Talk:Atrazine

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 October 2020 and 16 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LEGoldberg.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Syngenta and Hayes
==POV IP editor== We have a recurring WP:NPOV problem which I've reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atrazine&diff=1037813443&oldid=1037725682 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atrazine&diff=1029045726&oldid=1029043724 Invasive Spices (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

This is regarding the changes I made to the article atrazine, that was reverted by you. First off, I do apologies for causing any trouble and this time I won't do any editing before obtaining your permission. The research conducted by tyrone hayes has not been replicated. Here you can see EPA's statement for yourself,. As stated by EPA "I note that Dr. Hayes claims not only that his laboratory has repeated his findings many times in experiments with thousands of frogs, but that other scientists have also replicated his results. EPA, however, has never seen either the results from any independent investigator published in peer-reviewed scientific journals or the raw data from Dr. Hayes’ additional experiments that confirm Dr. Hayes’ conclusions."

He didn't even show his raw data. A research needs to be replicated and the data must be seen before it is considered a scientific fact.

Also let me just make it clear I'm not saying Atrazine is safe and neither I'm defending/supporting the company Syngenta. Atrazine has multiple non-carcinogenic harms. Pesticides are not only are a health hazard to human and animals, but also detrimental to the environment. The EPA continues to monitering atrazine in drinking water and other exposure means to safe levels and has stated that "If at any time EPA determines there are urgent human or environmental risks from atrazine exposure that require prompt attention, we will take appropriate regulatory action, regardless of the status of the registration review process".

Also as I mentioned before one should always be skeptical/doubtful of research coming from a company/industry that is set to benefit from said research(as seen from the tobacco and fossil fuel industry/lobby). So even I would doubt a research coming from Syngenta. But it wasn't Syngenta, it was the EPA who designed and inspected the tests to confirm HAYES' findings, but they were unable to. Even independent japanese researchers and the APVMA, were unable to replicate his study(as stated in the article). So it would go against WP:FRINGE to promote Haye's research which hasn't been replicated.

Also the first time I made that edit I do realise that I had violated WP:NPOV and I'm sorry for that, but the second time I ensured I followed WP:NPOV. Also my point of view has changed from the first time.

So I would like to discuss this issue with you and come up with an amicable solution instead of directly editing. 2409:4042:2E14:861B:D4F8:8903:C1C6:8A1D (talk) 06:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Again I apologies for causing any trouble and as I said earlier I promise I won't make any edits before I obtain your rationale/permission 2409:4042:2E14:861B:D4F8:8903:C1C6:8A1D (talk) 06:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok so:
 * Wikipedia doesn't require you to get my permission for edits but yes we should talk about it.
 * Ok here's EPA's copy of that document which was just moved not delete: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-04/documents/5001-response.pdf
 * Although replication and open data are nice they are not required for acceptance of research. The fact that Hayes made claims, EPA visited, and then EPA still never saw these purported replications is a problem however.
 * I agree now that presenting Hayes' research uncritically would be inappropriate. We still need to mention all this however because it's a big something.
 * Your opinion has changed yes. I didn't read closely enough to notice that. However I still don't agree with getting rid of the around Tyrone Hayes or Tyrone Hayes - we shouldn't obscure the controversy - we should call it a "controversy without real evidence on either side".
 * Overall I think we should just add text and not remove. I'm not sure about that however.
 * Invasive Spices (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Invasive Spices, Please see the page reproducibility, a research needs to be replicated properly before it is considered a scientific fact. Also EPA and the Eco risk panel wanted to see his raw data to confirm his experiment but he hasn't shown his raw data. Now syngenta may not be concerned, but EPA and the Eco risk panel were, That's why despite not finding his research appropriate they still considered it a valid hypothesis and took it upon themselves.
 * Also the studies were conducted by EPA not syngenta to confirm Hayes study. They did make Syngenta pay for it as it is a product of a private company. The studies were well inspected by EPA and german regulatory authorities. So the "Sygenta funded study" and "Sygneta conducted" is misleading. Because even I would be Skeptical of a research coming from syngenta but that's not the case.
 * Also removing both Syngenta and hayes' websites from the external link would be appropriate as both seem to have their bias as stated by the EPA 2015 article.
 * As you said nothing is proven at this point, the part in the section Amphibians "In 2017, documents released following a 2012 legal ...... quoting his ‘propriety and professionalism’ outburst.” should be removed or moved to either Sygenta or Hayes' page as this article is about atrazine not about a controversy with no real evidence on either side as both seem to be attacking each other, so the readers who want to know about atrazine need not know about their feud.
 * Also I think we should remove the around Tyrone Hayes as their feud has no clear outcome and readers shouldn't scratch their heads over this.

