Talk:Glyphosate

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A review of unpublished short-term rabbit feeding studies reported severe toxicity effects at 150 mg/kg/day and NOAEL doses ranging from 50 to 200 mg/kg/day.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

Page protected discussion

Seeing that non one has really attempted discussion since the lock-down, I'll get the ball rolling now that I'm more available for a bit. The contested content is the content added in the section changed from Fish and Amphibians to Non-human mammals.[2]. Various content was added on LD50s, and that was opposed on a WP:TECHNICAL and WP:WEIGHT basis. There was some explanatory language on what an LD50 was, but that has been fixed in the most current version,[3] so those concerns shouldn't need to be addressed here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jytdog above that rattling off various LD50s is too technical and unneeded for encyclopedic content. In pesticide articles when we're talking about intended use, we don't start listing what various concentrations are used on account of WP:NOTHOWTO in additional to TECHNICAL. We have a similar parallel here where readers aren't particularly gaining knowledge on the topic with inclusion of LD50 values. WP:NOTJOURNAL also comes to mind as we aren't summarizing the literature as a journal does, but rather describing what's relevant for encyclopedia readers. Common practice in pesticide articles is to list the overall findings of particular sources for readers. If a reader is very toxicological minded, they are a bit outside the scope of the intended audience here and would be expected to dig into the sources if they want specific LD50 values. There are also WP:MEDRS concerns with reporting animal studies used as proxies for human toxicology.

1. With that all in mind, looking at this diff,[4] there are a few easy ways to fix the concerns with the newly added content. The first two paragraphs can be reduced to the conclusion statements from the sources by a summarization is in line with both sources originally used where the more technical information is in the osurce for whoever wants to read it more in-depth:

Mammalian toxicity is considered to be low to very low toxicity due to low LD_50s; signs of glyphosate toxicity in animals typically appear within 30 minutes to 2 hours following ingestion of a large enough dose, and include initial excitability and tachycardia, ataxia, depression and bradycardia but severe cases can develop into collapse and convulsions.

2. The carcinogenicity content in the third paragraph is probably best left out for now due to WP:WEIGHT we have multiple high quality sources saying there is not a significant general concern for carcinogenicity, so it's probably best to leave the current events to unfold in the position statements section first. These are rat studies used for human health aspects per WP:MEDRS. If it were more of a ecological impact study I'd be more open to it here, but it's very squarely on medical lab rat testing.

3. The first paragraph of the aquatic life section can be made concise like the mammals section. Just say:

For freshwater fish, glyphosate is generally considered "slightly toxic to practically non-toxic."

4. The second paragraph of wood frogs can probably go. It's not a toxicological effect (belonging in the formulation section if it was), and it looks like a misread of the source as it's listed as an indirect behavior effect. A really interesting lab study (equivalent to in vitro cautions with medical research) when you dig into it, but not really a good fit for this section.

5. The third algae-related paragraph (another lab study from the same lab in the previous paragraph) also doesn't seem to have a good fit with the toxicology section, but rather in a broader ecological effects section.

6. Likewise, the fourth paragraph on persistence belongs in the environmental fate section.

This should take care of any WP:JARGON or weight issues for this section. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, note that it is not true that noone has attempted to discuss this section since the lockdown. I have done so, at length, and invited you and Jytdog to do so as well. DrChrissy and i have indeed been editing in the sandbox extensively and asked for the input of others. I hope that you can recognize that for you to say this after all these days, during which you were present in Wikipedia, is kind of not cool, or else you just didn't notice, even though i pinged you about it, so you ought to have noticed. I hope you will work with the sandbox version that we've put so much effort into.

As for your comments, on a brief skim, i have to say that i do think that a few LD50 or LC50 values are appropriate in each section. That gives an idea of the relative potency of the chemical or the formulation in relation to the type of organism. Having the hyperlink to the Lethal Dose article gives the reader an easy way to understand what this means, if they are unaware. SageRad (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I also agree the LD50 information is extremely important - this helps us understand how glyphosate may have different adverse effects at different levels of the wildlife food chain. This is why I have very recently included LD50 data on aquatic invertebrates (potentially the lowest food-chain level and therefore arguably the most important level).DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

No one was really focusing on a discussion outlining what exactly needed to be worked on, and that was part of my concern with the sandbox approach where people would just go ahead and start adding whatever they want. At this point, can the above edit proposals be considered acceptable for a minimum amount of text? That was the intent to give something instead of the wholesale removal that was originally going on. If someone wants more, we can just keep ratcheting the content more as discussion goes on, but let's at least agree on a minimum first. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Headings in this section

Recently, we lost the sub heading "Glyphosate-based formulation toxicity" which appears to have been replaced with "Inert ingredient toxicity". I'm not sure this is an appropriate replacement. If it is, do we still discuss "Roundup" under this sub-heading? The opening statement to "Toxicity" is "Toxicologists have studied glyphosate alone, additives alone, and formulations." This seems like a reasonable approach for the use of headings and content.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:38, 5 October 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)

I've been thinking about this section, and i propose that we organize the section still in a similar way to how it already was. I think the top-level division should be glyphosate technical versus glyphosate-based formulations. Under that, different classes of organisms. Under that, the same pattern of reporting acute toxicities and then long-term toxicities. The organization seems simple and logical to me. We can eliminate the small section on the adjuvants and include that information in the GBF section, as that section mainly treats the adjuvant toxicity anyway. We can include the adjuvant-only information as an aid in de-aggregating the effects of glyphosate versus the adjuvants.

Overall, i think we should strive for clarity, concision, and an even-handed voice that speaks in a good summary level of detail, not going into any one point too much, and using links more than explaining terms like NOAEL and LD50.

It can be done. I would like to invite the proactive participation of Jytdog and Kingofaces43 here, especially, to help in the principles-based discussion on re-framing the section. Please explain how you would like to see the section turn out, in terms of purpose and organization. Thank you. SageRad (talk) 01:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way, check out my edit in The Sandbox, where i organized the toxicity section according to the principles i outlined above. Note how i have reduced the number of section headings and the complexity, by merging the adjuvants section with the Glyphosate-Based Formulations section. Note i've renamed that section, to the most common term used in the literature. SageRad (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I did a lot more editing to make the section more streamlined and logical, and added a figure on LC50 for a fish. I expect that when the article is re-opened, this sandbox will be useful for editing the section. SageRad (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I want to state it plainly that i expect that when the article is open for editing again, the sandbox version of the toxicity section would be a good candidate for wholesale copy and paste into the main article. We have this time, and we have this process available to us to work things out in the sandbox, and through discussion here. I hope that those who have raised the most objections will take part in the process of reworking the section, so that there is indeed consensus when the article is reopened for editing.

