Talk:Tyrone Hayes/Archive 1

remove Ethics Complaint
I have removed material from that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.

The Ethics Complaint section is not appropriate under WP:BLP rules, and I am removing it.

The section relies heavily on sources that are self-published by a party to the dispute (Syngenta, aka atrazine.com). Furthermore, the original addition of this section to this page was made by someone who is a party to the dispute (see evidence below) and did not use a neutral point of view.

What is left is a few news articles about the dispute. These do not justify having half of this biography dedicated to an old dispute, when the dispute did not result in any investigation or sanctions. For an article of this size and low importance, at most a single sentence might be appropriate to say that Syngenta and Dr. Hayes have a long-standing hostile relationship.

The first Wikipedia mention of this complaint was entered by a user called WatchdogWatching on Aug 10, 2010. It made an accusation against Dr. Hayes without providing any response from him. That user name has never before or since been associated with any edit of any Wikipedia article, including the one on Dr. Hayes. Here is the version of the Wikipedia page as written by WatchdogWatching:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tyrone_Hayes&oldid=378187844

A Google search finds a web site WatchdogWatch.org that has an undated and unsigned article that slams Dr. Hayes using similar language as that used by WatchdogWatching. There is a link to that article that was posted the day before WatchdogWatching edited the Wikipedia page. See the Aug 9, 2010, comment to this article: The link was posted by somebody named Winston. The featured article currently on WatchdogWatch.org is also written by Winston. About half of the pages on WatchdogWatch.org say they are written by or refer to Winston.
 * http://www.thecre.com/wdw/2010/20100802.html
 * http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/blog/brian-devore/6000-questions-about-atrazine

WatchdogWatch.org describes itself as an affiliate of CRE (Center for Regulatory Effectiveness), and it redirects to a page on thecre.com. Wikipedia currently describes CRE by saying it "has been criticised as a front organisation for industries which seek to undermine the regulatory process." SourceWatch describes CRE as "the successor of the Institute for Regulatory Policy," which in turn is described as "a front group created by the tobacco industry to support its version of 'sound science' in environmental and public health policy."

CRE is run by former OMB officials from the Reagan administration, including Jim Tozzi. Tozzi is the registered administrator of the WatchdogWatch.org domain; and Tozzi's business, Multinational Business Services, is the registrant.

The Washington Post reports on CRE submitting a petition regarding atrazine and states that Syngenta "helped finance the petition process through contributions to another of Tozzi's businesses, a lobbying firm called Multinational Business Services."
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3733-2004Aug15

In this letter, the EPA refers to CRE as a contractor of Syngenta.
 * http://www.epa.gov/QUALITY/informationguidelines/documents/2807Response_03_27_03.pdf

Here it states that CRE has worked with the Triazine Network and the Kansas Corn Growers Association to advocate for atrazine.
 * http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5105/atrazine/stake.html
 * http://www.thetruthaboutdow.org/article.php?id=421

NRDC complains that "the CRE's arguments [on atrazine] could jeopardize the government's ability to consider most published scientific research."
 * http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.112-a18a

It is clear that CRE is a party to the dispute with Hayes, is closely associated with Syngenta, used self-published material from Syngenta as a source, and submitted material that was not NPOV. While the balance in the section has since been improved a little, there is still clearly undue weight being given to a side issue. If Dr. Hayes is notable, it is for his research, not his demeanor.

--RichardMathews (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

reinstate Ethics Complaint section/content
The ethics complaint section merits reconsideration for inclusion (amended as original post was poorly cited) as the sources for this are not solely self-published, but from reliable and frequently cited sources for BLP content.


 * Science Magazine, published by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences (AAAS), reported 'I Told Ya, You Can't Stop the Rage, on August 19, 2010 detailing the Hayes ethics issues.


 * Nature Magazine, published E-mails spark ethics row, on August 18, 2010, also detailing the Hayes email ethics challenge.


 * The New York Times, published Enviro Groups Cheer as Scientist Bombards Agribusiness With Profane E-Mails, on August 26, 2010, citing "reams of explicit, taunting e-mails sent to company employees by a professor whose research on the health risks of their product had won nationwide notice..."


 * Numerous other sources deemed appropriate for use on other content found in the Tyrone Hayes and other BLP articles also reported on this including Mother Jones Magazine, The Washington Times, Harpers Magazine, Ethics Education Library, and the UC Berkeley newspaper The Daily Californian.

The detailed allegations about the source of the complaint's various alliances noted above by user:RichardMatthews really have nothing to do whether or not the ethics complain issue merits inclusion and meets BLP criteria. An NPOV representation, based on the news reports from the multiple above noted articles is worth inclusion here.

