. When an independent source says a reference is unreliable, we can note that. What we can't do is use the fact that material is published by a manufacturer and conclude that makes the source unreliable. That is OR.

Do you disagree with any of this? Mark Marathon (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

you have an extensive blocklist.

You sound angry and not neutral.

You remove and havent added ANYTHING here.

On top of that you accuse me of WP:OR without any proof: you are too fast you do not fact check or read. The list was EPA referenced. And then you accused me of US bias! You could make a list of 2,4Dproducers for Australia or whatever if the US list bothers you.

You are not helpful. --Wuerzele (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well that's all very nice. But do you actually disagree with anything that I wrote above? Ad hominem attacks aren't going any way towards reaching consensus. Whether I have added anything is rather irrelevant. While editors have an obligation to remove material that is in violation of Wikipedia policies, there is no obligation to add anything. I rather think that removing material that is unreliable or non-notable is being helpful. Don't you? To further help you in deciding whether the lists belong belong in this article, I refer you to WP:NOTPLOT. Summary: long lists just confuse readers, so wherever possible summarise the material. In this case "37 organistaion in the US manufacture 2,4-D" conveys the same notable information as the list. I suggest that as an alternative. Mark Marathon (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

User: Mark Marathon I am responding to your last edit summary, which threatens and doesnt discuss. The sequence is edit revert discuss, and you are not sticking to it. I added to the existing 'impurities' section, which is an Achilles heel in the discussion about 2,4D. You elected to copy edit, moved it around rather arrogantly, without any reflection or discussion. I have twice indicated in my reversal of your move of this section to the health section, which you seem ( rather narrowly) focused on, why this belongs where it was before you started a deletion spree on this page, that well, actually resembles vandalism. And: Look who at who started teh discussion on this page, not you ! you've violated numerous WP rules here, you saw that I disagreed with your move, ignored WP:PRESERVE, and yet you did it again. Leave alone the fact that you blatantly ignored Wikipedia:Editing policy: Do not remove a large addition for a minor error. errors were minor, then fix it (or at least tag it for clean-up). I fixed it , I added hard to find citations. I hope you become reasonable and revert yourself. --Wuerzele (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You are off topic and not discussing the subject: your move of the impurities section. It is unreasonable. You are also here proving to be stubbhornly unhelpful. This is an observed fact, just like your block history and no personal attack.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well that's all very nice too, but you still haven't explained what, if anything, that I posted above you actually disagree with. I gave you my reasons for removing the material, with links to the appropriate Wikipedia policies which I believe support my deletions. Do you actually disagree with any of my reasons? If so, please discuss that with me. Because at this stage all I'm seeing is that I am "angry", "unreasonable" "stubborn", "unhelpful" with a "block history" and all sorts of other apparently irrelevant ad hominems. Now, they may all be be true, but it doesn't really help us reach consensus on these edits, does it? Mark Marathon (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Responding to your last edit summary in which you accuse me of "deleting twice" and order me to "take it to talk page" me deleting material? nothing further from the truth: you opt to "delete" teh impurities section in one step then insert it under "health "in another step ( rather than "move" in one step!). so how does one revert this? Right, by doing exactly what you do: revert step 2, then revert step 1. Only, why do you not call your own step deleting? --your comments make no sense. I must doubt your state of mind.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You can undo changes of this kind in a single step. Simply go to "View history". Select the current edit in the right hand column, the last edit that you are happy with in the left hand column, then select "Compare selected revisions". Click "Undo" on the top right hand side of the frame. I hope you found this helpful. Mark Marathon (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

you must be kidding: you were the one who did it in two steps!--Wuerzele (talk) 08:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not kidding. It's much faster and less error prone to move material in two steps. But you can undo the move much more easily in a single step. The original edit created an article that never existed before. But because the reversion is simply re-establishing an existing form, it can be done much more simply in a single step. But, hey, if you don;t want to take my advice, that's fine.Mark Marathon (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a 100% unproductive and personalized discussion and is not appropriate for WP. Please stop. Discussions on Talk need to be focused on content, not contributors. With respect to content, this section is too broad to be useful. Please open sections to discuss specific edits and sources, and whether they are justified under policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Dioxin impurities due to manufacturing process

It's not entirely clear why there is a subsection on dioxin in the manufacturing section. I had assumed this was of interest because of health reasons, but since another editor has persistently reverted edits to that effect, it seems I am wrong. However the article never makes it clear why the production of dioxins is during manufacture notable. At this stage the whole section seems detached for the rest of the article. A brief referenced line indicating notability seems in order.Mark Marathon (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm in favor of removing it due to lack of notability as it currently reads at least. None of the content addresses how this is notable at all (simply having an impurity isn't a cause for concern, it's and a dose and susbsequent health effects that matter). Plus, the first source says the contaminants were found only in certain production methods, yet this isn't expounded upon in the content at all, which can lead readers to believe this is a problem with current day production methods. The only part of the text that isn't controversial is, "Some preparations of 2,4-D are contaminated with dioxins due to the manufacturing process." However, that statement would need additional context and proper weighting whether it's going into it's own section or being added in somewhere else since this topic can easily go into WP:FRINGE territory. The second paragraph is based on a primary source, so there shouldn't be any argument against removing that content as currently presented. With that all in mind, I'm removing the Dioxin impurities section to clean the article up, and if it will be added back in some form in the future, let's reach a consensus here first on how that should look instead of just leaving it floating on the page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I will repeat : Dioxin contamination was in the article for a long time with no good sources. when I edited [adding a source here] suddenly the whole section gets deleted and then moved under health by Mark Marathon.

Dioxin impurities result from manufacturing and thus should be mentioned in that context.

Dioxin impurities have been proven in the notable source I referenced. Calling it lack of notability makes no sense.

