Talk:Enlist Weed Control System

epa approval
I reinserted that Enlist Duo is pending EPA approval, which had previously been removed by User:Jytdog. I reinserted it because it is mentioned in the lede and like it or not the lede follows body. I also specified at which point in the lengthy and noit insignificant approval process it is. This sentence was removed by User:Mark Marathon, however, with the summary that "Unenduring US issue not notable. See WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS". The EPA approval is hardly non-notable, especially as indicated above, since it is mentioned in the lede. while the process itself may be unenduring, the place where teh product is at is a fact, and such facts are often incorporated in WP articles.

It rather appears to me that the user is extending his angry deletion battle of my edits as begun on the 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid page.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * What appears in the lede is information that the approval process is underway in several countries. This could take years. What you added to the body is that submissions are being asked for in one country for the next 48 hours. That is the very definition of an enenduring edit. Take a look at WP:NOT and please explain to us how you think that an edit that will become redundant in less than 48 hours is a valid entry in an encyclopaedia? In 48 hours are you going to change it to "As part of its approval process EPA sought public comments until June 30 2014"? because if that is not your intent then the edit is clearly enenduring. And if that is your intent then can you please show how this is more notable than the ~200 other stages in the approval process for this and every other regulated pesticide?Mark Marathon (talk) 08:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed addition to criticism
This criticism ignores that other methods of weed control also act as a form of unintentional artificial selection with similar consequences. For example, pulling weeds by hand acts as a selective pressure that creates weeds which look like crops (and thus are harder to identify and remove) in a process called Vavilovian mimicry.

Wurdeh (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * this is not a forum, nor it is a place to have tit for tat arguments.  Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't it consistent with the tone of the paragraph preceding it, where the criticism is directly qualified (that 2,4-D is not the component of Agent Orange which caused health problems)? The criticism of herbicide resistance includes suggestions of other weed control methods that suffer the same basic flaw being criticized. Maybe there's another acceptable way to incorporate this. It's not clear to me why one clarification is appropriate but the other isn't. I also see that the general criticisms are dealt with at length in Pesticide resistance (which refers to Vavilovian mimicry), Health effects of pesticides and Environmental effects of pesticides. The presentation of general criticisms here seems sub-optimal when other more comprehensive articles on these topics exist. As any new general criticisms of pesticides arise (or recede) this article will require updates. Criticism of other major pesticides that I spot checked are fully integrated in the articles. These include Atrazine, Glyphosate and Neonicotinoid. I imagine that approach will eventually be adopted in this article too. Wurdeh (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)