I have done a lot of work already on the section. I think i have done it in a very NPOV fashion. I'm not pushing any agenda, and seek only to streamline and better organize the section. It is a lot of work, and i think the section already shows quite a marked improvement. I would like to also focus on the content as well as the organization -- for example, making sure we have the most up-to-date sources on various aspects of toxicity, as well as filling out some details in some sections that are anemic. SageRad (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I see that DrChrissy has been working on the toxicity section in the sandbox, and i am thankful for the work. SageRad (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

And thank you back!DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

User:SageRad, we are approaching the time when the block will be lifted on this page. Between us, we have made significant beneficial changes in sandbox version. However, we have received little input from others. Please could you ping others requesting they look at the changes and make comments/changes where appropriate. I would do this myself, but I am banned from Jytdogs' Talk page. Thanks in advance.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog and Kingofaces43 and Prokaryotes and Jusdafax and Yobol, DrChrissy and i have made extensive changes in the sandbox to the toxicity section, and by our estimation have improved the section greatly. We hope to do a copy and paste when the editing is open again. We have invited Jytdog and Kingofaces43 to help with this or at least to provide input in the text, and to date have seen no input. The invitation was made, though, in the above talk page text. We've put in a lot of work. There may be small quibbles here or there, but overall i think the organization is greatly improved, and the content is much more well presented now. Please take a look and provide any input. SageRad (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I cleaned it up some. But it remains a mess. For instance the reproductive toxicity section is still presented as though anyone gives a rat's ass about the effects on rat reproduction. That data is gathered to help understand possible human toxicity. This requires a lot more work, to make it a useful and meaningful section on toxicity. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, what is the section you refer to as "the reproductive toxicity section"? There is no section named that. And secondly, who gives a "rat's ass" about effects of a chemical on reproductive health? A lot of people do. What section are you speaking of, what particular content, and why would is it not useful to a reader? SageRad (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@SageRad: I agree with Jytdog that there are significant issues with undue use of primary sources there. There also appears to be significant duplication of toxicity sources in both human toxicity sections, which needs to be rectified. Yobol (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

What can we do to keep the two human toxicity sections from repeating themselves? Yobol (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Yobol please could you explain what you mean by "undue use of primary sources" and which PAGs you are using for this.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, there will be an issue if editors are insisting that no primary sources can be used in this section. I personally think it's better to use secondary sources, and to use them well, but that primary sources are sometimes useful and relevant to the content. That is also what Wikipedia guidelines state. I can see an argument about level of detail and relevance, as well as the reliability and generalizability of conclusions of primary sources being lesser than secondary sources. But i also see an issue in the section of bias, in that among secondary sources, it seems that some people like to select the most benign (in the sense of showing little harm) secondary sources, and then to present them in the way that makes them seem most benign at that. In other words, i see a sort of systemic bias in the use of secondary sources, as if this is a courtroom and there is an advocacy for the premise that glyphosate and GBFs are safe and harmless. Yes, let us prefer secondary sources, but let us use them fairly and without bias, so we use the latest couple of reviews on a topic and then present them fairly (not cherrypicking conclusions that seem to show safety). SageRad (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I also like to know why Yobol removed 9 studies, i looked at the first which has 215 cites, thus appears credible - not undue. prokaryotes (talk) 11:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used, with care. In this case I am following WP:SCIRS. Put another way, a google scholar search for "glyphosate toxicity" brings up >30,000 sources. If we include one primary study, there would be a WP:WEIGHT problem if we do not include ALL primary studies (at that point, editors are cherry-picking specific primary studies to highlight). Clearly our toxicity section cannot include >30000 sources, so we need to find the most relevant information to include, which would be from secondary sources like books and reviews. I agree that we need to include all high quality secondary sources, summarize them appropriately and weight them in accordance to their prominence in the literature. Haphazard (or deliberate) placement of specific primary studies is not helpful. Yobol (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

We go by how many cites a study received, and 215 is a lot. prokaryotes (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, secondary sources help us to organize what is included in the section, to prioritize what to report. Still, even with secondary sources, it is possible for them to be cherrypicked, and presented in a way that favors an undue conclusion as to the safety, or to the harm, of glyphosate. I see it go both ways, and i hate it. Like a secondary source can have conclusions that are complex, and show some danger, and makes several good observations about toxicity, and then an editor with an industry bias will summarize it as "... report that there is very little toxicity in normal use patterns" or some such 7-word summary that completely omits more complex statements about potential harms, etc. I think it takes some stepping back to see one's own agenda, and then to make a conscious effort to really read a study and gain the sense of what it truly says, and then summarize it accurately. Let's avoid cherrypicking, both on the level of which study to include, as well as what conclusions to report from the study. SageRad (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

No, we absolutely do not go by how many cites a study received...Andrew Wakefield's pile of manure "study" has been cited 2163 per Google Scholar (an extraordinarily high number), but that does not make it any less a pile of dung. I have no problem not cherry-picking of high quality secondary studies, and of course agree that we need to neutrally represent the entirety of a source rather than specific portions that might. Trying to involve primary studies, however, will necessarily involve cherry picking specific studies (as we cannot cite all of them), and should be a non-starter. Yobol (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits of mine that have been deleted include content on aquatic invertebrates. We decided at Talk that we should include content for the major animal taxa. I have researched these and using RS, inserted content with in-line references.User:Yobol why have you deleted this?DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

We should include material related to anything found in high quality secondary sources. Are you saying there are no secondary sources, at all, describing the effects of glyphosate on aquatic invertebrates? Yobol (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have not found any. Have you? If you have, please insert these. If not, perhaps a suitable tag is less disruptive than deleting the content.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

If material isn't important enough to have been found in a secondary source, it probably does not deserve any WP:WEIGHT here as this means the overall scientific community has not noticed its contents. Yobol (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:Weight says nothing of the kind.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Well or course, WP:WEIGHT is not supposed to spell out in excruciating detail every situation imaginable. In a universe where there are literally thousands of primary sources, how do we know which pieces of information is important (and which are wrong, unimportant, etc)? Well, the ones the scientific community finds important and has filtered for us - the ones in secondary sources. How do we build a good neutral article? We choose high quality sources (such as recent review articles, textbooks, etc) and we summarize them, being careful to give due weight to their prominence of each argument in that literature. How do we build stilted and non-neutral articles? We try to jam in irrelevant primary sources that may or may not have any lasting significance because we as editors decide that it is important. Yobol (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, cites are a good indicator for importance. prokaryotes (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