I argue to revert Kingofaces43, since the first part of the section in diff above was status quo and you have to discuss your deletion. King, you may be an entomologist per your talk page but your toxicology knowledge does not pass muster, given your statement "it's and dose and susbsequent health effects that matter". It is also apparent that you don't know much about dioxin, and that you did not read the quoted source, which you call a primary source (why?). This would be the base of a meaningful discussion, which you say you want, instead of an aggressive removal action that speaks louder than your words. To put it into WP: Fringe is another attempt to censor the issue too. This behavior is unproductive and uncollegial. To Mark Marathon please read up on dioxins. --Wuerzele (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I already mentioned why I deleted the section Wuerzele, and those issues haven't been addressed yet. Also keep in mind we discuss content here at Wikipedia, not direct personal attacks at users as it serves no purpose here. We don't need additional unneeded drama here. I'm not sure how citing one of the central tenants of toxicology that it's dose the that matters is an issue. Either way, the issues with the second paragraph were the biggest because it was based on a single primary source. See WP:PRIMARY for more info. When it comes to scientific topics, we do not use sources like that because they're are typically unreliable. Findings of primary research get upturned all the time. That's why we use secondary scientific sources such as peer-reviewed literature reviews. That's pretty straightforward and shouldn't be controversial at all if we're following Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources.

Now after removing the content in the second paragraph, we're left with a single line saying, "Some preparations of 2,4-D are contaminated with dioxins due to the manufacturing process." The source on this was appropriate, but the issue was that a single line like this isn't notable enough to have it's own section, and I'm not too sure on if or how it should even be included in the general article. We don't indiscriminately list information here on Wikipedia; it needs to be notable. If you want to single out a single impurity in a production process (there are many), you need to demonstrate why it's notable. In the case of a chemical, that's going to mean that the presence of that chemical is going to be a cause for concern health-wise. That's why in order to include the first paragraph as a noteworthy piece of information, the question of why this is a concern needs to be addressed. The means citing what amounts were present and showing that those are a concern for health (i.e. toxicology). That also means indicating a bit more about the production method in question and indicating if that method is commonly used either then and now. This is all keeping WP:MEDRS and WP:NOR in mind. Without that, we cannot demonstrate whether the first paragraph is notable or not. That's why I deleted the section with the intent that it would be discussed on the talk page and worked up for something appropriate for the article if the information could be provided as I've indicated multiple times. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Kingofaces, lots of words, but you didnt answer my question:

why do you call this article a primary source ? |author1=Holt, Eva, Vetter, Walter, Symons, Robert, Stevenson, Gavin, Weber, Roland, Gaus, Caroline|title=ASSESSING PESTICIDES AS A SOURCE OF DIOXINS TO THE AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENT|journal=Organohalogen Compounds|date=2009|issue=71|pages=292-297|

BTW WP:MedRS doesnt apply here, this is about chemistry - you apparently still did not read the source I added, 2 d after deleting it.

if you make an edit without explanation and throw out WP policies without showing how they apply here, you really dont discuss anything. (I realize, that you are not versed about dioxin and I realize that are not versed in toxicology since you insist on the 19th century dose makes the poison, and will not discuss these with you)

Given the above I will reinsert the status quo, that we agree upon: the sentence with its ref that according to you is "okay" and was there before I added to it:"Some preparations of 2,4-D are contaminated with dioxins due to the manufacturing process." The section heading can be left out, my compromise.

if you reply, plse less words, more content.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Everything you've asked has already been answered (sometimes twice). To answer your questions:

1. That's because it is a primary source as it is directly describing research done by the scientists. Again, see WP:PRIMARY as there's absolutely no disputing that it's a primary source. Secondary articles are also peer-reviewed, but they have the sole purpose of summarizing relevant primary literature. Those are the kinds of sources we use for science content.

2. You need to make a toxicological claim (i.e. health) to present the notability of the impurity information. That's WP:MEDRS.

3. I've explained my edits multiple times in either edit summary or here.

4. I never said it was alright to re-add the content. I directly stated twice now why the second paragraph isn't appropriate at all with the current sourcing, and the first paragraph requires information on why it's notable. That's been made very clear in the multiple times I've explained why the content was removed, and what needs to be done here to include some of that information again. In the future, do not ignore what is being discussed on the talk page to make an edit. It's been rather clearly spelled what the issues are with the content, yet you went and re-added it without addressing those issues whatsoever. This is a form of edit warring when points on a talk page are either entirely ignored or misrepresenting what an editor has said.

In short, to include the first paragraph, more information from reliable scientific sources is needed on the background of the contamination to establish noteworthiness. The second paragraph cites a primary peer-reviewed study. We need a secondary source (i.e. review article) to make those claims.Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

ad 1) thanks for your answer /opinion.

ad 2)First, your tone continues to be off, King ("you need to..."- I am not your subordinate). what you call the "notability of the [subject of dioxin] impurity" was actually on the page, before Mark Marathon erased it with the lovely edit summary "No evidence this substance is associated with 2,4-D" here, which is of course incorrect.

Demanding a "toxicological claim" from me: Odd since you have shown you do not understand dioxin toxicology, and because notability of the problem is clearly established by the source, a tertiary, or call it quaternary source: not only the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organization. I will throw in an EPA reference on top of that, but only if you dont immediately hit the revert button. "we " You ? need a more recent one, that was my issue with the 25 y/o UNEP reference -

ad 3)No, you have not. Opining once is no discussion. Explaining your edits in edit summaries is also no discussion. So you've not DISCUSSED your edits here. YOu've opined that "None (!) of the content addresses how this is notable at all. and you declared that "a dose and susbsequent [sic] health effects matter". King, that can only be written in , if you dont immediately hit the revert button. but more problematic is that again you opine "that matters" unilaterally. for some people the fact that 2,4D is one of 76 pesticides listed by EPA in this millenium, nota bene, (unlike the other quarternary reference which is from 1989 and which you say is ok, but somehow isnt) that can be dioxin contaminated is enough to know. ( read the article I added , read it!) you can also put a flag up ((expand}}. this reversal business is totally inappropriate and looks like you are pushing a POV.

