Talk:Glyphosate

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)

We don't know what the scientific community will say about it yet, hence the crystal ball. It may say it can be taken at face value, it might get extremely minor mention and only a small part of its findings are ever mentioned, or it might not be cited at all. We're in no position to gauge the weight of the study. That primary publications haven't been vetted by the scientific community yet and the differences between that and an initial peer-review are a very big difference that have been discussed here already. I'm not going to go in circles repeating that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:11, 8 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:SageRadFinally found the tag I was looking for .... Same question as I posed above.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy, i would feel great about that. That is essentially the mode that i'm advocating for, and yet some editors here seem to continue to willfully misrepresent the guidelines of Wikipedia and continue to act as if they're kings of the land. The method you describe is exactly what i would hope for. I would also like to see an admission from these domineering editors that they're simply misrepresenting the guideline and that their actions were rash. I'd like a more conducive and collaborative editing environment. Your suggestion is great. SageRad (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Like you, I would very much like to see a much reduced heavy-handedness from some editors. I'm going to have a look at WP:RS and perhaps develop a discussion on this matter and the potential for an increase in use of the two tags I suggested above, rather than deletion. I have history with the two other editors in this thread and from that experience, I suggest you do not hold your breath waiting for an admission of anything. For example, if we were to wait until a review became available for every scientific statement of fact (I appreciate this is actually "probability"), we would probably have to wait 1-3 years before reporting on any scientific finding. Imagine this for the discovery of a new species! Will these editors admit this is inappropriate - I very much doubt it.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Science takes time. That's just the nature of the beast. Science isn't a newspaper that comments on happenings within a day or two. If someone doesn't like that, it's not for us to be righting that wrong. Wikipedia is by definition, behind the ball. In some topics that means waiting a few days, others can potentially mean years. Some topics, such as taxonomy, have different approaches to literature than experimental literature, so it depends on the fields. Wikipedia is reality based, so we need to deal with that reality when dealing with sourcing policy and guidelines.

As for the tag mentioned above, that typically is used for content that has been in an article for awhile instead of removing it outright. It's not for inserting new content with a sub-par source where an editor is exceedingly using their own judgement to assess weight rather than use secondary sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, is this restricted use of the tag discussed or stated elsewhere, or is this perhaps just your own opinion of its useage?DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It's typical usage. What you don't see are people adding a tag to content they are adding when they know there is an issue with it. There's a lot of pushing to use a primary source here when our policies and guidelines strongly discourage it. Just grab a secondary source that discusses the general topic or cites the study. There's no WP:DEADLINE. Until that, we don't appear to have consensus for including the primary sources, so there doesn't appear to be anything productive that will come from further discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not trust your assessments of what is "typical usage" or "generally done", King of Aces, and i state it outright that i think you use these tropes to push your wishes into seeming like policy or Wikipedia culture. I also find lack of integrity in the dialogue, in that you do not ever seem to acknowledge when you're wrong, such as the fact that RS guideline does allow the use of primary sources. Never saw an admission that you were wrong on this. With this lack of integrity of dialogue, consensus process is broken. As for the tagging suggestion, i think it would work well, and i bet i could find multiple examples of recently added and then tagged statements in articles. You do NOT -- for the Nth time -- get to single-handedly interpret guidelines and practices, and tell other people what to do just because it's what you want them to do. You must work with others. You say, "we don't appear to have consensus for including the primary sources, so there doesn't appear to be anything productive that will come from further discussion" -- do you then interpret this to mean that primary sources cannot be used, because we don't have consensus on that? If so, i reject that outright. Lack of consensus does not decide that question either way. The lack of consensus also seems to stem from you and Jytdog's stubborn adherence to a made-up policy that others are troubling here. Filibustering and obstructionism are not good practices, and i sense this may be going on. Pushing a decision into the future which may never come because there is no "deadline" is not acceptable as a means of resolving this question. SageRad (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from the various accusations of drama on an article talk page. If the future you speak of does not come, that would indicate there is no sufficient WP:WEIGHT to mention the study findings. We can't gauge that until something cites it. Both the policy WP:RS and the scientific reliable source guidances WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS the community has written up do say primary sources are allowed. However, when fully reading them, they do not give anyone free license to use them just because you want to as all of those them also strongly caution against primary source use. They also expressly say that such recent primary sources should not be used due to recentism and to wait for secondary sources to comment. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe that i am violating any talk page guidelines nor creating drama by insisting in integrity. I am not name-calling or slandering. I am calling out in-line some behaviors that i find problematic. Thank you for fixing my indenting tag. Thank you for the admission that the RS policy does not prohibit primary sources. I do not see mention of recentism in the RS guideline in connection with primary sources, nor do i see where RS expressly says to wait for secondary sources to comment on them. Here is some actual text from RS: "Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context." I do admit fully that they say that secondary sources are preferable, and i agree of course. I do not assume there is free license to use them, and in the future, i will put more effort into using secondary over primary sources. SageRad (talk) 23:28, 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)