CinagroErunam (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite & new citations
I found this article today while looking for something else. It had contradictory material and repeated material throughout and the references were a mess. I went through it for content, grammar and citation. I removed two paragraphs that I was unable to verify from any source online, and left one part with a citation improvement needed tag. It probably still needs more help than I gave it, but perhaps my edits will spur further effort by other editors. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Deleted sections
It appears "There is only one Tyrone" User:Thereisonlyonetyrone User talk:Thereisonlyonetyrone is in fact the subject of this article Tyrone Hayes who has made mass deletions of content that was well referenced and within acceptable BLOP standards. This includes his work as a litigation consultant, co-founder of Sokoke, Inc., consulting for EcoRisk, etc...  Mr. Hayes has directly removed and altered content without appropriate citations to present a rather biased self-portrait. I recommend a review of these removed items for reinstatement and related edits to remove un-sourced, non-NPOV claims.AcademicReviewer (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Beware the WP:BOOMERANG when talking about the editing of this article by those who are involved. Your additions to this article last July included completely unreferenced contentious information, contentious information taken from blogs, contentious information drawn from one side of a legal dispute, and in one case, you cited a blog as the source but instead you used the comments portion posted down below. This is outrageous behavior at a biography of a living person, for which the rules are much tighter.
 * Any more BLP violations from you and I will present evidence at WP:COIN that proves you have a personal conflict of interest in this case, having written and published your own attack page against Hayes. Because of that, your role here is very limited, according to the WP:Conflict of interest guideline; you can suggest text here on the talk page, and you can make uncontroversial changes on the article page. You cannot revert other editors unless it is clearly vandalism. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * please do present what evidence of a "personal conflict of interest" - many of the additions made were quite well referenced, if there are others which merit better reference links that's certainly something which can be addressed and improved upon. Is just being an expert and aware of the issue a conflict? All of these items have extensive sufficient references.  The content here removed and new content added in dispute was created and posted without any relevant citations by Tyrone Hayes "There is Only One Tyrone" - by his own posted admissions.

Various sources have criticized Hayes' claims, unwillingness to provide his research data for peer review and his behavior engaging with the targets of his claims, e.g."


 * AAAS Science Magazine: 'I Told Ya, You Can't Stop the Rage,' UC Endocrinologist Hayes Writes to Syngenta
 * Berkeley Has Taken ‘No Punitive Action’ Against Tyrone Hayes, Berkeley Vice Chancellor "utterly perplexed" at baseless conspiracy claims by Tyrone Hayes.
 * Nature Magazine: Tyrone Hayes' emails spark ethics row
 * KALEITA: Environmentalist turns to e-bullying Researcher proves he types faster than he think, by Amy Kaleita, The Washington Times, August 11, 2010
 * Academics Review: Tyrone Hayes: The infamous “gay frog” creating “IDGAF!” Berkley professor, movie star and litigation consultant
 * AgSence: Atrazine Alarmist Tyrone Hayes
 * Gawker: Tyrone Hayes biologist, meglomaniac and email addict
 * Forbes Magazine: Berkeley Anti-Atrazine Crusader Blames 'Big Ag', Set To Sue, After University Dispute Over Dwindling Research Funds
 * Fox News: Freaky Frog Fraud by Steve Milloy
 * JunkScience profile on Tyrone Hayes
 * Video: Tyrone Hayes, Atrazine and Frogs reviewed by Alex Avery
 * Center for Global Food Issues: The strange case of Tyrone Hayes
 * Syngenta: Ethics Complaint Filed Against Tyrone Hayes
 * Berkeley anti-atrazine crusader blames 'Big Ag,' set to sue, after university sacks research by Jon Entine, AEI.
 * Hayes emails sparks ethics row, Nature Biotech, August 18, 2010.