Opining and declaring aint discussing. But you must discuss your change of a status quo. Repeated from above: if you make an edit without explanation and throw out WP policies without showing how they apply here, you really dont discuss anything.

4. Yes, you ve never made a decree, that "re-adding content" (thats been there since 7 years) is ok by you. But You fail to recognize the reverse, that I merely preserved the status quo, and you said the sentence was ok . I repeat: it is you r o demonstrate whats non notable about the last and single sentence and its source, all that remains from a two paragraph section on dioxin impurities that has been slashed by you and Mark Marathon.

In short: if you do continuously remove the one sentence, I cannot add "more information from 'reliable scientific sources' to establish what you opine is noteworthiness. same is true for teh second "paragraph" where "We need a secondary source (i.e. review article) to make those claims" (Note: a fact is NOT a CLAIM and why plural ? ) .

how about you do your part read and add - which is what I did when I came in to this article.

+ leave the pluralis maiestatis out plse.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

As for my use of "you", I'm referring to you as someone who wants to have the text included. In order for you demonstrate the notability, then you would need to do so if you want to demonstrate that the text should be included. If you don't want to demonstrate it, then it's up to someone else, but I'm assuming that since you want the content in there, then you have a suggestion for content. Also "we" is as in us Wikipedia editors on this page. I speak in plural when I'm not only addressing you.

I've discussed multiple times here what the concerns are and how they can be addressed, so instead of beating around the bush, let's do so (as I've been suggesting all along). Per WP:BRD, discuss the proposed changes here first, and once we've reached a consensus, then someone can make the actual edits. Do you have anything in mind (what I've been asking all along)? As for status quo, it's a little different when multiple editors are involved (in this case two have reverted your recent edits). So far out of the three people involved, two are saying that there hasn't been consensus reached on a specific edit yet (none have really been proposed either). As far as consensus goes, we're learning towards deleting depending on Mark Marathon's reasoning behind his revert (delete the section or just maintaining the talk dialogue?). We're in the discussion part of the cycle, so that's what we should be doing. If you feel strongly about including the content, then include reliable sources here that demonstrate the notability so we can discuss. I laid out a framework for how notability can be established, so let us know what you have in mind.

Also as an afterthought, another benefit of removing the section can be from it being the subject of an edit war you were involved in recently with Mark Marathon. This can force encourage discussion here on content specifically since notability needs to be addressed now. BRD states, "A bold change during an edit war should be an adaptive edit to discourage further warring and not to escalate it; it should never be another revert." In this case, this can also be seen as an adaptive edit to refocus a largely stalled discussion previously, and tackle a more important issues about the overall section and it's notability (which should in turn lead into what content is available and reliable). The whole point is to improve the section by demonstrating its notability. If notability can't be demonstrated then there's no reason for including the section. Take this as an opportunity to start with a clean slate. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Wuerzele, I don't think that you understand what the problem is here. Nobody is disputing that dioxin is a byproduct produced during some 2,4-D manufacturing. This issue is whether this is notable. By that, we mean is it significant enough to to be ncluded in this article. I am sure that I can find refernces that hundreds of other substances are also produced as byproducts of some 2,3-D production, including chlorine gas, water and carbon dioixde. Do you think that the artcile choudl include a statment that water is produced as a byproduct of the manufactuirng process? If you don't htink this shoulbe included, then explain to us why you think that dioxins should be included. Explain to us why you htink this particular byproduct is more noteworthy than the dozens of others. This is what we mean by notability. At this stage I can't see any reason at all to mention dioxins. I tried to relocate this to the health section, but you insisted it idn;t belong there. So if dioxins are not notable for helath reasons, why exactly should they be included at all.Mark Marathon (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Safe at anticipated exposure

I've removed the words "safe at anticipated exposure" from the article. This wording is completely unhelpful in an encyclopaedia article. Absolutely everything in the world is dangerous at high enough doses, including table salt, air and water. The word safe, in common usage, means safe under normal conditions. IOW, safe at anticipated exposure. That is simply what safe means. While I'm sure we all agree that air or water can be deadly at high enough exposure levels, nobody would describe them as anything but safe. And common usage is what an encyclopaedia strives for. While "safe at anticipated exposure" is a widely used technical term with specific meaning it's not distinguishable from the everyday usage of "safe". To include the phrase in an encylopaedia article is so unhlepful as to stretch into the realm of weasel words and scare tactics. It seems like an attempt to put some sort of ambiguity onto the safety of the product that is not applied to any other substance.Mark Marathon (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see the cited references which immediately follow the language and 21 U.S.C. 346a(b)(2)(A)(ii) Safe has a specific meaning in this context in federal law. Decisions made by the EPA rely on that definition. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Please address questions of the toxicity or safety of salt, air, and water at those subjects. This encyclopedia strives for clear expression of technical or legal information in terms that someone who is not expert can understand. The information is not weasel words at all, rather the opposite, being a definite definition attributable to the specific authority binding on a federal agency making a determination of safety. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

As there was no reply the language "at anticipated exposure" has been put back in the article. The evidence is that 2,4-D is toxic but not at anticipated exposure to those who manufacture or apply it or to bystanders or the general public if directions are followed and appropriate protective gear used. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Toxicity

Proposal for a new Fertility subsection under Toxicity:—

Fertility

Long term reduction in semen quality has been shown in male farm workers who spray 2,4D , Xkit (talk) 05:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

With respect to "Semen quality in relation to biomarkers of pesticide exposure" the authors make this statement: "In this article, we follow common use and apply the term “pesticide” not only to insecticides but also to a variety of other agricultural chemicals, including herbicides, fungicides, and various other pest control substances [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 1997]." The main thrust of this article is not specific to 2,4-D but includes a large numbers of much more toxic chemicals. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

