Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:12, 8 October 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chemicals High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine: Toxicology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Toxicology task force (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment Mid‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Text and/or other creative content from 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid was copied or moved into Herbicide with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

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)

Disputed

Numerous factual inaccuracies, cherry picking, and a slough of red herrings

I came upon this article because I wanted to check the facts on the herbicide before I used it to kill the dandelions on my lawn. Since I often edit Wiki articles and am a stickler for balance and accuracy in articles, I was horrified by what I saw. I got a chemistry degree in my youth, and later designed a hazardous waste management system for the oil industry (I also got a computer science degree), so I feel qualified to criticize.

2,4-D is a possible carcinogen per WHO... What the WHO actually said per the reference in the body was:

The herbicide 2,4-D was classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on inadequate evidence in humans and limited evidence in experimental animals.... However, epidemiological studies did not find strong or consistent increases in risk of NHL or other cancers in relation to 2,4-D exposure.

and highly toxic to fish and other aquatic life. What the EPA really said was:

2,4-D generally has moderate toxicity to birds and mammals, is slightly toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates, and is practically nontoxic to honeybees.

• The ester forms of 2,4-D can be highly toxic to fish and other aquatic life.
• Carefully follow label directions to avoid harmful effects.

2,4-D was one of the ingredients in Agent Orange, the herbicide widely used during the Vietnam War.... According to the EPA:

2,4-D is not Agent Orange.

Agent Orange was a mixture of two different herbicides 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D (as well as kerosene and diesel fuel).

• 2,4,5-T contained high levels of dioxin, a contaminant, found to cause cancer and other health problems in people.
• 2,4-D does not contain detectable levels of dioxin.
• We canceled all uses of 2,4,5-T in 1985 and no longer allow its use in the United States.

There are a lot of red herrings and cherry picking of reference material in this article (see Misplaced Pages guidelines), so I detect a definite political agenda at work, especially with the allusion to the Vietnam War, which ended 40 years ago and is irrelevant and immaterial, as the lawyers say. I am beginning to come around to the opinion of Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace and author of "Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout" when he said:

To a large extent the environmental movement was hijacked by political and social activists who learned to use green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anticapitalism and antiglobalism than with science or ecology.

I get the impression, based on some comments about DOW employees here, that having worked and consulted for giant multinational oil companies (designing systems to track and dispose of hazardous waste without damaging the environment), that some of the anticapitalism and antiglobalism activists will consider me to be the Antichrist. Note that I have never worked for DOW, only for companies that were sued by DOW and lost. One of my brothers-in-law used to work for DOW, doing safety management, but they pensioned him off early and he's now a university professor. However, I'm going to start cleaning up this article when I get time.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You comment on the content "2,4-D was one of the ingredients in Agent Orange, the herbicide widely used during the Vietnam War." That content is accurate, and i think it's very relevant to an article about this chemical, and i would ask you in all seriousness not to delete that content. If i were a novice reader, i would want to know that when i came to this article. It's true, and it's crucial part of the history of this chemical. However, it may be good for the article to explain that the more toxic (to humans) component of Agent Orange was 2,4,5-T, which carried with it a by-product, dioxin.

When i check the Lancet source for the WHO classification, i find the report to end with the sentence "In considering all the relevant scientific data, the Working Group classified 2,4-D as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B)." That agrees with the content in the article that you have an issue with. If you want to talk about cherry-picking, it seems you've cherry-picked a quote from that article. Their conclusion was to classify the chemical as a possible human carcinogen, which is what this article reports.

Lastly, it appears you're right about the effects on aquatic life. In that case, I suggest modifying the article so that it points out that the ester form is highly toxic to aquatic life, and not 2,4-D in general. The ester form of 2,4-D is also covered by this article.

