Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:42, 26 March 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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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. Agriculture Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chemicals High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

B-cell lymphoma?

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? Lfstevens (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

oh god it is another article in an MDPI journal which also published that bad Seneff article. i'll have a look! Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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 Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, namely B cell lymphoma. B cell lymphomas account for almost all NHL. That's twice as likely, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.1–3.6. Overall, according to the NCI, 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! Jytdog (talk) 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. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

seneff source again

please see Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)/Archive_7#Review_of_Monsanto.27s_Roundup_herbicide Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Sentence " The classification mainly pertains to industrial use of the compound rather than use in gardens."

I support this diff by @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." David Tornheim (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

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 about 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 about 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. David Tornheim (talk) 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. Lfstevens (talk) 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? David Tornheim (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It's about the preference for secondary sources. Lfstevens (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Fails WP:MEDPOP and thus should be excluded. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Glyphosphate now ( "20 March 2015 " ) stated by WHO to "probably cause cancer"

"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

"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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.48.104.17 (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop Making Us Guinea Pigs. An opinion by Mark Bittman, The New York Times. IjonTichy (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Added #1 and #2 sources. Not #3. -DePiep (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2015 (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 WP:RECENTISM. 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. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Disputed by Kingofaces43 , but not here on talk. Something I miss? -DePiep (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not "that's still unfolding". It is a published WHO report. The consequences may be unclear yes, so we do not spceculate indeed. -DePiep (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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 IARC also considers wood dust as a known human carcinogen. 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. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

No, it is not "that's still unfolding". It is a published WHO report. The consequences may be unclear yes, so we do not spceculate indeed. -DePiep (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2015 (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" (WP:OR 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. Are you sure you have no WP:COI? -DePiep (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

"the smoking gun that Monsanto critics have been waiting for" Lucky you get paid for edits here. Does not give you right judgements though. WP:RS. -DePiep (talk) 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 WP:WEIGHT 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 WP:RECENTISM 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 WP:LEAD. Also, please remember to comment on content, not contributor on article talk pages please. Kingofaces43 (talk) 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. Lfstevens (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

OK. Done. Hope everybody's happy. Lfstevens (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

^Thank you. Good work! David Tornheim (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

"and other equivalent sources do not match WHO's findings." That's WP:OR sure. Kingofaces43 arguing 'newishness' about a scienctific publication needs to check thet COIs. But alas, their EPA FUD seems to do. -DePiep (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC) (redact personal attack. 2nd warning. Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC))

By accident, I happened to read the source provided by the FUD. I say it shold be removed from the lead. -DePiep (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Agriculture articles
• Mid-importance Agriculture articles
• WikiProject Agriculture articles
• B-Class chemicals articles
• High-importance chemicals articles