Talk:Glyphosate

Glyphosate / Honeybees

I noticed you removed 2 contributions that I had made about this topic. It is not only in the "Proceedings" (a premier scientific journal, I think), but you find the information in many news, US and abroad. Why did you remove it? Ekem (talk) 23:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Ekem. It is not reasonable to need replication before putting evidence in front of the public. These studies are expensive and don't happen in a short period of time. Most people understand that concept. Nevertheless, I added such a caveat at the end of the summary. Unless there is a specific Wikipedia rule regarding initial scientific results, this should remain. I don't know offhand the answer to the following examples, but was the first report of gravitational waves or of the Higg's Boson kept out of Wikipedia until replicated? I somehow doubt it... AlbertHall (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Ekem and AlbertHall, that was just an extremely run of the mill removal of a primary source, which we generally don't use for scientific topics. I already linked to WP:SCIRS in the edit summaries which should have explained everything if you're not familiar with expectations in scientific topics. Ekem, news media generally isn't regarded as a reliable source for this topic, though it is an extremely common confusion when we say we need secondary sources. I also removed your edits because they were claiming a link to CCD. In general, we want secondary scientific sources as described by SCIRS or WP:MEDRS. In this field, that's normally going to be in literature reviews, meta-analyses, etc, and those happen fairly often. If this particular study has merit, other sources will pick up on it. It's much too early for any of that though, which is also why we avoid things like WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia is supposed to be behind the ball on these things, and I detail more of that here.

Anything else really belongs at the article talk page, but in short, that kind of sourcing is generally what the community tries to prevent in these topics, which is why we have well established guidelines and essays cautioning editors against that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, thank you for your reply. I understand the concept that you want verification by other "reliable" sources. However, this is not an absolute, and you did not reply to Albert Hall's comment. The report of a link between glyphosate and bees has been peer-reviewed in a premier journal and is a newsworthy item; it has been reported by many agencies. Waiting for a meta-analysis or literature review will take many years. Also, just the mechanism of action is noteworthy as glyphosate at low concentrations did not act as a herbicide but altered the gut microbiome. Isn't that interesting? Perhaps, with your permission, - could we place this discussion into the Talk page as it may be of interest to others? Ekem (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I actually did answer Albert's comment as that all is housed in SCIRS that I linked to. As for your recent comments, keep in mind that we really don't care here what journal a primary study was published in. It still needs to be vetted by the scientific community to assess WP:DUE at that point (passing peer-review is only a first small step). Remember that this is an encyclopedia, and specifically not a journal or newspaper. We generally avoid what newspapers, etc. say about a late-breaking experiments, and you don't need to look far for why that is. We as anonymous editors are not in a position to do the review expected when reading published primary literature to assess validity, etc. We have to leave that to other scientists. If it takes years for a study to get attention in reviews, that's a feature of the encyclopedia reflecting the real world, not a bug. I'm not sure of your background, but this can be a difficult concept for scientists just starting out here who are used to directly citing primary literature. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

According to our guidelines:

Respect primary sources - 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. A good article may appropriately cite primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Use of primary sources should always conform to the No original research policy.

In my experience we have been advised to include only a very short summary when reporting a primary study so as to not give it undue emphasis. Gandydancer (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Gandydancer and Ekem: There have been over 500 scientific publications published with glyphosate in the title just this year. We cannot and should not be judging which of these contain significant findings that merit inclusion in the article. Nobody is suggesting including that it has no effect on mineral content of corn, is rapidly degraded in lakes or that it has negligible effects on rat gut microbiota etc. and this paper on bees should not be treated differently just because it has generated news articles. SmartSE (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Can we bring this to the Talk page, please? Ekem (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I also would prefer to see this discussion moved to Talk:Glyphosate. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

While awaiting any move of the discussion, here is my take on it. Out of curiosity, I looked through the archives of Talk:Gravitational wave and Talk:Higgs boson, and I see that in fact there were lengthy discussions among editors about those preliminary reports before there was consensus to include those things on the page. So: those two examples actually show a lot of editorial caution about initial scientific results. As I see it, we can cite primary scientific sources for information that is entirely non-controversial, such as the year that glyphosate was invented or the chemical mechanism of its synthesis. But for anything health-related that would fall under MEDRS, the requirement for secondary sources is a very serious one. Here, we have something that is not about human health, but which is contentious by its very nature. As such, I would want a secondary scientific source (and not a news report) before including the information in the article. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I've no objections moving to the TP, but I am not sure what there is left to discuss. Speaking with my non-policy based hat on, y'all could have a read of this r/science thread discussing the paper. The sample size was tiny and the doses were very high (essentially feeding them what would be sprayed on weeds). To avoid any doubt, this isn't the reason I object to the inclusion, but that demonstrates of why we don't cite primary research on controversial topics and wait for other RS to review their quality. SmartSE (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

If I take my editor hat off (I was trying to stay out of the wiki-weeds by not commenting on it), those are some of the same issues I'd be seeing with the study. That kind of stuff often ends up being a criticism of these studies when they actually do get coverage in reviews, so I agree that is indeed why we avoid primary sources here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing to the Reddit comment, SmartSE. But pointing to ~500 other primary glyphosate papers omits the difference that the honeybee paper has been receiving a lot of attention in the media. In any case, I still think that the discussion should be moved to Talk:Glyphosate, even it is just for documentation.Ekem (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• Just a note that everything above as of this post was from my user talk page. The conversation really belongs here, so I have moved it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure much else needs to be said at this point after the move of this discussion, but the general agreement we've had for years at this article was that it was controversial enough that we needed secondary sources and not to use primary research articles even for animal health. I don't see any reason to deviate from that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• • I like to thank Kingofaces43 for moving the discussion from his talk page. The section at the end of this note had been removed from Pesticide toxicity to bees, and I asked why. I understand and accept that primary articles are generally not used but believe that exceptions are in order. This article stands out as it has received a wide echo. It also suggests that glyphosate acts as an insecticide and antibiotic. To wait for scientific reviews etc. may take years, and who is going to say that not special interests find a way to mess with data.Ekem (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

A 2018 study indicates that glyphosate perturbs the gut microbiota of honeybees leading to a decline in their health.Honeybees rely on specialized bacteria to grow and resist disease. Most of these bacteria contain 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS), an enzyme in the shikimate pathway, that is a target of glyphosate. Bees first exposed to glyphosate at levels found in the environment and then to an opportunistic pathogen (Serratia marcescens) show an increased mortality.(Reference:Motta EVS, Raymann K, Moran NA. "Glyphosate perturbs the gut microbiota of honey bees". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Sept 2018. doi:10.1073/pnas.1803880115)

I'm concerned about where you said and who is going to say that not special interests find a way to mess with data. Data published in reliable scientific journals is data, and it's not like someone can go back and change it retroactively. I'm also not sure what you mean by a wide echo. I don't think that you mean scientific secondary sources, but rather press coverage. I think editors have already explained how Wikipedia treats primary sources in the sciences when the findings are potentially controversial. There is nothing urgent about getting this onto the page: per either WP:RGW or WP:There is no deadline, take your pick. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Right now we have press coverage, but no secondary coverage. We see that happen really often in this topic, so it doesn't seem out of the ordinary for a primary source we typically don't use. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@FullyWashable: Please see the above. Your change is against the consensus. SmartSE (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Well yes, actually we do have a secondary source which used the same outfit that KoF recommends below -- which he apparently accidentally overlooked. [1]. Gandydancer (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent me. I have never recommended the "outfit" you mention. It's reliable only for quoting individual experts, but not necessarily to establish WP:DUE. The case below is different because of the fringe aspect and scientific consensus. Here, we really need true secondary sources through reviews in journals, etc. We basically haven't established due weight for inclusion of this particular study, and likely won't for months if/when other scientists decide to put the study in context of the overall literature, methodology, etc. as we normally due for primary studies. Usually, a professor, etc. pointing out a study on their blog, etc. or anywhere we'd be quoting them with attribution isn't enough for including the findings of a primary source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