If it's so important and well cited, then it shouldn't be a problem finding a quality secondary source citing it and using that source, because the secondary source will place the primary source in context to other primary sources. Yobol (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It depends, but most often you want the primary study, when citing from it. Secondary sources are useful when it comes to reviews of the literature, and again to have some sort of impact measure.prokaryotes (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That, of course, is the point. We want to give our readers high quality information, that is synthesized by the scientific community to place those primary sources in context and to let us know that they are important. Especially important primary studies can and are routinely discussed, but we know they are important because secondary sources say they are, not because individual editors feel they should be. Yobol (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Repeated discussion This discussion is basically the continuation from hereprokaryotes (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
• I agree. This is disruptive and will be reported if it is not stopped.DrChrissy ^(talk)

I'm sorry, what is disruptive? My good faith efforts in explaining my views on how to improve this page? Do you think labeling other editors' explanations as "disruptive" is any way to move forward in a collaborative environment here on Wikipedia? Yobol (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

As indicated above by Prokaryotes, this is a continuation. It is disruptive to bring up issues that have been discussed before.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I'm supposed to know what has been discussed before when I haven't participated in those discussions, and I'm not allowed to say anything similar to what anyone else has said before, or it's "disruptive"? Yeah, go ahead and "report" that anywhere you want and see how fast the WP:BOOMERANG flies. Yobol (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

stucture

I set up the structure of separate tox sections for glyphosate alone, additives alone, and formulations, as these can be, and have been, studied separately. The new content mushes them back together somewhat - there is now content in the glyphosate-alone section that is about formulations. I think this structure is useful, but before I fix this, i wanted to ask -- should we maintain this structure? Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, there's been so much editing in the sandbox that's it's hard to make heads or tails of what's being added/removed. Could you link a diff to be sure of what you're referring? Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It is all over the place in the glyphosate alone section. What I am asking here is, if people are OK with the divisions that exist in the article and in the sandbox. Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I am happy with the structure in the sandbox version, although I am in favour of having/re-instating a separate "additives" section in Toxicity. Yes, there is now content in the glyphosate-alone section that is about formulations, the content just seems to flow better that way. However, if they can be separated, please go ahead.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh crap the additive toxicity section went away. That is not good. POEA is a problematic actor in formulations and that needs to be discussed. DrChrissy you again added a bunch of content based on primary sources. argh. Can you please use reviews? Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Contentious material/changes need to be discussed with consensus before it is added. I still would like to see a reason why we have such duplication regarding the human toxicities; it just looks weird having the same material in two different places twice, and I wonder if we could adjust one section or another to not have basically multiple repeated sentences. Yobol (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Yobol, I set up the separate sections because the toxicity of glyphosate alone, is very different from the formulations. Formulations contain POEA and other agents that make them really toxic. The content in our article has muddied that some and the sandbox is a bit worse on that front. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that i have edited the toxicity section in the sandbox version to change the structure, and i went into detail about what i did and why here on the talk page. I agree with Jytdog on the need for separate sections for glyphosate and formulations, of course. In the sandbox version, i removed the "additives only" section and combined it with the section on full formulations, as that seemed to make a lot of sense and reduce the complexity. To do that, the lede of the formulation toxicity section contains text that explains the distinction and mentions POEA among other things. I also moved the statements of organizations on toxicity to follow the reporting sections on toxicity. If there is material about formulation toxicity in the glyphosate-only section then that is a mistake in categorization that can be corrected. I do think that additive toxicity can be discussed well in the formulation toxicity section, however, and having 2 instead of 3 toxicity subsections is an improvement in simplifying. SageRad (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources and reviews

Jytdog and Yobol are both stating that we should not be using primary sources in this article but instead using reviews. Which PAGs are you using for these statements please?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I said we should not be giving undue WP:WEIGHT to primary studies that have not been evaluated in the scientific literature through a secondary source (often a review, but university textbooks and the like would also be good sources), per my discussion above in this thread which took place yesterday, which you abandoned abruptly when you called my explanations "disruptive". As I noted previously, there are literally thousands of primary sources which could theoretically be used in this article, and deciding what information is important to include in this article will require the use of secondary sources. If multiple high quality secondary sources single out particularly important primary studies, we can of course include a discussion of those primary studies then. Since our goal is not to use specific sources, but to find high quality sources to determine what to put in the article, your insistence on using likely inferior sources is puzzling. Yobol (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Every policy and guideline says that we should use secondary sources and urges us away from using primary sources:

• While WP:OR allows primary sources to be used, it is "only with care, because it is easy to misuse them";
• WP:NPOV says "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."
• WP:VERIFY, in a section called "Original Research", says "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy." Jytdog (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom, requests for cases

A request for an Arbcom [5] case and a AE request to apply pseudoscience discretionary sanctions [6] have been filed that may affect this article. All editors wishing to make a comment should visit the pages linked to. AlbinoFerret 17:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The AE request was closed and the Arbcom request is still open and accepting statements. AlbinoFerret 02:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Seralini review

Page protection went away, and right away we are back at it. Everymorning just added the following, in this dif which I reverted and have pasted below for discussion.

A 2015 review found that glyphosate may be toxic below the lowest-observed-adverse-effect level that has been assigned to it by regulators, and that its effects may include "teratogenic, tumorigenic and hepatorenal effects."

References

Introducing a review by Seralini et al, in this way, was not a good thing to do, on several levels. We need to discuss whether to mention this at all, and if so, how, given Seralini's very clear record of producing work that most of the scientific community rejects, as described in Seralini affair. As this article is among several currently being considered as part of an Arbcom case referenced above, I suggest we all hold back from making bold/significant edits until that is resolved. Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:V, reliable sources need to have a reputation for fact checking. Seralini certainly does not have that. We should not use it. Yobol (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

You are not in the position to question the author or the study, based on your personal assessment. Because a previous study involving one of the study authors was questioned doesn't mean we censor. prokaryotes (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you will note that most of the review's authors are the same as the authors of the disputed Seralini study. They certainly do not have a reputation for fact checking, having been widely criticized by the scientific community. We generally avoid authors who have a poor history of scholarship. Yobol (talk) 03:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Their paper has been republished and there are no indications that these authors have a poor history of scholarship (as you put it). prokaryotes (talk) 09:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

There is indeed a lot of critique of Seralini out in the ether. I have not personally evaluated it, though i know that there is much criticism of his work, though that seems to be expected toward anyone whose research challenges the GMO industry in general. Another research group has also been criticized lately in the "skeptic blogosphere" if you will, for the following paper:

Bøhn, Thomas, et al. "Compositional differences in soybeans on the market: Glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready GM soybeans." Food Chemistry 153 (2014): 207-215.

In this instance, i have indeed read the paper, and read some of the critique in blogs, and i have to say that the critiques i have seen are quite weak and agenda-oriented. The principle i would like to invoke is that presence of critique of a paper or research group does not necessarily invalidate the paper or research group as being a source of information worthy of inclusion in an article. It may alternatively indicate that there exists a motivation amongst a group of people to discredit the paper or research group, for agenda-based reasons. Likewise, there is a paper cited in this article that i believe would be quite the equivalent of a Seralini review but in the pro-industry direction. In other words, strong hints of agenda-based slanting of presentation and analysis of evidence. That paper is this review article that has been used to support several claims in this article, i believe:

Duke, Stephen O., and Stephen B. Powles. "Glyphosate: a once‐in‐a‐century herbicide." Pest management science 64.4 (2008): 319-325.

