| Revision as of 02:17, 27 April 2018 editKoA (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers26,886 edits →Media manipulation: r← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:50, 17 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,305,781 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Glyphosate/Archive 21) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | {{Talk header}} | ||
| {{Calm}} | {{Calm}} | ||
| {{Round in circles}} | {{Round in circles|search=no}} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= | |||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Agriculture |
{{WikiProject Agriculture|importance=mid}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Chemicals |
{{WikiProject Chemicals|importance=High }} | ||
| {{WikiProject Environment |
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=Mid}} | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{merged-from|Roundup|26 August, 2012}} | {{merged-from|Roundup|26 August, 2012}} | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |maxarchivesize = 100K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 21 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 3 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(120d) | ||
| |archive = Talk:Glyphosate/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Glyphosate/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months }} | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | ||
| |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=gmo}} | |||
| == The content of this article is dangerous == | |||
| == Cancer incidence == | |||
| I work in the agricultural sector in Southern France. I was at a meeting with some farmers discussing safety when a guy adressed the crowd and literally quoted this article stating that glyphosate does not cause cancer and is less dangerous that table salt. | |||
| Just a note that I removed as a non-MEDRS source. There is citing the new publication, but that's a commentary often published alongside journal articles, so it's not really independent. It does comment on a common criticism of the some of the studies used by the IRAC though (i.e., correlative studies and using a population prone to other exposures), which we may want to flesh out with other sources in the future. The study has been discussed in scientific circles though (outside of what we can use on Misplaced Pages), so it may be worthwhile to keep an eye out for secondary source citations of this study. ] (]) 18:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| : +1 on this reversion. And that IP has a history of making inappropriate edits to various articles. <span style="color:#666">– ]]</span> 18:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| The claim that there is a scientific concensus that glyphosate does not cause cancer is blatantly false. | |||
| == A/an herbicide == | |||
| There is a scientific consensus that it has a very low risk for cancer in consumers, but there definitely does not exist such a consensus for agricultural and food processing workers. | |||
| I've already reverted an IP once, when they have changed "an herbicide" to "a herbicide", and I don't want to mess with 1RR, but I think they need to be reverted again, if someone else will do it. My understanding is that the ] convention for this page is to use US, not UK, English. --] (]) 00:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Done. I've also placed the 1RR template on the IP's page. ] (]) 01:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Again, I'm not stating that glyphosate is known to be dangerous only that the texts claim of a scientific concensus regarding all humans is false. | |||
| == Added PR conflict == | |||
| Since 2015, and especially since the release of some Monsanto emails in 2017, the role of industry in shaping public discussion about & research on glyphosate has been notable in and of itself. I added a short section on it and a sentence in the lede. <span style="color:#666">– ]]</span> 19:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| That being said, this article is another example of why I quit editing wikis over 10 years ago. The page itself and the talk page are rife with the kind of formulations and slightly off content that comes from well funded malicious actors abusing the good faith editing policies. | |||
| == Media manipulation == | |||
| I have no hope for this article but I will for my own peace of mind post this talk. | |||
| I note these two new edits, adding content that says that industry (ie, Monsanto) has manipulated the reporting of scientific findings: and . I'm concerned that these additions may have ] problems or may oversimplify the situation. I'm not saying that the problem isn't real, but rather that the way that it is written makes it sound more open-and-closed that what it really is. What do other editors think? --] (]) 19:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :I've tweaked that new section a little, and corrected/expanded the references. It wasn't a journal doing a retraction, it was a magazine removing an article from a website. And the other reference was a report prepared by minority staff ''for'' members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, not a report ''from'' the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.--] (]) 19:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :: Hi {{ping|Tronvillain}}, when a magazine removes a previously published article from all digital sources, it is usually called a retraction. This isn't simply deciding to no longer host an old web page; they retracted after discovering that their reporting had not been independent. <span style="color:#666">– ]]</span> 01:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| This article is used by active farmers as an excuse not not bother with safety equipment and appropriate practices. Do with that what you want. | |||
| Here are links to previous talk about mostly the same issues: ] and ]. Please be aware that the ghostwriting issues have been discussed a lot before, and that the issue is a contentious one, and also that there are Discretionary Sanctions in effect. --] (]) 19:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for bringing this up ]. There was most definitely no need to include this in the lead and in the body, so I have removed what was in the lead. I have doubts about ] of the whole section though, given that it is citing two primary sources and an ''NYT'' piece discussing a single article written by Miller. Regardless of whether it is kept, it most definitely does not merit a whole section of the article devoted to it. It would seem to belong better in the section discussing the IARC report. ] (]) 20:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, and I agree with you. I want to take note of the fact that there was a lot of previous discussion about this, and there was at least something like a consensus that this issue fits better with pages about Monsanto or about the Roundup brand, rather than here. I do support the idea that we should cover issues of ghostwriting and so forth, as I said in previous talk, but I think that we have to be careful about sourcing and POV. I definitely agree with the removal from the lead section. As for the new section lower on the page, I would like to wait and hear from more editors before making up my mind. --] (]) 21:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Roundup redirects