Talk:Glyphosate

"have been" approved by regulatory bodies worldwide

There's been back and forth about the second paragraph. Originally, it said "While glyphosate and formulations such as Roundup have been approved by regulatory bodies worldwide and are widely used, concerns about their effects on humans and the environment persist," and an unregistered editor changed "worldwide" to "in various countries" here, giving the reason ""Worldwide" terminology suggests worldwide when glyphosate is actually not approved worldwide and is increasingly being restricted." Then, user Jytdog reverted this here giving reason ""have been", not 'Is" - and a few small countries is not a revolution" To me, this use of "have been" sounds misleading, and lawyerly in the sense of perhaps semantically correct but giving the wrong impression about reality. I could also say that DDT has been approved by US regulatory agencies, and if i then say nothing after that, it would give the impression that it's still approved. That is what i mean by misleading. I find the language "a few small countries is not a revolution" to be revealing about his/her reasoning, too, speaking to agenda, or a "side". I saw this revert and this reasoning, and i did what i thought was sensible, to cut the language on "have been approved" altogether, since it's being used in a misleading way anyway, and not needed here, and reduce it here to "While glyphosate and formulations such as Roundup are widely used, concerns about their effects on humans and the environment persist." Then, user Mark Marathon reverted by edit here back to the original, with reason "Pertinent and referenced" -- so i'd like to get an understanding of what's pertinent about that, and why the language is needed there, or rather what's the best language we can have there? I like simply stating that, while it's widely used, concerns exist. Simple and done. The regulatory history and current state is described in the article, including recent country-wide bans on the chemical. I'd like to eliminate lawyerly language and simplify to the bare facts. SageRad (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Two weeks later, no response from other editors. I'm going to change it back soon to simply "widely used". If we can't have mature discussion about text and then implement results of the discussion, then what are we doing here? SageRad (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Generally when no responses occur, other editors don't see the issue being brought up as needing attention or are fine with the current version. Sometimes the community decides that discussion on the topic isn't needed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

French ban

The wording used in the references concerning the French ban made me think that this ban isn't what it seems. Further digging has shown that the substance hasn't been banned from sale, just from sale on open display. In this respect it is the same as the restrictions on cigarettes, spray-paints, glues and solvents in Australia, and a claim that Australia has banned the sale of paint or cigarettes would clearly be incorrect. Added to that the ban is planned to take effects in 7 years time Additionally, it isn't clear at this stage whether it is a ban at all. While some articles say it is a ban, they only note that the French minister responsible has requested that certain retailers conform to certain standards of display. That by itself does not make a ban, any more than Tipper Gore asking TV stations not to show teenagers shaving sex meant that the US had a ban on teenage sex. Since multiple sources have said that France has banned the sale, when in fact it is at most a ban on sale from open display, in certain outlets, I don't think this breaking story is being reported very accurately. To avoid the worst perils of WP:RECENTISM, I've toned down the wording to what I think is a non-controversial version of events. Before we can say more we need to ascertain what the facts are. Perhaps the French Wikipedia group could be asked to assist? The main point we need to know is if this is an actual ban on selling the product from open display, with some form of official penalty for non-compliance, or if this is simply a request from a Minister that retailers can comply with as they see fit. If it's the former then we should call it a ban on selling from open display, not a ban on sale as the reverted edits claim. If it is just a request from a Minister then we need to use wording that reflects that the minister asked stores to voluntarily comply by not selling form open display. Mark Marathon (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

A little more digging. All these stories seem to be garbled forms of the original Reuters story "French minister asks shops to stop selling Monsanto Roundup weedkiller". As the headline states, the story only notes that the Minister only asked shops not to sell from open display. The story then notes that "She did not specify how she would enforce any move to curb over-the-counter sales". it also notes that France is considering a banning all sales of all pesticides to unlicenced people by the year 2022. This isn't anything specially applied to Glyphosate, it will also apply to Raid and 2,4-D. I've changed to text to reflect that there is no ban. The general french ban on pesticides proposed for 8 years time doesn't warrant inclusion in this articleMark Marathon (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it warrants inclusion, as it was a special request. I thank you for your fact-checking and corrections. "I have asked garden centres to stop putting Monsanto's Roundup on sale," here. SageRad (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"I have asked garden centres to stop putting Monsanto's Roundup on sale....". Those ellipses are important.