While some critique Seralini as having it out for glyphosate, others critique that paper as being a hagiographic brochure for glyphosate. It goes both ways, and agenda is agenda. It's not symmetrical, however, and we must be aware of the sociological dimensions of power/knowledge dynamics in a context in which there are deep economic interests vested in a certain reading of reality by science. SageRad (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

thanks for your thoughts sagerad. this is a bit of an apples and oranges thing. the discussion about PMID 24491722 (the "Compositional differences in soybeans on the market") is a primary source which we generally steer clear of regardless of what they say. PMID 26282372 (the seralini paper that was added and is the subject of this thread) is a review - a secondary source - so clears that hurdle. The discussion about it, is a) whether it is reliable and b) if we use it, how, given Seralini's publication history. PMID 18273882 (The Duke paper you cite) is also a review. (btw the reason we use PMIDs all the time, is pubmed classifies papers as to whether they are reviews or not - looking at the pubmed abstract is the quickest way to classify a source as primary or secondary. Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, i am aware of that distinction and how to use PubMed to find out what is a review versus a primary research article. However, that's not so much material to my analogy. It's more about the principle that just the presence of critique of a paper does not negate the paper's potential use in a Wikipedia article as a source. We must also evaluate the soundness of such critique. There is much chatter in the blogosphere. Of course, Seralini has been a lightning rod and there has been much written about the history of his work and papers, but this in itself is not a sole reason to exclude his work. It is a reason to be cautious. Where there is smoke there is often fire, but where there is smoke there is sometimes a smoke bomb and not fire. SageRad (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I have been hammered over the head that RS should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Testing whether other WP editors adhere to this landed me a topic ban. We must remember here that the article is published in an Elsevier journal. Are we really trying to say that Elsevier are (again) publishing sub-standard work?DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:SOURCE, there are several components that go into the reliability of the source - the type of source, the author, and the publisher. I don't think anyone feels Elsevier is a bad publisher, I think my argument is that the authors (Seralini and coauthors) has been widely critiqued (for instance, by highly reliable sources such as the EFSA) for their previous work in this area in particular, so they do not have the reputation for fact checking needed to be considered reliable. Again, we generally avoid authors who have a poor reputation for scholarship (which should be obvious without being stated), so this source should not be used. Yobol (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you not think that a publication house, journal, editor-in-chief and peer reviewers would have all been extra careful before publishing this? It is not for WP editors to judge this article unless concern has been expressed elsewhere and can be verified.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

(e/c)Haven't the slightest clue if anyone paid any extra attention, nor does it have any relevance to the discussion of whether the author has a reputation for fact checking. We can, and do, judge sources all the time on criteria to see if they are reliable. You seem focused on only one of the pillars of what makes a source reliable (the publisher) while I am focusing on another (the authors). It is clear that the authors do not have a reputation for fact checking, having been widely criticised in the scientific community on the very topic of the review in question (glyphosate toxicity). Again, we generally avoid authors with reputation for poor scholarship/fact checking. This is per WP:V our core policy on sourcing material. I am baffled by the insistence on using a source authored by a person with a poor reputation for fact checking. Yobol (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The controversy about the Seralini paper and Seralini group makes it clear that one must take special care to evaluate the reliability of the source. However, the very existence of controversy does not, in itself, provide enough reason to exclude a source. It is clear to me in a brief review of the "Seralini affair" as it's called, that there was an industry-centered push against his publication. The fact that the EFSA criticizes it does not in itself mean that it is unreliable. The EFSA is also questionable, to me, as a source on this topic, given the recent EFSA/BfR report on glyphosate, written in close cooperation with the Glyphosate Task Force, an industry group that exists to promote interests of merchants of glyphosate and related HT crops. In other words, there is a sociology of vested interests at work here. An analogy would be a case wherein Wikipedia editors may wonder about including a paper by Michael Mann on the topic of climate change. Mann has been voluminously criticized for his work in climate science that supports the notion that human-caused climate change is real. He has been criticized by people allied with the fossil fuel industry, which has a vested interest in a certain scientific conclusion regarding climate change. In fact, there was something analogous to the "Seralini affair" called the Hockey Stick Controversy that is a little further back in the past than the Seralini affair, that may be instructive in this instance. In summary, my main point is that there are indeed vested interests in the real world that do generate the appearance of controversy perhaps moreso than pure unbiased science might. I haven't personally delved into the whole "Seralini affair" enough to have an opinion on it, but the very fact of a controversy does not automatically exclude a paper of research group completely. SageRad (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not a "controvery" (which smacks of the dubious point scoring of the Teach the Controversy movement which basically tries to make both sides of a "controversy" equally valid), it is a straight forward assessment that high quality sources, and that the scientific community by and large have found Seralini's work dubious. We should not be using sources created by authors with poor reputation for fact checking (and I find it odd to come here appearing to argue Seralini is reliable without looking in-depth at the Seralini affair to see the opposition his research has found in the scientific community). (As an aside, Both sides of the GMO lobbying wars have tried to recruit scientists, so attempts at stating only one side is using dubious practices would appear to be a somewhat naive position.) Yobol (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You misrepresent my position. I did not say that Seralini is reliable. I simply said that existence of a controversy does not automatically mean that he is not reliable. I also did not engage in a "Teach the Controversy" fallacy. SageRad (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yobol, you are also misrepresenting my position. There is no insistence on my part that we use this source. I am arguing that we should be looking at sources on a case-by-case basis and not automatically excluding them on previous publication history. My point above is that the paper has gone through a peer-review process which will have involved fact checking.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Except that no one is saying that it should be excluded because of a "controversy", it should be excluded because the author has previously been widely criticized by the scientific community on the very subject they are now writing on and therefore this source (due to its authorship) does not have a "reputation for fact checking" required by our core policy on how to determine reliable sources. It has been pointed out that the publisher is only one of several independent factors that goes into the reliability of a source, per WP:SOURCE, and continually bringing up the publisher when no one is objecting on the grounds of the publisher (when the authorship is the point of contention) does not appear to be a fruitful avenue to pursue. Yobol (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