My posts have been well referenced, I am not Tyrone Hayes and I am not commercially or financially engaged or involved whatsoever in this issue.AcademicReviewer (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't think your posts were neutral or well cited. I have no way to know what your commercial or financial involvements are, but from reading what you have written, I get a great sense of negative bias from you toward Dr. Hayes and suggest that as there are thousands of articles on Wikipedia perhaps editing one on which you can retain your Neutral Point of View would be a great positive place to contribute to the project instead of continuing to grief this one page.  I also reverted an anonymous edit today that was pushing the same POV statement.  Was that you and you forgot to login? Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous edits lack NPOV
A series of anonymous edits has been reverted by me due to lack of WP:NPOV and introducing errors and typos into the project. The New Yorker article cited by the anonymous editors is a good one and most likely will be incorporated in some way into the article, but not in the way I just removed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Use of partisan press as a source to describe scientific work
So today User:Kku salerno added a citation to "Democracy Now" as a source for a description of Hayes' work (and in the lead only, no less). I deleted it (dif) saying that it was not a reliable source for a description of the scientific work (and unstated reason, nothing should be in the lead that is not the body, including citations). User:Gandydancer reverted me (dif) and User:Binksternet chimed in (dif) agreeing, through another edit note. OK, here is my question, Gandy and Binkster. Shall we also add a citation to the following article, as a reliable source to describe his scientific work? http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/08/19/1577/ Please make sure that your answer applies also to the reason to keep Democracy Now as a source. Do you see the point of my original objection? For pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course Jon Entine is a reliable source for his opinion, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. As a journalist, he can make whatever claims he wants to make. He's not a scientist, of course, though he associates with them. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That was not the question - would you please answer the question? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What part of my reply was unclear? Your suggested reference is acceptable for Entine's opinion. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Shall we also add a citation to the following article, as a reliable source to describe his scientific work? (link) Please make sure that your answer applies also to the reason to keep Democracy Now as a source." Jytdog (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you noticed that I chose to reply rather than to "answer". My reply had quite enough information for you. Binksternet (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not the problem, or the major problem, with the ref. It is a transcript of an interview not an article, moreover it doesn't contain the information it is supposed to ref in the sentence. I put the interview in external links. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The editors of the show inserted a summary of their own in front of the interview portion. That summary is what I was quoting. Binksternet (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

C class for sure
this article needs a lot of work, especially on the timeline and sourcing. for example, for some reason the 2010 PNAS paper is cited when discussing the original 2001/2002 PNAS paper. the article is peppered with those sorts of errors. i will try to put some time into this. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry that the work put into this article over the past days leaves it needing "a lot of work", I've done what I can with it despite constant edit/revisions from biased editors. Since the 2010 PNAS paper referenced the 2001 PNAS paper, it didn't seem so terrible to use the 2010 citation for both.  I look forward to your help with the article and also with your help watching it.  Today, I added citations for both the 2002 (not 2001) PNAS and 2002 Nature papers.  I have reviewed the time-line and found nothing worth changing, the article runs in chronological order within each section.  Please be specific about what you feel is "peppering" the article with errors?  Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * i'll fix it when i get time. just wanted to call editors' attention to it who can see it.  thank you for the work you have done!  i never mean to disrespect hard work that others do -- there is always more to be done. Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

