Talk:Polyethoxylated tallow amine

June 2013 deletion of primary sources past 1997 review

The current article on polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA) is a 4-line stub which hardly says anything about the agent - well, it is a surfactant that may hurt some fish. Yet POEA is a major adjuvant of commonly used [[gluphosate]-based herbicides, including many Roundup formulations. The article does not reflect available and reviewed scientific findings from the last decade when a number of models were applied to assess POEA (see in PubMed [1]), none of the results being reassuring. My attempt to update this article past a 1997 review was stopped while in process. The article was purged with the argument that primary sources are not allowed, only reviews are to be used. Wikipedia’s policy says: “Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia", and then warns against their misuse. I believe that editors in Wikipedia have an obligation not to dumb down readers. The deletion of primary sources withholds information and compromises the neutrality of the article. Articles should contain current information. Ekem (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ekem. I agree that this article needs to be fleshed out a lot! POEA does indeed appear to be a nasty actor. First thing is, as per WP:PSTS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." In other words, secondary sources are strongly preferred, for a whole host of reasons. Second thing is, if we want to make claims about effects on human health (and we do), we need to comply with WP:MEDRS, which falls entirely within WP:PSTS but is more strict and emphasizes 2ndary and tertiary sources even more strongly. It says "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources. Synthesis of published material that advances a position is a form of original research and should be avoided in Wikipedia articles, which are not a venue for open research. Controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine should be illustrated with reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. The use and presentation of primary sources should also respect Wikipedia's policies on undue weight; that is, primary sources favoring a minority opinion should not be aggregated or presented devoid of context in such a way as to undermine proportionate representation of expert opinion in a field. Scientific findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as the original, primary research report is released, and before the scientific community has had an opportunity to analyze the new results. For a short time afterwards, the findings will be so new that they will not be reflected in any review articles or other secondary sources. If the findings involve phase I or phase II clinical trials, small studies, studies that did not directly measure clinically important results, laboratory work with animal models, or isolated cells or tissue, then these findings are probably only indirectly relevant to understanding human health; in these cases, they should be entirely omitted. In other situations, such as randomized controlled trials, it may be helpful to temporarily cite the primary research report, until there has been time for review articles and other secondary sources to be written and published. When using a primary source, Wikipedia should not overstate the importance of the result or the conclusions. When in doubt, omit mention of the primary study (in accordance with recentism) because determining the weight to give to such a study requires reliable secondary sources (not press releases or newspaper articles based on them)." (I added the emphasis) We do not want this article to end up like the bisphenol A article, which is a useless train wreck of primary sources. In any case, I have been meaning to circle back around and work on this but I have not gotten to it. I just did the pubmed search you suggested above and added the "review" filter, and found 2 reviews - I will add content and the sources now. Thanks for working on this! Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, both reviews you added seem to be focused on glyphosate. They provide some coverage of POEA in the context of glyphosate formulations, but I only have currently the abstracts available and no access to the articles. I have no idea if the reviews even cover basic stuff such as toxicity class, toxicology models and data, pharmacokinetics, metabolites, half-life, occupational and environmental hazards, etc. In any case, the most recent review that included POEA is the Bradbury article is from 2004, thus the current Wikipedia article ignores any information more recent. By the way, primary articles often have useful background information beyond the actual experimental data and their interpretation.Ekem (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy to send them to you if you like. If you find a review that is more recent than 2004 that would be awesome to have. Wikipedia doesn't buy the groceries, we just cook with what is there. In other words, we don't do OR here... Jytdog (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

also as i wrote above, i did the search you recommended (see in PubMed [2]) and then just added the review filter. These two articles are what popped out. Jytdog (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I try the library, - that not OR.Ekem (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice. I will try mine too. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

As it is now, the article is just plain awful, -inaccurate by omitting information, awkward by largely relying on copies of abstracts of two articles that are somewhat linked to POEA. While we are interested about human health, we are also concerned about the effect on the environment, so WP:PSTS but not WP:MEDRS would apply. Clearly, your prohibition of all primary sources is misguided. I'll be back after getting the 2 articles.Ekem (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is very clear that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." As per policy we go first with secondary and tertiary sources; going to primary sources needs some extraordinary justification and use with great care. Primary sources should not be used because they are recent or easy to find. Piling up content based on primary sources violates the letter and more importantly the spirit of Wikipedia's policies and leads to articles that are confusing train wrecks. I agree that the abstracts I threw up there need to be edited down and that we should cite more detailed information specifically on POEA from those reviews. On the environmental front, I don't know if you looked at the environmental review that is cited there but it has a ton of great, detailed information if you want the article to go into more detail on environmental effects. Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

How not to write an article.