So, out of three points you made, i see one error in the article, which is the need to specify which form of the chemical is highly toxic to aquatic life. I'm concerned about your being "horrified" by what you see as inaccuracies in the article, and your listing of your credentials to evaluate the "truth" about this chemical. I have credentials as well, but i don't give them on Misplaced Pages, and it's not up to us as editors to interpret reality as experts, as we're assumed to not be experts but instead we need to use reliable sources to support content if it's challenged. Those reliable sources provide the expertise, and we are evaluators and gatherers of knowledge from these sources. I'd suggest being careful to not push an agenda in the article. Perhaps you're concerned that you think that too much negative-sounding content is in the article? It's not like the three points you touched above are actually incorrect (except the point about the ester form needing to be specified) but perhaps you think that the article shouldn't sound so negative? If so, then that could be fair topic for discussion. But if content is accurate then it can't be removed for inaccuracy. SageRad (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, i saw your edit which inserted various citation needed tags, and then i added proper sourcing for the claim that 2,4-D is one ingredient in Agent Orange, corrected the claim about high toxicity to specify some ester forms, and sourced the WHO classification of 2,4-D to The Lancet Oncology. SageRad (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, 2,4-D was one of the ingredients in Agent Orange, but the other was 2,4,5-T, and it was the one responsible for the toxicity of the stuff since it was contaminated with dioxins, which are seriously toxic. 2,4-D had nothing to do with it, and thus its presence in the compound is irrelevant and immaterial. It had nothing to do with the compound's toxicity. Besides that, the Vietnam War was over 40 years ago and the vast majority of combatants were killed by bullets, bombs, and napalm. Defective defoliants were the least of their worries when they were being carpet-bombed by B-42's. It falls into the "Other" category of things they could die of. Why bother even mentioning it.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That is how the article currently reads. It clearly explains that 2,4-D was not the ingredient with the most serious effects on human health. On the other hand, i think its inclusion in Agent Orange is still a significant part of the history of this chemical and needs to be in the article. It's important enough to be included in the NPIC fact sheet. As for your "why bother" or "who cares" sentiment, i care, for one. And i know a person who is currently dying of cancer probably caused by his exposure to Agent Orange in the 60s when he was a child. He was adopted from Vietnam when he was orphaned, and now he has nasal cancer, likely a result of exposure. So i care for that reason alone, and others also do care. We are collaboratively working on these articles. SageRad (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You need to look up the Misplaced Pages articles on Cherry picking (fallacy) and Red herring (fallacy). They are both logical fallacies, and thus not legitimate debating techniques. There are a lot of both of them in this article. The citations do not support the conclusions and thus it is heavily biased, unscientific, and not encyclopedic. I'm challenging the article on those grounds.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Re "You need to..." RockyMtnGuy your tone is uncalled for.

What if someone told you "You need to look up the Misplaced Pages articles on sourcing the lede"? How does that feel? Look up wikipedian.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I know what cherry picking means, and your opinion about what is cherry picking may be different from another person's. It's a concept that is judged relatively by point of view, and i can sense that you have a certain kind of point of view that is different from mine. The citations discussed here do seem to support the conclusions, though. I think what you're getting at is that you think the article is written in a way with an agenda to demonize 2,4-D and you'd like it to look more positive in regard to the impression that it gives about the chemical. Is that a correct sense? SageRad (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC) We have room for completeness here. SageRad (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Nobody likes to be told to "look up" something, but I don't see the problem with RockyMtnGuy's tone. As for the Lead, it's supposed to summarize the article. This one doesn't, it's more like a collection of the most negative content in the article, placed in as conspicuous a location as possible. I don't know how, why, or when that happened, or by whom, but it did, and should be fixed so it's more representative of the body. Geogene (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Geogene your first time appearance here, as in several other instances (Talk:P. Robinson Fur Cutting Company, P. Robinson Fur Cutting Company, Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and Housatonic River) looks like WP:hounding of SageRad and myself. Because you are not contributing anything to the article, please keep your comments of this page. --Wuerzele (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Damn...this is why I normally stay away from environmental science articles. Happy editing. Geogene (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind Geogene's comment. This is also my first edit to this page, i believe. I just happened to be reading this page yesterday when RockyMtnGuy made his edit. I do think the lede could use editorial attention. My issue here with RockyMtnGuy's edits were that he's trying to do so by challenging sourcing, and yet these points are well sourced now. (We did make the one technical correction, and that is good progress.) If we wish to discuss the lede editorially, then let's do so explicitly, instead of using sourcing as a proxy for that discussion as RockyMtnGuy was doing. In fact, i just removed the last "citation needed" tag there, to bring the editorial discussion to this talk page instead of using those tags as proxy for expressing concerns. The content was sourced in the body of the article.

I happen to think the lede is fairly good, but that perhaps the WHO report and aquatic toxicity of some esters is out of place there. I think the Agent Orange mention is good, as that's a big part of the historical significance of this chemical, but then if it must carry the disclaimer afterward in another sentence then it becomes gangly for the lede. I think that the chemical's use in a GMO HT seed and chemical combo technology is very significant and does belong in the lede. I don't buy the argument RockyMtnGuy put in the "citation needed" tag (which was "this is a red herring to use the loaded words genetically modified"). The use of 2,4-D in a new class of herbicide-tolerant crop combo is *not* a red herring. It's very significant, and the most important recent event in the history of this chemical. And "genetically modified is *not* a loaded word. It's a common factual term for a technological process. If it scares some people then it's because some people are scared of it. We can also mention spiders in an article even though some people are scared of spiders. It's not there to scare people. It's just fact and significant regarding the chemical 2,4-D in human society. SageRad (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class chemicals articles
• High-importance chemicals articles
• C-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• C-Class toxicology articles
• High-importance toxicology articles
• Toxicology task force articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• C-Class Environment articles
• Mid-importance Environment articles