after today's quite stupid sourcing mini-edit war (there is no planet where "democracy now" is a reliable source for a description of anything scientific, especially one that is health related), I have no desire to work on this article... hopefully you all will cite the correct papers in the correct places. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I fixed the description of the scientific work, citing papers where they belong. I also did a general clean up, making this less of a discussion about whether his science or right or not (I do not believe this article is the place to do that!). So now there is a section cleanly showing his series of publications, a short section (with not too much weight) on opposition, and a section on his advocacy. Bizarrely the body said almost nothing about his advocacy work, so I expanded that a bit. Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ok, this was just reverted with no substantial comment. big waste of an hour to fix this. Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This article should definitely involve the discussion about whether his science is right or not! The whole reason for his biography is this issue. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent New Yorker Article
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/02/10/140210fa_fact_aviv?currentPage=all Velveeta Hombre (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is already cited in the article main space. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, didn't see it... Velveeta Hombre (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is remarkable new information and I'd like to see it used more prominently, eventually. Here is an NPR piece that I don't think has been used yet:   Gandydancer (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree the New Yorker should be used more, and of course the NPR piece should be brought to bear. Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not satisfied that some of the damning info re Syngenta's quest to smear him to discredit his work has been removed. One section was removed with an edit summary that some of the tactics were "silly".  Exactly, and that is why they should be included in the article.  In time I want to see a section on this recent finding rather than paring it down.  Gandydancer (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of EPA sentence
Hey User:Djapa84, very confused by this revert. Maybe you meant to revert something else, or could explain in more detail what your objection is & what language you want to see here? thx Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Sectioning
Besides screwing up the citation and discussions of his scientific publications, in the Research section, the article jumbled together opposition to his research and Hayes' advocacy with his actual published research. This made the article very hard to follow. Also it is unclear precisely what Hayes discovered while he was doing research for Novartis via EcoRisk; he never published that work. The old description there is what he published in 2002 - those 2 publications were the results of a new set of experiments that he got separate funding for. This is an important point where we need to be truthful. The wholesale revertion this morning was not justified.Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If you can section the article without also removing cites and text then you'll have more support. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's consolidate discussion here. Above, I wrote that this article should not go into whether his science is right, or not.  Above, Binkster disagreed.   Here is my perspective.  This article is about the man; it should describe what he is notable for, in a NPOV way as possible and as clearly as possible.  This article is not about atrazine or the utility/truth of the endocrine disruptor hypothesis.  There are separate articles on both things, each of which is quite long.  If this article is to competently go into the science, it is going to become very very long and very off topic.  It makes no sense to go there.  Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This biography will be as long as necessary to tell the reader about Hayes and the reactions to his research. Primarily, the biography should tell the reader what is Hayes' view, and what are the reactions from others. If a little bit of background science is necessary to carry a certain point about Hayes' research then this background info should not be taken out. Of course Hayes' research is all about atrazine; of course the biography will discuss atrazine in the context of arguments made by Hayes and against Hayes. This biography should not wander away from points made by Hayes, nor should it wander away from points made by those who challenge him—on that I'm sure we agree. Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * are you ok with the research section as it stands? part of my struggle here, is that generally in wikipedia we don't make statements about health based on primary sources; we don't do duelling primary sources at Wikipedia and I want to avoid that if we can. I think it reasonable to summarize what he published, and just say that others opposed it. 23:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Here are some particular parts of the old version that I took out of the research section and either got rid of moved elsewhere ( i am signing each bullet to set up discussion of each one separately Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Hayes unexpectedly found atrazine to be a potent endocrine disruptor in a model organism, the African clawed frog Xenopus laevis, "at levels thirty times below what the EPA permits in water""
 * As I wrote above, this is not verifiable. We do not know exactly what he found while working for EcoRisk - he didn't publish it.Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is verifiable that Hayes has discussed this point with various media. The text should remain as it was, properly attributed to Hayes per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The point he makes about the EcoRisk research is vitally important to his biography. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I went back and looked at the sources and the only source i found that makes claims about what Hayes found with the EcoRisk funding is the Mother Jones article (2nd page of the online article).  (are you aware of others?)  To the extent we can trust that reporting, it seems pretty clear that Hayes says that the results he got under EcoRisk are the same results he got and then published in PNAS and Nature.  This is a bit awkward; generally we don't report science this way.  I tweaked our article to make that more clear.  Is this OK with you? Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Shortly thereafter Syngenta said that three of their own studies had failed to replicate Hayes’s work and in a letter to the editor of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, eight scientists on the EcoRisk panel criticized Hayes’s study saying that it had “little regard for assessment of causality, lacked statistical details, misused the term 'dose', made vague and naïve references, and misspelled a word." Steven Milloy, a commentator for Fox News, called Hayes a "junk scientist", dismissing his work as "lame" and “just another of Hayes’ tricks.” [7]"