Additions by Johann_Zaller were once again deleted, in this diff, this time by editor Alexbrn. Perhaps Alexbrn was not aware of this talk page discussion, but now should be made aware. Being a primary source, in itself, is not sufficient reason to delete another editor's addition, and this holds especially true for recent papers which cannot be expected to be included in review level articles. It comes down to editorial decision making as to what is important. I find plenty of other primary sources in the article, including many that suggest the relative safety of glyphosate. Are all primary sources to be removed? I do not think so. WP:RS prefers secondary sources, but explicitly allows primary sources, with the caution that care must be taken to evaluate weight and validity by other means than review articles if it is done. I did add back one of Zaller's additions, which i think is highly relevant in the passage on earthworms and other soil biota. I also do like his proposed change of the section heading to "Soil biota" which was reverted as well. I'd propose making this change. I also added the Jaworski (1972) paper in the section on soil microbes, as there was a primary-sourced paper that purports to show less inibitory effect on milk bacteria in the section on soil biota, which to me is not so relevant, and therefore an addition on greater sensitivity by an actual soil bacterium seems relevant to me. Both are primary sources. Jaworski (1972) is a seminal paper on glyphosate and cited by 297 other papers. SageRad (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The addition was once again deleted by Roxy_the_dog this diff. Just stop. Stop the madness. Stop the complete distortion of policy. You are not justified in doing this. State your case explicitly. I will bring this to a hearing. You are in violation of basic policy and guidelines and norms and good editing practices. You NEED to discuss this on the talk page. You cannot simply single-handedly delete things without working with other editors. Talk page is for talk. Your revert gives reason "Remopve primary sourced material. This is not the place to change sourcing policy." Note that this is NOT changing sourcing policy. I am following sourcing policy to the letter of the law. YOU are in violation and YOU are changing sourcing policy. Please read this discussion and take it seriously. I gave fair warning in my re-add of the Gaupp-Berghausen paper, as i gave my reason as "Added Gaupp-Berghausen paper. Do NOT delete just because primary source. Discuss on TP." Therefore, i noted that there was a discussion on the talk page and Roxy the Dog should have been aware that there is an active discussion on this topic here. Therefore, i call his/her edit heavy-handed. SageRad (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

There's some useful stuff at WP:SCIRS on this. This is an encylopedia - a tertiary work - and is meant to reflect accepted knowledge. That is fundamental. If we're sourcing stuff from the unsettled world of primary research we are indulging in making Wikipedia an ersatz secondary publication. There are enough good secondary sources to write a decent encyclopedia article on glyphosate. As things stand, this article is in large part a disasterous confection of primary sources. Let's not make it worse eh? Alexbrn (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, you may note the section in the WP:SCIRS guideline you cited called "Respect Primary Sources" and you may see a nuanced discussion of this topic in this section that does NOT prohibit the use of primary sources, carefully used. The fact that there are many primary sources in this article is not a complete prohibition on any additional primary sources. We must be good editors and do our best with secondary and primary sources. We may put more attention to cleaning up other primary sources in this article and replacing them with secondary sources, as you can see has been done as per this discussion, but that is another matter and not a complete prohibition on primary sources, especially recent ones, as per this section's discussion. SageRad (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes - where it says "A primary source, such as a report of a pivotal experiment cited as evidence for a hypothesis, may be a valuable component of an article" [my emphasis]. There are indeed always some exceptional primary sources worth using, or exceptional circumstances where they may be used. They are not prohibited. But in this article we have secondary sources to hand, so there is no general reason to use primaries (other perhaps than for editors who find they advance an agenda - though I haven't checked if that's the case here). If what the primary source says is really "accepted knowledge" it'll be a cinch to find a good secondary source saying the same thing. Another WP:PAG to look over is WP:OWN: asking editors not to revert one's edits without prior discussion is problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

What about WP:BRD: Bold, Revert, Discuss? That seems to oppose "asking editors not to revert one's edits without prior discussion". As for the other things you write, do you note in this discussion here the concern that very recent primary sources do not yet have time to make it into secondary sources? That is a real dynamic we also work with. SageRad (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Note it is BRD not BDR. You seemed to want to deny the "R" step if following that essay. Alexbrn (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's BRD as i said. By my reckoning, i was the one who did the "revert" in this round. SageRad (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

So you really are seriously saying that this addition was a revert. Haha. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 14:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, Roxy_the_dog, in this editing round, it is a revert of the deletion of that sentence and source. Your laughter is not welcome and is downright rude in a discussion of this kind. SageRad (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

So wait a minute, SageRad: is Johann_Zaller you? Alexbrn (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

No, absolutely not, Alexbrn, and i find it insulting that you would ask. The answer is no, anyway. Absolutely not. I am one identity here, and only one. Do you think i need to be associated with a study in order to find it worth including in an article in a paragraph related to its topic, to give more breadth to the survey of the human knowledge base? Why do you ask? What gives you ANY indication that it would be me? Can you see how it can be insulting to be asked that? SageRad (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You were complaining about me allegedly not following BRD because of "your" revert "this round" (?), but I only ever undid the edit of Johann_Zaller, not of SageRad. Alexbrn (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Some of these discussions are too simplistic. An original research paper is not entirely a primary source. It will contain a review of the previous research in the "Abstract", "Introduction" and "Discussion" sections - In this regard, the material used by editors is from a secondary source.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It is a primary source, but that is allowed when used judiciously as per our discussion above, DrChrissy, especially when it comes to recent papers that cannot be expected to be included in a secondary review yet, the point you made above. I'd like to challenge this on that ground directly. I'd like to fully admit that a paper is a primary source and yet can be used. SageRad (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that. If an author reported the discovery of a new species of obscure aphid, are we expected to wait until this hits the newspapers (very unlikely) or the next edition of "World's Handbook of Obscure Aphids" which is published at 5 year intervals?DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