We have a situation here where we cannot logically have it both ways. In the talk section just below, editors argue that this source is insufficient to use as a response to the IARC study (and maybe that it comes from some sort of pro-glyphosate lobby group). But here, we now have this source from the same website, and from the supposedly pro-glyphosate lobby, that says that there is a demonstrated problem with glyphosate, and is being proposed as a secondary source to back up the PNAS paper about bees. So: first of all it looks wrong to me to argue that the website is either pro- or anti-glyphosate. And: we can't have it both ways. Either these are reliable secondary sources or they are not. No one should argue that one is a good secondary source and the other is not. My take is that they are both suitable as secondary sources. So I think the one below should be included in the content about the IARC – and I now think that the section about bees should be kept on the page, and sourced to both the primary source and the secondary source. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Seeing no consensus for this still, I've gone ahead and removed the text. In short, there is nothing so spectacular about this primary study that we're going to ignore our normal requirement of literature reviews, etc. picking up on it.

I agree with what you're saying about the source in that it's reliable for quoting someone else. The underlying issue regardless of all that though is that it's not peer-reviewed and not the WP:SCIRS type of secondary source we'd normally be looking for. Those kinds of quotable statements are plenty fine for parity type content as mentioned elsewhere, or when a particular study has sufficient weight for inclusion based on other sources (with the source in question acting as a supporting source). We don't really have an open gateway for mentioning the study yet, so the default in that case is to just not mention the study. If we do get to that point, then we can look at what to use the source for, but as mentioned a few times previously, including mention right now just amounts to scientific WP:RECENTISM. There's no deadline on this, especially when it's in the infancy stages of post-publication before commentary really trickles in.

On the content itself, there's already too much exposition for content based on a primary source, and the This study provides further cautionary data awaiting replication. caution should already be a red flag that it's just too soon for entry for encyclopedic content as opposed to discussion in journals. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I agree on your point about it either being an RS or not but for this study I don't think it makes much difference and I haven't looked into the IARC one. It's a place for journalists to turn to get some quotes from researchers not involved in the study. It doesn't provide secondary coverage in the scientific sense. There's a lot of work being published on bees and glyphosate right now and we shouldn't be giving one publication undue coverage just because of shallow media stories. SmartSE (talk) 07:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)–

I meant it very seriously when I said one can't have it both ways, so I have changed my mind about the bees section and I disagree with both of you. (But I am in favor of completely rewriting the past version of the bees section, which was very badly written. It really does not require more than one sentence.) If you are going to take those positions, then we must not have a rebuttal of the IARC review below. Based on what both of you said here, we must present the IARC review as being a reliable source that is methodologically sound. I'm sorry, but to say otherwise is to POV-push. It's not good enough to say you haven't looked into the IARC yet. A "place for journalists to turn to get some quotes from researchers not involved in the study"? As I already explained below, this source is from a British government agency and the Wellcome Collection. Of course there are also "shallow media stories", and I would never be arguing this based on them. I didn't, just above. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I had just woken up and was uncaffeinated so that may not have been the best choice of words ever, but I do think that http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/about-us/ supports what I said and I was specifically referring to it in this case as I remembered seeing the quote from Oliver Jones in The Guardian (along with Dave Goulson). The point I was trying to make is that the source is no different from all of the press coverage - it is reliable but undue to include. Do you realise that I haven't said anything in the thread below about the use of SMC as a source for the IARC? I'm not picking and choosing, but I don't have time to get involved in every discussion. The content definitely doesn't belong in "effects of use" because as Jones says in the SMC and Guardian The paper shows only that glyphosate can potentially interfere with the bacteria in the bee gut, not that it actually does so in the environment and you placing it there gives the impression that it could be having effects in the environment. SmartSE (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather not argue with you point-for-point, but I'll agree that you are right that it would be a mistake to make it sound like it has a demonstrated environmental effect. I've therefore self-reverted it from the "effects of use" section. But I also added it back as a sentence at the end of the paragraph in the section about acute toxic effects on microorganisms. Before, I had, myself, been unsure about the most appropriate place on the page for it, and I didn't much like the idea of a section dedicated specifically to bees. I previously thought that making the butterfly section about insects more broadly made sense, but you are right about the environmental part. However, it seems to me to be quite reasonable to include it where I have now moved it, where it is entirely consistent with what you quoted from Jones. Treat it as a sentence, not even a dedicated paragraph, within a description of acute effects on microbes, and I really do think it is due weight and appropriately sourced for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I don't think it's correct to add the primary source back in even with SMC being cited. Smartse put it succinctly. It doesn't establish WP:DUE for inclusion. What's different with the IARC stuff is that SMC-based quotes are acceptable because the IARC is already being mentioned, and quotes from individual scientists are then ok due to the fringe/parity aspect. It's not that SMC needs to be used for the IARC, but I've mentioned other sources that can be used in addition to it. The two are a bit apples to oranges, but in both cases SMC isn't being used to justify inclusion of the related source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand that, I really do, but I think that if one considers how it is currently treated at Glyphosate#Antimicrobial activity, it's not a problem there. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Just getting back from the weekend, so I'm just catching up with things. It's still inclusion of a primary study's results without an accompanying review citing it, so I've gone ahead and removed it. Honeybee reviews also come up all the time, so if someone really feels strongly about it, they can check back in a few months and see what they say. If they don't pick up on the source though, we're left in a position where it would be clear we crystal-balled it trying to predict whether it was a noteworthy study or not. To be honest, I've done a search for reviews mentioning honeybees and glyphosate, and it's pretty much nothing at the moment. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we better avoid summarising the primary source (or newspaper reports) and wait until secondary academic sources discuss or review the study. JimRenge (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

That's it. There's just no rush to wait for the common secondary sources in this field. It also looks like the source has been edit-warred back in fairly shortly after my last comment. Just a reminder for editors that this article is under 1RR with the expectation that when new content doesn't gain consensus, others don't try to edit war it back in. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Guess what: I also agree that we should not source it only to a primary source. And I also agree that we should not source it to newspapers or elsewhere in the press. And I even agree that we should make sure that there is published independent scientific evaluation by experts that indicates the noteworthiness of the primary study before we include it. So instead of basing removal of the sentence on claiming that any of those problems exist, or claiming that this is somehow different from the IARC case, or on "just going ahead and removing it" and claiming that someone else is edit warring, I'd like to hear a better rationale. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

We don't have any evaluations by experts that indicate noteworthiness yet though. There's no such review article, and there hasn't been any convincing rationale included here yet to fulfill the significant burden needed to include mention of a primary study without an appropriate peer-reviewed review article. Reviews are what indicate whether something has significant WP:WEIGHT to be included here. Quotes from individual scientists like you're pulling from are ok (though low-quality) for giving WP:PROPORTION in cases where parity comes in to play or when inclusion has been decided from something else (e.g., mentioned heavily in a court case) to put a particular study in appropriate context. A blog post or being picked up by an aggregator like that with those assessments doesn't address the inclusion question though. For what's going on with this content, SMC is not an appropriate secondary source because it is not the tier of discussion in the scientific literature we need to establish the weight of the study itself. We need to know where it fits in the literature first before inclusion, which SMC doesn't really do.