What I am saying is that if science authors do not fact check appropriately, this is usually picked up by the editorial team and peer reviewers, and the paper will not be published until this is attended to. This means that there are in fact, at least two levels of fact checking in published science article. In this particular case, given the history of the authors, I am sure that both the authors and the publishers would have increased their efforts in fact checking to avoid any further controversy. This means WP should be careful about using the source, but it does not mean it should be automatically excluded.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You will note that these authors' initial paper that generated the controvery was published, and subsequently was retracted after the scientific community had a chance to read it. The fact that it was published the first time does not make it reliable by the mere fact of publication, clearly, since it was subsequently retracted. Peer reveiew is not magic pixie dust that makes a source reliable. An editorial process is necessary for a source to be considered reliable (thus requiring it to be published), but it does not address the issues with the poor reputation for fact checking of the authors. Again, you are making an argument about the publisher, when the issue is with the reputation of the authors. The authors do not have a good repuation for scholarship or for fact checking, and therefore should not be used here. Yobol (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

And we are not here to sprinkle WP POV dust. I can agree with almost everything you say above, but I would replace the last 4 words with "....be used carefully here".DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not "careful" use of the source, it is using the source as if it is as reliable as every other source in this article, which it is not. It should not be used in such a fashion, as it is not reliable for use as such. I am still baffled by the insistence that we use this source at all, given its authorship deficiencies and the presence of numerous higher quality sources. Yobol (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that according to PubMed, it seems to be the only general toxicology-related review on the topic in English since Mink (2011). SageRad (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Some quick thoughts. :First, it seems like nobody is arguing that we should treat the Seralini review like would would any other. That is a good thing. We are on pretty uncharted ground, with regard to how exactly to treat it. which comes down to two questions; the "Weight" question - how much (if any) to give content based on this source, in this article; and the attribution question (how exactly do we contextualize any content we do generate from this source). Both of those are hard. I do suggest folks hold off on working them out until the arbcom case is done. What comes out of that case will likely be helpful to resolving this issue and others. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

(e/c)Yobol, if you are aware of higher quality sources, why not share these? That would be the collegiate approach.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I count 9 sources already used in this article that seem to be high quality secondary sources regarding human health and glyphosate. None of them appear to have the issue that the Seralini review has regarding the authorship. Why we would want include the Seralini review as if it is on par with these other sources continues to baffle. Yobol (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The paper discusses toxicity in non-human animals - do you have any better quality sources for content on this subject-matter.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The more i read and learn about the original 2012 Seralini paper, such as this report in Nature, the more it seems wise to steer clear of Seralini. However, we seem to have a dearth of recent review articles regarding glyphosate toxicity, unless we can translate the Polish or Chinese review articles published in the last 3 years. SageRad (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Yobol has stated to the community that there are better quality sources available. S/he should provide information of these in relation to the toxicity to non-human animals.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You think your behavior today with the edit warring makes me want to participate here? I don't think so. I'll wait til the dust clears from the ArbCom case and the environment improves before participating further. Yobol (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input here. I guess we will be seeing you here again in 2-3 months then.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the authors (Seralini et al.) have been criticized on this subject before, but this isn't just something they posted on their website or some other random outlet, it's an article they published in a respected peer-reviewed journal, which suggests that the editorial board of the journal doesn't see anything seriously wrong with it. Also, this is the same journal that Seralini et al. published a very controversial, now-retracted study three years ago (as described in Seralini affair), so I imagine the editors of FCT are going to be very careful not to publish any more flawed research with sensational conclusions by this research team as they did in 2012. Everymorning (talk) 01:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

page protection

i just requested full protection for this article again. This kind of aggressive editing, while this is about to go before Arbcom. Crazy. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please, folks, especially DrChrissy and Jytdog -- let's slow down, let's not get another page protection slapped on here, and let's discuss -- in GOOD FAITH -- intended edits.

Indeed, we did a LOT of work in the sandbox, and there was ample opportunity to discuss all the way along. I did a lot of work in there. I made some very good edits, and so did others. Let us not throw those out.

However, on the other hand, let us seriously take a few hours to pose the question about how to use that work in the sandbox, and let's get some agreement if possible about importing it to the live page.

Let's not edit war, and let's talk. Please.

To make any progress, we will need to talk here in good faith. We need to show up and do the work. We need to speak truly and with honesty, and not wikilawyer. We need to work for the good of the article, and not for the benefit of any point of view. SageRad (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I am acting in good faith. I was assuming that the lack of comments for several days meant we were all happy with this.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)DrChrissy, deciding that the discussion is done and dumping your sandbox into the article as you did here is disruptive. Please don't do that. There are several open questions about that material, per the discussion(s) above. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Jytdog, I reverted your deletion of a large amount of text, including what appear to be sourced material. I take no position on whether it should remain or not, but many people have warned you about mass deletions and the need to discuss matters first. Please do so. GregJackP Boomer! 21:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

GregJackP you evidence no understanding at all of the context here. We will just need to work this out at Arbcom. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom doesn't decide, deliberate, or rule on content disputes, only conduct. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes and the conduct here is making it impossible to work out content. Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, we've done it again, folks. Page protected until 28th of September. And the toxicity section is a complete mess. The outline, in itself, is a complete mess. Back to the sandbox. Anyway, the structure i would like to see is to begin with glyphosate toxicity, then glyphosate-based formulations toxicity, then the section on organizational statements on toxicity of glyphosate. And the section on formulation toxicity can cover the material formerly covered in adjuvants toxicity. So... any issues with this? SageRad (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, look at your involvement here. I introduced material which had been suggested and edited into the sandbox version with the clearly stated aim that agreed content would be placed into the live article. You, and others, had commented on the sandbox material, with no further comment over the last few days. It is reasonable to believe that indicates the sandbox content had consensus. I introduced the content into the main article and you responded with a mass deletion! You then raised the issue of page protection which means it is again impossible to edit. This is so disruptive.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, i did state this intention explicitly on 3 September, here and there was plenty of time to register disagreement. Then on 5 September, i again made this intention clear and pinged Jytdog among several others who had been involved with discussion and conflict over this section previously, in a proactive attempt to gain consensus before the page freeze was lifted. SageRad (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, see the "primary sources and reviews" section above (comment from me unanswered since Sept 7) and the "let's play in the sandbox" section, (comments from me and yobol unanswered since Sept 7). So....Jytdog (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to, Jytdog, nor its relevance. I am very specific in providing diffs and explaining the relevance here, which is that some editors were using the sandbox to prepare a version of the toxicity section for the purpose of using it after the page was unfrozen, and others had the opportunity to participate, and had fair notice of the intention to use the sandbox in this way to improve the section once the page freeze was lifted. Are you just saying "Well, you didn't respond to a couple of my comments and therefore your whole point is negated?" If that is what you're saying, i call it illogical and irrelevant. It does not change my point, and you also were insufficiently specific as to which comments and what their relevance was. You cannot derail the point i was making in this way. Please step up with more integrity or get out of the way and let people work on the page who wish to improve it for real. SageRad (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like my concerns about the sandbox where realized. There was too much focus on the sandbox by freely adding content and not discussion on consensus building, which is why we're back at page protection again. Page protection is supposed to stop editing and force discussion. The aim of a sandbox in this situation should only be to provide example edits to facilitate discussion and not to have something to import in after page protection. With all that being said, here is the one of the last stable diffs back from August 27 where we didn't have edit warring for a period and before both page protections. Using that as base, what specific content changes do people want from that point that have been brought up previously? We can work through content and gain consensus here, but that needs to be done with concise pieces of content (or structure) so we can show overall agreement for a specific edit. Only then should a specific piece be added after protection. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)\