here. This ''is'' the page about the Roundup brand. I'm trying to understand why all references to the retracted magazine article, and to the , were removed. The general controversy is widely mentioned in topical literature; the NYT article was notable in communities that track scientific fraud and reproducibility. ] I would be glad to see this tackled with nuance, and am happy to work on something with you. <span style="color:#666">– ]]</span> 02:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 09:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'd be in favor of removing the section from the body as well. In addition to the history you mentioned, there are two other main issues. One is that the IARC issue is a mess to try to describe in terms of NPOV, in part because a person involved with the committee that made the carcinogenic claim (that contradicts other WHO agencies) was and glyhosate re: lymphoma among . The other is that the "ghostwriting" issue is still something I'm unsure of how to appropriately describe, but media manipulation seems to be pushing that beyond the bounds of NPOV quite a bit. | |||
| :::I've been keeping up on the news on this on occasion, but writing content on it all still seems tricky. We're starting to see some better summary sources out there though, so maybe we're getting closer to being able to really tackle it with all the nuance. ] (]) 00:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Part of this should surely remain in the article. The aspect specific to glyphosate, is the dominance of Monsanto-funded research & meta-analyses, making it easy to produce a skewed meta-analysis that ''looks'' neutral and finds no conclusive evidence of health impact. This method of muddying the water is well-known in both industry and science circles: used to good effect with sugar and tobacco studies for decades. It isn't clear that this sort of bias has happened here, but it ''is'' clear that a lot of the research into the topic was funded directly by Monsanto. The IARC report tried to tease out a bit of this, as do one or two other commenters who expressly note that the main difference between studies that find negative results and those that don't is how much weight they give to industry research. <span style="color:#666">– ]]</span> 01:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:{{tq|The claim that there is a scientific concensus that glyphosate does not cause cancer}} ← Wait what? This article says ''that''? ] (]) 12:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :::Perhaps move the IARC response into the IARC section? --] (]) 21:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I was waiting to see if anyone else would comment, but I have no problem with moving a short version there and then deleting the rest. As far as I'm concerned, please feel free to do that, and then we can assess where we stand. --] (]) 20:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I've gone ahead and removed the section since there really hasn't been any support for it. On the question of including the IARC response, I'm a bit iffy on that right now. It's probably better to wait for more secondary sources in that case. There can be a point where whatever the IARC says in response, it would be considered undue weight in the context of the scientific community disagreeing with them, but that would be difficult for us to suss out right now where that line would be. ] (]) 04:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Why leave out the IARC response? IARC is very much a part of the scientific community. Its members may have individual conflicts, just as researchers whose careers depend on research funds from Monsanto have conflicts. But IARC is designed to be a neutral facilitator of research, and the WHO and other agencies are as close to neutral sources as we're likely to have. Bear in mind, when it comes to balance, that Monsanto's PR team is talented, constantly hard at work, and prepares to discredit major studies before they come out. (They certainly extended to Misplaced Pages editing in the past.) Because of the public lawsuits in this case, there are plenty of primary documents showing that not only is this their MO at other times, it was at work here, including in encouraging reports discrediting members of the committee. <span style="color:#666">– ]]</span> 01:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The IARC has been cited as not neutral due to conflicts of interest, etc. discussed on this talk page already. Overall, their claims have more or less been treated as ] or at least ] among the scientific community, including those independent of industry. ] (]) 02:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| This article would benefit from having a 'history' section, with subsections for economic/usage history, and regulatory history. A well structured history section could include the ghostwriting issue without having to have a separate 'Media manipulation' section.] (]) 18:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| ::There is a paper "The history and current status of glyphosate" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28643882) which could be useful for this section, and the abstract says it is in the public domain but I have been unable to find a free full-text version.] (]) 13:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Dialectric}} works for me. ] (]) 13:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Thanks - that works for me, as well.] (]) 13:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::: +1 to such a section. <span style="color:#666">– ]]</span> 01:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == Possible wrong chemical structure == | |||
| === Ghost-writing and retraction === | |||
| The use of the term "ghost-writing" isn't bias from people who dislike Monsanto. It is how a staff scientist described how they might pursue an expensive public campaign to discredit the WHO report and push a different narrative. That scientist used the term "ghost writing" in many, many emails. Here is from one of the court cases against Monsanto. | |||
| So the 3D Structure seems to be a bit off since there is a hydrogen missing on the hydroxyl group and one too many on the nitrogen. Can anyone double check that? Something seemed off about a single bond on the oxygen but I’m not an organic chemist so I’m posting here instead of just changing it. ] (]) 20:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Forbes didn't know that their contributor had accepted drafts from Mon; in addition to removing his article, they ended their relationship with the author. Again, that's not just "taking an old article offline", it's recognition of malpractice. | |||
| :So here I found the correct one from a reputable source. I’m new to Misplaced Pages so im hoping to find anyone who’s willing to change it. Just scared to break something. | |||