I also understand that you were being WP:BOLD with your edit, which is how the process can work quite fine. What cannot happen here is to have the content reinserted after it's been disputed, which is where my edit warring comment came from. That was not directed at your bold edits at the time, and I'm speaking more of process at this point than behavior. We're more or less supposed to follow WP:BRD at this point, so if anyone really feels strongly about including the findings of the primary study without a review article, they need to gain consensus on this talk page. So far though, we have a quite few diverging opinions, so mention of the study needs to stay out until we get consensus on something. For better or worse, that is the process we're supposed to be following right now with the discretionary sanctions in play. If this is a big deal in the literature in the future, our problem here should solve itself in a few months. To pull from an old RfC close on this page, A claim regarding a WP:PRIMARY source and its proper use, in regard to its WP:WEIGHT, requires a "consensus to include" per WP:ONUS. . .

I'll also point out I continued to do more digging into reviews on this subject. No one really mentions a this subject, so it looks like we'd also be contradicting current reviews in the glyphosate/bee topic by mentioning this. That would even further discourage mentioning this study for the time being. Maybe that will change in the future, but it's too soon to know that. For now though, the literature doesn't indicate anything indicating this study should have any encyclopedic prominence. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You have a well-known history of man-on-a-mission edits. Your actions are not the consensus. --Leyo 07:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Leyo: Kingofaces has explained in detail why it shouldn't be included and both JimRenge and I agree with him, with only Tryptofish providing any attempt at a rebuttal. You cannot revert him based on an accusation of him having "a well-known history of man-on-a-mission". SmartSE (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Smartse:, several editors (Ekem,AlbertHall, Tryptofish, Gandydancer, FullyWashable, and Binksternet) wish to include this content. JimRenge (talk) 11:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@JimRenge: yes I know but only tryptofish has given any justification for why long-established policies for how we cover primary pieces of research. Consensus is more than a show of hands. SmartSE (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it filibustering, but the fact that he explained his point of view (that has been well known before) in detail does not make it more valid. --Leyo 11:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I won't respond to aspersions, but consensus is required at this point to reinsert the content. There's really no way around that being a topic under discretionary sanctions. If someone wants to try to craft a consensus to include, they would have to lean heavily into WP:PAG, but so far those are instead weighing against inclusion in the current discussion. At the least though, there isn't consensus for including this, so editors really need to stop trying to reinsert it as this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Taking on a little bit from my last point above, but here's what one review has to say on the subject, We critically analyse the findings on pesticide–disease interactions, including effects on the survival, pathogen loads and immunity of bees, and assess the suitability of various endpoints to inform our mechanistic understanding of these interactions. We show that pesticide exposure and pathogen infection have not yet been found to interact to affect worker survival under field-realistic scenarios. At this point, we can't be contradicting these reviews with this primary study. This should be pretty cut and dry. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• I have several things that I want to say here.
  • It's very clear that we have some editors who favor inclusion, and some who oppose. There is not a strong consensus either way. I might be missing something, but I think that I am the only editor here who has changed their mind as the discussion went along.
  • I think I have some credibility here about being careful about the science and insisting on good science sourcing for GMO pages. I was the filing party in the ArbCom GMO case, and I wrote the consensus version that the community agreed upon at the GMO RfC. That doesn't give me any special status of course, but I hope editors understand that, for me to have changed my opinion from wanting the exclude the material to wanting to include it is not something that I did carelessly.
  • If we are going to examine the BRD cycle and edit warring issues, it seems to me that there has been only one editor who has been engaging in a (slow) edit war here, and that's Kingofaces. KofA, I've been debating whether I should say this at your talk page or here or somewhere else, and you know that I consider you a wiki-friend and that I usually agree with you – but I think that you have been behaving badly here. We are well past the stage where BRD really still applies, because there has been a lot of discussion and disagreement. It is absolutely untrue that only one "side" has the burden of proof at this stage. Rather, it's a matter of consensus, and no one is excused from having to make a convincing case for their point of view. And no one gets to claim that their preferred version is the one that should be kept on the page until someone else can prove otherwise.
  • The way that we determine whether a secondary source is sufficient to include information that first appeared in a primary source is by whether the primary source has been described as significant and correct by one or more experts who are independent of the primary source authors. WP:SECONDARY does not distinguish between a review article and commentary by independent experts. I'll offer this: I agree that a peer-reviewed review article would be better than the SMC source. I am simply arguing that the SMC source is good enough for our present purposes. Not perfect, but good enough. It looks to me like a rigid insistence on a review article-or-nothing might be POV-pushing.
  • Having said all that, I don't care enough about this single sentence to keep fighting over it. I don't care anymore.
• --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

On your third bullet, procedurally the point when reverting should have stopped and solely discussion was used was here in terms of BRD. Trying to bring that content back in when there isn't consensus on the talk page is considered gaming 1RR when this came up at ArbCom, and that's as much as I'm going to address that meta-stuff here aside from saying that when new content is disputed, we normally pull it aside and try to get consensus on it before putting anything back.

On content while avoiding rehashing what I've said before, SECONDARY isn't going to go into depth on nuances of academic sources. WP:SCHOLARSHIP has a strong preference for peer-reviewed sources. For guidelines that do address academics, WP:MEDASSESS shows a hierarchy that applies to research in general (not just medicine). Expert opinion is not lumped in with academic secondary sources, well below in the hierarchy instead, and usually doesn't contribute much to WP:WEIGHT particular findings. Then we get into the issue of respecting secondary sources I mentioned in my last comment where our highest tier sources say there hasn't been any significant interaction worth mentioning between pesticides (including glyphosate) and pathogens to affect honeybee survival (the central claim of the new study). We could also talk about replacing the current disputed text with what the review says instead, but I usually prefer to avoid content on negative findings unless sources really dedicate some time to the idea's importance. WP:ONUS is also policy in this regard for my suggestion or the current content though, so that really should be the end of people trying to reinsert the content until after consensus is reached. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

In fairness, when MEDASSESS puts "expert opinion" in those pyramid diagrams, that's in reference to expert opinion prior to the primary study having taken place, as opposed to expert opinion about the primary study. But anyway, this sentence (which does not strike me as being worth the amount of argument it has generated) is simply a single sentence in the section about antimicrobial activity, where it is already well-established that there are antimicrobial actions, and it's not anywhere on the page that deals with effects on the environment. It's just There is evidence that glyphosate may be harmful to gut microbiota in honey bees, although it is not yet known whether this occurs in the environment. And the SMC source quotes three people who are clearly experts and who are independent of the study, two of whom say that the study is important, and the third points out that it might not actually happen in the environment. I'm leaving it to other editors to decide whether or not that is good enough, but I believe that it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

For clarification, MEDASSESS is specifically mentioning how to assess levels of evidence strength where any level is basically saying whether X happens.

Even if we ignore all the policy and guideline issues I brought up above with not sourcing this primary study to a review article (I do agree that I'm surprised by the amount of argument, but rather how much there's been to make such an exception to how we normally go about sourcing primary studies), we're left with the lack of consensus issue on the procedural side, and contradicting an actual review article on the content side.