 * This is back and forth-y and pretty trivial.  I for one am not interested in giving equal weight to criticism this silly 'as trivial as "spelling mistakes"'. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC) (edit note - struck silly, added what i meant. Jytdog (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC))
 * The point is that the critics themselves were using trivial complaints. Binksternet (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "In 2003, the European Commission removed atrazine from the market due to their precautionary approach to risk; by contrast in the U.S. only five of 80,000 chemicals have been restricted by regulations issued by the EPA since the 1970s.[7] Internal documents from 2005 released by a class-action lawsuit show long lists of ways that Syngenta may have considered to discredit Hayes including attempting to get journals to retract his work, and investigating his funding and private life.[7][8]"
 * I removed the Europe thing, as Aviv (ref 7) does not attribute it to Hayes' work.  and the stuff about what the EPA allows is totally off topic for Hayes' biography.   The thing about the class action lawsuit duplicated content found elsewhere in the article.Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Aviv puts this information in front of the reader because it is essential background. We need the information for the same reason. Hayes himself talks about the European situation in various interviews. Binksternet (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "According to Hayes, the link between "aromatase and estrogen production has been demonstrated... in fish, frogs, alligators, birds, turtles, rats and human cells", and, "I believe that the preponderance of the evidence shows atrazine to be a risk to wildlife and humans. I would not want to be exposed to it, nor do I think it should be released into the environment."[11][12] Syngenta has responded to Hayes' research and publication by quoting EPA findings regarding methodological problems in his research,[13] which Hayes disputes.[7] The EPA's 2007 review of science literature concluded against claims made by Hayes and concluded its evaluation by stating: "At this time, EPA believes that no additional testing is warranted to address this issue."[14] The EPA statement contradicted the recommendation of its panel, which originally included Syngenta's paid contract scientist, Kloas Werner.[7] The EPA subsequently discontinued studies of atrazine.[15] As described by The New York Times, other researchers have been encouraged to redirect their energies to other chemicals due to insufficient resources and competing priorities."[15]"
 * This mixes up Hayes' advocacy with responses, in a jumbled up way.  I split these things out.  This sentence in particular is pretty bizarre "The EPA statement contradicted the recommendation of its panel, which originally included Syngenta's paid contract scientist, Kloas Werner."  which appears to be some really contorted effort to invalidate the EPA decision while at the same invalidating the committee... just strange.  and most importantly, this is not about Hayes the man in any case Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Syngenta wrote letters about the paper's alleged weaknesses to the president and the editor of the PNAS; shortly thereafter the chancellor of the University of California-Berkeley received a formal ethics complaint about Hayes from Syngenta.[7] Professor emeritus David Wake, reviewing the emails about which Syngenta was complaining, said he found them "quite hilarious."[7] In 2012 the next EPA review found that after excluding the majority of the 75 papers published on the topic, that there was no relationship between the sexual development of frogs and atrazine.[7]"
 * Again here we have some opposition unrelated to his research (the section in which this is found!) and the response by Wake to the ethics complaint, which while entertaining is trivial. mixed in with the quite important EPA decision.  a jumble.  Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This information does not have to be completely removed; it is important to note that UC Berkeley received complaints from Syngenta, reviewed the complaints, and found nothing actionable against Hayes; they supported him while he was under fire from Syngenta. Binksternet (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Alert for potential corporate cover-up campaign
According to The New Yorker article of 10 February 2014, Syngenta has been employing and continues to employ various tactics aimed at suppressing information about its product, atrazine. [Emphasis added throughout.] It is not inconceivable that the attempts to be economical with the truth are carried over to Wikipedia. Editors should be on guard for conflicts of interest, non-neutral points of view or attempts to fuzzy the issue. Take care, everyone. -The Gnome (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "...The [Syngenta] P.R. team suggested that the company “purchase ‘Tyrone Hayes’ as a search word on the internet, so that any time someone searches for Tyrone’s material, the first thing they see is our material.” The proposal was later expanded to include the phrases “amphibian hayes,” “atrazine frogs,” and “frog feminization.” Searching online for “Tyrone Hayes” now brings up an advertisement that says, “Tyrone Hayes Not Credible".”
 * "David Michaels, the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, wrote, in his book Doubt Is Their Product (2008), that corporations have developed sophisticated strategies for “manufacturing and magnifying uncertainty.” In the eighties and nineties, the tobacco industry fended off regulations by drawing attention to questions about the science of secondhand smoke. Many companies have adopted this tactic. “Industry has learned that debating the science is much easier and more effective than debating the policy,” Michaels wrote. “In field after field, year after year, conclusions that might support regulation are always disputed. Animal data are deemed not relevant, human data not representative, and exposure data not reliable".”
 * "...Syngenta began holding weekly “atrazine meetings” after the first class-action suit was filed, in 2004. The meetings were attended by toxicologists, the company’s counsel, communications staff, and the head of regulatory affairs. To dampen negative publicity from the lawsuit, the group discussed how it could invalidate Hayes’s research. [Syngenta communications manager] Sherry Ford documented peculiar things Tyrone Hayes had done (“kept coat on”) or phrases he had used (“Is this line clean?”). “If TH wanted to win the day, and he had the goods,” she wrote, “he would have produced them when asked.” She noted that Hayes was “getting in too deep w/ enviros,” and searched for ways to get him to “show his true colors".”
 * I second this. I actually came to this article after reading the New Yorker piece above. As with any public venue involving companies like Syngenta and Monsanto, especially beware of astroturfing. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 4 March 2014‎ 00:45 (UTC)