| This issue was covered by Forbes, Bloomberg, NPR, the NYT, and others. If you don't like the term ghost-writing, I'm open to hearing alternatives. But removing these refs altogether does not seem to strike the right balance. <span style="color:#666">– ]]</span> 02:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :Source: ] (]) 20:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for checking this. I'd like to get more opinions from other editors, but I think that this is a matter of the 3D structure showing the ]ic form of the molecule (as it would exist when dissolved in water). So the nitrogen atom has an extra hydrogen on it, making it a positively charged ] group, while one of the oxygens in the phosphate group is deprotonated to give a minus charge. Perhaps the image caption should be made clearer, by indicating that the 2D structure is of the uncharged molecule, while the 3D structure is the one with the charges, although this is already pretty strongly implied. --] (]) 20:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh yes, you’re totally correct. It might be a bit misleading there but upon taking another look it sort of is clear enough. Sorry for this false alarm there. Thanks a lot! ] (]) 20:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think having a clarification of that nature would be a good idea. Even if implied, explicit notation is better for our readers, who may themselves not know the chemistry involved and wouldn't make the implied inference. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Agreed. I just made this edit: . Is that better? --] (]) 20:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Seems fine to me. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes. it’s now much clearer that it’s not the same as the skeletal structure. ] (]) 20:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :::::::Good, thanks. And Toastpaws, welcome to Misplaced Pages!--] (]) 20:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ==Zwitterion link== | |||
| Please add link to ] Misplaced Pages entry in the Environmental fate section. I cannot do it as I am not a registered user. Thanks. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ⚫ | :It's already linked, earlier, in the Chemistry section. --] (]) 20:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 14:50, 17 December 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Glyphosate article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 4 months  |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the Roundup page were merged into Glyphosate on 26 August, 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
The content of this article is dangerous
I work in the agricultural sector in Southern France. I was at a meeting with some farmers discussing safety when a guy adressed the crowd and literally quoted this article stating that glyphosate does not cause cancer and is less dangerous that table salt.
The claim that there is a scientific concensus that glyphosate does not cause cancer is blatantly false.
There is a scientific consensus that it has a very low risk for cancer in consumers, but there definitely does not exist such a consensus for agricultural and food processing workers.
Again, I'm not stating that glyphosate is known to be dangerous only that the texts claim of a scientific concensus regarding all humans is false.
That being said, this article is another example of why I quit editing wikis over 10 years ago. The page itself and the talk page are rife with the kind of formulations and slightly off content that comes from well funded malicious actors abusing the good faith editing policies.
I have no hope for this article but I will for my own peace of mind post this talk.
This article is used by active farmers as an excuse not not bother with safety equipment and appropriate practices. Do with that what you want.
37.169.146.59 (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
The claim that there is a scientific concensus that glyphosate does not cause cancer
← Wait what? This article says that? Bon courage (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Possible wrong chemical structure
So the 3D Structure seems to be a bit off since there is a hydrogen missing on the hydroxyl group and one too many on the nitrogen. Can anyone double check that? Something seemed off about a single bond on the oxygen but I’m not an organic chemist so I’m posting here instead of just changing it. Toastpaws (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- So here I found the correct one from a reputable source. I’m new to Misplaced Pages so im hoping to find anyone who’s willing to change it. Just scared to break something.
- Source: ACS Toastpaws (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking this. I'd like to get more opinions from other editors, but I think that this is a matter of the 3D structure showing the zwitterionic form of the molecule (as it would exist when dissolved in water). So the nitrogen atom has an extra hydrogen on it, making it a positively charged ammonium group, while one of the oxygens in the phosphate group is deprotonated to give a minus charge. Perhaps the image caption should be made clearer, by indicating that the 2D structure is of the uncharged molecule, while the 3D structure is the one with the charges, although this is already pretty strongly implied. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oh yes, you’re totally correct. It might be a bit misleading there but upon taking another look it sort of is clear enough. Sorry for this false alarm there. Thanks a lot! Toastpaws (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking this. I'd like to get more opinions from other editors, but I think that this is a matter of the 3D structure showing the zwitterionic form of the molecule (as it would exist when dissolved in water). So the nitrogen atom has an extra hydrogen on it, making it a positively charged ammonium group, while one of the oxygens in the phosphate group is deprotonated to give a minus charge. Perhaps the image caption should be made clearer, by indicating that the 2D structure is of the uncharged molecule, while the 3D structure is the one with the charges, although this is already pretty strongly implied. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think having a clarification of that nature would be a good idea. Even if implied, explicit notation is better for our readers, who may themselves not know the chemistry involved and wouldn't make the implied inference. Silverseren 20:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. I just made this edit: . Is that better? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Seems fine to me. Silverseren 20:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. it’s now much clearer that it’s not the same as the skeletal structure. Toastpaws (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Good, thanks. And Toastpaws, welcome to Misplaced Pages!--Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. it’s now much clearer that it’s not the same as the skeletal structure. Toastpaws (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Seems fine to me. Silverseren 20:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. I just made this edit: . Is that better? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think having a clarification of that nature would be a good idea. Even if implied, explicit notation is better for our readers, who may themselves not know the chemistry involved and wouldn't make the implied inference. Silverseren 20:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Zwitterion link
Please add link to zwitterion Misplaced Pages entry in the Environmental fate section. I cannot do it as I am not a registered user. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.118.73.107 (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's already linked, earlier, in the Chemistry section. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)