| Revision as of 07:32, 5 May 2015 editSageRad (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,374 edits →Basic science about glyphosate← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:41, 5 May 2015 edit undoSageRad (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,374 edits →Basic science about glyphosateNext edit → | ||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
| ::: I removed the whole paragraph that cited Funke et al because the original statements were not reported by the paper referenced. You would see that there is no reference to sources of aromatic amino acids within animals in the paper, nor is there any such statement that EPSPS is not present in animal organisms, so the whole original content seems to have been bad. To answer your question, however, it is basic science. It's background knowledge at this point. I am sure i could find a source, though you might then remove it given the track record. I counter, however, with a question: What is the source for the original assertions in that very same paragraph that i edited? ] (]) 17:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC) | ::: I removed the whole paragraph that cited Funke et al because the original statements were not reported by the paper referenced. You would see that there is no reference to sources of aromatic amino acids within animals in the paper, nor is there any such statement that EPSPS is not present in animal organisms, so the whole original content seems to have been bad. To answer your question, however, it is basic science. It's background knowledge at this point. I am sure i could find a source, though you might then remove it given the track record. I counter, however, with a question: What is the source for the original assertions in that very same paragraph that i edited? ] (]) 17:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::: Please find a secondary source for the facts that you adduce. Your efforts and your facts are welcome on the page. They just need the right sourcing. The lack of proper sourcing is a huge problem in WP and is obviously an issue in this article's existing content. Rather than wholesale removal or allowing the situation to worsen via inadequately sourced additions, the middle ground is where we are at the moment. Cheers! ] (]) 18:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC) | :::: Please find a secondary source for the facts that you adduce. Your efforts and your facts are welcome on the page. They just need the right sourcing. The lack of proper sourcing is a huge problem in WP and is obviously an issue in this article's existing content. Rather than wholesale removal or allowing the situation to worsen via inadequately sourced additions, the middle ground is where we are at the moment. Cheers! ] (]) 18:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::::: I am having serious issues with the aggressive removal of all my edits to the page. I sense something of a bad sort happening here |
::::: I am having serious issues with the aggressive removal of all my edits to the page. I sense something of a bad sort happening here. I don't think it's value-neutral. Answer me this: isn't a peer-reviewed journal article a reasonable source for inclusion of a fact in the entry on glyphosate? For example, the fact that it *is* taken up by the roots, not just foliar spraying? I will now add this fact -- AGAIN -- with two such references. If that is then taken away -- AGAIN -- due to some concern that the source is "primary" and not "secondary" -- then show me any absolute policy that "primary sources" are indeed not allowed on Misplaced Pages? Or otherwise WHY is makes sense to remove something based on a peer-reviewed journal article. ] (]) 07:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 07:41, 5 May 2015
| 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: 30 days  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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. |
| 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: 30 days |
Formula
change formula as it shows the Phosporus atom on the left where the pictures have it on the right
Drinking glyphosate
The following content is being edit warred into the article by 5.12.55.41 and 188.25.223.185 dif
On 26 march 2015 in a preview of an interview it was revealed that Monsanto lobbyist Dr. Patrick Moore said the chemical in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer is safe for humans but then refused to drink it when the journalist offered him a glass.
He said that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide, was not increasing the rate of cancer in Argentina and insisted that “You can drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you” but these arguments have been invalidated by his own behavior.
References
- french interviewer (2015-03-26). "Lobbyist claims Monsanto weed killer is safe to drink, then bolts when TV host offers him a glass". Raw Story. Retrieved 2015-03-26.
{{cite news}}:|author=has generic name (help)
Does anybody find this content to be encyclopedia worthy? In my view: it is WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, and it also doesn't describe what happened accurately. See here. Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Great stuff for a tabloid, meaningless in terms of the issues of safety which must be addressed using WP:MEDRS compliant sourcing, and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Agree that this Moore incident doesn't merit inclusion in this article, as Moore is not a recognized expert on the subject. Also, more an aside, sources have been corrected to say he is not a Monsanto lobbyist.Dialectric (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, ridiculous as a serious suggestion for an encyclopedia article. I hardly think this matter needs any more attention, honestly.