There's no argument that this is notable enough for inclusion, but the inclusion needs to be an accurate representation of the facts. At this stage a politician has politely requested some people to do something, but the request has no legal enforcement. The people concerned can, and probably will, politely say no. IOW the legal status of Glyphosate in France hasn't changed at all and it certainly hasn't been banned. Even the word translated as banned in "France must be on the offensive with regards to the banning of pesticides" is most often translated as "control" or "regulation", which have rather different meanings in English. My French is nowhere near good enough to know which translation is more accurate.Mark Marathon (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Lawsuit sourced

We've discussed adding this lawsuit to the article in the past, but objection was made on the basis that the source (Examiner.com) was a non-edited newsblog. Well, here is another source, an edited publication, by a real journalist. So what do you say? I say that we should include it under the "Legal cases / Advertising controversy" section. I find it relevant and worthy of a single sentence with this source. SageRad (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

epochtimes. oy. you are going from one crappy source to the next. Jytdog (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Oy, can you be a little less glib? As i recall, your main reason to reject Examiner.com was that it is a user-contribution blog-type site, not an edited publication. Epoch Times is edited. I actually went to WP:RSN and searched about Epoch Times, and found that the main concerns about Epoch Times relates to stories about Falun Gong, with which it is associated. Otherwise, i don't see a serious issue. Sure, it's not the New York Times, but it's a publication with editorial procedure, and the author of this article has written dozens of articles there. I'm being polite to talk about it here before editing. If you have serious concerns about the source, let me know. SageRad (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Put it this way... Christian Science Monitor is a very good source for most things, even though it's also associated with a religion. SageRad (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's get some other opinions here. I posted for comments at RSN here. SageRad (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

epoch times is a crappy source. will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Different lawsuit, but Monsanto did lose...BBC Lfstevens (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That is already included in the article. Thank you, Lfstevens. SageRad (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The lawsuit is also covered in Alternet which is citing an article in The Ecologist. Is this notable enough? I think so. SageRad (talk) 02:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The Ecologist is a proudly biased source. The slogan "Setting the environmental agenda since 1970" should have given that away, but if that's not enough, its proud claim to have "led to the creation of the... Green Party" and its stated goal to "highlight the... the health effects of everyday toxins, and the huge environmental cost of industrial agriculture" should have given it away. This is journal that proudly devoted "an entire edition is dedicated to examining the environmental record of the highly litigious Biotech giant, Monsanto."

IOW "The Ecologist" is an openly biased, propaganda piece for left wing, anti-industrial, anti-pesticide causes and, to boot, it has a special axe to grind with Monsanto. So, no, nothing of this nature sourced to it can be considered RS. You need to find a source that doesn't have an explicitly stated intent of creating ecological controversies concerning Monsanto in particular. You could not find a less reliable source on this subject Mark Marathon (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

So, Mark Marathon, is the Wall Street Journal a reliable source? Is it unbiased? Did you know that WP:RS contains this text prominently: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."? Some sources highlight one thing, and some highlight another thing. There is really no "unbiased" source. Everything is framed somehow. Everything has a point of view. We have so many sources available, and we need to write articles that combine many points of view. Can you please either admit that you're completely wrong about the nature of the RS guidelines, or else argue why you're right? Seriously. SageRad (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

By the way, you must be kidding about The Ecologist trying to create controversies about Monsanto. Monsanto's own misconduct creates controversies, and those who report on it are doing public service. This is the nature of the world. Don't shoot the messenger. In fact, say thank you to the messenger for the hard work. SageRad (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note that this topic is the subject of this RSN discussion, don't forget to take into account the comments from there. Zad68 03:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent deletions