I cannot let you frame it in this way and thereby discard all the work that people put into the sandbox. You were notified by me about the sandbox having substantial edits made, and inviting you to participate in a timely fashion. The aim of the sandbox can be whatever editors decide it to be, and we had discussion on this talk page about that. You do not determine what a sandbox is for. You do not make all the rules and decide things in this way. Look at the recent history. I will not allow the work done in the sandbox to be thrown out in this way. There is already substantial commentary and work that can be discussed here, and i am tired of repeating myself 10 times for any single change. So, let's begin with the very basic structure suggestion that i have made several times above, and asked explicitly for feedback on. Please give your feedback. I get the feeling that you're here to obstruct change and not to work on the content. To remind you, my suggestion that i made and explained several times, was to begin with the section on glyphosate alone, then glyphosate-based formulations (including adjuvants commentary) and then the organizational positions on glyphosate safety. You can read above if you wish to read my rationale and many other finer points on this. You can't be absent during the work and the parachute in and obstruct progress. SageRad (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

And, that's not why we're back at page protection again. That's an incorrect assessment of how we got here, in my reckoning. We are here because of fake participation without integrity and obstructionism by some people, and rough-shod massive deletions, and then running off to request page protection. That's how we got to page protection again. SageRad (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

There was relatively little content building discussion here that was reaching consensus here even over the time I largely wasn't here. People started drafting content they wanted that wasn't likely to stick, and while that has frustrated you and others, that's what I was cautioning against. If you're interested in specific content changes, please propose some concise changes here so we can discuss and try to move forward. The previous approach didn't work, so it's time to try a more traditional approach if there is content you specifically want changed. If the concern is about covering discussions already had, that would seem to be an indication for lack of consensus if those conversations hadn't been resolved. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) I am almost lost for words here. Kingofaces, you are suggesting exactly what we were doing with the sandbox. There was content added to the sandbox version and comment was invited for discussion of the suggested changes. Then, when protection was lifted, the content was inserted into the live article (after several days so it did not appear "aggressive"). Despite this, Jytdog immediately made large scale deletions and then called for page protection. Are you defending his disruptive actions?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Moving the content from the sandbox into article violated COPYVIO and there was no consensus yet for its structure nor content. Disruptive in two ways. Trying to force it in by edit warring was even more disruptive. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that the sandbox is copyrighted by invoking WP:COPYVIO? SageRad (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That would mean that copy and pasting from any WP article to another WP article is COPYVIO. Jytdog you really must explain this one.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

As for the part regarding consensus, recall that there was discussion and there was fair notice about intentions to use the text in the sandbox. There was ample time for participation in this process for anyone interested. SageRad (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying the sandbox approach actually used had quite a few issues still that did not have consensus on the talk page yet. I made it clear I thought the approach would have problems, and it ended up being so. I'm suggesting to stick with the main approach used for consensus building that is discussing and agreeing upon specific pieces of content on this talk page. That means slowly building up edits we can reach consensus on rather than the wide changes that were being made in the sandbox. The sandbox approach doesn't provide that structure we need, so please suggest individual edits we can discuss and reach consensus on. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have just read this Talk page section for the first time. I thank SageRad for their calm and wise attempts to work on this article. Given this latest article shutdown via page protection, it seems clear that a ruling in the ArbCom case will be required before much more effort should be expended here. Jusdafax 19:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces, where do you think you get the authority to say how sandboxes and talk pages should be used? I set up the sandbox in a good faith attempt to deal with complex and hotly disputed differences of opinion. You appear to have engaged in this approach with bad faith and you are now trying to railroad any attempt to use this to improve the project. I guess this will come up in Arbcom.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in this recent page protection spat, so please don't misrepresent me. I said the sandbox approach didn't work. That's a harsh reality people need to deal with, and now I'm proposing a different way to move forward since that didn't work. The goal here is to move forward with WP:CONSENSUS in mind, not lash out at editors trying to restart a sense of direction in this article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

There was no spat. Page protection was a unilateral request by Jytdog rather than discussing insertions which had consensus. Totally disruptive.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

As you were involved in the events leading up to it in addition to a few other editors. I'm not interested in who did what exactly, but that the previous attempt didn't work. Here's an avenue for a different approach is all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

How is your approach any different than the one used in the sandbox version?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I already explained it above. Discuss individual proposed edits and make sure there is general consensus for each of them before adding. That didn't quite happen in the sandbox as I can see as some edits that didn't have consensus here were still added. Focused content discussion is needed to get past gridlock. The process is simple: 1. Propose content. 2. Discuss. 3a. Reach consensus and add. 3b. Refine content and either gain eventual consensus or end conversation on that item. I've spent enough time trying to get that idea across with no traction, so I'm starting to think it's probably better to let ArbCom figure out how to deal with this editing environment. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I've proposed, over and over, the structure that i outlined again in this section, and have gotten no feedback from you. I described those changes when i made the changes, in the "Let's play in the sandbox" section. Therefore, i've met the conditions you've stated here, in regard to the changes that i made in the sandbox. I know that after i made a lot of edits, then DrChrissy also made a host of edits. However, i've done a lot of work here that is being simply dropped now. I did that work with NPOV as well as i could do, and i did it thoughtfully. And now, it's all dropped and you're requiring a re-hashing of it all to put it into effect? Have you even commented on my proposal as to structure? Are you here to edit content or to stop other people from editing content? SageRad (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

For example, see this comment on this talk page on the 3rd of Septemter -- 12 days ago -- in which i outlined intended changes, motivations, reasons, in a fair amount of detail. I even pinged you and Jytdog to be sure that the main people who seemed to be obstructionist in the past get in on the process as it is unfolding instead of coming later and shutting it down. Then i implemented such changes. That seems adequate to me. SageRad (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok Kingofaces. I am sure ArbCom will be interested to see the same pattern of disengagement from discussion to improve matters that is shown repeatedly by Jytdog. Thanks for your input.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:VOLUNTEER and please refrain from mischaracterizing me here or at ArbCom per WP:NPA Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh for sakes quit the attitude SageRad. I wasn't even here for most of the content items you're complaining about, so you can't blame me because they didn't stick. If I had actually shown disapproval for the changes at that time (I didn't say anything because it looked like it already didn't have consensus and I only had so much time online the last two weeks), then I reduced the amount of opposition by only having limited involvement for something that is already currently disputed. I considered it best to leave the dispute be until ArbCom was finished and put my time to use elsewhere. I'm going to continue doing that again since it doesn't look like we're going to get anywhere on content for the time being in this state. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