What is this article all about? It seems to consist mainly of true facts written in a misleading way, either intentionally or through ignorance. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin. Please make a point. Better, please help in improve the article! Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I did make a point, that the article seems to consist mainly of true facts written in a misleading way.

Polyethoxylated tallow amine is a surfactant, it is not particularly toxic although drinking it or swimming in it is not to be advised. It is one of many thousands of chemicals used by humans for a wide variety of purposes, many of which are harmful to aquatic life if misused. Let us try to give a balanced and encyclopedic overview of the substance, maybe referring just to a toxicity class as suggested.

As a start, this section is wildly overblown:

There is a reasonable correlation between the amount ingested and the likelihood of serious systemic sequelae or death. Advancing age is also associated with a less favourable prognosis. Ingestion of >85 mL of the concentrated formulation is likely to cause significant toxicity in adults. Gastrointestinal corrosive effects, with mouth, throat and epigastric pain and dysphagia are common. Renal and hepatic impairment are also frequent and usually reflect reduced organ perfusion. Respiratory distress, impaired consciousness, pulmonary oedema, infiltration on chest x-ray, shock, arrythmias, renal failure requiring haemodialysis, metabolic acidosis and hyperkalaemia may supervene in severe cases. Bradycardia and ventricular arrhythmias are often present pre-terminally. Dermal exposure to ready-to-use glyphosate formulations can cause irritation and photo-contact dermatitis has been reported occasionally

It refers to drinking over 85 ml of concentrate!! That is over 1/3 cupful of the stuff. There must be thousands of everyday substances where doing this would be seriously harmful. Let us try to get things into perspective. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

please be bold, and then let's discuss. Jytdog (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have started by removing a whole paragraph. The two major problems that I see are excessive content on toxicology, the article reads as if the main purpose of this substance is to poison people and the environment; and the excessive connection with a specific brand of herbicide. Is this the only use of PETA? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin, deleting a whole paragraph is not reasonable. The source is good, and the content is good, albeit excessive and not balanced with other content. This is very far from a good article, I grant you! But wholesale deletion is not constructive. If you want to get involved, help build the article by adding content that is lacking, edit down content that is excessive, etc. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The content that I deleted is not just excessive it is absurd. I guess you did not read my previous post above, and have not looked at the links I gave below. The whole article is virtually dedicated to toxicology and even with my deletion it still concentrates too much on that subject.

Please explain why you want to give a detailed description of the effects of swallowing over 85ml of the substance when no other article on a similar substance does this. Do you suggest that we add this information to all other chemicals with an entry here? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course I read what you wrote! I objected to wholesale deleting; I would not object to editing down, especially in the context of adding more content. Wholesale deleting is not improving. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps then you could respond to me request above. Why do you want to give a detailed description of the effects of swallowing over 85ml of the substance when no other article on a similar substance does this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Martin I really don't understand where you are coming from. If you read this talk page, and read the actual article you are critiquing carefully, you will see that the current text you are criticizing, is literally a copy/paste from the abstract of the Toxicological Reviews article. There is no wild overemphasizing of anything in the abstract. And since it is the abstract of an article written for toxicologists, it is obvious to the intended reader that a third of a cup is quite a lot and could only be the result of intention or a bad accident. To me, the abstract is saying that the stuff is pretty safe -- it takes that much to achieve what toxiciologists call "significant toxicity." And if you actually read the source you will see that it also discusses the lesser effects of lower doses, and that this information comes from a review of 93 cases of poisonings with glyphosate formulations, if you actually read that case review article you will see that most of those were intentional. I really don't understand where you are coming from. you've been in the trenches too long i think. Again, the article needs a lot of improvement and you are welcome to work on it! Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I have never questioned the accuracy or the sourcing of the material you added. I am questioning the desirability of including in an encyclopdia detailed information on the toxicological effect of the intentional ingestion of large quantities of the subject of the article. Do you think we should do this for every substance with an article in WP, I am sure the information is available? Why do we not do this for all the surfactants I have listed below?

