Talk:Herbicide/Archive2022

comment

Wow. Isn't this page a little biased? Where is the balance in this article for example showing the increased yeilds from crops sprayed with herbicides as opposed to cros that are not sprayed. reading this article I would come to the conclusion "why are herbicides used at all as there are no advantages and only disadvantages. 124.186.73.165 (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for said sources and could not find any from any established journals.

Start

Hi, I have no idea where the proper section in the discussion to include this comment is, but please move it there. Why are there no references to Fusilade / Fluazifop-p-butyl / Butyl (R)-2-(4-((5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl)oxy)phenoxy)propanoate anywhere in Wiki? It has use in restoration ecology. Company name is Syngenta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.132.225 (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is in serious need of sources, so i marked it as such --12.4.81.145 17:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous, do you have a reference for the "sound science" claim about 2,4,5,T? Kat 18:55 7 Jul 2003 (UTC) (2,4,5T updated based on claim anyway, I did my own research)

Anonymous user editing Atrazine entry: there is more than adequate discussion in the literature regarding both the acute toxicity and chronic oncogenicity of atrazine. While I agree that atrazine has received uncommon scrutiny, and that some of the earlier claims of oncogenic effects at ridiculously low thresholds has been debunked, your statement that it is in effect harmless is not defensible. Kat 22:40, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Herbicide

Technically qualified contribution for sodium chlorate and ammonium sulphamate needed. Avril 09:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better categorization, please

Why are the different herbicides not sub-categorized into selective/non-selective, pre-emergent/post-emergent, foliar/contact/systemic? This type of info and categorization would greatly increase the utility of Wikipedia to herbicide users.--Mergi 17:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Leads

I've found that our coverage of herbicide technology is rather... poor. We're not even close to comprehensive when it comes to a full herbicide list. Sure, if we listed every substance with known toxicity to plants, we'd be here forever, but in terms of products marketed for weed control, we've got some serious work to do. Here would be a good place for an enterprising individual to start: http://glyphosateweedscrops.org/Info/MOA_060807.pdf It's a flyer put out by the university of Wisconsin to be given to farmers as a quick reference guide to choosing herbicides with different modes of action. It has chemical and brand names, mechanisms of action, and combinations that someone might want to research in depth.Rdnckj258 (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Effects on frog populations - addressing editor Berean Hunter's comment on my talk page

Please read this. This work is fringe theory and not accepted at all. Fails scholarly review by peers...should be pulled out until it gains acceptance but more so because it is being spammed into articles to push advocacy.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PNAS itself is a peer reviewed journal with a moderately high impact factor. I didn't go through the site you showed me in details as internet sites in general are not considered reliable and cannot be used to refute the work published in a peer reviewed journal even if the sites hosted by some scholars. You can pull the work out if and only if the work has been totally refuted by other studies published in journals with a similar or higher impact factor - and as per Wikipedia editing policy the burden of proof is on you if you want to delete that section - until you show another published work here you cannot just pull his work out by claiming his work fringe theory. Even if the frog study is proved to be flawed, it is better to add content stating so than just deleting the section to achieve NPOV. BigCat82 (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. When advocates begin to push theories that are imbalanced they can be pulled. I stated that this issue was being addressed at Atrazine#Effect_on_amphibians where point and counterpoint have been laid out and the fringe theory has been debunked. The person who added this was clearly an advocate...their last sentence "There is a reason that atrazine was banned in Europe in 2004" shows they have an agenda and they didn't balance it but left one half of an argument which is deceptive. No part of that argument should be in a general article on herbicide. This is coatracking. You choose not to read what I present before...okay, Forbes discredits him and The New Yorker gives details. As you can see from the article, this has been an issue at Wikipedia...I remove the material to keep both sides of this advocacy out of this article. I'm not on either side but I can remove coatracking to keep articles from being battlefields. In this article, this subject is undue weight and a fringe theory...the controversy needs to stay at the Atrazine article.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But you are talking about scientific consensus. Look, as a third party patrolling this page, I don't care what counterpoints and points have been discussed in another article, all you need to do is simply to list just one counter study published in a peer review journal to back your deletion of properly sourced content, but you never did. Until then all you said are mere opinions like the original link you posted which cannot be used to "debunk or disprove" any scientific study published in a peer reviewed journal with a high impact factor. This is not how scientific consensus works and that's why your reasons were inappropriate to support your blanking as consensus hasn't been reached. Opinions, even coming from a scholar, are just opinions. Also any work published in a peer reviewed journal with a moderately high impact factor cannot be called a fringe theory. The general public can believe in anything from T. rex being a scavenger to the existence of Loch Ness monster but these have never been established in science even if lots of websites and news agents insist they have been proven. Another editor just rewrote that section balancing different views with works from (or orginated from) peer reviewed journals as his edit was accepted - no one reverts his edit and he didn't need to explain anything for the change - I recommend you get familiar with how scientific consensus is built to avoid unnecessary hassle in the future as invalid reasoning will just obscure your otherwise valid edits. Thanks and have a nice weekend. BigCat82 (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