Editor Jytdog recently deleted three additions to the article by Johann Zaller, in this diff, with the reason being given as "please use secondary sources, not primary sources. Thanks". Now, i know that secondary sources are preferable to primary sources, but primary sources are not disallowed, as stated in the reliable sources guideline. There may have been some synthesis or otherwise disallowed commentary by the editor who added these texts, but that would be another matter. I don't believe that the fact that a source is a primary source is a reason solely in itself to delete content. I post this note to bring this up to the original poster, and others here, and to note that this deletion occurred. We can't have people making up their own rules and acting single-handedly in such ways, if we are to cooperate to refine the article. We could seek out secondary sourcing for these aspects of glyphosate effects on the environment, and on plant symbiotic microbes, but being primary does not outlaw a source solely in itself. I did recently add text on the effects of glyphosate on the endophytic bacterial population of soybean plants, using a primary source, in this diff3. I would be troubled and challenge the action if that were to be deleted solely because the source was a primary research report. SageRad (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep, three primary sources selected and content based on them, out of zillions of them that are possible to choose. And yes I didn't act on yours to avoid further drama, but since you now bring that up in defense, I just removed that too. We can bring literally shitloads of primary sources that say X and not X or kind of X and end up with a garbage dump of bullet points, not an article. This is not how we build WP articles. Jytdog (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Editing is a process of feeling out what is most relevant, and by the Wikipedia guidelines, that does involve secondary sources, but it also does involve the input and intuition of many editors who are knowledgeable on a topic and spend their energy to edit articles using the power of their minds to do so. Your supposition that use of primary sources would lead to a garbage dump of bullet points is not accurate. That is one possible outcome, though it would assume bad editorial practices on the part of the editors. So i call that out as a strawman, or exaggerated argument. I am going to add back my addition that i pointed out, and i am asking you to give a more adequate answer than solely that it uses a primary source, if you wish to delete it. SageRad (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

No, editing WP is not about feeling out anything. It is a process of identifying the best sources available, reading them, and generating content based on them that reflects NPOV with regard to WEIGHT and language. Going out and looking for primary sources that emphasize various forms of toxicity and adding content based on them, is just advocacy and does result in "articles" that are garbage dumps. It is not a supposition - it happens here all the time when POV-pushers come to edit. the process of finding great sources is especially important on controversial articles like this one per Wikipedia:Controversial_articles#Raise_source_quality which I have told you many times already. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You brought an edit war notice against me. I am NOT engaged in an edit war. I stated my reason, and i gave you the option to give another reason for deleting my edit. You are not the king of the world, Jytdog. You have to work with others. You cannot dictate things in the way you tend to do around here. You're not the king of Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I brought an edit war notice against Jytdog in parallel. In my reckoning, he is the one who is more edit warring here. SageRad (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The text i added under "effects on plant health" was, in my opinion, an important aspect of effects on plant health. Relevant, and briefly noted, with a source that qualifies under Wikipedia guidelines. You were not justified in deleting it on the basis of source being primary, solely. SageRad (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2015 (

I saw the recent additions of primary sources come up on my phone earlier this morning as was going to remove them for the same reasons listed above when I got to a break. That's already been done it seems. It should be a simple case of finding secondary sources for content rather than trying to push primary sources in. We want secondary sources for scientific content rather than relying on primary sources to this degree. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