No "attitude" involved, Kingofaces43. No "complaining". I resent the aspersions in those loaded words. If you were short on time, then that is the case, and let other editors edit. Stop obstructing simply because you were not here. Nobody owns articles on Wikipedia, and multiple editors do the work. People do the work when they can. And yet, you continue to comment on editors and not the content of the article, even though i have been trying to bring this discussion back to proposed changes, as i did weeks ago and pinged you. I'm just done with this. Get out of the way if you can't lend a hand. What are you even here for right now? SageRad (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You're complaining about me somehow being "in the way" when I actually was out of the way during the last dispute; that's not focusing on content and I'm not going to comment on the absurdity of those comments further. I've been trying to get focused discussion on edits that do have consensus in the recent round of protection so they could be added, but as I mentioned above, that has failed. I for one am going to let things settle here for a bit and wait for ArbCom to wrap up since editor behavior issues are getting infused into this so much. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not "complaining"; i am writing coherently and calmly about the recent history of this article in order to move things forward if possible, and to resolve this logjam in which we seem to be stuck. You are in the way since you are blocking edits because you weren't here when they were discussed on the talk page and implemented in a reasonable time frame, while incorrectly alleging that they have been made without discussion, or too hastily, or whatever it is that you are saying about recent blocked edits. And still we are stuck in meta-level discussions that are not even about the content of the article. It's a sad state of affairs. SageRad (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have no more to say here. There is not enough of a shared vision of what Wikipedia is, what "consensus" is and what a reasonable process to work toward consensus, for this to productive. Everybody here seems to want the Arbcom case to go forward; as I suggested way above, we should let that proceed instead of tearing up the encyclopedia further. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You really need to discuss your COPYVIO claim.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyrights is the relevant policy. Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The first part I read was "Important note: The Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts and illustrations". Are you reading a different part of the article?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia is the relevant guideline. Even if the content move did not follow the attribution process mentioned there, calling a move of content from sandbox to article a COPYVIO is a stretch.Dialectric (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

A "stretch" is being polite, but yeah. Jusdafax 08:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

redundant paragraph

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Fish_and_aquatic_life_2

The 7th paragraph under the subheading provided in the link simply repeats the first two sentences within the 1st paragraph.

"Glyphosate formulations are much more toxic for amphibians and fish than glyphosate alone.[93] Glyphosate formulations may contain a number of so-called ‘inert’ ingredients or adjuvants, most of which are not publicly known as in many countries the law does not require that they be revealed.[67]"

I've corrected redundancies in the toxicity section now. SageRad (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Full IARC monograph published July 29

With all the baloney going on, we have missed a key event; the publication of the IARC monograph. See press release here; the actual document is here. My attention was called to this by this edit. Here is the response of the German BFR (their "EPA"), which has taken the lead in evaluating glyphosate as part of the EU's recent re-evaluation - see here and here and here. We need to keep our eyes peeled for the a report from the "ad hoc" committee discussed here: "The WHO recently created an “ad hoc expert task force“ to consider possible reasons for the different assessments of the data by IARC and the JMPR. The Taskforce should report back to JMPR in September 2015 for further discussion and action. This process is known as a scientific divergence procedure within the WHO" (from the first BFR link above) Jytdog (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I have inserted material from this monograph as per above, but it is being reverted by Jtz/Guy. What is going on?DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Revert of review-level assessment of effects on fish

I reverted the removal of some information about effects on fish because the edit reason was invalid. The monograph in question is the IARC review of glyphosate, which does indeed support the claims made in the article. The IARC monograph is indeed a top-quality review article of done by experts in the field. It is a trusted governmental body and should be able to stand as a reliable source for the claims. SageRad (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• There is no evidence this is a peer-reviewed publication, per WP:RS. You assert that it is "review-level" but I am not seeing that. The onus is on you to achieve consensus for inclusion. Please provide evidence that the document has the status of a peer-reviewed publication in an established and credible source, for example by showing that it has been published in a respected journal as well as on the website. It's also important to make sure that any findings are properly represented. For example, I think the most significant item in the monograph is that they classified it as a class 2A carcinogen with limited evidence of an association with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's put this to bed quickly. There is no stipulation that material must be peer-reviewed. The first sentence of WP:RS is "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources,..." - note there is no mention of peer review. Further into the page it is stated "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources"(my emphasis).DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

IARC Monographs are reliable sources. For a discussion of their processes and reliabity see http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1409149/. JzG you have so far done a good job of staying out of content disputes in article space in this area, but your recent reverts in this article are pushing you more towards "involved" status in the topic area. A friendly word of caution: If you wish to continue admin enforcement in this area please limit your involvement in article space (and please dont edit war) :-) Minor4th 12:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You say. So we are taking a WP:PRIMARY source that may or may not be peer-reviewed, and deciding, based on our own biases, what is the significant part of it. That is of course exactly what we're supposed not to do. Is there independent commentary that identifies what the take-home message is from this paper, and its significance? Guy (Help!) 12:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you about whats most significant about the monograph. I am simply commenting on its quality as a source - generally. Minor4th 12:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

(e/c)@JzG It is a secondary source! And yes, we editors choose which parts we feel are significant. This will differ depending on an individual's motivation for editing. What I have been entering is evidence that substances may be toxic to non-human animals. It is stated in my user-page that I edit on animal welfare - hardly surprising that MY take-home message is "this stuff kills animals". Of course, you are perfectly free to edit in your own take-home messageDrChrissy ^(talk) 12:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It is a primary source in this instance, in that we are teasing from it the things which we decide, with our own biases, are most significant. I am not opposed ot inclusion of this source. I am disputing the text in the edit. With a report of that size, to pick one item form a large number is something we should not do based on our own judgement, especially since some of use are clearly heavily partisan. So: what do independent sources say is the take-home message from this report? And why are you even commenting, since it is a biomedical topic and you are banned from biomedical topics? Guy (Help!) 12:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It is pointless to discuss whether it is primary or secondary - we all now agree it is an acceptable source. Consensus has been achieved.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Something is very wrong when the simple act of using acceptable RS to support a statement has become "teasing" information "especially since some of use are clearly heavily partisan" for this article when it is quite common to do so. In fact, it's what we do here since almost every statement must be supported with RS. Gandydancer (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Something is indeed very wrong. That's why we have an arbitration case, and that's why I asked (not unreasonably, I think) for an independent source to justify which bits of this very long report we pick as being significant. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