We are expected to wait until it is confirmed by secondary sources (or debunked as a misidentification perhaps). "Accepted knowledge" not "provisional knowledge". Wikipedia trails the bleeding edge. Alexbrn (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

No, we are NOT expected to wait until it's confirmed by secondary sources. You cannot change policies by repeating what you wish them to be. We have, apparently, a dispute on interpretation of guidelines. You're stating that as a pretty absolute rule, whereas it is not. It's a good rule of thumb to use secondary sources when available, and it's also wise to use some caution in citing new research, but it is NOT prohibited and your continuing to assert this as the rule is not acceptable. It may be time to call a public hearing to get other input into this matter, and to frame the question very carefully to bound it to the guideline interpretation specifically. I will do this soon. SageRad (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

So, would it be fine for me to go through the article and remove ALL claims sourced to primary sources, as i have just done in this diff? According to your logic it's not only permissible but what should be done. I do not think that should be done, however. I think that we should go through the article and find primary sources that can be replaced or augmented with secondary sources for the same claim, and to remove that which seems extraneous or not justified, among *older* primary sources. Among newer primary sources, we must accept that there is a lower chance for them to find their way into review articles as of yet, and evaluate them the best we can without such secondary sources -- which is what the guidelines urge us to do. SageRad (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not my "logic". I have mentioned what we should so, what the expectation is, and referenced the foundational pillars of Wikipedia. There is nuance. Not sure why you're on about prohibition and trying to invoke simplistic decidable rules. Primary sources are of course sometimes useful to "fill in the gaps" around secondary sources, or for simple non-controversial claims. The more grand, controversial, or provisional the claim, the stronger the source needs to be. If there's a case to use a particular primary source, make it here calmly. It would be more constructive than edit-warring and trying to torture the WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:No original research states: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia;..."DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

How unfortunate you omitted to quote how this continues, because it gives a misleading impression. Allow me:

but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

Alexbrn (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Apologies. I did not mean to mislead. I did not include the remainder of the section because I felt that you had already made those points clear and I wished to be concise. I wanted to show that it is policy that primary sources can be used.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

To be more accurate it that that may be used with care, unless other WP:PAGs dictate otherwise, etc, etc. Nuance. The policy is however not that there is carte blance to use them willy-nilly. There is no need to use them in this article for anything other than mundane purposes. Alexbrn (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

To be clear and accurate, Alexbrn, even if she had used the entire quote from WP:No original research, it would have made no difference in this case, because that is *exactly* how the primary sources were used. The guideline states about primary sources, as you quoted, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." And that is how the primary sources *were* used. There was no synthesis or interpretation. They were used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that could be verified by any educated person with no specialized knowledge. That's within both the spirit and the letter of the guidelines. So your problem is what? SageRad (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not convinced that stronger the source needs to be was intended in situations such as this. It appears to me that the "See also" link and in-line note #11 are relating to fringe theories. Is the identification of a new aphid species a fringe theory that requires stronger the source needs to be?DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Exceptional claims need exceptional sources. In cases of doubt, whether something is exceptional probably needs to be decided in Talk. Pretty much all claims of medical efficacy are exceptional, hence WP:MEDRS's de facto prohibition of primary sources for efficacy claims. WP:REDFLAG mentions claims "that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people". This is a controversial science-based article: any claim that has a more-than-minor impact on our knowledge of glyphosate needs strong sourcing, and in practice that means secondary. By why would it be otherwise? Why would an editor want to include significant information on glyphosate that wasn't well-accepted? Alexbrn (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

In regard to the above few entries:

• Yes, indeed, some editors here explicitly stated that there was a policy against using primary sources. They did not admit nuance. They continued to flagrantly say that this is policy, and delete sentences on that basis. That is what i have an issue with. You can backpeddle, but note that it is indeed backpeddling. There was the contention that primary sources were completely disallowed. I explicitly acknowledged the preference for secondary sources, and the cautions about using primary sources, but editors in a very bad way continued to delete the passages in question on the basis of the sources being primary, and that is just wrong. Debate the nuance, yes, please. Debate whether something needs extraordinary sourcing, yes, please. But don't wrongly state policy. So, backpeddle, sure, but it does not erase the conflict above.
• I don't think the claim that glyphosate affects some species of earthworms is a truly exceptional claim, not any more exceptional than some other parts of the article that suggest relative safety of glyphosate and are sourced to primary sources.
• In this case, an editor would want to include information about earthworms in that paragraph because it contrasts to a previous claim that suggests there is little effect on soil biota, which was in contrast to the earlier 1991 claim that there was effect on soil microbiota, so the more we can expand the survey, the more it becomes clear in the article that the available science shows differing things. That reflects the reality, and that is what we strive to do on Wikipedia. If there are differing reports on a topic then we are able to include them, in the way that the paragraph on soil macrobiota does (and did *better* when the Gaupp-Berghausen paper was included).