So to sum it up this feud seems to have no clear outcome at this point so I think it should stay on either syngenta's or Hayes' page, cause as I said earlier readers who want to get info about atrazine need not know about their feud.2409:4042:2E14:861B:A164:2F50:CBB7:174D (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the entire thing, being unresolved and of uncertain importance, should not take up much space on the page. However we do need to link to Hayes and to the part on the Syngenta page for this. To remove it entirely from here would be too much. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Invasive Spices, Yes we should mention it but only the scientific part, i.e. not the part where they both attack/target each other, because that part has no outcome till date. We should make the following changes:
 * Remove the sentence "According to Hayes in 2004, all of the studies that rejected the hermaphroditism hypothesis were plagued by poor experimental controls and were funded by Syngenta, suggesting conflict of interest."
 * Reason: did he forget his own research wasn't properly conducted? Now as I said one should always be skeptical/doubtful of research coming from a company/industry that is set to benefit from said research ,but to dismiss every study even those that have nothing to with Sygenta considering his own research was declared improperly conducted by the EPA, would be promoting a fringe theory, by promoting the view of one scientist whose work hasn't been confirmed or replicated. Also Hayes work seems to be on WP:FRINGE spectrum.
 * Remove the part "In 2017, documents released following a 2012 legal case revealed that Syngenta paid ... that leads its critique of Hayes by quoting his ‘propriety and professionalism’ outburst.”
 * Reason: Even Hayes sent explicit lewd emails to sygenta and EPA officials which is not mentioned in this article, like it should be, as both are not directly related to the topic atrazine, and more about Hayes/ syngenta, and those who want to know about atrazine need not know about this. This part should be moved to either Hayes or Syngnta's page(preferably Hayes).
 * Remove syngenta's and Hayes' website from External links
 * Reason: Both sides seem to have their own conflict of interest as discussed by the 2015 EPA article so it's better to remove their websites from the external link
 * Remove the part "Syngenta funded study" and "Syngenta conducted" because it is misleading, as I said it was the EPA who conducted and inspected those tests.
 * Also we must mention that Hayes research hasn't been able to be replicated, and that there were problems with his research.

To sum it up, we must only mention the scientific part of their feud and comply with WP:FRINGE. And let the readers know that Hayes research hasn't been properly conducted, confirmed and replicated. 2409:4042:2E14:861B:D4F8:8903:C1C6:8A1D (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess this all sounds acceptable to me. I'm ok with you going ahead/editing as you propose. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * ,I have made changes as discussed. I have only included the scientific part of their feud and removed parts that aren't directly related to atrazine itself. Also there are some more changes which could be done if it's okay with you.
 * remove citation 6 and 51 coming from Hayes as he is controversial, and citation no. 5 from EPA and citation no. 50 from New York times are enough for citations.
 * remove the sentence "A 2010 Hayes study concluded that atrazine rendered 75% of male frogs sterile and turned one in 10 into females." because APVMA pointed similar problems with his 2010 paper as EPA did with his 2002 paper that he didn't provide his raw data. here is APVMA's response

Also the statement "The EPA's review has been criticized." is not right to say because they never said atrazine is absolutely safe and they also said "If at any time EPA determines there are urgent human or environmental risks from atrazine exposure that require prompt attention, we will take appropriate regulatory action, regardless of the status of the registration review process." 2409:4042:2E14:861B:D4F8:8903:C1C6:8A1D (talk) 06:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok this seems fine to me. Invasive Spices (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * what do you think of the statement "The EPA's review has been criticized"? Do you think it should be there or should it be removed? 2409:4042:918:CDC1:4557:28B5:FEA3:1730 (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The first cite (New Yorker) seems to be entirely about Hayes, so that should go. The second (NYT) seems pretty well based and should stay. The third (Tillit et al 2010) seems barely related - it indirectly approves of EPA's tox study methods but doesn't mention this review specifically. So I think the third should also be removed. So I think the text should stay with only the NYT cite. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Chamestry
Chemical — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.89.32.121 (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)