But, is it the case that primary sources are inherently disallowed? No, it is not. Therefore, where do you and Jytdog get off deleting content solely based on source being primary? You are mis-stating and mis-applying guidelines, and it is harmful to the environment of Wikipedia. You are also not the king of Wikipedia. You, and i and everyone must collaborate. Nobody gets to be the dictator. Guidelines exist for a reason. Discussions ought to be genuine and for the purpose of making the article good. I don't see that happening here. SageRad (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As has been explained to you many times before, primary sources are generally not used when discussing scientific sources of this nature. Primary source usage is the exception in controversial scientific topics, not an expectation. That means you would need to demonstrate why this particular instance is so exceptional that it could stand on it's own with only a primary source. If there is weight to establish ideas from a primary source, you'll find it in a review article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As has been explained to YOU here already, primary sources ARE allowed. I also disagree with your reckoning that they are "generally not used". They can be used, and they are used, all over Wikipedia, to create great articles. Secondary sources are preferred by primary sources are allowed and are used. I will not accept your attempt to distort guidelines, or to say things based upon your assertion of what is "generally not used" when i know it's inaccurate. SageRad (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, allowed is because there can be rare exceptions. Relying on primary sources this much is quite different. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Kingofaces43 You are wrong. In biology,there can be a long time-lag (several years) between information in primary sources being incorporated into reviews. It is wrong to be demanding secondary sources here.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a WP:RECENTISM argument in essence coupled with lack of familiarity about the literature in this topic. We are behind the ball until reliable sources that establish the weight on something start commenting on things. In the case of the content SageRad added, it is from a 2005. There shouldn't be any issue finding a review discussing its context 10 years later if the content is worth mentioning. If you look through article databases like Web of Science, there are already 20 reviews on glyphosate in the last year alone, and that's one of the more selective databases out there for what journals they index. Reviews actually do come out pretty often in this field. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Dr Chrissy's point makes perfect sense to me. Recentism is something to be careful of, and it's a tendency that may creep into articles sometimes, but it's not true that using a recent primary source necessarily introduces recentism. That is a possible outcome and that is where our editorial judgment comes into play, and discussions about weight and recentism would be relevant but not solely because it's a recent primary source. SageRad (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

In the case of the June 2015 sources, that is recentism as it hasn't been enough time for others in the scientific community to comment on them. Given some time, there may be citations, but we aren't a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Time is needed in that case to assess weight. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