One study is cited: "More recently, a small study of herbicide sprayers in Argentina showed decreased sperm concentration and morphology related to high urinary levels of 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) metabolites (Lerda and Rizzi 1991). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1986284 There are obvious problems with this study on its face such as what is "high" and how did that situation arise? Would that result be relevant to appliers who took appropriate precautions? Acute toxicity is recognized, but the question is whether conditions develop when the product is used according to instructions. All I have is questions about working conditions for farm workers in Argentina. The second source is the same article at a different url. Neither source allows reading the entire article without making a substantial payment. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your comments, Fred Bauder but just fyi, two things: 1) per WP:MEDASSESS we don't act like peer-reviewers and critique any actual study- rather we look at the type of source; 2) the paywall aspect is not a valid objection - see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Choosing_sources. As Mark and I said, we shouldn't use this source for health-related content b/c it is a primary source. I do think it would be useful if WP had a guideline for toxicity-related content but right now we don't - we just have MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

If the study IS well designed and someone can verify that I think it could be included in the article in an appropriate way. However, such a significant finding should have been duplicated in additional or subsequent studies and included in reviews of research. This is true of all claims of serious harm from this chemical, see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

no. per WP:MEDRS we should not use sources that are WP:PRIMARY for health-related content. bad for many many reasons. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but this ain't gonna happen. The sources you have provided are primary sources, which are not acceptable for medical claims, per WP:MEDRS. Mark Marathon (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

more accurately, the scientific sources (PMID 12948887 and PMID 1986284) are not classified as reviews by pubmed or medline (you can see the medline abstract using the pulldown menu at the very top left by "display settings" and pubmed shows its classification under "MeSH Terms, Substances") so they are not secondary and for that reason, fail MEDRS. They are also very old -- 1991 (!) and 2003; if there is not a review discussing their findings 23 and 11 years later, respectively, you can be sure the results have not been accepted by the mainstream scientific community). There may be a review on it. to search pubmed for a review, you would put something like "2,4-D semen" in the pubmed search box, and in the column on the right you should see a list of filters on the left (sometimes it only appears after you do your iniital query). select review from "article types" and you will get a list of reviews. Jytdog (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Is PMC3483058 a good source, in your opinion? Xkit (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

that is would be a great source per MEDRS! (not so much my opinion, but rather what MEDRS says and means) it is a review in a journal on toxicology. the only thing better than that would be a critical review by a govt agency. However, the authors are from Dow and so you could object to it per WP:INDY. On the other hand, WP:MEDASSESS says "Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions". And peer review generally catches bad science. And publication in a journal separates this a step from Dow -- the base-case for failing INDY would something like a brochure directly put out by Dow or something published on their website. But I could see questioning and even excluding this on the basis of WP:INDY. by the way, much better to use PMIDs than PMC for several reasons which I can tell you if you want. this is PMID 22876750. now... just be careful to hew closely to what it says. i am looking forward to seeing what you do with it! Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC) (amending now that I am aware of authorship Jytdog (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC))

I figured as much. Your specific instructions led me to the bought-and-paid for research by the same Company who sells 2,4-D — Dow Chemical. Maybe this wasn't on purpose, so I asked you if this is a "good reference" and you emphatically answered that it was "great" and cited the MEDRS page that you edit.

The study that you led me to is a terrible resource for the obvious reason that there is a conflict of interest. The researches of that study work for Dow Chemical Company.

Dow produces the Enlist Weed Control System, and that includes Dow's Enlist Duo, Dow's proprietary mix of 2,4-D, Glyphosate, and who knows what else. Dow has a strong financial interest in producing research that says that the 2,4-D that they sell is safe.

I don't like to beat a dead horse but the conflict of interest problems with this page have already been brought up. This does not bode well for the editors who are using and propagating the use of bought-and-paid-for industry research.

Review of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) biomonitoring and epidemiology

Carol J. Burns 1 and Gerard M. H. Swaen 2
1) Department of Epidemiology, The Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI, USA and
2) Department of Epidemiology, Dow Benelux, B.V., Terneuzen, The Netherlands
Address for Correspondence: Carol J. Burns, PhD, MPH, The Dow Chemical Company

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xkit (talk • contribs) 21:58, 4 November 2014 ((UTC)

Sigh. Another conspiracy theorist who thinks the have found a gotcha. Look, Wikipedia has very clear policies regarding what is and is not a reliable source. Those policies are reached by a consensus of all editors, not by the editors who edit the pages about those policies. If you think that your preferred sources meet WP:MEDRS standards, then feel free to take it to the reliable sources notice board. There it will be discussed by all community members who are interested and an consensus on reliability will be reached. Similarly, if you feel that Burns et. al. is not a reliable source due to conflict of interest you can start the same process. There is no secret cabal that decides reliability of sources here. It is the whole Wikiepdia community, a community that the itself notes has a strong liberal, environmentalist bias. The idea that a source is going to be ruled RS or not-RS because of some pro-Dow conspiracy is frankly ludicrous. In short, if you have anything that you think has legs, put it up and let the community speak. If you don't, then please stop insinuating that other editors are engaging in underhanded practices. In fact, even if you do have anything of substance to present, still stop insinuating that other editors are engaging in underhanded practices. It is a clear breach of WP:GOODFAITH. Unless you think that a policy that mandates tolerance and an assumption of good faith is also some sort of plot implemented by Monsanto. Mark Marathon (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually I didn't notice the authorship, and xkit has a reasonable (but not ironclad) point that it fails WP:INDY. The personal attacks are completely unwelcome of course. It appears that there are no reviews that we can use, other than those provided by regulators. Jytdog (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree strongly, and based on past experience I think you will find that the Wikipedia community disagrees. We have this discussion every couple of months over at the reliable sources notice board, and the outcome is always the same. This is an article published in a credible, peer-reviewed journal. The affiliations of the authors do not enter into it. If policy were to say otherwise, then almost nothing could be included in Wikipedia, since almost everything published is published by someone who works for an organisation with a vested interest. By this standard, anything published by anyone affiliated with the IPCC, as an obvious example, would have to be rejected because they are clearly not independent. Anything published by anyone affiliated with a conservation movement, social justice group etc. would also have to be rejected. Any work published by a researcher with any IP associated with the subject of their work (ie 99% of them) would have to be rejected. And so ad absurdum. That is not what [WP:INDY]] says and it is certainly not the intent. The intent is clearly and solely to stop the usage of self-promotional material published by someone affiliated with the subject. It was never designed to prevent the inclusion of peer-reviewed works from highly qualified scientists in reputable journals because the researchers happen to work for an organisation whose existence depends on the subject they are writing about. As noted earlier, if this were the case anything associated with the IPCC would be deemed to fail WP:INDY. Let's not go down that route.Mark Marathon (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I definitely agree with the sentiment that once something is published in a peer-reviewed journal, author affiliation alone does not make the source unreliable. However, the vibe I get from Jytdog's post (and my own view as well) is that while such a source would have met the minimum requirements for reliability, we can say that a publication with an author with a close affiliation leading the study can be less reliable than one where a completely independent author did the study. You're describing affiliation with the subject that comes from expertise, while this source is more of a question of real world conflict of interest. In the real world, that's why companies provide funding to scientists to do research on their products. Peer-review gets tricky at best when you have affiliated authors with a potential COI, so having that extra layer does help establish a higher level of reliability. That's probably the best nuance to take on this source if it's going to be used. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