Perhaps you could answer my question, which I ask for the third time. Why do you want to give a detailed description of the effects of swallowing over 85ml of the substance when no other article on a similar substance does this?

I think the only way forwards here is to have an RfC on the balance of this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, been to WP:Battleground much recently, Martin? I have said repeatedly that a) the article needs improvement; b) this content could surely be edited down. Your throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater solution was just to delete it wholesale. Like I said, please feel free to improve the article! It seems quite urgent to you so you please start reading sources and improving it!! Absolutely no need for an RfC - we don't disagree at all on substance, just on style. (and btw if you want to see LOTS of tox information, please see any number of articles - say Glyphosate or Organophosphates or BPA. ). Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That is because some Organophosphates are seriously toxic, they include nerve agents which are classified as weapons of mass destruction!!

The Glyphosate article is another example of ridiculous concentration on toxicity, again related to a particular brand of herbicide. That article, like this one, conflates the toxic effects of glyphosate, PETA and other substances used in commercial herbicide formulations.

If you want comparable substances to PETA you need to look at the surfactants that I have listed below.

I do not want to delete the whole article, just half a paragraph of irrelevant toxicology detail. Everything is toxic, if you consume enough of it. Have you read about this terrifying substance this terrifying substance?

If we cannot get some sense of proportion here and RfC is the only way that I can see forward. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

PETA? Martin this is a completely psycho conversation. It's like you are not reading what I write. I have encountered you on other pages and found you to be pretty reasonable, but it is like a different person here. You are not responding to anything I write and are distorting what I do write; I never said you deleted the whole article. I said that the 85ml is actually a sign the stuff is pretty safe. I have invited you to read the source you deleted and provide a summary more satisfactory to you. This is so weird. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

PETA= Polyethoxylated tallow amine, the subject of this article.

I guess I must have misunderstood you when you said, 'a) the article needs improvement; b) this content could surely be edited down. Your throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater solution was just to delete it wholesale.'

I want to completely delete a section on the toxicologically effects of drinking over 85 ml of a Polyethoxylated tallow amine containing compound. Why do you want to keep it? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Now we are conversing, at least a little. Polyethoxylated tallow amine = POEA as the article says. Yes you did misunderstand - the ONLY thing I have objected to is your deleting an entire paragraph and its source. What I have suggested about ten times, is that if you do not like that paragraph, which is simply the abstract of the source, please read the source yourself and provide a more "balanced" summary. I do not believe you have looked at the source. It is very good. Have you looked at it? Please answer that. thanksJytdog (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I have looked at the source but what it says is irrelevant to this conversation. I see no reason why we should provide any summary of the toxicological effects of drinking a large volume of PETA. Please explain why you want to include that information in this specific article. We do not do it for most other chemicals. Doing so to just this one specific surfactant gives undue weight to its (low) toxicity. Also, the source is talking about a cocktail of PETA and other substances. We have no sources relating to people who have just drunk PETA alone. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

We need to slow down. First. Nobody to refers to this chemical as PETA. You can keep doing so but it raises questions of WP:COMPETENCE. Second, please confirm that you read the source. It makes no sense to discuss content based on this source if you haven't read it. Third, please confirm that you understand that the current paragraph in our wikipedia article is the abstract of the source. Fourth - and this is probably the most irritating thing in everything you have written -- please confirm that you understand that the 85ml figure is the significant tox dose of glyphosate formulation, not POEA alone. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a talk page. The abbreviation used used is unimportant. Please to not try to make this personal.