SageRad (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone saying primary sources are never allowed, but you have been misrepresenting a few editors claiming they said that. Above, Alexbrn summarized really well what everyone else has been saying here that there's a huge difference between the fact that primary sources can be used and using them carte blanche. At this point, there are concerns that this particular point of view is not adequately sourced to represent the current scientific discourse (ignoring other potential issues with an editors trying to pushing a POV), so secondary sources are needed, especially when we are dealing with a controversial topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Editors have been deleting passages with the sole reason given that the sources are primary. When pressed, they have stated that primary sources are not allowed according to RS standards. You cannot change what was done and said. You can change what you say now, but can't rewrite what was done. The other concerns you mention above are just that, other concerns, to be discussed in themselves. I am going to make one final call-out to the users who appeared to think that Wikipedia policy prohibits use of primary sources as policy. Users Jytdog, Kingofaces43, Alexbrn, Roxy_the_dog, i am going to assert that policy allows the use of primary sources, with some caveats and conditions, such as no specialized interpretation and no synthesis of course, and with a preference for the use of secondary sources. I am going to give this 24 hours, and if any of you still claim that primary sources are not allowed here as a matter of policy, then i am going to frame a discussion on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'd appreciate if you acknowledge the distinction. (User Alexbrn already has, in the above dialogue, and Kingofaces43 just did so, i think, if i read them correctly.) If you're silent then i have no way of knowing if you acknowledge this, and i will need to bring about a discussion on DRN anyway, to establish policy precedent in interpretation of the guidelines. Especially in light of Roxy the dog's reason for deleting it being "Remopve primary sourced material. This is not the place to change sourcing policy." -- this clearly implies that Roxy is stating that policy is against primary sources, and that must be challenged to establish precedent. SageRad (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That is a misrepresentation of what I have been saying. What I have been saying is that every WP policy and guideline says we should use secondary sources, and this is even more true on a controversial article like this one. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll take that as an acknowledgement that primary sources are not disallowed. Of course it's preferable to use secondary sources if reasonably available on a topic. Thanks. SageRad (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@SageRad: I for one have never said primary sources are absolutely prohibited, so you are mistaken about that. I do not believe the use of primary sources is justified in this article except for the mundane, and will happily delete any further additions of primary sources that seem to me to be mis-used to support significant claims. As I have also said, there are already too many primaries used here anyway. You will need to make a good case for any use of primaries for non-mundane purposes - to show the "care" that policy requires of us all. Better all-round to use secondary sources. Alexbrn (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, sorry for misrepresenting you then. I though it was fair to assume that you felt policy was against primary sources altogether because you gave reason for delettion as "rv. addition of scientific material sourced to primary sources".

In my reckoning as an editor, there is a good case to use that primary source in this instance, in that it contrasts to a previous sentence in that paragraph, and that it's too recent for it to be included in a secondary source at this point. I feel it's important for balance in that paragraph, and it's useful to readers to be pointed to more literature on a topic than less. It's not an unchecked bullet-point list, but it seems to me a well-placed citation. SageRad (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

SageRad what you consistently fail to understand, is that if if somebody wanted to, they could try to turn this article into a complete piece of pro-glyphosate propagranda shit, based on the same arguments you are making. As I have written to you dozens of times, we reach for high-quality, independent, secondary sources as a basis for generating truly NPOV content. It works both ways, against people who come to WP wanting to emphasize how Terrible glyphosate is, and against people who come to Wikipedia wanting to say how Great glyphosate is. Two sides of the same POV-pushing coin - exact same arguments - "I can use PRIMARY sources"; " "X" is important for readers to know and it is discussed in this primary source so of course I can say it in WP and what is wrong with you that you would stop me". Same arguments. With the way you approach WP editing, SageRad, you would have no legitimate grounds at all to keep the pro-glyphosate propaganda out of WP. Zero. No leg in any discussions about content disputes with editors who would take the mirror position to yours. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

No, i do not fail to understand that. I think it's not a good argument. I could accept a recent primary source for a claim that suggests glyphosate to be less harmful, or more harmful. It's not about advocacy or direction of the claim. It's about developing a comprehensive article on the chemical, that explores all its aspects and includes relevant research, including recent research. If a study came out tomorrow that reported that glyphosate has no effect on the human gut microbiome, then i would fully support its inclusion, with some care given to evaluate the source and to make sure the claim from the source is direct and not interpretation. So, you see, your argument here is more like a slippery slope argument, but i'm talking about the reality of this one claim. I see what you're saying but i would prefer to keep the discussion more about the content and the specific studies and sources than to outright delete something because it's a primary source, as if that is policy. It's not policy. It's a part of guidelines, and ought to be *part* of editorial discussions, but not how it's been done here. I think that we can have mature conversations about whether something is important or not, and whether something is solid enough to include or not, and whether a claim is interpreting from an source or simply reporting the source's conclusions, etc. SageRad (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I. have. never. said. that. using. a. primary. source. is. against. policy. never. and that you would support addin0g content about health based on a recent PRIMARY source is just crazy. MEDRS specifically warns against doing that. and no, it is not a "slippery slope" argument it is about making Wikipedia-oriented edits all the time - always doing what we should do. Which is use high quality, independent, secondary sources and especially on controversial articles. The only people I have ever seen create a lot of drama insisting on using a primary source, are people who are here to push an agenda. Really. I cannot remember seeing an experienced WP editor who is HERE, do that. Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Point taken. Claim stricken. Nobody explicitly stated that primary sources are not allowed. And you're of course correct that my example about human gut microbiome was a poor one because it would fall under WP:MEDRS. That was my oversight. Let's say it were an example of a primary source that reported that glyphosate does not affect plant microbiota. I would accept that primary source, if it were recent and not in any secondary reviews yet, and seemed solid and relevant to a passage. SageRad (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