References from 2,4.org = primary sources= unacceptable on this page

I flagged reference 2 as a primary source, with "third party source needed":

"Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D Research Data". 24d.org (Dow AgroSciences, Nufarm Ltd. and Agro-Gor Corporation). 2010-07-15. 

Within 20 seconds of this edit (!!) Jytdog reverted the flag with a nonsensical, discrediting edit summary:

"you seem to be confusing the reference name with the reference itself. there is no in-line reference here."

Nothing could be further from the truth: The "Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D Research Data" is financed by Dow AgroSciences (2.4D developer), Nufarm Ltd. and Agro-Gor Corporation, publishers of the website 24d.org, which thus is a WP:primary source and in direct conflict of interest to a neutral depiction of the issue on wikipedia. The flagged reference is an inline reference - even if it wasnt, this would be no reason to mention and revert.

After many months of observing Jytdog defending biased work on industrial chemicals, and silencing critical editors, often in conjunction with Kingofaces, I cannot but suspect that this is yet another such attempt to discourage a concerned/cxritical editor and keep industry=funded (biased) sources in WP article.

In the meanwhile Jytdog added 2 references, removed the flag, but did not delete the Dow source.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

yes i was wrong on the first revert. sorry about that. i added additional, very independent refs and modified the statements according to them. unclear to me what you are complaining about now. Jytdog (talk) 05:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

thought more about it and took it out. we don't need it. remember this! Jytdog (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

content and sourcing in manufacturing impurities section

with regard to this dif in the section on manufacturing impurities, in which the phrase "as well as monochlorophenol, and other polychlorophenols and their acids" was claimed to be not in the source...

the source says (bolding added):

Table 2. Typical levels of 2,4-D and major impurities in technical 2,4-Da

------------------------------------------------------

Component  % range

------------------------------------------------------

2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 94 - 99

2,6-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 1.5 - 0.5

2-monochlorophenoxyacetic acid 0.5 - 0.1

4-monochlorophenoxyacetic acid 0.8 - 0.2

bis(2,4-dichlorophenoxy) acetic acid 2.0 - 0.1

phenoxyacetic acid trace - 0.2

2,4-dichlorophenol 0.6 - 0.1

2,6-dichlorophenol 0.048 - 0.001

2,4,6-trichlorophenol 0.14 - 0.001

2-chlorophenol 0.04 - 0.0004

4-chlorophenol 0.005 - 0.0004

water 0.8 - 0.1

The bolded impurities are monochlorophenols.

As the the prior change had actually listed individual polychlorophenols, I removed "polychlorophenol" from the article. the ref is now at the end of the sentence and it covers everything discussed there. Jytdog (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog Thank you for pointing this out and moving teh ref to teh end.

this diff however, did not remove anything but completed a ref. i dont know why you took polyphenols out, that makes no sense to me, since you know they are sourced so leave them in.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

your edit added "di-, tri-, and tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin isomers", moved the ref to occur before the last two items, and tagged the last two items in the list as follows: " as well as monochlorophenol, and other polychlorophenols and their acids.{{failed verification}}". my remarks above address the two things that you said failed verification, and my first edit moved them back to preceding the ref and removed the tag you placed, as I described above. then i realized your edit that "increased precision" (per your edit note), adding "di-, tri-, and tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin isomers" was redundant with "and other polychlorophenols and their acids" so i removed that phrase. Again, this is what i said above. so i don't understand your question. Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I also don't understand why you would now say "and other polychlorophenols and their acids" are in the ref, when you earlier said they failed verification. confusing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by jytdog (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 13 April 2015

Reversion of update

Wuerzele in the flurry of stupid edit warring over a/an by others today, you did a revert of an edit I made, where i brought a section up to date from 2010ish when things were still in flux, to today, when things are through the regulatory period and are more well defined. i have no idea why you put back outdated information. nor why you restored the bizarre english "In 2010 Dow published to have created".... please explain. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

take back your incivility and I will reply.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

fine ii'll just restore proper english. (you were not part of the stupid edit warring over a/an were you? Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Sarcasm wont help. You refuse to strike out yourWP:UNCIVIL and completely unfair mudslinging accusations? This is no discussion. By reverting you are clearly editwarring and not discussing, disrespecting the ground rules.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

i don't know what you are so upset about. what are you so upset about? Jytdog (talk) 04:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Wuerzele please respond so that we can discuss the content. Jytdog (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I dont respond to WP:BAIT. if you want to "discuss" you need to listen, dog. (take back your incivility and I will reply).--Wuerzele (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

if you will not discuss content, then your revert cannot stand. If you revert again, I will bring you to 3RR, and you will have no leg since you are not only refusing to discuss the content, you are refusing to discuss why you are refusing. I am putting an edit war warning on your user page. I suggest you provide your reasons before reverting again. Jytdog (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Wuerzele, I'm not seeing anything uncivil directed at you. You weren't involved in the a/an edits from what I can see. Jytdog just appears to be referencing others and that your edit happened in that same time period is all. If Jytdog was calling you stupid, that would be uncivil, but it's pretty clear that's not the case. I agree that the a/an stuff was silly, but that doesn't really have any bearing on the particular edit being discussed or towards you. The question is clarifying what your concerns were in the cited diff you made. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:30, 16 April 2015‎