Yes I do understand that the source refers to the consumption of 85 ml of herbicide containing other ingredients than POEA, I said so just above, 'the source is talking about a cocktail of PETA and other substances'. That is one reason why the source and its abstract are irrelevant to this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If you do the math on that, as per the article, most of these formulations have 15% POEA; 15% of 85ml is 12.75 ml, which is a bit less than a tablespoon of POEA. Still quite a lot. In any case please see P164 for the place where the 85ml number comes from, and please see p162 for the discussion of POEA alone. I have been meaning to swing back by here and create better content based on this source, but have not had time. As I have suggested, this appears to be very urgent to you so I suggest that you do this; I do not love it that we are currently just using that abstract, which was just a quick and dirty solution as per the conversation above your lovely section header. Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The 30 is so pointless. Martin if you don't like the length of the tox info, as I have said too many times now, please read the sources yourself and create a more condensed version. The only thing I objected to was your wholesale deletion of the paragraph and the source. I don't understand how this can be so urgent to you and how you can spend all this time Talking, when you don't just do the obvious thing, and write a new, condensed summary discussion of POEA toxicity from the source. Jytdog (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

To help you get things in perspective have a look at how much there is about toxicity in the paraquat article. Paraquat is much more toxic than glyphosate or POEA.

Jytdog, I have tried asking for a third opinion. I have never done this before. Let us see how it goes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Some articles for reference

In order to give a picture of how this article might look, I give links below to related articles, all found in the Surfactant article.

Part of the manufacturing process is, I would guess, Ethoxylation. Do we know anything else about how it is made.

Other surfactant articles are Sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate, Lignosulfonates, Sodium dodecyl sulfate, Cetrimonium bromide, Sodium laureth sulfate, and Benzalkonium chloride. This is just a random selection to give us an idea of how this article might be structured. There limited toxicology sections in some of these articles and I can see no strong brand name links. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion

Please comment here.

Okay, I will, coming here from the listing at Third Opinion. This opinion is based upon the presumption that this edit encapsulates this dispute. Martin's argument seems to focus on this point, "I see no reason why we should provide any summary of the toxicological effects of drinking a large volume" taking that issue as being absurd, as if the article in question was about something which would never happen in the real world or, to quote Martin, "It refers to drinking over 85 ml of concentrate!! That is over 1/3 cupful of the stuff. There must be thousands of everyday substances where doing this would be seriously harmful. Let us try to get things into perspective." I find it rather remarkable that neither editor has focused on the statement in the removed section that, "Most reported cases have followed the deliberate ingestion of the concentrated formulation of Roundup" (emphasis added). It seems to me that the toxicity of an ingestion of 85 ml of this stuff is clearly relevant to the article, since people are intentionally drinking Roundup in the real world and since there is a question of whether the addition of the material to the glyphosate makes the mixture more toxic. That would seem to me to at least get us past the dispute as it now stands. I agree that the two tox entries are too detailed and extensive for an article of this length and need to be trimmed down. (And I also wonder whether the length of the quotations, even though properly quote-marked and attributed, may violate the Non-free content policy.) It also occurs to me that there may be WP:MEDRS issues which need to be evaluated and taken into account. (Indeed, I have to wonder from the abstract — I've not read the full study — whether this study about glyphosates really says anything about POEA in particular vs surfactants in general and whether, in that light, the study can really be cited as saying anything definitive about POEA vs. simply some comments about it in passing.) In short, I think that there is a real possibility that there is a great deal more to consider about the suitability of this study as a source in this article, but the objection that the inclusion is absurd merely due to the quantity involved does not seem to me to be sufficient reason to exclude the material in light of the known misuse of the material. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

As discussed above, the source has a section specifically on POEA toxicity.Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

For clarity my arguments are:

As TransporterMan says above, the effects of consumption of a herbicide containing POEA, glyphosate and other chemicals cannot be used to indicate the toxicity or the toxic effects of POEA.

In any case the detailed description of the effects of the above ingestion give far too much weight to one particular property of this material, its toxicity. There must be many industrial or agricultural chemicals where ingestion of even 15 ml would cause serious harm. For example paraquat is much more toxic then POEA yet that article has less on the toxic effects than this one. Better models on which to base this article would be the other surfactants that I have listed above, some of which have brief and proportionate sections on toxicity..

The substance is far too closely linked with Roundup, a specific brand of herbicide. It must be used by someone else for something. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Remove brand names

I suggest that brand names should be removed from this article. There is far too strong a connection between a substance that is just a surfactant and a brand of herbicide. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

POV flag removed

rmved flag from article, as dispute from June 2013 appears to be resolved.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)