Talk:Chlormequat

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chlormequat 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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Chemicals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia'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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Clarification needed

The below statements are contradictory. Please clarify.

1. In the United States, chlormequat is classified as a low risk…

2. It is classified as an extremely hazardous substance in the United States as defined in Section 302 of the U.S. Emergency… 68.111.190.163 (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EWG as "unreliable source"

There several claims on the page that the Environmental Working Group is an unreliable source without explanation. This food safety advocacy group has been around since the 1990s and has not been proven to be incorrect in the majority of their evaluations of pesticides, herbicides, medicines, etc., industries which, in contrast, often have long histories of massive numbers and sizes of lawsuits for damage from their products, including deaths.

I am removing these claims. If there are criticism of this particular study and its findings, those should be posted, not broad claims that the entity is unreliable.

GreenIn2010 (talk)

Edit warring of non-MEDRS sourced medical content

I see a couple times that this source has been inserted into the article now along with similar content about it. That source is not WP:MEDRS and is a primary source. In order to use primary sources like that we need a secondary medical source, like reviews.

@EpicAdventurer, would to please undo your recent revert? One of the expectations of WP:1RR in this topic is that when new content has issues like this is that it isn't just reinserted later. There would need to be consensus for such an inclusion, which would be very hard to do right now without MEDRS sourcing. KoA (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean and what you want me to do. We are just here to cooperate.--EpicAdventurer (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking you to remove the content you re-added here as it violated WP:MEDRS. It's gotten more complicated with this edit that has more MEDRS issues though. The short of it though is that the WP:ONUS is on those trying to include that content to get WP:CONSENSUS here on this talk page to avoid the issues coming up now, such as GreenIn2010 using the Daily Mail as a source. KoA (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise @GreenIn2010, could you at least revert the paragraphs you added mentioning the EWG paper? It was already mentioned here and in edit summaries that we didn't have the WP:MEDRS sourcing needed to include mention of that right now. I tagged a bit in your recent edit that will need some work, but the main issue right now is the EWG paper discussion. KoA (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will find more studies to replace with. Which human studies have been done on Chlormequat, since you are noting the mention? I can find the source of the claim that I saw that there are not any. The only studies involving human measurements have been in urine. Also, how is a Spinger-Nature publication, the Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, an "unreliable" source? Are all Springer-Nature publications now "unreliable"? On what basis? Or does it depend on the study outcome? GreenIn2010 (talk)

You aren't addressing what I asked about. Before your edit, it had already been mentioned on talk page and edit summaries that MEDRS sources are needed for the EWG study paragraph you expanded. We can't be referencing the 2024 study because that is a primary study. Those are not reliable sources on Wikipedia for health content (or news sources), and we rely on secondary medical sources giving us context on it. Because of how recent the study is, there aren't any secondary sources we can use yet for it. That's why when I initially removed mention of that study, no one should have been trying to re-add it to the article, especially when this talk section had already been opened. That's why I asked you to self-revert that paragraph since we're supposed to have consensus on this talk page before reinserting content related to that study. Trying to tackle at once all the other issues I tagged wouldn't be feasible with that still going on.

Please read WP:MEDRS for more, but this is an extremely common problem where a primary study hits the news and people want to try to add it to Wikipedia articles. That's not how it works here. Also, please WP:SIGN your comments with four tildes (~) as it breaks some of the internal formatting here with how your current replies are signed. KoA (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be that primary sources were not prohibited on here. I wondered why this page had nothing about the recent widespread news going on about the topic except disjointed paragraphs. Sad, too, since this involves a chemical with no human studies of the substance, yet the EPA is proposing to now release it onto all of the grain products Americans eat.

Maybe we should add a section on "Controversy", then, rather than totally exclude any recent research.

Sorry I was doing 3 and not 4 tildes. I don't write here often.

GreenIn2010 (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy sections generally aren't preferred and still wouldn't be an exception for MEDRS. There currently aren't any reliable sources to cite to the EWG study discussion, which is why I asked you to self-revert instead of someone else having to do it. KoA (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]