poster

about the poster added by Chemcol, here:

File:Classification of herbicides According to Mechanism of Action, Chemical Family, and Herbicide Group.png

Classification of herbicides according to mechanism of action, chemical family, and herbicide group. For a high resolution this poster Click Here

This appears to be a WP:SELFCITE so this should be discussed here before going live.

Three main issues:

first, I find this poster to be pretty cluttered and confusing. It is called "Classification of herbicides according to mechanism of action, chemical family, and herbicide group" but I don't see how it does that - the colors are just by mechanism, and I don't see how it breaks things down by chemical family and I am not sure what "herbicide group" means.
secondly, the caption on the file upload page appears to be argumentative WP:OR
thirdly it appears to demand a citation to the authors and to the author's published paper )here), and I am not sure this is compatible with WP's copyright policy. Pinging Moonriddengirl (helpful copyright expert) to get her thoughts on that. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

about the poster removed by Jytdog:

Name, chemical structure, and classify 430 herbicides in the form of an image because of its presence in herbicide section is essential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemcol (talk • contribs) 09:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to what I wrote above, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how copyright applies here, but the image description page for the poster is copied word for word from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/wre.12153/abstract ChemNerd (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that is copyvio, yes. removing that. Jytdog (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jytdog

All materials used in the herbicide section just copied from other sources, and only for some of them mentioned source, while this poster is reproduced according to a new scientific paper and its source in the poster mentioned. So copyright is respected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemcol (talk • contribs) 15:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chemcol you just added the content back. Please self-revert or I will take you to the edit-warring notice board, and you will be blocked. Please also respond to all the points I raised above. Thanks. Please also note that you are editing in violation of the conflict of interest guideline. Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog The colors have been compiled from Weed Science Society of America (WSSA). Group herbicide is used for the herbicide rotation and reduces the selection pressure.

last chance to self revert before i take you to the edit warring notice board. ... (and please sign your posts by adding four tildas at the end like this ~~~~ - the wikipedia software turns that into a link to your username and a date stamp) note i am not saying the poster or some revised version will never be in the article - it needs more discussion before it is added. please self-revert now. Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a writer for lack of an alternative source from content reproduction by itself provide a mention source of content reproduction:

Conflict of interest can be attributed to the author.
The author should be blamed for the source of content reproduction.
Due to the lack of sufficient knowledge editors from the content reproduction and design, content and design to be deprecated and the description of the file to be edited by the editor.
Without reference to the source is given permission, the author calls a violation of copyright. “AUTHORS - If you wish to reuse your own article (or an amended version of it) in a new publication of which you are the author, editor or co-editor, prior permission is not required (with the usual acknowledgements). However, a formal grant of license can be downloaded free of charge from RightsLink if required.”