So if we must include content related to the subject, we're left with something to the effect of Under ecologically relevant conditions, pesticide exposure has not been shown to interact with pathogen infection to affect worker bee survival. That's addressing more than just the microbiome hypothesis, but it does directly contradict the premise of the primary study. The review goes into some depth about the nuances of sorting through the literature on interactive effects, so it may be useful elsewhere, but it should demonstrate why we wait for reviews to put the entire literature in context for us rather than working backwards from a single study and trying to figure out how to fit it in based on isolated commentary. This is definitely something where reviews will update if they consider this study worthy of mention (i.e., encyclopedic for us) as opposed to the many bee studies with issues that don't get taken very seriously as the review points out. Kingofaces43 (talk) 08:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

After letting things sit for awhile after the recent edits to see if anything else was going to come up, it looks pretty clear we aren't seeing anything that would move us away in either direction from the lack of consensus that multiple editors have brought up. It's been nearly a month since this all started, and we haven't really gotten anywhere with the more recent edits of trying to use individual non-peer-reviewed expert opinion as a method for inclusion, so I've gone ahead and removed the content per WP:ONUS policy until such a time that policy can be fulfilled.

I've mentioned above how we normally don't use lower-quality expert opinion that normally requires attribution as a benchmark for inclusion except under unique circumstances in place of reviews, but I also mentioned a review above that contradicts including this current study in terms of WP:DUE until it gets mentioned by appropriate secondary sources. For those who really want to dig into this topic before assessing any kind of weight for the subject, the review covers the wide topic of interactions between bee pathogens and pesticides. They basically outline that this is an important field of study and ways to go about research properly, but they show that it's so common for major methodological issues, etc. in the studies they review that they more or less have to dismiss the studies on the subject as unreliable or unrealistic. It makes it clear this is a complicated and often tenuous research topic, so we really need to be reaching for the highest quality sources here. Until reviews get updated, we can't really be contradicting the current reviews like this one that state there is no evidence for interactions between bee pathogens and pesticides, which was the central argument of the primary study in question. Saying it harms gut microbiota would be inappropriate with that in mind too.

If this does end up being a big deal in the literature, it should only take something on the order of months to get new reviews that might mention it, and we'd also have something sourced solidly with probably more content rather than having a piece of content that's extremely questionable for inclusion due to what current secondary sources in the literature say. I left a section break here too so that can be brought up here in the future if/when that happens in addition to any other potential comments. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I guess I could sum up my current opinion as "whatever". I'll go along with whatever other editors think is best. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

A recent edit

I am concerned about this edit: [2]. I understand the rationale given in the edit summary, but I am not convinced by it. The source ([3]) is not "randomly selected", and it is incorrect to treat the IARC report as though it were a MEDRS-applicable source that reflects scientific consensus. The edit has the net effect of treating the IARC report as being more scientifically-accepted than it actually is, and it seems to me to be perfectly appropriate to cite comments by recognized experts in the field as including a significant amount of criticism; there is no need for each expert to have said the same thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking about what to do with the section earlier today after seeing that, but I didn't restore the content at the time. I've done so now. This section should more or less be the same as the glyphosate formulations page, so we can source some stronger MEDRS sources. Still, WP:PARITY applies in addition to being recognized experts as you discussed, so I don't see any issues with the source as-is. We do have Glyphosate#International_Agency_for_Research_on_Cancer in this article, so there may be some pieces that should be housed there versus under the Humans section. I haven't taken a serious crack at that yet though aside from mulling it over a little bit, but it is a good to-do list item. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

121.216.198.159´s edit summary is correct: "A collection of randomly solicited opinion pieces -- some of which agree with the findings -- should not be used to "However" a WP:MEDRS meta-analysis." The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is an intergovernmental agency of the WHO, a reputable major international scientific body (see WP:MEDORG). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans are WP:MEDRS; much better, independent, peer reviewed academic sources than (this one) are needed to question the reliability of the IARC classification (category 2A). JimRenge (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

You are making it sound like that source is some kind of commentary by a non-scientist such as a journalist, but it isn't. It's a collection of comments, directly quoted, not paraphrased, by expert scientists: exactly the "peers" who would perform a peer review. And it is insufficient to say that IARC is MEDRS-compliant. MEDRS includes WP:MEDDATE, which means that when a MEDRS source is subsequently found by more recent MEDRS sources to have been incorrect, the most up-to-date information is what we should report. That's exactly what we have here. The IARC drew a conclusion that was criticized by experts, and then multiple other secondary sources of caliber at least as good as the IARC determined that IARC had been incorrect in its conclusions. It's just plain wrong to make it sound like the IARC was "the last word". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

While the "group of scientists" has been described as a "lobby group" [4] Gandydancer (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand. That Guardian piece is about a group of scientists who criticized a dramatization on the BBC, not the group in the source discussed here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Nothing in that source indicates the scientists are a lobby group, paid by companies or otherwise. At the end of the day, these types of sources are ok to use when describing groups contradicting a scientific consensus. We can also add in some of the previously discussed Reuters source along with actual MEDRS sources and be pretty solid, but that will take a little bit more content crafting work. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, you have cited WP:PARITY, could you please explain which fringe theory you are talking about? JimRenge (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

That glyphosate is a significant carcinogen. We already crafted some text on this, but views that oppose a scientific consensus are generally considered fringe, especially when the methodology of such a minority group has been heavily criticized (or when the WHO as whole disagrees with them). Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The idea that the International Agency for Research on Cancer/WHO is disseminating fringe theories is an exceptional claim which requires exceptional sources. The IARC is one of the world´s leading authorities on cancer and carcinogenic substances - definitely not a "minority group". JimRenge (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I do think that calling it "fringe" sheds more heat than light. As I see it, the point isn't whether it's fringe (or pseudoscience), which it really isn't, but the fact that subsequent reviews by multiple equally reliable organizations reached the opposite conclusion and criticized IARC. So this is, in my view, something where we are looking at a source that has been made obsolete by subsequent sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking into whether or not the Science Media Centre is some sort of non-neutral advocacy group, I find this: [5]. It began as a British government agency and is now part of the Wellcome Collection. It is most definitely a reliable source about the opinions of scientists. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

We have articles about the Science Media Centre as well as Fiona Fox (press officer). JimRenge (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the point that you are making there. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Given the disagreements over the one source here, I have tried to make it a moot point by replacing the paragraph in question with the equivalent paragraph from Glyphosate-based herbicides. There has already been a careful discussion of the content at that other page, and the paragraph from there is better-written than the one here has been. And it obviously makes little sense for the two pages to say things that are inconsistent. Consequently, the disputed source is no longer on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Another recent edit

About: [6] (added by an IP, with a spelling correction by another editor). I think there might be a WP:POV problem with it. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I saw it at a glance while on mobile yesterday and gave the content an initial pass at least. Digging in a bit more after getting back to my desktop, the references seem to check out as ok. The first sentence ref is paywalled, though searching the title will give a full version elsewhere. I tweaked the first sentence a little bit to avoid "lucrative". The second sentence ref is in German, but looks to be a legitimate newspaper RS written by editorial staff. I'm not finding it exactly saying he never disclosed the conflict of interest in the source though, so I've removed that for now (though I don't think it was disclosed on personal perusal of the primary sources).

That leaves the last sentence sourced to Reuters. I had been wrestling on how the source could be used well before these edits too, especially in terms of WP:MEDRS. It helps that we have MEDRS sourced directly contradicting and criticizing the IARC conclusions already, so the Reuters source can fall more into an lay explanatory source categorization within MEDRS, especially since it comments on the problems in the process of the IARC decision as opposed to criticism of the conclusion itself where MEDRS is definitely needed.