(edit conflict) here to help? Sure, king, no, of course you cannot see anything uncivil done by your brother-in-arms: "Jytdog just appears to be referencing others" and "you agree (with me?) that the "a/an stuff" was silly", and by the vague stuff we mean, oh, yes the "stupid edit warring", which dog brush-painted me with, stupidly, just to see if it would stick, but which I obviously have nothing to do with, strange isnt it? and finally you conclude that "that doesn't really have any bearing on the particular edit being discussed". Yes, exacto! so tell me: why did your brother bring it up? You know him. And look, I also dont understand, the dog who loves striking out "stuff" as you know, paragraphs and paragraphs and paragraphs at David Tornheim's page, he hasn't struck this little teentsy stuff up there, that as you said correctly, "has no bearing on the edit to be discussed. Why doesnt he? I replied (yes, king I did! 20 min later, aye!) and asked him right away to strike it out, knowing how much he loves this, but he is either deaf on that ear, or he thinks that this little stuff has bearing. do you know?

so, where have you been ? I expected you yesterday! you had to turn up, as every single time when dog doesnt get anywhere, while I stay detached or resist the WP:bait. No, no, your presence here is not suspicious of WP:GANG, unless Formerly98 turns up to the party -:)

King, say, why do use "silly" to downplay dog's "stupid" error? Because, right, I was not part of any "a/an flurry" and not part of any "editwarring". That's a fact. And as far as the accusation that I "restored bizarre english": show me what's bizarre. Nothing, another fact. Looks a lot like mudslinging to me, to see what sticks. (Too funny, i have to think of atsmes deleted duck essay User talk:Atsme/sandboxCOIduckery, that i could never read though: do ducks really do that, mudslinging?, or don't they? haha)

lastly looking at the outcome, king , what counts, for the reader: your party's edit is still there, its all there, in the article! isnt that uber-funny, like a storm in the teacup? you must have seen that I merely preserved. I preserved another party's sourced content, which dog had deleted (not my own). that's honorable, you ll have to agree, history of regulation. history! king, you of all wikipedians should know. plus (!) consider that I improved the stuff that dog wishy-washy added, including the so-so ref, you know, that Dow source. now, what do you say? didnt i throw the dog a bone there? isnt that npov of me? am i your brother now, or what? will i be knight wuerzele amongst you guys?

So, let me come to an end here, you guys havent at all discussed anything about the edit you want to see deleted, but i, i spent hours typing and spilled my heart out here! tell me just one thing: why the bad faith, the WP:OWN behavior on every pesticide article I edit, your slighting of me and others who disagree, and fighting and mudslinging as established in detail in this case? Looking at this small paragraph, it's plain to see: it's dog who refuses to act in good faith (peeing on my leg and biting- he even admitted this saying: "you will have no leg" ) its dog who doesnt want to discuss, he should, by the rules of WP:BR, but he doesnt. Instead, dog mixed incorrect information in the very first sentence, treating me a bit like a dog, i must say, lacing the WP:BAIT, but I smelled the rat, and his mud slinging didnt harm me. I had my raincoat and rubber boots on! Dog didnt like that, got sarcastic with a nonsequitur as if playing in a Western: "fine i'll just restore proper english". at the same he was a muggeseggele uncertain of his judgement, as so often is the case, because of his hyperactive and ubiquitous edits, mind you, he watches, shepherds everything from Atrazine to Zanax, not just pesticides like you! after peeing (unsuccessfully) on my talk page, he turned the heat up, and threatened with ANI and - can you believe it ? reverted AGAIN! and that's when you came down from out of the clouds. king do me a favor, make him listen to you, because risks have consequences, his negative campaigning when exposed at ANI may decrease voter turnout for his COI battle .--Wuerzele (talk) 08:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Wuerzele i just realized what you have been having a cow about.

• please read what I wrote again: " in the flurry of stupid edit warring over a/an by others today, you did a revert of an edit I made..."
  • repeating: "stupid edit warring over a/an by others"
• please look at the article history -when you reverted me, two other editors were edit warring over "a herbicide" vs "an herbicide".
• you appear to have been thinking this whole time that "stupid edit warring" was about you. it was not.
• please explain why you reverted me already. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog i long realized what you have been having a cow about.

• please read what I wrote again: "you are mudslinging". you suggest that in a flurry of edits (that have nothing to do with me) about "silly edit warring" (that has nothing to do with me) and claim I made a revert that replaces outdated (=negative) info in bizarre =discrediting) English.
  • repeating: "take back your incivility and I reply"
• plse look at the page history: you reverted me the same minute you wrote the sarcastic remark on the talk page, above "fine ii'll just restore proper english." without awaiting a response. That's called WP:editwarring.
• you appear to have been thinking this whole time, that mudslinging and sarcasm count as discussion.
• please explain why you deleted sourced content here with a misleading edit summary saying "add USDA". Explain why did you not respond to me when I pointed this out "jytdog you may add, but not delete what you dont like" and why you wholesale reverted my multistep and explained restoration. plse discuss why you want the paragraph so desperately to be deleted, why you are so upset as if you WP:OWN the page. Please explain why you dont thank me for constructively amending your less than careful edit here "inserted addition by jytdog minus spelling mistake + full ref+ flag" and here "reinserted reverted claim in, but in chronological order" and here "replace ref which referred/was based on Wired". Explain why cant you apologize for WP:bite. --Wuerzele (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Wuerzele, please take whatever beef you have about behavior to a user talk page or appropriate forums. Article talk pages are not the place for this and you aren't making much coherent sense with respect to discussing content the way you are currently approaching this. You were approached civilly in this section and have blown it widely out of context, not to mention that I had no horse in this race coming in and you went after me right away. Time to drop the stick or at least bring it somewhere else.