…

Anyway, please delete files poster on Wikipedia file page and Herbicide Talk Page. Thanks. Chemcol (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

would you please just talk calmly? I think the poster could be very helpful. Would you please explain how it classifies herbicides according to mechanism of action, chemical family, and herbicide group? as far as i can see, the colors are just by mechanism, and I don't see how it breaks things down by chemical family and I am not sure what "herbicide group" means. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sulfonylurea and similar herbicides

Products such as "Flazasulfuron" are used for weed control and as ground-clear herbicides. Our article Herbicide doesn't point to Sulfonylurea in this context and our articles on Sulfonylureas don't reference their use as herbicides. It's also unclear which names are product vs. chemical names.

Could someone improve coverage in this area so that

Herbicidal properties of these compounds are noted in their relevant articles, and in our articles Sulfonylurea and Flazasulfuron (which doesn't seem to exist);
Flazasulfuron is listed under relevant herbicidal articles as it seems to be a common kind of total herbicide.

Not sure what we need to say in this area. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flazasulfuron was created and the sulfonylurea article was modified to indicate that the class includes many herbicides, according to your advice. Further suggestions are welcome.--Smokefoot (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Herbicide/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

No mention of sodium chlorate or ammonium sulphamate (sulfamate) both of which are very commonly used herbicides.

Last edited at 09:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 17:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herbicide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150318232514/http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/pestsales/07pestsales/market_estimates2007.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/pestsales/07pestsales/market_estimates2007.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Some sections of this article are strongly POV and really need some work.

I just removed one absolutely intolerable sentence that had a "citation needed" tag on it for an incredible six years: "Research on populations exposed to its dioxin contaminant have been inconsistent and inconclusive."

This sentence implies that there has in fact been research. Well then, why not provide sources for that research? It also implies that the research, being "inconsistent", really cannot prove that the stuff is as harmful as some people (the victims, possibly?) say.

The following sentence really takes the cake:

"it has been blamed for serious illnesses in many people who were exposed to it."

Oh my goodness, this poor innocent stuff has been "blamed" for something it did not even do? Sorry, but this wording is just pure POV and an absolute insult to all victims.

The articles Agent Orange and Effects of Agent Orange on the Vietnamese people are crammed full with sources so there really is no excuse for leaving unsourced POV like this in the article, playing down the effects of this poison.

(The only reason I left this sentence in there for now is that simply deleting it would take out all hints at the health effects altogether. I will try to rewrite the sentence, adding appropriate sources, but will need some time to do that. I don't mind if anyone beats me to it. --93.212.230.88 (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

The section "Ecological effects" seems to have been written by the herbicide industry itself:

"Commercial herbicide use generally has negative impacts on bird populations, although the impacts are highly variable and often require field studies to predict accurately."

No kidding. And the only studies worth mentioning are those like the one cited in the next sentence, saying it's all not as bad as it seems? Well then, why don't we just reintroduce DDT, what do we care about bald eagles!

There are a number of euphemisms that make the use of herbicides sound like it's a sort of medically sterile procedure without side effects:

"total vegetation control": Love that one. What it means to say in plain language is: total extermination of all vegetation.
"a nonselective herbicide": Yeah, I know that this may be the technical term. Translated to plain English, it simply says the same thing as the above: kills everything.

The section on "organic" herbicides also leaves a lot of open questions. While salt for instance may be a household product, I doubt that it may seriously be considered an "organic herbicide". Where is the source for this categorization?

Also, nearly all these "organic" herbicides are commented on only on their effectiveness and not on their side effects. Salt especially is not something I would imagine an organic farmer would seriously want in his soil.

--93.212.230.88 (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herbicide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140303175955/http://alchemy.chem.uwm.edu/classes/chem603/Handouts/ABBHPPDreview.pdf to http://alchemy.chem.uwm.edu/classes/chem603/Handouts/ABBHPPDreview.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Herbicide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

money

Anyone can be specific about chemicals. How about the very reason they exist. It is buy and sell like everything else. Someone makes something to sell and needs someone to buy it. The common denominator is that both seller and buyer want to make more money quicker than what nature would have. MONEY not more not less — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catweasel (talk • contribs) 15:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]