Lead edit warring
Edit warring in the lead has left me frustrated. It now reads, "...known for his research suggesting that the herbicide atrazine may be an endocrine disruptor that demasculinizes and feminizes male frogs." I have been asked to furnish a source. Why do I need a source that atrazine is an endocrine disruptor as though it is in question? Never the less, ''Atrazine is also an endocrine disruptor that, among other effects, alters male reproductive tissues when animals are exposed during development." This is from a review here   Or the EPA, here:  Gandydancer (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * oh gandy i have not been participating in the edit war, just watching it kind of sadly. The EPA document says on page 1 "Studies thus far suggest that atrazine is an endocrine disruptor.... Recent studies of atrazine exposure of frogs suggest atrazine may impact sexual development, though the U.S. EPA concluded that data are currently insufficient to draw conclusions, and implications of these data for children’s health remain unclear".... oy  Jytdog (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * i really, really don't want to go into the science in this article. the issues are too loaded.  what i would like to do as i wrote above is describe very generally what is in his papers, describe very generally the reactions, and have really the longest section be on his advocacy.  that is what i set up this morning.  i think the article is pretty good now and abides by BLP.  Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, however his work does show what he says it shows. Others may show otherwise...  As for what this article should include, I don't understand the objections.  His article is about his work in a similar way that other personalities articles are about what they have done in this life.  BTW, please cut the snarky comments about how saddened you are.  No reason to go out of your way to create hard feelings. Gandydancer (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I just suggested language for the lead that I hope will stick: "known for his research findings that atrazine is an endocrine disruptor." this is NPOV and matches what is in the body of the article.  it describes his research.  as i wrote above, we should not try to make claims in this article about what atrazine is or is not.   To make those kinds of claims, we rely on secondary sources.  Let's just concentrate on what his research found, what he says about it, what he does about it -- the focus should be on him.  i really mean it about kind of sad - i don't like to see edit warring.  zero snark. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Jytdog, this article is about a man whose science is being disputed by a corporation which stands to lose a helluva lot of money if the science is not thoroughly derogated. Of course we talk about the science here; that's the whole point of the biography about Hayes the researcher. Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That kind of meshes with what I wrote above - the biggest weight in the article should be on his advocacy. Let's stick to describing his research findings and what he says about it.  The article is about him, not atrazine.   This article is not a continuation of his advocacy mission - it cannot be.  Please don't try to make claims about what atrazine actually is or is not; to do that we will need to use the best MEDRS sources on toxicology that we can find and I don't think you will like the outcome.  Let's not go there - and importantly, there is no reason to, in an article about the man. Really, I don't want to get into a big battle here.  Let's not go there.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You can just cut the drama and suggesting that Binkster and I are on an advocacy mission.  If you really believe that perhaps you need to look at your own motives here.  The best way to move forward is to quit these accusations.  Gandydancer (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I am talking about the article. About content. Looking forward to a response about content.  Let's stay on topic.  Or let's move on. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If you don't want a "big battle here" then don't get in the way of the article discussing the man and his science, the science being under dispute. Of course we discuss the science. Binksternet (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I hear you. I am not in anybody's way. I've said what kind of support is needed for statements in Wikipedia's voice about health effects of atrazine and recommended you not go there. You will of course do as you will, as will I. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Jytdog wrote: "Please don't try to make claims about what atrazine actually is or is not; to do that we will need to use the best MEDRS sources on toxicology that we can find and I don't think you will like the outcome." Emphasis added. Why would you ever say that, Jytdog? Could you please present your credentials as an expert in the field, which would enable you to pre-empt the outcome of a thorough sourcing? Or, if the case might be, as someone who has personally done extensive work on the subject of atrazine? You are aware, I trust, of the strict conflict-of-interest policy in Wikipedia. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Gnome. We don't "present credentials" on Wikipedia.  And we assume good faith.  That is all I will say about that.  Your question appears rhetorical. Jytdog (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But I will go ahead and respond anyway. We have not interacted before and you don't know me.  I have interacted with Gandy and Binkster, and we more or less understand the way each of us edits.  I reviewed your contribs, and you don't work a lot on health-related content. I do.  As per WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, we base health-related content on "the best and most reliable sources"  (see Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)) - we want to provide readers with the most reliable information possible on health issues (not "the most cutting edge information" - the most reliable).  That means looking at secondary sources  - expert reviews in the field - and statements by major medical and scientific bodies (see Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)).  And we avoid primary sources, which are notoriously unreliable in the field of biology.   If you read such sources (and I have), they do not make the kind of definitive claims that Hayes makes.  His certainty goes beyond the consensus in the field. (did you read the last couple sentences of the Aviv article, btw?)    Based on various things the two folks I was talking to have written here, they share Hayes' certainty that atrazine is toxic at the doses and routes of exposure through which it is experienced.  Based on those comments and our history, there is a high likelihood that going into the science around atrazine  would lead to an unpleasant discussion.  As this article is about Hayes, going in-depth into the science around atrazine is off-topic. So we don't need to go there here, and going there wouldn't make anybody happy. So why do it here?  we have a page on atrazine, as you know; that is the place to discuss atrazine toxicity in wikipedia's voice.    On top of that, Hayes is sensitive to his Wikipedia page, and I have been editing here with great sensitivity to WP:BLP, especially in light of Syngenta's campaign against him.  