I'm making a change to the last sentence after posting this message I think navigates that gray zone in an ok fashion, but I wouldn't be opposed to adding a refimprove tag to have a paired MEDRS source directly cited there as well if there's a good one to compliment the Reuters source or vice versa to make it easier on us. This is tricky though because it's not like a journal where such actions would result in a statement by the journal staff. This is more like criticism of behavioral actions within government organization that's a little more the domain of news sources than the focus of scientific sources. Other scientific bodies would generally focus on refuting the conclusions rather than the committee's editing methods (as opposed to scientific methods that do get criticized), so I'm honestly not sure where we'd expect to find higher quality sourcing on this last sentence content. I'd like to see what other people think too or if text should be changed further. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

My change to the last sentence ended up being a bit more than I thought while adding in another source, but it tries to take a more documentation approach than some of the editorializing in the previous version. I'm going to let that sit for now, but I'd be open to any tweaks or discussion on it at this point as I try to work on other things for a bit. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: Thanks for reviewing it. I'm not sure we should be citing Kabat though as forbes.com/sites/ are not under editorial control of Forbes and are generally not considered RS. SmartSE (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I looked into that a little bit when I made this edit where the article definitely shouldn't be attributed to Forbes' opinion. However, Kabat is a an expert when it comes to cancer and epidemiology, so their opinion does meet minimum RS when properly attributed (though really the lowest tier of RS only in specific cases like this), and one could invoke WP:PARITY if needed too. I'd prefer stronger sourcing too, but it's not uncommon to have attributed statements like this either from experts. I don't think anyone can just sign up to be a Forbes contributor though, so it does give Kabat's statements a little more weight compared to an open blog. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you, for working on this. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Recent European Parliament report and Beanbrook claims

"However, an independent report mandated by several European Parliament groups alleged that EU regulators based a decision to relicense glysophate-based weedkillers based on an assessment plagiarized from industry reports and subjectively omitting research that would indicate carcinogenicity, thus putting into question the objectivity of the the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment.[96] Similarly, a recent peer-reviewed research paper in comparing the IARC and American EPA assessment concluded that: "in the core tables compiled by EPA and IARC, the EPA relied mostly on registrant-commissioned, unpublished regulatory studies, 99% of which were negative, while IARC relied mostly on peer-reviewed studies of which 70% were positive".[97] Carcinogenicity. partially based on the IARC report, has been quoted as the reason behind a increasing number of glyphosate Roundup bans in countries like France[98], the Netherlands[99] or in states like California[100]."

Regarding this part. It should probably be broken up and moved to a different part of the wiki. However it seems like IARC gets an unfair amount of critique as compared to the EPA or EFSA. Especially the European Parliament report seems valid and important. It basically blasts one key agency in Europe of plagiarism and bias - you can't just ignore it. It's a key EP report!!! This report influenced a massive vote today to strengthen regulations against pesticides. Maruti (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The IARC is critiqued heavily because it falls into WP:FRINGE by opposing the scientific consensus. That is a function of WP:NPOV as well as why we don't give undue weight to claims opposing the consensus. Keep in mind that we also need WP:MEDRS sources, which the Guardian isn't. Not to mention that Benbrook typically isn't a reliable source in this subject either, but is also contradicting the scientific consensus. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no consensus. But that's beside the point. You can just not mention the fact that an official European Parliament report criticizes the BfR, which in turn led to a massive for vote on increased oversight over pesticides. The Guardian link can be supplanted for the report itself, so that's no excuse. As to Benbrook - what credentials does Wiki have to decide who is a "credible" source? And who is a reliable source? Industry written reports? Besides the Benbrook paper suggests bias, not critique of assessments. I can agree these should be placed somewhere else in the article, but I can't see how you can ignore factual debates. Maruti (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I put a short concise info about the EP report plus about the Benbrook paper in the Government and organization positions section. It won't question the science, but if you list the Guardian article about plagiarism than you must list the EP paper that was mandated BECAUSE of that article. If you don't find Benbrook relevant enough - fine, but given the success he's had in the California trial - best to link him to his Wiki page and people to make up their own minds. Maruti (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

That's edit warring, please revert and not restore it until you have demonstrated consensus for it. Geogene (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

How can I demonstrate consensus for a report that was mandated by the EP? It's a fact, it happened, it was widely reported and it influenced a key vote yesterday in the EP. You have the Guardian article that started the allegations of plagiarism quoted, so why not the EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT mandated report that was mandated because of that exact Guardian article just below it? The suggested content is:

1. IN EFSA: In January 2019 an independent assessment mandated by several European Parliament groups (Greens / EFA, Socialists & Democrats and European United Left–Nordic Green Left) alleged that the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment report was plagiarized from industry papers and subjectively omitted peer-reviewed research. (link directly to report or better yet to the Guardian article about it that would give the reader some background to it plus the link to the report is in the article). (If some wants the BfR response to these allegations maybe add it?)

As for Benbrook (If you don't think he's relevant here - fine, but the European Parliament paper? C'mon!):

2. In January 2019 Charles Benbrook, (maybe add here that he's an expert in the California case so people know 'he's an involved party'????) published a peer-reviewed research paper comparing the IARC and American EPA assessment and concluded that: "in the core tables compiled by EPA and IARC, the EPA relied mostly on registrant-commissioned, unpublished regulatory studies, 99% of which were negative, while IARC relied mostly on peer-reviewed studies of which 70% were positive". (link to paper) Maruti (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

In medical topics, we need WP:MEDRS sources, not newspapers, etc. That means things like review articles. We also generally do not discuss primary sources unless appropriate sources bring them up. When we have something like a scientific consensus on a subject, it's also generally WP:UNDUE to give significant weight to other viewpoints. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

That is why I suggested this go to Organizations positions. So it's not a discussion about science, but about positions. And under the EFSA you literally already have the whole controversy regarding the BfR assessment and it ends with this: "In September 2017, The Guardian reported that sections of the Renewal Assessment Report prepared by the BfR and used by Efsa were copy-pasted from a study done by Monsanto. Some sections of copy contained small changes such as using British spelling rather than American forms but others were copied word for word, including most of the peer-reviewed papers that were used in the report. The Guardian reported that a "Monsanto spokesperson said that Efsa allowed renewal reports to be written this way because of the large volume of toxicological studies submitted."" I think we can all agree that an independent report, written by academics specializing in their respective fields and mandated by three major European factions is more important than a Guardian article (who BTW makes the same claim but without a rigorous assessment to back it up. What's more the EP assessment is a direct consequence of the Guardian report. Furthermore it played a key role in a very important vote regarding enhancing objectivity and transparency of EFSA assessments (voted yesterday). Can anyone tell me any reason why this should not appear in the Glyphosate article? Please once again - indulge me. This is even a logical next step in the whole story. It's not even a viewpoint. I link the primary source - no good. I linked a Guardian article with a link to the primary source - not good. Because for now it just looks like you don't want this to be part of the article for... Why? Maruti (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

If you want maybe we can add some BfR refute of claims, if you think it's undue. It might also be worth noting something about the EP vote to make pesticide approval procedures more transparent and independent based on the whole EFSA controversy. Its on the frickin European Parliament website: https://www.bfr.bund.de/en/press_information/2019/02/european_assessment_of_glyphosate_is_quality_assured_and_independent___industry_reports_are_routinely_part_of_assessment_reports-239502.html

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20190115IPR23551/pesticides-meps-propose-blueprint-to-improve-eu-approval-procedure Maruti (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

New meta-analysis out today says "raises risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma by 41%"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574218300887