Zad6801:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, ridiculous as a serious suggestion for an encyclopedia article. I hardly think this matter needs any more attention, honestly.
- Agree. I do wish that everybody would stop the stupid stuff. This is hard enough already. Lfstevens (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
WHO Contradiction
As Spydoo points out, there is a contradiction in the article. It reads, "...the UN World Health Organization have all concluded pure glyphosate is not carcinogenic." which is at odds with "...the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic in humans"". There is no source provided for the former claim, while IARC is tradionally the workgroup that classifies this for the WHO. The IARC indeed did a review years ago in which it found that glyphosate was not carcinogenic. Thus, Spydoo "Removed WHO from list of organisations that have found glyphosate to not be harmful, considering the upcoming release of study with adverse findings against the chemical." But Sjgknight undid this arguing "An org can find both things, complete removal doesn't make sense". While that is obviously possible, the article does not need 'whatever is possible', but what can be verified and substantiated. I support Spydoo's edit and enforced it again, noting in the summary, "that was probably based on the IARC review years ago. IARC redid exactly that review. WHO opinion IS changed on the matter." But Sarr Cat undid that with exactly the same argument as Sjgknight gave. I now request a source to substantiate the claim that WHO conclude that pure glyphosate is not carcinogenic, because it is very likely that opinion is based on a former review by the IARC. Which is now superseded by their latest review. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- The content you and the others were edit-warring over was duplicative of content elsewhere. I just deleted it. Matter resolved, I think Jytdog (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's pretty rigid, because the duplication is necessary as every header should be an independent discussion. You also removed the position of the EC Health and Consumer Protection which is now no where to be found in the article. But I agree the whole section was unsubstantiated. Timelezz (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- yeah i should have mentioned that the content about EC Health and Consumer Protection Directorate was unsourced and should not have been there at all. Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's pretty rigid, because the duplication is necessary as every header should be an independent discussion. You also removed the position of the EC Health and Consumer Protection which is now no where to be found in the article. But I agree the whole section was unsubstantiated. Timelezz (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The new findings contradict their previous ones, correct? I see no mention of this fact in the article. (which could just be me being stupid, ill admit). I get where you're going in that the new review supersedes the old ones though. However, i don't like how the new report is mentioned right in the lead section without at least some mention of it's controversial status. SarrCat ∑;3 17:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- we generally do not cite the history of reviews. just the most recent, authoritative things. Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, I just thought it might be worthwhile to mention, as it seems that this particular review is controversial due to it going against what most scientific reviews have said so far (from what I can tell anyways.) I guess the main issue here is what position WHO takes, then I guess, yeah, go with the most recent review if that's the standard thing to do on WP. SarrCat ∑;3 20:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Don't we have the problem that WHO's current review has not yet been published? So no one can evaluate what it is based on. Currently all we have is a press release right? Ttguy (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- the people who did the review published a summary in lancet oncology, which is cited in our article. it is true that the full tox study has not published yet. there is discussion of this above (they are something like 6 volumes behind) Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Basic science about glyphosate
I made several changes to more accurately reflect the basic science of glyphosate, and they have been undone by Jytdog, i think unjustly. A couple of the changes were on unreferenced sentences, to note that glyphosate is taken into plants by root uptake as well as by foliar uptake. This is basic science on glyphosate and in a basic science sentence with no reference, i made a correction based on well known science. I could reference if needed to a research article. SageRad (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I also introduced a paragraph on correlation to changes in rumen composition and antibody levels in diary cows with glyphosate level in the cows. This was also removed by Jytdog, because, s/he said, it was a "primary source" -- well if a peer-reviewed article is not an acceptable source, then what is? Is this just that these changes were removed? The citation i provided is: Schrödl, Wieland, et al. "Possible Effects of Glyphosate on Mucorales Abundance in the Rumen of Dairy Cows in Germany." Current microbiology 69.6 (2014): 817-823. SageRad (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I see you've been talking to Jytdog on your talk page where most of your questions have been answered already, but the main issue is that we don't use primary journal articles here for much of anything. Those are articles where researchers publishes results of actual experiments. What we want are secondary sources that give context to those sources, such as literature reviews. Primary sources in science are not meant for the general public, but are instead presented to other scientists in the field who are versed in experimental design, statistics, etc. to determine the validity of the study. Others make very shaky conclusions that are easy to embellish when laypeople start reading them such are correlative studies, etc. Without scientists sorting through that all and saying the findings have merit, we can't establish what we call WP:WEIGHT here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- if you look at my edit notes, I explained each reversion. there were two main buckets. some of the changes were WP:OR and not in the sources provided; the others were based on primary sources, as noted.Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- SageRad like this edit you made - what is the source for the underlined parts of "EPSPS is not present in animal somatic cells, though it is present in animal gut microbiomes, and animals instead obtain aromatic amino acids from their diets and production in gut microbiomes" There are two bits there a) that glyphosate affects the gutmicrobiome broadly, and b) that the gut microbiome is an important source of aromatic amino acids (worth mentioning next to diet). there is not source for those bits in our article. this is what i mean.. when i say that you cannot just add stuff to Misplaced Pages. I could just as well make the same edit and replace "microbiome" with... "cilia" in your edit, and could be just as adamant .... and within Misplaced Pages, would be just as wrong. do you see? Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I removed the whole paragraph that cited Funke et al because the original statements were not reported by the paper referenced. You would see that there is no reference to sources of aromatic amino acids within animals in the paper, nor is there any such statement that EPSPS is not present in animal organisms, so the whole original content seems to have been bad. To answer your question, however, it is basic science. It's background knowledge at this point. I am sure i could find a source, though you might then remove it given the track record. I counter, however, with a question: What is the source for the original assertions in that very same paragraph that i edited? SageRad (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please find a secondary source for the facts that you adduce. Your efforts and your facts are welcome on the page. They just need the right sourcing. The lack of proper sourcing is a huge problem in WP and is obviously an issue in this article's existing content. Rather than wholesale removal or allowing the situation to worsen via inadequately sourced additions, the middle ground is where we are at the moment. Cheers! Lfstevens (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I am having serious issues with the aggressive removal of all my edits to the page. I sense something of a bad sort happening here. I don't think it's value-neutral. Answer me this: isn't a peer-reviewed journal article a reasonable source for inclusion of a fact in the entry on glyphosate? For example, the fact that it *is* taken up by the roots, not just foliar spraying? I will now add this fact -- AGAIN -- with two such references. If that is then taken away -- AGAIN -- due to some concern that the source is "primary" and not "secondary" -- then show me any absolute policy that "primary sources" are indeed not allowed on Misplaced Pages? Or otherwise WHY is makes sense to remove something based on a peer-reviewed journal article. SageRad (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please find a secondary source for the facts that you adduce. Your efforts and your facts are welcome on the page. They just need the right sourcing. The lack of proper sourcing is a huge problem in WP and is obviously an issue in this article's existing content. Rather than wholesale removal or allowing the situation to worsen via inadequately sourced additions, the middle ground is where we are at the moment. Cheers! Lfstevens (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- I removed the whole paragraph that cited Funke et al because the original statements were not reported by the paper referenced. You would see that there is no reference to sources of aromatic amino acids within animals in the paper, nor is there any such statement that EPSPS is not present in animal organisms, so the whole original content seems to have been bad. To answer your question, however, it is basic science. It's background knowledge at this point. I am sure i could find a source, though you might then remove it given the track record. I counter, however, with a question: What is the source for the original assertions in that very same paragraph that i edited? SageRad (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- SageRad like this edit you made - what is the source for the underlined parts of "EPSPS is not present in animal somatic cells, though it is present in animal gut microbiomes, and animals instead obtain aromatic amino acids from their diets and production in gut microbiomes" There are two bits there a) that glyphosate affects the gutmicrobiome broadly, and b) that the gut microbiome is an important source of aromatic amino acids (worth mentioning next to diet). there is not source for those bits in our article. this is what i mean.. when i say that you cannot just add stuff to Misplaced Pages. I could just as well make the same edit and replace "microbiome" with... "cilia" in your edit, and could be just as adamant .... and within Misplaced Pages, would be just as wrong. do you see? Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)