| Revision as of 00:26, 26 March 2015 editIjonTichyIjonTichy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,580 edits →Glyphosphate now ( "20 March 2015 " ) stated by WHO to "probably cause cancer": delete attacks← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:50, 17 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,806 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Glyphosate/Archive 21) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | {{Talk header}} | ||
| ⚫ | {{Calm}} | ||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| {{Round in circles|search=no}} | |||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject Agriculture |
||
| {{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= | ||
| ⚫ | {{WikiProject Agriculture|importance=mid}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Chemicals|importance=High }} | |||
| {{WikiProject Environment|importance=Mid}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{merged-from|Roundup|26 August, 2012}} | {{merged-from|Roundup|26 August, 2012}} | ||
| Line 8: | 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 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| ⚫ | {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | ||
| {{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months }} | |||
| ⚫ | |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | ||
| ⚫ | {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
||
| ⚫ | |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=gmo}} | |||
| == Formula == | |||
| change formula as it shows the Phosporus atom on the left where the pictures have it on the right | |||
| == The content of this article is dangerous == | |||
| == B-cell lymphoma? == | |||
| 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. | |||
| Came across this review: whose abstract includes " B cell lymphoma was positively associated with phenoxy herbicides and the organophosphorus herbicide glyphosate." Should this go in? ] (]) 20:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : oh god it is another article in an MDPI journal which also published . i'll have a look! ] (]) 21:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| The claim that there is a scientific concensus that glyphosate does not cause cancer is blatantly false. | |||
| :OK, I looked at this closely, and looked for commentary on it. Seems OK. It is about occupational exposures and was a meta-anlysis of epidemiological studies. So correlative. It found that workers exposed to glyphosate are twice as likely to get a subtype of ], namely ]. B cell lymphomas . That's twice as likely, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.1–3.6. Overall, , around 2.1 percent of adults are diagnosed with NHL at some point during their lifetime - that includes everybody. I'll add some content to our article. Nice find! ] (]) 01:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Here's a contrary, earlier review: | |||
| ::actually not necessarily contrary. the 2012 review you cite is not limited to occupational exposure. There is no signal in that population. I'll add this too. Thanks. ] (]) 20:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| == seneff source again == | |||
| 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. | |||
| please see ] ] (]) 01:47, 16 March 2015 (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. | |||
| == Deletion of Sentence " The classification mainly pertains to industrial use of the compound rather than use in gardens." == | |||
| I have no hope for this article but I will for my own peace of mind post this talk. | |||
| <s>I support by {{ping|49.184.30.180}}. I have been meaning to come back and delete that sentence. There is nothing in the study that says anything about "industrial formulations." ] (]) 06:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)</s> | |||
| 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. | |||
| :Originally I deleted the sentence above for the reasons I struck out above, namely that it was not in the study. Now, I see it is in the other article mainstream article from U.S. News & World Report <i>about</i> the study, rather than from the study itself. That makes me reconsider my opposition to the sentence. I am happy to support adding it back, as long as we are clear about this: Is it indeed okay for material written <i>about</i> scientific studies in sources that are neither written by scientists nor published in a scientific journals when they report on that study? If so, the sentence would be acceptable. I am adding another sentence from the same article, assuming the answer is yes. ] (]) 06:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Strangely, articles about reports are considered more reliable than the reports themselves. As long as the source is reliable, it should overrule the (potentially self-serving) original. ] (]) 07:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::^Is this from WIki-Policy, -Guideline, or -Essay? Or from outside Misplaced Pages? Are you saying this is true of scientific studies, in particular? That non-scientists writing about scientific work from the mainstream press (if deemed "reliable") are more reliable than the work published by scientists in a peer reviewed journal? ] (]) 07:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's about the preference for secondary sources. ] (]) 07:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Fails ] and thus should be excluded. ] (]) 14:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Glyphosphate now ( "20 March 2015 " ) stated by WHO to "probably cause cancer" == | |||
| ] (]) 09:26, 22 August 2024 (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) | |||
| '''"IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides"''' ''( 20 March 2015 )'' | |||
| http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf | |||
| == Possible wrong chemical structure == | |||
| '''"Health Agency Says Widely Used Herbicide Likely Carcinogenic - Herbicide, glyphosate, is sold by Monsanto under Roundup brand "''' | |||
| ''March 20, 2015 5:05 p.m. ET'' | |||
| http://www.wsj.com/articles/health-agency-says-widely-used-herbicide-likely-carcinogenic-1426885547 <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| 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) | |||
| :. An opinion by ], ''The New York Times''. ] (]) 22:41, 25 March 2015 (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. | |||
| ::Added #1 and #2 sources. Not #3. -] (]) 22:53, 25 March 2015 (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) | |||
| I'll just piggyback on this section, but content related to this was recently added to the lead. This is a very recent event that's still unfolding, so we don't yet know if it has enough weight to include in the lead or not per ]. The first problem is that other sources like the EPA and other sources conflict with the WHO's findings, so just providing the WHO's stance is undue weight. Others are beginning to respond directly to the WHO's statement, so it's best to give the topic some time to flesh itself out before giving it more prominence. It's a bit too early to say more than what the WHO said within the body, so it can always be revisited when some time has passed. ] (]) 23:24, 25 March 2015 (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== | |||
| Before we all get too worked up about this as the smoking gun that Monsanto critics have been waiting for, its probably worth noting that the . The IARC's assessment deserves mention, side by side with the EPA's assessment that glyphosate is not carcinogenic. If one belongs in the lead, so does the other. ] (]) 23:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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--> | |||
| :{{od}}{{ec}} | |||
| : |
:It's already linked, earlier, in the Chemistry section. --] (]) 20:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::Well, then add EPA's conclusions. But that is no reason to omit WHO results. Now this: you say "very recently" "recenticism" "still unfolding" (quod non), "we don't yet know if it has enough weight" (] you ask?), "other sources like the EPA ... conflict" (OR again, and why shold EPA not be in there?), "Others are beginning to respond directly" (are you a journalist?), "some time to flesh itself out" (wiki wait for what?). In general, you are only asking for time. <del>Are you sure you have no ]?</del> -] (]) 23:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::"the smoking gun that Monsanto critics have been waiting for" <del>Lucky you get paid for edits here.</del> Does not give you right judgements though. ]. -] (]) 23:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It recently hit the news, and other sources have just begun to respond to it. That's pretty much the definition of still unfolding. We know other sources are beginning to discuss the ] of the WHO report, and other equivalent sources do not match WHO's findings. The former means it can be worthwhile (and no harm) to wait awhile. The latter means that solely mentioning the WHO report is undue weight in the lead. There's also the issue that the finding was for a specific group of people, which namely those in industrial usage being exposed to extremely high levels. We need to be very careful about blanket statements here. Please read ] if you haven't already as it summarizes this very kind of scenario pretty well. Lfstevens edit is a step in a better direction that's fine while this is being discussed at least. At this point, it's best to work with the content in the body, give it awhile to breath, and then add it to the lead at a later date per ]. Also, please remember to comment on content, not contributor on article talk pages please. ] (]) 23:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I tightened the wording in both places. Now I'll go find the EPA ref. Everybody calm down and stop the name-calling. ] (]) 23:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :OK. Done. Hope everybody's happy. ] (]) 00:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::^Thank you. Good work! ] (]) 00:05, 26 March 2015 (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)