That is the background. Jytdog (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been watching this situation from the sideline. Jytdog, I find I no longer can make sense out of why Dr. Hayes is advocating from the pared down, bare-bones, text that remains after your edits. In fact yesterday I fixed a sentence which after these edits made no sense at all. On this talk page, I find a lot of emo back and forth beyond what would be necessary for someone with no WP:COI. I'm making an adult, reasonable suggestion here that because you work in academia, you are perhaps too close to this situation to see how much information needs to be available to someone with no background at all in the topic. Before I have found this kind of narrow focus on pages about sports, e.g. from boxing "Everyone knows what a right hook is, we don't need to explain why a left-handed boxer has any disadvantage to a massive right-hooker. Everyone knows that." If above Jytdog can say what must be or must not be in the article, then I can too. This article needs information. It was previously interesting and explanatory, then Jytdog came along called it "C class" and proceeded to gut it to useless class. If I were still teaching, and someone handed in this article to me as an alleged research biography on Dr. Hayes, I'd grade it an "F" without hesitation. There is presently insufficient information in this article for any reasonable reader who is not associated with the topic already to make heads or tails out of why Dr. Hayes advocates. Which, of course, Jytdog says is the most important part of the article. So it's one or the other hon... either his advocacy has to make sense, or his advocacy has to go because right now he looks a right fool hanging out in midair with no background material to make sense out of why he advocates. Jytdog, I see a lot of WP:OWN "Statements" and "Actions" in what you've done to the article and written on the talk page and I see you being accusatory to Gandydancer and Binksternet for no particular reason other than you decided that they had nothing to contribute to the article - only you did. I'd like to suggest to Jytdog that others form an opinion on you based on your comments. At present, mine of you (Jytdog) is not high and I'd like to suggest you recuse yourself from this page due to emotionalism indicating WP:COI, perhaps due to your employment, and persistent efforts to WP:OWN, see above and article. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ellin, when you fixed my copyediting mistake, i "thanked" you which I am sure you saw. I appreciated you catching that.  Nobody is perfect. I make mistakes too.  Before my recent edits, the research section was (in my view) contorted, mixing up Hayes' research with reactions to it.  The current research section shows very clearly that Hayes has published a series of papers showing that atrazine messes up frogs, bigtime.  Is that really somehow not clear to you? (real question) Does the advocacy section not make it clear that he thinks atrazine should be banned? (real question!)  If there is some change to the content to make that more clear, I am all ears. I had specific criticism, which I actually fixed, when I made my (too harsh!) "C class" comment.  If you have specific suggestions, that would be great to hear.  The broad brush is not so helpful, with regard to improving the content.  I am all ears. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Jytdog has practically written the Monsanto articles on his own (check the dozen or so Monsanto articles and note that he is the first editor listed in all of them, and often by as much as two, three, and even four times the edit count of the next editor listed in the last couple of years). I am concerned that he now plans to do the same with the atrazine articles. Gandydancer (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia, the encyclodedia anyone can edit. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please, discuss "content, not contributor." Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As I have said several times already, this article must include background information for context. Ellin makes that point even clearer. Jytdog's removal of related cases is not helpful. I intend to recompose the text about those related cases, highlighting why they are relevant to this biography. Yes, atrazine research will be discussed here, in the context of Syngenta targeting Hayes and other researchers. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As I have written above, Wikipedia encourages everyone to be WP:BOLD - everybody is free to edit the article. I have no more power than anybody. At the same time, content has to meet sourcing guidelines and policies.  My interest in this article, is that statements about atrazine toxicity have solid support with MEDRS-compliant sources, which means expert reviews (secondary sources) published in the biomedical literature or statements by major medical or scientific bodies. What I am saying and doing here is not esoteric or controlling - it is mainline Wikipedia behavior. What is so bizarre about my saying content has to follow sourcing guidelines and policies? real question! Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes needed to article now to return it to "C" class include at minimum:
 * (1) Substantiating the items listed in the lede paragraph.
 * not sure what you mean, can you please explain? Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (2) Identifying Hayes as a full professor in the lede; current identification is disrespectful of his attainments.
 * ✅Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (3) "Harvard" to Harvard University, it's not a non-notable delicatessen.
 * ✅Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (4) Citation 6 to the Emails sparking ethics row seems wasted at the end of the sentence where it is now, nothing about the contents appears in the preceding other than what is given in other citations.
 * don't agree - the Nature News piece makes is a reliable source for the fact that the publications happened. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (5) Nowhere in this research section does it say what or how he studied atrazine. In this case it was an aquatic study on African Clawed frogs, which are only mentioned in a photo now; the methods of the work were previously briefly discussed. It was previously clearly stated along with an article from their native South Africa that contradicted Dr. Hayes' findings.
 * ✅Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (6) "Hayes has been profiled for his advocacy", what does "profile" mean in this sentence? He has been drawn in side view?  He has been identified as a person of difficulty?  What?
 * ✅Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (7) Removing the copyrighted lyrics from the advocacy section should be done as quickly as possible.
 * this is fair use and OK (it was OK for the New Yorker to quote them; it is OK for us to quote them too. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (8) I disagree with the massive use of first person statements in the advocacy section. In Wikipedia secondary sources telling us what he's saying and doing are required, not a pile of quotations.
 * this is a style/preference thing. i think it is great to let Hayes voice speak. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (9) The references in this section are a mess, the numbers are all out of order, and some of them don't even have relevancy to the item stated.
 * ✅Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (10) Next section: This "In one of the e-mails obtained by class-action suit plaintiffs, the company’s communications consultants had written in 2005 that they "wanted to obtain Hayes’s calendar of speaking engagements," so that Syngenta could “start reaching out to the potential audiences with the Error vs. Truth Sheet,” which would provide “irrefutable evidence of his polluted messages.” Syngenta subsequently stated that many of the documents unsealed in the lawsuits refer to "ideas that were never implemented."[3]" is closely paraphrased from the original and should be rewritten. Again, too much quotation and not enough clean new writing.
 * ✅Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (11) "In response to the allegations, Ann Bryan, Syngenta's senior manager for external communications, told Aviv that she was "troubled by a suggestion that [Syngenta] have ever tried to discredit anyone. [The company's] focus has always been on communicating the science and setting the record straight.”[3]" Ann Bryan is not notable, name should be struck. Again, you're following the one Aviv article along and this part should also be written cleanly.  There were better sources for this than some magazine article but they've all been tossed in the furious string of edits.  Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * just deleted it. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