IARC

Why is the IARC classification even mentioned? Only the monograph has been published, the data hasn't been released in full. It's also come under heavy criticism for being misleading as it refers to doses which applicators are exposed to (not consumers) and the 2A classification doesn't mean much (plenty of compounds we ingest are 2A - formaldehyde in fruit, caffeine, ibuprofen, etc). Furthermore, 3 other UN agencies are convinced it does not pose a human health risk. You can find× a series of statements from experts worldwide about the IARC classification here and comments from a pesticide expert here. There is also a GLP post here with sources enclosed. 205.193.114.245 (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It happened and it is significant. We discussed it extensively here - please see the archives. We generally don't cite the GLP as it is an advocacy site. Every one here is also aware that the IARC judgement isn't binding on any county's regulations; so far impact has minimal. As for me I am interested to read the full report when it publishes. For now everything is fine and reflects the consensus of the editors here. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording can be changed to make the situation more clear? Just a brief note on the controversial nature of the ruling, or the insignificance of the classification. Don't use a GLP link, sure, but the editors are aware that the classification is highly controversial and has been inappropriately bandied about by antis? 205.193.114.245 (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

We do our best to keep content encyclopedic and not get into the nitty-gritty tit-for-tatting that goes on. I think everybody sane is waiting for the actual report to come out and for the scientific community to react to it. That will probably be the next shoe to drop. That, or the EU's next move (whether they accept the German report as the EU statement on glyphosate or not; they are probably waiting for the rest of the IARC story to unfold as well tho.) Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDORG, statements and syntheses by reputed medical organization like the WHO are considered reliable secondary sources for human health related content. Therefore, it's a reliable source for the statements that it makes. SageRad (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

the key thing is that this is one of several, and the only one that takes this stance. Per NPOV we look at all the reliable, recent, sources. The german report is of equal validity and possibly more, b/c they published all their work and all we have from the IARC is the summary published in the Lancet. I am not proposing any changes, just describing how we work with sources. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Glyphosate

Cyberbot II has detected links on Glyphosate which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/herbicides-357.html

  Triggered by \bmarketsandmarkets\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I wonder why that link is blacklisted. SageRad (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

links get blacklisted because spammers spam them. need to find a replacement source. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done I just removed that content. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Glyphosate

Cyberbot II has detected links on Glyphosate which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/herbicides-357.html

  Triggered by \bmarketsandmarkets\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

removed. Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Actions to remove G

Where belongs content like this Supermarkets and garden centres ban Roundup weedkiller suspected of causing cancer. This appears to be a European afford, but the legal section of the article doesn't exactly covers that kind of removal. prokaryotes (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Prokaryotes, note that there is a whole section on legal status that contains information like this. It's been under development for a while. SageRad (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent deletes

I am opening this space for dialogue on two recent edits that removed claims.

Jytdog here removed a section that was sourced to a recent primary article.

I here removed claims that were sourced to very old review articles.

SageRad (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

My edit was subsequently reverted here by an editor without an account. I reverted it back. I am quite happy to discuss this with editors here, but an IP address allows no way to notify or contact the user to enter discussion if we're going to use the BRD sort of editing. This talk page entry existed when that revert was made, and the editor in question could have commented here, but did not. We're going to have dialogue with integrity if we're going to do this. SageRad (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with these changes. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jytdog. It would be good to do a good search for the most recent review articles on health effects or lack thereof of glyphosate-based formulations. I'll get on that when i find time. SageRad (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Skyring, would you explain your reinsertion of a year 2000 review article as the source for a large claim about human health, as per WP:MEDRS? Thanks. If it's about finding newer sources then i agree, and let's get on that task, but not worry about whether this is in the article until then. If a source is not good for a claim then it's not good for the claim. All your edit comment said was "Restored sourced material" but you ought to have known by my previous edit comment why i deleted it, and could have checked the talk page too. SageRad (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

… an IP address allows no way to notify or contact the user to enter discussion if we're going to use the BRD sort of editing … That's ridiculous! Did you even try? --Pete (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Instead of getting contentious, can we talk about the content itself? SageRad (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like you to acknowledge that IP editors are valuable and welcome contributors to our project. If you don't understand this, you're missing a lot of the point of Wikipedia, "the encyclopaedia that anyone may edit". --Pete (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete: I second the suggestion to return to discussion of content, not of editors and how Wikipedia works. This is how boondoggles begin. --Tsavage (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we're back on track with this point. I don't care about this particular content so much, but I certainly care that we're all using the same rules, so as to avoid misunderstanding. There are some editors with years of service who choose not to open an account, and there are those who are fresh to the project, just dipping their toes in the water. I think we treat IP edits more warily than those from people we know, but still, their contributions are welcomed, and if anyone disagrees, they may talk to Jimbo, who started this thing off. --Pete (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I do certainly acknowledge that unregistered users are valuable. It's just that when there is an edit that requires dialogue, they often are not found on the talk page and i didn't think there is a way to notify them. I just left a notice on their talk page in case they want to take part in this dialogue. SageRad (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought the edit summary was clear enough. You claimed the ref was out of date but did not update with a newer ref. If the content needs updating that is fine but should not be removed until a new source is used. After all until you have found this new research how do you know it contradicts the current content? 2601:645:C201:3840:6429:FD90:FD31:AF5D (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for showing up. I will replace the text with a new link now. SageRad (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The old and new should stay, so that we can see how things developed.prokaryotes (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yobol deleted my addition. I added back my addition, with the two old ones, which are favorable to glyphosate. All the review articles are valuable, and the work that editors did to summarize them is valuable. We need more recent review articles. SageRad (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yobol, i don't understand why you deleted this review article while you let the other ones stand, which were favorable to glyphosate. SageRad (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You mean the 2000 and 2002 reviews I deleted before you made this message? Yobol (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Toxicity Section Cleanup

Last night, some editing regarding toxicity resulted from crossed messages and misunderstandings, much of which was on my part. For example, when Yobol deleted a section saying that glyphosate wasn't mentioned in the source, i re-added the Shinasi review article here and two other review articles that had been in the passage previously, though Yobol had been referring to another statement and source. Sorry about my misunderstanding here.