Either way, you were asked about reasons for reinserting content that was labeled outdated by Jytdog and some prose (i.e. published to have created). To get back on track, what was your thinking behind those pieces of content? This is your chance to expound on what you're thinking about specific content, which is the reason why we're all here. Do you think those specific pieces of content should remain as is? That's the general vibe I get from what you've indicated so far, so I would like to know your reasoning behind that as well. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Reversion at 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic_acid

Could you explain why did you do this [2]? As I explained in the summary, I removed duplicate information. The sentences I removed were duplicated word by word. Fjsalguero (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for you reply Fjsalguero. I do not see a word for word dupication , instead i see removal of the following sourced information:

In October 2014 the US EPA registered Dow's "Enlist Duo" maize, which is genetically modified to be resistant to both glyphosate and 2,4-D, in six states. The genetic modification providing resistance to 2,4-D is insertiion of a bacterial aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase gene, aad1. hope this helps--Wuerzele (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Then, tell me what is this:

"In 2010 Dow published it had created soybeans resistant to 2,4-D by inserting of a bacterial aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase gene.[9] Using a combination of the choline salt of 2,4-D and glyphosate in the Enlist Weed Control System on 2,4-D and glyphosate resistant transgenic crops, Dow intended it to be used as an alternative to Roundup Ready crops due to the increasing prevalence of glyphosate resistant weeds. In 2012, Department of Agriculture approval was pending for a 2,4-D resistant corn.[10] In October 2014 the US EPA registered Dow's "Enlist Duo" maize, which is genetically modified to be resistant to both glyphosate and 2,4-D, in six states.[11][12] The genetic modification providing resistance to 2,4-D is insertiion of a bacterial aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase gene, aad1.[11][13]

The USDA approved maize and soybeans with the mutation in September 2014.[14]

In October 2014, the US EPA registered Dow's "Enlist Duo" maize.[12] Enlist maize is genetically modified to be resistant to both glyphosate and 2,4-D, in six states.[11] The genetic modification providing resistance to 2,4-D is insertion of a bacterial aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase gene, aad1.[11][15][page needed]"

References

--Fjsalguero (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, i just worked this over and fixed it. the description of the herbicide (Enlist Duo = 2,4-D choline, glyphosate, and anti-drift agent ("Colex-D" whatever that is)) and its approval had gotten all tangled up with description of the GM crops and their approval. Separated and clarified now. Hopefully this will stick. i also moved the GM crops description to the bottom... i think its location in the middle of things, was part of the problem. here is the dif showing the article before and after my edits. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

edit today

about this -- the content about the regulatory approval of the herbicide is already in the article, under the "regulatory" section... the content added in the GM crops section about regulatory approval of the herbicide is a repetition. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

true. If struck, the section ´´genetically modified crops´´ is only one sentence. If it gets filled up I am OK with that, but not as it is. the article has too many sections already.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

2,4D and male fertility

Jytdog reverted Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH)'s addition of 2,4D negatively affecting male fertility, stating fails WP:MEDRS and leaving a welcome to WP:MEDRS template on her talk page. mind you , she's made lots of edits on medical sites.... I reverted the revert, because it is typical Jytdog's knee-jerk tendentious editing on agrobusiness articles, where he defends the industry. rather than discussing with the lady from NIOSH or finding a source that supports the sentence he kicks ass, citing policy. He reverted my revert within minutes.

The literature of 2,4D and fertility is mainly on animal experiments, less human data. There are 3 studies on human sperm quality and 2,4D.

• Shanna H Swan,et alSemen quality in relation to biomarkers of pesticide exposure. Environ Health Perspect. 2003,
• Arbuckle TE, et al. 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid residues in semen of Ontario farmers. Reprod Toxicol. 1999;13:421–429. "50% of the semen samples had detectable levels of 2, 4-D"
• Lerda D, Rizzi R. Study of reproductive function in persons occupationally exposed to 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) Mutat Res. 1991;262:47–50. "Significant levels of asthenospermia, necrospermia and teratospermia were found in exposed workers compared with unexposed controls."

The studies are included in the only "review" of 2,4 D and human health, which would pass muster by the wiki MED gang, the ones that so often use the (preposterous) pluralis maiestatis, (which to my knowledge no other wikiproject uses), as in JYTDogs edit summary. It is

• Burns CJ, Swaen, GM Review of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) biomonitoring and epidemiology. .Crit Rev Toxicol. 2012 Oct;42(9):768-86.

These authors are Dow employees. Their "review" casts all studies finding any negative health effect aside, so systematically, that it must raise eyebrows. This review is currently not and should not be included here, because of its Dow bias and because it misrepresents the literature. One possible representation might be to summarize and cite the 3 studies and juxtapose the statements in the Dow piece to show how industry tears the studies up. But that would of course be against the knee-jerk rule of MEDRS, which disallows any stray critical thinking. --Wuerzele (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, first off you need to be civil. You can't cast aspersions on other editors. You need to assume good faith. "Typical Jytdog's knee-jerk tendentious editing on agrobusiness articles" is not acceptable. If you believe that Jytdog is engaging in vexatious editing or otherwise violating Wikipedia policy then you can either report him or you can inform him of the policy that you believe he is violating. Slinging insults around is not conducive to constructive dialog or reaching consensus.