"Using the highest exposure groups when available in each study, we report the overall meta-relative risk (meta-RR) of NHL in GBH-exposed individuals was increased by 41% (meta-RR = 1.41, 95% CI, confidence interval: 1.13–1.75)." TimidGuy (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

There's already text stating the scientific consensus is that glyphosate does not pose a significant carcinogenic risk at Glyphosate#Cancer. Pretty much every regulatory agency, etc. agrees, and stronger meta-analyses than this new study show no risk too. Other studies on NHL and glyphosate links have been criticized for methodological issues, cherry-picking, confounding, etc. in reviews, so I don't think there's anything that could really be changed in the article based on this new study in terms of WP:DUE. It could be worth fleshing out what other reviews have said with respect to issues in the studies looking at NHL though since it seems to come up often. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The deletion of this new research seems strange. If the article passed academic scrutiny, it by definition must provide new evidence that could change scientific opinion. The fact that there swas "scientific consensus" prior to this research does not mean the consensus cannot change once a new research is published. How can a Wikipedia editor be more knowledgeable than the academic reviewers of this paper? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.189.248 (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I reverted the edit by 84.109, because it was sourced to an announcement from the university website, which is tantamount to a press release. I do realize that, just above, TimidGuy links to the actual journal article, and that the article is a meta-analysis. This has nothing to do with what Wikipedia editors know (and we have a policy against basing such decisions on what editors think that they know). Rather, because we are discussing a disease in human beings, the decisions about sourcing must be based on WP:MEDRS. And that rules out reporting something because it is "breaking news" in research. As Kingofaces correctly points out, this is one meta-analysis among multiple meta-analyses and review articles, and there is a high barrier to using it to effectively overrule the other sources. We don't know yet whether or not scientific consensus has changed. (The fact that the new paper could change scientific consensus isn't good enough: guessing whether something could do that is just editor opinion.) If it does change consensus, that will soon be reflected in other publications that are independent of this one, and if/when that happens, Wikipedia most certainly will report it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

IMO this reflects a very strange situation in U.S. Science (I am not American). (1) I would expect a university press release (which includes a link to the research paper) to be identical to the research findings, except that its stated in a layman's terms. It seems that you view it as an advertisement, i.e. something whose credibility should be questioned and whose purpose is (at least in part) to hype the university's status. (2) I would expect an academic article to advance science, i.e. to provide further evidence than known before. In such a case, I would have thought that Wikipedia should reflect that new information exists. It seems that you see a new article as merely a statement of fact (hopefully you don't question its correctness), without any say about its relevance. I wonder - in what cases do you thing the scientific community would reject the results of such a paper: wrong methodology? not enough analyses gathered for a meta-analysis? Why didn't the paper's reviewers reject it on these grounds? (3) Who decides what is the "scientific consensus" - Is this an NIH/WHO decision? -- Ronnie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.189.248 (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

This isn't about how US science works. It's about how Wikipedia works. If you want to change how Wikipedia works in this instance, the place to discuss it is at WT:MEDRS. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I opened a discussion there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.189.248 (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

That discussion is at WT:MEDRS#New research results about increased cancer risk of herbicide were not authorized. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I gotta say the framing of this discussion of how science works versus how WP works rubs me really wrong. Yes, WP is not a part of scientific process and the scientific process and debate has to happened outside WP and WP merely reflects the (settled) results or in (large) unresolved cases the current state of the debate. However Glyphosate is not Climatechanges and the above boldly claimed scientific consensus imho simply does not exist. And while it is true that many scientific organisations currently state that there is cancer risk associated with Glyphosate, it isn't true for all (see the IARC case). And while you can argue most studies don't show associations, it is again by far not true for all and imho if one were to declare a supposed consensus it is more along the line of "association with cancer is currently very weak, further research is needed", which is miles away from a supposed consensus a la "no association with cancer". The latter however seems to be used here to be able to argue that WP policy requires to dismiss this study (or any other new differing result) out of hand.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

"There's already text stating the scientific consensus..." A meta analysis has been posted. This isn't fringe content this is the most recent, MEDRS compliant information which adds to the growing scientific body of information on glyphosate and whatever its impact on health maybe. We overstep ourselves as editors when we decide that scientific consensus does not include the most recent meta analysis. We can decide weight and report this new meta anlysis carries less weight in terms of our articles, but we can't decide it doesn't exist in favor of an already determined POV. Again this isn't fringe content; we must report this, taking into account due weight, this new compliant content. I'm scratching my head on this.Littleolive oil (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'd like to suggest a version of this."our current meta-analysis of human epidemiological studies suggests a compelling link between exposures to GBHs and increased risk for NHL.Littleolive oil (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

That would go against the scientific consensus and violate WP:DUE (the opposite of "we must report this"). The scientific consensus is very clear that practically all national-level scientific groups and agencies agree with the consensus, and the lone outlier, the IARC, has been heavily criticized for its methodology. It's even to the point that the WHO, which the IARC is housed within, has ignored their designation and considers glyphosate not to be as significant carcinogen. Things going against the scientific consensus are indeed frequently WP:FRINGE (glyphosate and cancer claims frequently fall under that), but they are instead almost always undue weight until a consensus has actually changed. There's nothing even close to such as change yet, and a single meta-analysis cannot be used to contradict higher level sources. If those high-level scientific groups starting changing their designations, then there would be something to discuss. Until that happens though, Wikipedia cannot try to get ahead of the science.

The other issue is that we've seen these kinds of meta-analyses on the subject already (see Glyphosate#Human. The problem is that the underlying literature is easily prone to bias and confounding, particularly on the non-Hodgkins lymphoma topic (the studies are correlational and frequently confounded with other pesticide use). There are weight issues with even including this study in the lower-tier of just looking at meta-analyses, so it's really become a topic where secondary coverage of the meta-analyses is frequently needed at this point. The status of that last paragraph I linked to stays the same in either case where some studies saw a correlation with NHL, but many find none with the positive associations often having methodological issues.

Scientific consensus is already a high bar though. If it's climate change, we don't say we need to include sources that go against that consensus, we don't include studies saying there is a significant health risk to GMOs, etc. even if they are meta-analyses. Doing otherwise would contradict too many polices. A lot needs to happen for a study like this to be mentioned here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Again this is NOT chlimate change and the scientific consensus you claim simply does not exist.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Please avoid violating WP:OR by claiming there is no consensus. The relevant portion of current text is very clear on this. A scientific consensus can occur in areas other than climate change. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Again you claiming a scientific consensus, doesn't make one. And yes a scientific consensus is not restricted to climate change, in fact most of our science articles live in a consensus space. Glyphosate and various related issues however fail a scientific cosnsensus on many topics as far as I can see, instead you can only talk of majority opinions (in a heavily lobbied field). Also you can't really violate WP:OR on a talk page.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• I've read through the paper (being summoned from FTN WT:MEDRS) and I do think a sentence should go in the article at some point, perhaps after waiting a few weeks to make sure no major flaws are uncovered. We're already citing other NHL meta-analyses, and if there isn't anything wrong with this one then consistency would suggest adding it as well. The sources do seem pretty clear that there's a consensus with respect to general carcinogenicity, but my impression (I can't say for sure) is that this might indicate a minority view for NHL in particular that's significant enough to mention, again with the caveat that the paper's methods and results are not substantially questioned in the future. If not, then the presence of the other NHL meta-analyses should be re-evaluated.