Yobol is also correct in that some statements and sources are used in two sections, in the same way.

I think that speaks to an underlying problem with the toxicity section as a whole, and i'd like to ask for ideas on how we can clean it up. The problem as i see it, is that toxicity is divided into three sections: glyphosate itself, glyphosate-based formulations, and additives toxicity. This makes it rather complicated when a source speaks to both glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations. Do we include it in both section? Should we do away with the sections altogether and have a mass of information on toxicity of glyphosate and formulations? Or perhaps just get rid of the section on additives toxicity and combine that information into the formulation toxicity section? On e more problem: at the same heading level, we have a section called "Government and Organization Positions on Glyphosate Toxicity" which is right below the glyphosate toxicity section. Is that right or should that be a subheading under glyphosate toxicity? And to top it all off, in each section, we have subsections on human, soil, and other animals and ecological toxicity.

So, it's a mess, and perhaps that's ok because the reality is in fact a mess, too. But maybe we can clean it up somewhat, simplify the structure. Suggestions?

SageRad (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the structure is a problem; we probably should combine the human toxicities sections in some way, having multiple disjointed sections seems confusing to the reader. (And we probably need to be explicit if we're going to use terms like "formulation toxicity" what the actually means and how that differs from "human toxicity" in the section above it). Yobol (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I have just been editing in the toxicity section and I found the same problems. I eventually decided to be very careful and report only on technical grade glyphosate initially, but then on the formulated forms. I think they should be kept separate as there are different toxicity effects due to different ingredients in the formulated forms.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

"Glyphosate can be lethal to non-human mammals."

I recently introduced "Glyphosate can be lethal to non-human mammals." and a similar sentence about fish and aquatic animals. These were almost immediately reverted. I have a feeling this could very quickly develop into an edit war so I am trying to avoid any more ongoing drama here. Should such statements be included? I believe they should. The problem with simply giving an LD50 dose and then summarising by saying that it has low toxicity as that it conveniently covers up that 50% of the animals died. Shock - the substance can be lethal! In my opinion, a clear statement of the fact that the substance can be lethal should be included.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, having an LD50 or LC50 value clearly implies that the substance is lethal at some level of acute toxicity. SageRad (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

But does the average reader know that? A sentence explaining that was also reverted at the same time, but I have reinserted it.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The dose makes the poison. Water can be lethal to non-human mammals. Air can be lethal to non-human mammals. Fresh fruit can be lethal to non-human mammals. Sitting still can be lethal to non-human mammals. Running can be lethal to non-human mammals. The content explaining LD50 is OK to keep; I won't argue about that. Jytdog (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I hear you on that, Dr Chrissy, but i think it looks good how it stands now. I made one minor edit to specify "acute toxicity" as that is what LD50 and LC50 indicate, as opposed to other sorts of toxicity which can be cumulative and long-term outcomes based. SageRad (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Persistence in water? Access to Journal of Applied Toxicology

My university credential will not allow me to access this journal, oddly. I'd like to read this review paper to update the section on persistence of glyphosate in water. This is a 2014 review and the current statement is based on a very old source.

I also do see this primary research paper that reports half life of 47 to 315 days in seawater in various conditions. This is much longer than the persistence states in the article for pond water. Does anyone have access to the review article and wish to update this section with current state of the science? SageRad (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Toxicity expansion

So DrChrissy on the one hand understands that WP readers are ignorant about toxicity to the point that we need to explain what LD50 is (see above) but at the same time, seems to think that these same readers will be able to make any kind of sense out of content like 'In a study of rats and mice fed diets of containing 0%, 0.3125%, 0.625%, 1.25%, 2.5%, or 5.0% glyphosate for 13 weeks, endocrine effects..." or "Pregnant rats given 3,500 mg/kg/day glyphosate by gavage (stomach tube) on gestation days 6-19 suffered effects including both increased maternal mortality and the number of fetal skeletal abnormalities" (3,500 mg/kg/day is a huge amount of glyphosate). Are we providing readers with baby-step context, or not? It needs to be one or the other.

Also, making major changes to a controversial article is something that is best discussed before implementing. Not necessary, but best, so we don't end up in this place. Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

In your massive deletion, you also deleted my very carefully worded statement referencing a recent review article by Kimmel et al. of rabbit feeding studies. I would definitely like to reinstate that part. Do you have any objection to it? I think it's clear and useful in that section as it rounds out toxicity to not only be about acute single exposure:

A review of unpublished short-term rabbit feeding studies reported severe toxicity effects at 150 mg/kg/day and NOAEL doses ranging from 50 to 200 mg/kg/day.

