This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 14:50, 17 December 2024 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Glyphosate/Archive 21) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 14:50, 17 December 2024 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Glyphosate/Archive 21) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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)