That said, if we want to consider additions, the text that was originally inserted and Olive's above proposal both contain editorializing as well as at least one major problem. For the latter version, the language "our current meta-analysis" suggests the most recent meta-analysis is necessarily the most authoritative, or even subsumes previously published meta-analyses, which are definitely not the case. For the former, it emphasizes the observed risk estimate when the authors specifically de-emphasize it and instead offer cautions on interpretation, and the use of the vague plural "some cancers" (while it could arguably be considered technically correct) gives the false impression of greater severity. (And on that note, while it's not explicitly laid out in this source, for context it may also be necessary to make the point that this is essentially focused on occupational exposures, which is very different from the environmental exposures that tend to be of greater interest to the general public.) Sunrise (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I’ve mentioned weight issues, and part of what you mention for other NHL text if somewhat historical. That is included because those initial NHL analyses caused a splash at the time, but were largely later discredited, hence the current layout. This source hasn’t reached that bar yet. Including itwould become more like dueling sources when the current version provides how other sources summarize the progression of literature instead. That background is a little buried within the sources if only glancing at text.

As for where the consensus applies with respect to “general cancer”, the NHL studies were prominently weighed in on within the various consensus statements in the sources. They were looked at, and the weight of evidence was considered as no significant risk. That’s why we need to be careful about contradicting the consensus that includes NHL with a single meta-analysis when there has already been a lot of weighing in with previous sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't find any mention of this at WP:FTN. Was it actually my post at WT:MEDRS? If not, Sunrise, could you please link to the discussion? Also, I believe that a thoughtful reading of WP:MEDRS does not lead to the overly simplistic conclusion that this is a MEDRS-compliant source, at least not if we present it in a way that gives it more weight than the source material as a whole. That doesn't mean that we are going to dismiss it out of hand. (Also, although no one is doing anything wrong here, I just want to remind everyone that the discretionary sanctions from the ArbCom GMO case apply to this page. Just giving the reminder before there is any problem.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

(For my part, I probably wouldn't have considered commenting here at all if I didn't know the atmosphere was being controlled by the DS! And yes, I meant WT:MEDRS, sorry for the mixup.) Your proposal below is in line with the sort of thing I was thinking of for the ideal case - minority (or fringe) positions, if mentioned, must be placed in the context of the majority view, and any addition would have to comply with that. However, I agree with the comment that this isn't coming across very well for the existing text. In particular, to me the weighting in the current version of the lead seems to imply there is at least a serious possibility of cancer risk: emphasis on "concerns" with no direct counterbalance, a lot of use of attribution and quotation, the 2014 meta-analysis getting the final word in paragraph 4, and IARC being given the most visible position in paragraph 5. The situation becomes clearer after reading the body, but the same kind of thing applies there too, such as giving the "limited evidence" statement the first position in the paragraph that describes the consensus statement. Sunrise (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Sunrise. Sorry if anything caused you any stress. I agree with you overall on the content issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Sunrise, I've taken a stab and rearranging this section a little bit to at least be more in line with what an intended reading should be with appropriate weighting. That would be the prime spot for adding the example citations like Tryptofish mentioned. That being said, it's currently written to rely on other studies commenting on the minority viewpoint rather than standalone, so I'm still not sure how best to fit in the new study with regards to my SYNTH comment above. If this version at least makes better sense, we can go forward from there on whether it's better to wait awhile before adding anything about this new study. We'll be getting ourselves into less trouble at least trying to add it in to some variation of the change I just made.

Something like that could also be copied into the lede too to replace the problem areas you brought up if people are ok with that idea. I'm not beholden to my particular version, but that's the gist to get across at least using the sources we have so far. I can do more digging if we want to discuss specifically how international agencies have discounted many meta-analysis in this subject, though it may be redundant to some degree too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, and while I would oppose giving this one paper a prominent treatment in the form of something like a paragraph of its own, I do think that we could cite it in the form of something like: "Although some reviews of the literature have concluded that there is evidence of occupational carcinogenicity, (cite papers, including this one) most analyses have concluded that the weight of evidence is against that being the case. (cites)" Or something like that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I’ve been batting around a similar idea. Basically this conversation so far is showing readers aren’t catching that scientific agencies haven’t been giving these studies weight due to various issues in the studies (that would also at least in part be inherent in this study too). We skim over that in our current content aside from the single sentence mentioning bias and confounding, so that’s a prime candidate to flesh out. Your example could fit in that paragraph, but it also wouldn’t really matter whether this new study is included or not since the sources already mention them. I’ll looking into fleshing out based on previous sources in the morning.

The only caution I would have against citing the study even as an example would by a SYNTH concern. The sources we can bring up talk about previous meta-analyses and the underlying literature’s issues that this new study would have run into as well, but those sources don’t discuss this new study directly. Not sure how best to tackle that aspect if someone is adamant about including the example listing as you mention quite yet, but your approach looks ok. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we are moving in the right direction, but I'll wait to see what other editors think at this point. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

good source for improving the intro and making it more user friendly

http://www.speclab.com/compound/c1071836.htm --Espoo (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not a good source. Much better sources are available and have already been cited. I don´t think your addition of language dictionaries in the lead/1st sentence improved the article. JimRenge (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

New verdict

There have just been news reports of a verdict in a new case in the same topic as Glyphosate#Lawsuits claiming links to cancer. I expect that this may set off a round of edits that may be poorly formed. I suggest that it be treated with similar weight as the previous case. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Questionable source

I question the use of this review article:[7] It is a review done by :Professor of Pesticide Chemistry and Toxicology, Assiut University and Deputy Chairman of the Agricultural Pesticide Committee (APC), Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation, Arab Republic of Egypt. It appeared in the Journal of Toxicology and Health, which brings up nothing other than its own information when googled. I'd appreciate some feedback. Gandydancer (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. The first thing I thought of was whether it might be a predatory journal, so I looked into it. At the link you provided, it's shown as being part of Herbert Open Access Journals (Herbert Publications). And that publisher is on this list: [8], which is generally considered the definitive list of such publishers. As such, it fails WP:RS and needs to be removed from this page and any other page that cites it.

That's a pity, because it probably is not the fault of the author of the review, because most authors who publish at these journals have been hoodwinked into thinking that the journal is legit. The author appears to be a full professor, and we obviously do not reject sources by authors from non-first-world countries, so the opinions there are probably on the up-and-up, and critical reviews of the literature are normally exactly what we want to use as MEDRS sources. Maybe that author also has published in a valid journal, which would be worth a look. But this one has to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I looked at what else the author has published, and he is really a very distinguished authority on the chemistry of these kinds of things, but he has only one other review about pesticides, and it's in the same publication. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, what a pity indeed. That he would submit both reviews about pesticides to a predatory journal that uses made-up names as peer reviewers is probably not his fault. Gandydancer (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

It's so difficult to read affect online, that I have to check. I'm not sure whether you are being sarcastic about that, but I hope that's not the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