Secondly, there is a clear policy which says that we do not and can not use primary sources for medical claims. I can't see any room for doubt that all the abovementioned sources, except Burns & Swaen, are primary sources. Therefore they cannot be used as a basis for medical claims. We can't use them to juxtapose against acceptable sources any more than we could "juxtapose" a claim from a faith healer against medical reviews on the effectiveness of penicillin.

Thirdly, WP:MEDRS is not designed to stifle critical thinking. Wikipedia isn't intended as a forum for critical thinking. That is why we have a policy against synthesis and a policy of verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia isn't intended to be a forum for what editors think. It is intended solely as a repository of reliable published information on different subjects. WP:MEDRS exists because individual scientific studies are not very reliable. At the standard 5% level of significance, we know that the conclusions of 1 in 20 papers will be wrong. Add to that the problems of erroneous methodology, fraud etc. and the rate is actually much higher. Compounding that, scientific journal articles are written for an audience with a high degree of scientific literacy. Most editors lack the ability to understand the statistics, experimental limitations, state of knowledge etc. to correctly evaluate most papers. That is why we rely instead on secondary sources which look at whether the results of individual studies have been replicated sufficiently to allow a meaningful general conclusion.

Finally, Burns & Swaen is a valid secondary source. It is a review of the published literature. The affiliations of the authors are not in any way relevant to the inclusion of the findings in a Wikipedia article. "Critical reviews in toxicology" is a RS, and the editors and reviewers of "Critical reviews in toxicology" found the Burns & Swaen paper acceptable for publication. That is all that is needed for it to be included. If you can find another MEDRS source which states that Burns' & Swaen's affiliations with Dow must raise eyebrows, then it can and should be included. If that is just your opinion, then it can't be included and isn't a valid reason for rejecting material sourced to MEDRS.Mark Marathon (talk)

(edit conflict) @Wuerzele and Jytdog: Hi, and thanks for pinging me. I don't want to get involved in any dispute, but I have some insight that may be helpful. The paper I cited, DDT exposure, work in agriculture, and time to pregnancy among farmworkers in California, has a review of literature on pesticides and fertility at the beginning. Since I looked and didn't find the review article you did in pubmed, I figured that citing a review included in a primary source would be better than nothing, which is what I did. The relevant sentence is not part of the primary study at all. From a search through Google Books and a bunch of databases I've found that the medical consensus seems to be that 2,4-D exposure negatively affects male fertility. NIOSH published an official document in 1996 that says the same thing and specifies that 2,4-D exposure causes abnormal sperm shape. Here is a list of sources, all but the last meet MEDRS (the last one is included because you missed it as a primary source):

• The Effects of Workplace Hazards on Male Reproductive Health (NIOSH) (originally from 1996 but updated/verified in June 2014 - I would argue this meets MEDRS as it is a "statement... from [a] reputable major medical and scientific body")
• Male Reproductive Dysfunction: Pathophysiology and Treatment, p. 107
• Reproductive and Developmental Toxicology, p. 950
• 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (EPA)
• Andrology for the Clinician, p. 351
• Biomarker correlations of urinary 2,4-D levels in foresters: genomic instability and endocrine disruption.

I hope you find this helpful. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Citing reviews for occupational risks is great, thanks. I've used the CDC/NIOSH source and added content about this. Thanks for providing better sources. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

removing the term ecotoxicity, moving data and source

a trio of editors (2 with well known pro agrobusiness bias) continue to erode the neutrality of this article, in what appears to be white-washing:

• the term ecotoxicity was deleted
• an emergency room phycician equated ecotoxicity with the term "health effects" in his edit summary, which is incorrect besides being a biology question outside his competence, stated interest/ anthropocentric expertise.
• The single sentence about ecotoxicity of 2,4D was "moved" (really: sequestered) to the bottom of the section near invisibility under a redundant paragraph of usage instructions (which doesnt exist for any other pesticide).
• making a single sentence a subdivision is not reommended per WP:MOS.

The editor equating ecotoxicity with "health effect" makes an example of inefficient section proliferation above, yet cites efficiency in other places renamed antibiotic resistance into antimicrobial resistance deleting the latter, ignorant about the microbiological distinction, while refusing discussion. I cannot see any good in these edits, which IMO follow a political agenda. I restored the version.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You are quite right. Ecotoxity seems to naturally fall under environmental behaviour.Mark Marathon (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring the various WP:TPG violations above, the edit warring was over the term ecotoxicity, which two editors deemed unnecessary because the content at the time was focusing on health effects, not so much overall ecotoxicity. If we combined the health effects and environmental behavior sections, then we'd be in a position to call the section ecotoxicity, but that would lose focus on the two main areas currently being outlined. The current layout concisely focuses in on what will interest the reader where they know what they will be reading about right away. Ecotoxicity becomes of a bit of a jargon term in that context. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Am happy with its move to the "environmental behavior" section. And believe we should keep the two sections separated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Applications

I was hoping to do a cleanup on this article section by section, but due to resistance from certain persons it appears that I am going to have to go through it sentence by sentence and citation by citation. In the first section, it leaps into detail without giving a summary of what 2,4-D is actually used for, which is where I would have started, and is what I tried to do before I was reverted, twice. The first reference in the section leads to Aluminum distearate, not 2,4-D. You can get to 2,4-D from there using a search box, but then it doesn't tell you much about it. The second reference is a dead link. The third link leads to a search page, so you have to type 2,4-D into the search box, and then it does a Google search which anybody could do without needing the article. These references should lead directly to 2,4-D without the users having to do the search for themselves. The fourth citation leads to some organization called flora.org, which purports to tell you which Canadian cities have banned 2,4-D, but I checked some of them and the cities haven't in fact banned 2,4-D as such, so the information is garbage. It looks like nobody actually read these references before putting them into the article. (And you wonder why I'm getting snarky about this...) RockyMtnGuy (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)