We are not a crystal ball, and neither are we a newspaper, but rather, we are editors with minds, and we can use them. In fact we ought to use them. We ought to assess the content as to whether it's relevant to the topic, whether it came out last month or 10 years ago. In the case of 10 years ago, we have more clues as to whether others writing about any claim think it's relevant, whereas with something published last month, we're more on our own, collectively, to determine whether it seems to be important and relevant. I think "recentism" refers to the tendency for people to hold current events as more important and to write about them in more detail, because they're fresh in the news cycle, or other reasons. One danger is that recent events get covered in more detail. The WP:RECENTISM guidline suggest the "10 year test": to ask "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?" I believe that the point is not to cluster too much information that is from the current moment, just because it's in the current moment. In the case of a primary research paper that just came out, leading to one sentence in an article of this length, i think that's not a great danger. It's more of a question of "Is this relevant to the article, or is it someone just randomly adding a paper that they just came across and it's too much of a detail or not very relevant?" In a sense, it is actually part of how Wikipedia articles form, the addition of snippets by people over time, and then some whittling down as others make judgments based on weight. In this case, i think we ought to judge the additions by Johann Zaller each on their merits, and ask whether they are relevant to the topic. Do they contribute to a holistic and balanced understanding of glyphosate, or are they red herring details that are distracting? SageRad (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Where does the crystal ball issue come from? The edit is sourced from a highly reputable science journal, i.e. RS and is verifiable. It is an historical account. There can be no argument. By the way Kingofaces, if you think that a publication in 2015 in Nature has not been commented on by the scientific community, I think you are showing a lack of understanding of the process of scientific publication. It is highly likely the work will have already been presented at one (possibly several) conference or other such proceedings. It is highly likely the work will have been subjected to peer-review at the request of the funding body before being submitted for publication. It will certainly have been subjected to peer review by Nature - the last time I had a paper published in Nature it was 5 peer reviewers. A paper which reaches publication has certainly already been commented on by members of the scientific community.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you think it is unimportant to note in a single sentence under "Effects on plant health" that the topic of the article has an effect on plant microbiomes, with a citation? Do you think it's not relevant enough to include this sentence in a long article about a chemical that's used on plants widely and has a section called "Effects on plant health"? I think it's very relevant. I *will* look for secondary sources on effects on plant health, and i *will* integrate whatever i find there to reflect secondary source level thinking on the topic, as is the preferred method, but in the interim, do you really think it's justifiable to delete that sentence from the article solely because it's a finding from a primary source? I did *no* synthesis and made *no* leaps of logic from the primary source, as are prohibited in the guidelines. I simply stated the major finding of the source in one brief sentence. SageRad (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's why secondary sources are relied on for article content. If you take a primary source, can you verify that the experimental design was correct, proper statistical analyses were used, and conclusions match the actual findings? Peer-review is the first step in that process, but publication does not mean the article should be accepted as truth. Instead, readers are expected to have some degree of expertise to individually vet the paper too (the actual purpose of publication of primary studies) so the scientific community can assess the ideas brought up that are then summarized in more accessible reviews. Using a primary source alone indicates the findings are valid and accepted by the scientific community, which we cannot do without engaging in WP:OR as editors. That's the can of worms you're getting into with focusing on primary sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are wasting your words. I am fully aware of the reasons why secondary sources are preferred, but the word is preferred. WP:RS states "While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred."DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup, and we don't continuously plunk in primary sources whenever someone finds a primary source. Right now we're dealing with a 10 year old source. If a review discusses it, then we can discuss content for it. If not, that would indicate the scientific community hasn't found mentioning these findings to be worthwhile in the 151+ reviews related to glyphosate since publication and wouldn't be due weight for this article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Those are fair points, and i do agree with the reasoning generally, but as Dr Chrissy points out, there is no strict guideline or policy that requires a secondary source -- it is "preferred" -- and therefore i hold that it was rash to delete the sentence to begin with solely for the reason of it being a primary source. Simple enough to search for papers that cite the primary study that i originally included, and i find it cited by 82 other papers, the first two of which seem to be review articles sufficient to source the claim that i originally made, and probably many more after the first two if i had continued to delve into them. So, i agree generally with the editorial need to keep articles relevant and reflecting general expert reckoning on the subject matter, but on the other hand, i oppose the strong-arming way that i think you and Jytdog and some others delete content and act like you are enforcing a policy when there is no such policy. If Jytdog had started by saying "You know, i'm not sure that the presence of that claim is justified in terms of weight in that section on plant health" then i would have had no issue at all, and i would have looked for secondary sources to see whether it seems weighty enough to include. But the heavy-handed way of simply deleting other people's edits and then wrongly claiming that it is a Wikipedia policy, is why i repeat to you and Jytdog: You are no kings of Wikipedia. You *have* to work with others in a cooperative way, not act like you rule the roost. I'm tired of the domineering ways of some people here. We need to foster cooperation and better dialogue. This particular instance is solved because we have many reviews that note the same claim, but on a meta-level, we need to work this out and become better collaborators instead of at each other's throats. SageRad (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As I have told you before, if you write neutral content based on great sources there will be no problem. Jytdog (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively, i can say to you: Edit in a way that is not so heavy-handed and there will be no problem. Please don't act like i'm the source of problem here. I'd love to see some acknowledgement that there is another way to go about this, than to delete people's additions and then claiming something to be policy which is not. I would have been happy to work *with* you instead of in contention against you, to develop that part of the article to be better sourced. It would have avoided stress and conflict and two edit war accusations, altogether. SageRad (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

User:SageRad how would you have felt if the contested text was instead tagged with rather than outright deletion? I certainly do not wish to put words in your mouth, but if I saw text tagged like that in an article I was editing, I would immediately open up a Talk page thread to discuss it, thereby starting a collegiate approach to disputed content.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Kingofaces43 The source I was referring to was the one in the first diff of this thread. It was published in 2015, hence my stating that you are wrong to insist it should be cited only if it is discussed in a review. Clearly, that is highly improbable.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I don't get pinged as you need to |Kingofaces43 after the the initial User:Kingofaces43. No need to do that though since this page is on my watchlist. Indeed, it's highly unlikely that such a study would be cited yet, which is an indication it's too early to be discussing content associated with the source. There is no problem in waiting, and it is the expectation in such situations. Either way, there are some reviews to work with now for some content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• here is a recent review we should use to develop content for this section. Are folks aware of other recent reviews? Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • <redact> and <redact> are two more, and probably several more in this list. Thank you. SageRad (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing reviews. Those two sources are PMID 16899736 (a 9 year old review) and PMID 16903349 (also a 9 year old review). Not bad - usable til there are newer reviews. (I redacted the links presented since they violated WP:ELNEVER - we cannot link to content that violates copyright.) Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)