References

I do agree about 3500 mg/kg/day being a massive dose, near to the LD50 dose for rats. I would like to ensure that the toxicity section addresses different aspects of toxicity: acute, short and medium term (like 30 to 90 days), and long term exposures. These tend to produce different results and are all required for a complete toxicity picture of a chemical in relation to a population. SageRad (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

We should pay attention to weight, and the toxicity section should contain the best and most recent science about toxicity in relation to each class of organisms, and should survey acute as well as short and long term exposure. We should *not* "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks", but should instead do this somewhat deliberately, so that we give a complete but not overly long picture of toxicity in each subsection. SageRad (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I do think the 3,500 mg/kg/day feeding study is extraneous here, and ask Dr Chrissy if it would be ok to remove it. The review i added does speak to toxic effects at much lower levels in short-term feeding studies. SageRad (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced why the content I included should be removed on the basis of your edit. First, one study discusses rats (rodents) and the other uses rabbits (lagamorphs); they have extremely different digestive systems. Second, your review is of unpublished studies, mine is of a published study. Third, the content I inserted gave specific details of the affects, yours is more general. I'm not suggesting your material be removed, I just do not see how it can replace the material I inserted.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you think you can find research -- hopefully a review article -- that would report on effects on rats at lower doses? The representivity of the dose level is my main concern here. 3,500 mg/kg/day is so close to the LD50 level for rats that it seems superflous to me to show that there are toxicity effects at short-term exposure at that level. By the way, the review article i listed also speaks to rat feeding studies. Let me take a look and see what that reports. SageRad (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, table 3 in the Kimmel review shows NOAEL from 300 mg/kg/dayup to >= 1000 mg/kg/day, and reports "At 1000 mg/kg/day and higher, animals in three of the six studies showed signs of lethargy, as well as respiratory and gastrointestinal distress." Deaths also reported in the 3500 mg/kg/day dose. SageRad (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I also find this dose very strange, limits for humans vary around 10-20mg. However, i did not read the study, but the parts from the article here didn't explained the extremely high dosage.prokaryotes (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Good research SageRad. Regarding high amounts, it is OR to dismiss data unless we can verify why this should be done. The fact is that these doses have been tested (on several occasions) and the reports resulted. We should report these without inferring our own opinion on them.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the authors elaborate on these amounts, some more context would be nice.prokaryotes (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Ecological relevance of doses is one of the requirements for showing relevance in toxicological literature. I'd be looking comments on how likely specific doses would be reached or in what kind of situations. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact sheet does not give further details. Going to the original source will mean we are then using a primary source which several editors on here are opposed to. These doses must be biologically relevant, otherwise, we have scientists killing animals for no reason.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Afraid the assumption that the dose must be relevant can get into OR territory. Lab studies can often pick a range of doses in order to see an effect, and that can often go beyond normal exposure (or sometimes under if poorly designed). If that weren't the case, ecological relevance wouldn't be a criteria in assessing the applicability of toxicological findings. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It is OR to delete data on the basis - "I have a hunch that the doses were too big". Do not forget that the source I am using is a secondary source and is the National Pesticide Information Center. Are you suggesting this is an unreliable source.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent my comments DrChrissy. I never commented on the source. I was responding with basic background on toxicological research in response to Prokaryotes and your discussion on the doses mentioned. Sometimes ecological relevance is mentioned in sources, and other times you can be at the other extreme where someone is just doing a lab assay trying to push the dose as high as they can to reach an LD50. It depends on the scope of the study and was intended to help in figuring out what was going on in this specific instance. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy I will ask you again, are you writing for experts or the general public? You appeared to start out with WP:TECHNICAL very much in mind, and then turned a corner and started dropping loads of pretty detailed tox study content into the article that takes an expert to make sense of. So who are you writing for? Am not questioning the source which is fine and was already used in the article. Primarily the issues here are WP:TECHNICAL and WP:WEIGHT. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, i reverted your massive edit and i don't feel at all bad in doing so. How do you think it's ok, at this point where we are actively discussing the toxicity section, and specific references and claims, to completely scramble the whole article and completely delete a subsection, and many references and statements that we've been talking about? You often admonish people to go slower, and now i am asking you to do the same. Please, talk about major changes, as it's clear that we have many eyes on deck here. SageRad (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

SageRad please self-revert. This big expansion of the tox section without prior discussion, and adding all this WP:TECHNICAL detail, in the same breath that we are describing things in babytalk, makes no sense. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I hear your concerns about oscillating in voice, but i don't think that the wholesale deletion and shuffling of the article is a good way to address it. You even deleted my very simple reference to the 2013 Kimmel review article, and the whole section on effects on non-human animals. Let us please talk together about the big picture of this article and what we want it to look like. I would ask DrChrissy and Prokaryotes and everyone else to take a deep breath and discuss the larger picture, what the article should cover, and with what sort of tone. Let's pretend we're adults sitting around an editorial table, and discuss this like people with a common goal. SageRad (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Well said SageRad. For my part, the changes in technical/non-technical tone might come about because when I move content that has been in the article for some time, I am often reluctant to change it out of respect for the previous editor. That is why the complex sentence occurred. I did not enter this content, I moved it with minor tweaks. If someone wants a simplification of this, a simple message on here or an appropriate tag is fine. I just do not get on with the "delete first and ask questions later" approach. As for the structure of this tox section we appear to have several variables which need to be included. Glyphosate/glyphosate formulations, acute/chronic toxicity, the range of animals studied (how do we divide this vertebrate/invertebrate, major taxonomic groups) and effects (LD/reproduction problems/carcinogenicity/tetrogenicity). Might a table be the best way to deal with this?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed the voicing concerns and updated some of the content from sources just to streamline things for now. That was a perfect opportunity to wikilink to describe a term rather than define it in article. I'm not sure at the moment if/how we should rattle off various LD50's, but that's about all I can do tonight. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• sorry gang, was hammered at work today and had no time for this. i see there is a new EWN case. Will check in there. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Understandable as we're all volunteers and can't always respond to each crisis in a sardine can immediately. I'm out for the evening, otherwise I would have removed a lot of the content added per WP:STATUSQUO so it could be discussed from a weight perspective. I'll see what I can do to chime in once morning rolls around. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• DrChrissy I will ask you again. You took into account that people won't know what an LD50 is. So such a person happens to be pregnant, and reads "Pregnant rats given 3,500 mg/kg/day glyphosate by gavage (stomach tube) on gestation days 6-19 suffered effects including both increased maternal mortality and the number of fetal skeletal abnormalities" What will she make of that? (that is a real question). Let me also ask you, what do you make of that data with regard to human toxicity? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't be daft - you know very well that if I make any comment on humans I will almost certainly be in breach of my topic ban.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me follow up on that. Why did you direct the question about human toxicity at me, rather than at other editors or the Talk page in general (that is a real question)?DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy I directed the question at you, because you, specifically, decided to dramatically expand the tox section. You know as well as I do that we do tox studies on animals in order to inform things like minimum exposure levels for humans. So please speak to that. Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