found/findings
These words are not properly used to describe research studies. Studies don't find, the data is evaluated and the authors state their position based upon their data. Then, for studies cited in Wikipedia, the study should be peer reviewed for errors and best practices before publication. Better terminology is indicated, concluded, stated, ... Ward20 (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Jytdog
In a sentence about Hayes' research, the subsequent history of the company he did research for is not relevant. So, I removed it. User:Jytdog reverted with the false claim that this had been discussed on the talk page. They then made that false claim a second time. Anyone who searches on this page for "ecorisk" will easily verify that there has not been any discussion of any need to mention, in that particular place or anywhere else, the fact that this company no longer exists. So, will User:Jytdog please point out exactly where they think this discussion is, and if in fact there is none, will they apologise for their disruptive editing and false edit summaries? 200.83.136.145 (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * for fuck's sake. it is actually on my Talk page, buried in the archives User_talk:Jytdog/Archive_3.   I should not have responded there. My apologies for not remembering that. In any case it has been there for a year and you need a reason more than WP:DONTLIKEIT to remove sourced content.  Do you have one? Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I gave the reason in my edit summary, and I gave it again above. The discussion on your talk page is about the location of the company, which is not what my edit was about.  The length of time irrelevant text has been in an article does not change the fact that it is irrelevant.  Nor does the fact that it appears in an article.  "sourced" is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion.  Now, I await your apology for your false claims and disruptive editing, and your reason, if you have one, for thinking that this footnote is necessary.  200.83.136.145 (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The only important datum here is that there is no relevance demonstrated for whatever happened to EcoRisk after Hayes worked with them. If there's no relevance, then the note has no purpose. Binksternet (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what this argument is about, but I suspect that if this information was really irrelevant, people wouldn't be so emotionally charged up about deleting it or so ardently arguing it's irrelevance. Could someone please tell me what the real issue is here? Formerly 98 (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "irrelevant" is not a reason to do anything in WP.  I don't care enough about this to deal with the attitudes here.  It was important to  (per note on my talk page) and as I said it has been here for a year.  I don't like dealing with the aggression of editors like you.  ugly and makes WP suck.  You can do as you wish.  Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As much as I respect Ellin Beltz, this issue about EcoRisk does not rise to the level of requiring a note. If Wikipedia had an article about one or both of the EcoRisk companies, then we would want to make sure the the wrong one was not linked. Otherwise, the article does not discuss either of these companies and so there is no need for clarification about which one Hayes worked with. Binksternet (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If "irrelevant" is not a reason to do anything on WP, then it's strange that you said "location of EcoRisk irrelevant" when removing it. I await your apology for making false claims in your edit summaries.  200.83.136.145 (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I remember this series of edits well, actually. At the time the article was a lot longer and contained a lot more intricate detail than it does now.  I'm totally in favor of the streamlined - within the BLP guidelines evolution to its current level of detail.  Way back then, however, there was a phrase in the article about "EcoRisk" and a search of that name in Google produced two companies; one the correct one - and the other obviously not.  So to reduce any subsequent confusion, I inserted an "of ___town/state" after EcoRisk and checked for clarification. It probably was an irrelevant edit when I made it, but I was fact checking everything due to the high level of drama that was accompanying various edits back then. It seemed like a small loop to close. The article now is a vast improvement over what it was a year ago; good job to all the people who worked to clean it up.  Oh and as Binkster said, EcoRisk doesn't have a Wiki page and is now closed, so ... not notable. I totally agree.  I didn't revert his edit to what I added; I'm surprised anyone else cares enough to get upset about it.  Have a great day, cheers everyone, AGF and group hug.  Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Forbes piece
I'm having a difficult time with your objection that Entine is neutral but Aviv is. Here are her comments to NPR. http://www.npr.org/2014/02/05/272100022/chemical-study-becomes-a-tale-of-conspiracy-and-paranoia.

Here is what WP:NPOV says: "A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view." Formerly 98 (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)