In case you didn't know, legitimate scientific journals almost never tell the authors who the reviewers were. Peer-review is typically done anonymously. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I am, of course, aware of that. Gandydancer (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Good, thanks. So I guess that means that you agree that he likely potentially did not know that it was a predatory journal. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC) word changed --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I agree, we better avoid citing predatory journals. I am surprised to see that the same author who wrote: "When the conditions of glyphosate use in Egypt is rationally analyzed, it appears that exposure of the public to glyphosate is order of magnitudes far below the zero-risk dose." concludes one year later "(...) Taken all together, it can be fairly said that confidence in the regulatory certified ADI values is highly eroded." and proposes a new acceptable daily intake of 2.5 ng/kg bw/day, 1/400 000 of the existing ADI of 1mg/kg bw/day. (Yehia A. Ibrahim (2015). A regulatory perspective on the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate, Journal of Toxicology and Health 2, 1. Yehia A. Ibrahim (2016). Hypothetical adjustment of the acceptable daily intake and correction of the underrated risk: A case study of glyphosate based herbicides, J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Science 8 (7), 57.) The website academicjournals.org, J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Science, is blacklisted by wikipedia. JimRenge (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC) suppl. JimRenge (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The source is still on the page (and the other pages where it was cited). That's because it's cited multiple times, and it was only removed at one place. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Done, removed it in Bayer, Monsanto, Roundup, Glyphosate, GBH, etc. JimRenge (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, JimRenge, that's much appreciated. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. I didn't find anything that set off any red flags on predatory journals when I first found the source and looked at the time. I'll do a little bit more digging on replacement sources, but there are some pointing out that some of those Herbert journals are legitimate, and another review does point out Ibrahim as a good source for what various agencies have said on the matter. I'd have to dig into the specifics on this journal more though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The consensus at RSN and elsewhere has been pretty clear that we should not cite anything from sources that are on Beall's list of predatory journals, and I want to adhere to that consensus. I'm glad that you found that other review, however, because taking it along with the first one that I cite just below in "Other sources", they do fill the gap left behind by omitting Ibrahim. On the other hand, I'm pretty well convinced by my look for sources that it is no longer valid for us to say that IARC was the "only one". Flawed yes, and we should say so, but there are clearly newer sources that also raise concerns, and I want us to present a balanced view of both "sides". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Other sources

I've looked for some better sources on the same issue.

• This: [9], looks to be a valid review by a qualified expert in a legitimate journal, that makes criticisms of IARC that are similar to what Ibrahim said.
• This: [10], is another good recent review, that says that current safety evaluations of glyphosate are out-of-date and that it should be regarded more critically.
• These: [11] and [12], present both "sides" of the issue.

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I would want to know if the IARC claims that Monsanto's lawyers retained Bob Tarone (#1) were true, before paying $47 to read it. I've read the others (quickly) and it's true that they seem more balanced than what was in the article before, but they pretty clearly don't say the same thing as what the entry currently does so the text will need significant rewriting. The comments about non-US, non-European data/studies in #3 are particularly of interest. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

About MEDRS sources

I've just made this edit: [13], and I want to explain why, because it may not be entirely obvious.

For content such as this, that says or implies that something may cause birth defects, Wikipedia relies on WP:MEDRS to evaluate sources, so that we don't mislead readers with preliminary or one-off health information (which gets published in the scientific literature all the time, and needs to be replicated subsequently by independent researchers). I previously had placed this tag: [14]. That's because the source was a press report rather than a peer-reviewed study, and because it was about a case report of a single patient, rather than a retrospective review of the literature as a whole. More information was then added, which I appreciate: [15]. But that only compounded the problem. First of all, these amount to three separate reports, so there is WP:SYNTH in treating two of them as justifying the first. Also, the two new sources are primary sources, rather than retrospective reviews of the kind of observation reported in the first press report. That's why I removed it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

About that deleted material

This is the text that was deleted.

In a legal case filed against Monsanto in France in May 2018, a surgeon who operated on a boy born with multiple deformities said that without any genetic antecedents, it was "highly probable" that the pesticide played a role in his deformities.

Correlations between high glyphosate levels in urine and shortened pregnancy have been observed. An Argentine study of vertebrate embryos concluded that "the direct effect of glyphosate on early mechanisms of morphogenesis in vertebrate embryos opens concerns about the clinical findings from human offspring in populations exposed to GBH in agricultural fields."

References

As I understand it Trypto's complaint is not that we report the fact that Monsanto is being sued in a case related to birth defects (though he *did* admittedly delete that), nor with the research into retinoic acid and reduced gestation periods, but the fact that these were right next to each other in the text. How would others (or Trypto) suggest these 3 items be arranged to keep everyone happy and still to provide readers with the information. (cf. wp:notcensored, etc.) p.s. there are some photo-pages about Argentinian birth defects in rural areas, but I thought that probably wouldn't pass the censors. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 09:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

In general it's a bad idea to comment on legal cases that have only been filed. Anyone can claim anything in a filing, but that doesn't mean it is true. The primary research references are obviously not MEDRS-compliant (or even SCIRS) and I agree with Tryptofish that it is especially problematic to use these to reinforce the suggestion that the birth defect was caused by glyphosate when this is contrary to the status-quo that it does not affect reproductive health. Please knock it off with your mentions of censorship etc. these are long-established principles for dealing with health-related information on Wikipedia. SmartSE (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

There is also the issue of WP:SYNTH. For WP to imply that primary source: 'Glyphosate can shorten the duration of pregnancy' plus primary source: 'Glyphosate does stuff in lab animals' equals 'what the surgeon said about a single case of a baby with birth defects', that's what WP:SYNTH is about. It's not about putting the sources in different places. It's about WP:NOR. And that in turn is why we use literature reviews rather than have editors decide to combine primary sources to communicate something. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm... I see there's a study on the correlation between high levels of glyphosate pollution in Argentina and miscarriage (3x more likely) and congenital abnormalities (2x more likely). That said, the publisher is blocked as predatory on en.wp (SCIRP: ) It's very curious all that I am learning about how research gets banned/blocked/blacklisted from en.wp.

References

In matters related to this page, Trypto, could you also explain why since 2015 you haven't ever deemed it useful to add that the IARC had found the herbicide to be a "probable carcinogen" on the Roundup page you've principally authored (in large part by copying from this page)? Or why no mention had ever been made of the Monsanto Papers on this page or that one? (the prize, much less the articles, aren't exactly new...) These two facts are very, very strange.

I appreciate that you don't wish to consider the World Health Organization a *notable* exception to the list of regulatory / advisory institutions that have deemed the herbicide to be non-carcinogenic. Even if it *is* the WHO, "notable" could, I suppose be construed as editorializing. However, let's keep this in perpective. What follows is the one-sided story I found and had to fix at the Roundup entry you "steward"... (see here in particular which you said you copied from this page in Sept 2018). Could you explain why there was no mention whatsoever of the IARC finding, while that finding is an essential element of the article you were citing (the main purpose of the article being to react to / investigate that claim). This would seem to be WP:NOR of the highest degree... taking one article and skipping over the parts it is "inconvenient" that the article mentions.

Finally, any ideas why there is a line through the principal author of this entry's pseudonym on the talk page? Have they been blacklisted/blocked/banned/shot or are they OK? SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't really sound to me like you are asking me about content, which I would be happy to do, but rather that you are making innuendos about me. If you actually feel that there are problems with my conduct, take it to the appropriate venue. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

"Knock it off", SmartSE? I beg your pardon? Who are you to speak with me in such a manner? Please focus on arguing convincingly why the studies should be "removed". I don't think the average passerby will be convinced by your statement above. How is it that the Egyptian researcher mentioned two sections ago passed MEDRS? (because he was entrusted with making a national recommendation?)

Now as for whether RS reporting on a widely publicized lawsuit should be included in an encyclopedia entry, that's a different question. Also SmartSE & Tryptofish I would ask that you refrain from refactoring TP comments. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with SmartSE that we should be avoiding using anything from ongoing cases where anything can be alleged. There are definitely WP:MEDRS issues with this too, so I don't really see anything we can do right now at least. Something to discuss if there are new secondary sources though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)