We conduct many tox studies to look at the toxicity of a substance in the target species, non-target species, and environmental toxicity as a whole. Why else would we examine the LD50 of glysophate in bees?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Last chance to back away from this. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

What is going on here? What is this ultimatum about? I recently added the review article that gave results about toxicity assessments in rabbits. The study was done in order to assess health risks in humans, and it did in fact satisfy WP:MEDRS requirements, being a review article in the relevant field, but i used it in the section on toxicity to non-human animals, as it definitely provided that knowledge and was reliable. Other studies do test toxicity to non-human animals solely for the sake of knowing about the effects on those non-human animals, or to study other biological and biochemical dynamics that are not essentially related to human health but may also provide tangential knowledge that will help our understanding of the chemical in relation to human health down the line. There is not a clear distinction on this question, and why is Jytdog's tone that of an ultimatum here and pressing DrChrissy specifically on this? Is Jytdog insinuating that DrChrissy is presenting data on non-human animal toxicity in a way that incorrectly makes a synthesis to human health effects? If so then please directly state that, Jytdog. I sense innuendo in the language and i would much prefer if people have an issue to plainly state it outright. SageRad (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I too am at a loss as to what I am supposed to back away from. Is this more intimidation?DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Great, folks, now the article is locked out for editing except by admins. Let's really try to be adults here and not edit war like this any more. Let's talk and make incremental changes, and if we want to make sweeping changes, definitely talk about it first, knowing that the article is actively edited by several people who care about it. Anyway, i am glad that the current frozen version is at least acceptable, from the most recent changes by Kingofaces43 -- i am glad the most recent edits aren't something outlandish or extreme, and didn't delete much material or seem to be partisan. SageRad (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't agree that all the changes are acceptable.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean that i think it's all perfect, but at least it's not frozen on the massive deletion by Jytdog yesterday. I think it's at least frozen at a reasonable state. SageRad (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

OK. Fair enough. I can agree with that. Perhaps we could discuss the structure of the section - I mentioned above that multiple variables will need to be incorporated. Let's take this slowly. I suggest the two major headings at == level should be "Acute Toxicity" and "Chronic Toxicity".DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we can use this time for discussion, which is a benefit of the freeze, i suppose.

I suppose that if we are going to structure it by three levels of variables (glyphosate versus formulation, type of toxicity, and class of organism) then one question is: In what order do we present these variables? To date, the top-level has been glyphosate versus formulation, then organism, and then class of toxicity. You're proposing that class of toxicity should be the top level variable? SageRad (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget that the top heading at the moment is "Toxicity". I was suggesting this could be replaced with two headings "Acute Toxicity" and "Chronic Toxicity". I am easy about this - I can easily see why we might want to have "Glyphosate" and "Formulation", then "Acute" and "Chronic" within both of these, and then animal groups. In situations such as this (a closed page) I have seen a sandbox set up so that we can edit and discuss without affecting the main article. Should we do this?DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox sounds like a great idea. We have 8 days to play in it. SageRad (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I have created the sandbox here.[1] What I did not realise is that because the page is closed, I could not lift the in-line references and markup, only the text as it appears in the article. So, this might be a bit more difficult than I anticipated.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, DrChrissy. I found a way to copy the source -- there is a new tab called "View Source" now that "Edit" is gone. SageRad (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The point of page protection is not to continue making edits elsewhere, but to reach consensus on edits by discussion. Just putting that out there for now to make sure the former doesn't preclude the latter. A sandbox is fine for providing example edits for discussion, but it won't necessarily be the consensus version at the end. Just making sure that is clear as page protection begins. I have some ideas for trimming down this new content into a much more concise form that doesn't lose important toxicological information, but I won't be able to revisit this discussion on it until Saturday. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree fully with reaching consensus through discussion, but i think the sandbox would give us a way to discuss complex issues more easily by making edits and then asking questions about them. I should be less conflict-causing because the edits are not actually presented to the public. We ought to learn from and talk with each other to reach consensus. I do support talking before making edits even in this sandbox, and that is what we've been doing in the section below. We're starting by discussing overall organization of the section -- the three layers of variables and how to best present them in a concise and even-handed way. SageRad (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's play in the sandbox

DrChrissy created a sandbox copy of the article that we can use to work out ideas while the article is frozen. I created this new talk page section to talk about it. SageRad (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Great! Welldone! We learn something everyday!DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)