| Revision as of 20:55, 6 December 2024 editTryptofish (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers69,478 edits →Zwitterion link: reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:50, 17 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,663 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Glyphosate/Archive 21) (bot | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=gmo}} | {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=gmo}} | ||
| == Misinformation == | |||
| Just noting that there have been some large of content lately that were removed for various reasons. On the topic of ghostwriting, many of those same materials were discussed 6 years ago that required significant care, such as at ]. Part of that has to do with how much ghostwriting is invoked in ] circles in this topic and having to navigate that. Anything that would be added on that subject really would need a close look here. | |||
| As I looked through the edits, I was finding some ] issues, but also some ] issues along with a ] tone, especially with primary sources to make statements about people that would have ] concerns too along. There's potentially a lot to unpack in all of those edits, so it's probably best to address them one at a time if any additional discussion is needed. ] (]) 17:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Good removal, KoA. If there's any real ] for any of that, it would really be for the Monsanto article, not this one. ]]<sup>]</sup> 17:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi there—I'm the one behind that edit. I admit I got a little cheeky with the tone, and would happily see the section pared down for that. | |||
| ::As regards ] concerns: I'd argue that Rowland was a public figure with an impact on global ag policy. All quotes etc. were verifiable, not original research, and as neutral as it's possible to be when the objective facts make one look quite bad. Regardless, I agree that it might be best moved elsewhere; perhaps the controversy around the documents revealed in the cancer litigation deserve their own page. | |||
| ::Regarding the ghostwriting and the problem with ]: Would you have us delete ] too? | |||
| ::There are fringe theories; there is no such thing as a fringe fact. The deliberate deception around the supposed independence of the safety consensus is a neutral and objective truth with a top-tier, peer-reviewed, secondary source citation. In a page with several thousand words of discussion on the evidence surrounding the safety of this compound, it does not seem undue to have a paragraph or two informing the reader that, while the current scientific consensus is one of safety, an interested party has a clear history of doing unseemly things to manipulate the consensus in that direction. | |||
| ::] (]) 21:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::PBSuccess is not a fringe theory. ] (]) 16:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Weak == | |||
| Hi @], I’m curious what you meant by “weak”? The secondary review from a reputable journal should be a ], if I’m understanding this guideline within the esoteric-to-me medical project correctly. ] (]) 16:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :See ] (]) 16:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. ] (]) 17:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I read the source, and I think I can explain further why it was a "weak" source for this purpose (and I agree with the revert). When one gets into the details of what the authors say in the Discussion section of the paper, they explain that the toxic effects were at dosages of glyphosate that were a lot higher than what happens when people or animals get exposed to it in the environment. They say that their findings have implications for setting a correct value for the dosage at which adverse effects can happen, but not in describing the risks of exposure as it occurs in the environment. Consequently, I would worry that it would mislead readers into thinking that the review was about what happens with environmental exposure, when the source actually says something different. --] (]) 20:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == The content of this article is dangerous == | == The content of this article is dangerous == | ||
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)