If the source was a long 400-page text-book on "Glyphosate", would you be asking for an independent source to tell us what is significant in the text-book? I think not. We as WP editors decide what is significant for our Project uses.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, depending on the claims the book actually made. I don't think we should be the ones to decide what, in a report of this size, constitutes a significant finding. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Please could you state which PAGs relate to needing an independent source for "significance" of findings in what we all agree is a RS.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty damn clear. We are not the arbiters of significance, and if an edit is challenged the onus is on the person seeking to include contended material, to achieve consensus. I suggest either an RfC on which (if any) findings ot include or, much much better, an independent discussion of the source which identifies the most significant findings. You have a big thing about fish, me, I think being a class 2A carcinogen might be more significant, but I would not want to rely on my own judgement because I am not a fan of pesticides in any form. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I really don't understand what the problem is here. Yes, I have a thing about the welfare of fish (and other non-human animals in general). If your interest is in other vertebrates that I am not allowed to talk about, make your edit. At least you can do this safe in the knowledge that I will not be able to revert, if indeed that was what I wished to do. Make your edit and let's drop this.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

We are editors, and we do get to use our judgment to a reasonable degree. We do determine what is relevant from various sources, by our own reckoning. For instance, i recently made an edit to an article about a river, and i included the drainage basin area and the flow rate from a document. There was no tertiary source that established that this was significant, but i used my own judgment and decided that in an article about a river, these are relevant to a reader. We are editors making articles for general readers. We must abide by good sourcing guidelines, and in general there are rules about significance and weight that make a lot of sense, but we are not robots and these guidelines could not write good articles by themselves, through a computer-driven algorithm. It does take the human element to write these articles, and we do draw upon our own minds and life experience, if we are to be honest, in deciding what is most relevant to an article that you would wish see if you came to the article via Google seeking to learn about the topic. The IARC monograph is essentially a review-level article, and therefore i think that anything in it is fair game for inclusion in the article, and we as editors get to select and discuss what we find most relevant and most needed in the article for completeness and accuracy. That's what we're doing here now, hopefully. I think the information about toxicity to fish by glyphosate-based formulations is relevant to this article and therefore i support its inclusion. We can differ on these questions, of course, and we can work on the weighting and overall outline of the toxicity section, a project we've been trying to accomplish for over a month now (despite conflicts and page holds, etc... and the sandbox episode). I hope we can work more cooperatively. SageRad (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It's really difficult for me to understand why something that we have all been doing for years is suddenly a problem for this article. Here's a recent example that I can offer as an example of what we commonly do: From this journal article Hygiene and Infection Prevention: More of the Same or Different Approaches? the following information was used: There is growing interest in the use of barrier creams and lotions that not only shield damaged skin but also restore its structure and/or function. And that's it--that's the only mention of a new product, "barrier creams and lotions," in the entire journal article. How can it be that suddenly this is "teasing" out information rather than selecting the information that we need to do our editing here? Gandydancer (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment Something strange is happening. I am making edits to the main article, receiving a message these are being saved, but they are not appearing in the article. Can anyone help?DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you messed up a ref tag. Check that. SageRad (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes I did! Thanks for that! looked really weird for a while!DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Toxicity section organization problems

I see the toxicity section outline, and it's really in bad shape. It's illogical and contains a lot of duplications and inaccuracies. This is the current outline under "Toxicity":

7 Toxicity

7.1 Active ingredient

7.1.1 Mammals

7.1.1.1 Humans

7.1.2 Fish and aquatic life

7.1.3 Antimicrobial activity

7.1.4 Soil biota

7.1.5 Antimetabolic activity, plants

7.1.6 Genetic damage

7.2 Government and organization positions on glyphosate toxicity

7.2.1 European Food Safety Authority position

7.2.2 US Environmental Protection Agency position

7.2.3 World Health Organization position

7.3 Additive toxicity

7.3.1 Surfactants

7.4 Inert ingredient toxicity

7.4.1 Human

7.4.2 Endocrine disruption

7.4.3 Genetic damage

7.4.4 Other animals

7.4.5 Fish and aquatic life

7.4.6 Effect on plant health

The problems with this are many, and obvious. I had worked very hard on this organization in the sandbox, and yet none of that work has been put to use here, due to all the drama and obstructionism recently.

Essentially, we need to represent toxicity of glyphosate alone, and that of glyphosate-based formulations including the adjuvants used in various formulations. We only need one section about glyphosate-based formulations, and that section can include discussion of the individual adjuvants, with links where available to their own pages (POEA, for instance).

The heading "inert ingredient toxicity" is not accurate, and we ought to use the term "adjuvant" instead, as these ingredients are not inert.

We should use a consistent set of subheadings for classes of life, from humans to other life forms.

Just pointing out these issues for further discussion. SageRad (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The above seems good to me re. the major headings (and I agree about your efforts in the Sandbox). We then need to decide whether we give priority to animal types, or to the type of damage that occurs (genetic damage, Endocrine disruption). One classification of types I thought might be helpful is to think of organisms -

1. "The species I am not allowed to talk about"
2. "Terrestrial organisms" including soil biota, antimicrobial activity and plants
3. "Aquatic organisms"

This would allow us to focus on the different routes, measurement and levels of toxicity etc.DrChrissy ^(talk)

DrChrissy, i do think there is a good reason for both kinds of headings -- organism classes, as well as modes of action. They both make sense to me. I would like for us to be consistent, so we start with organism classes and then modes of action, under both glyphosate and GBF sections. SageRad (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I have done a general restructuring of the Toxicity section now. It makes more sense and there is no duplication:

7 Toxicity

7.1 Glyphosate alone

7.1.1 Humans

7.1.2 Other animals

7.1.3 Fish and aquatic life

7.1.4 Antimicrobial activity

7.1.5 Soil biota

7.1.6 Genetic damage

7.2 Glyphosate-based formulations

7.2.1 Human

7.2.2 Other animals

7.2.3 Fish and aquatic life

7.2.4 Effect on plant health

7.2.5 Endocrine disruption

7.2.6 Genetic damage

7.3 Government and organization positions

7.3.1 European Food Safety Authority

7.3.2 US Environmental Protection Agency

7.3.3 World Health Organization

I also removed all the commented-out duplicated material. Please respect this organization unless you have a good reason to change it. SageRad (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Additive toxicity

The start of the section on toxicity read:

Laboratory toxicology studies have suggested that other ingredients in combination with glyphosate may have greater toxicity than glyphosate alone.

The source says:

Although surfactants probably contribute to the acute toxicity of glyphosate formulations, the weight of evidence is against surfactants potentiating the toxicity of glyphosate.

References

I don't think I am being obtuse when I see this as using a source to say the opposite of what it says in its own abstract. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 15:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The initial version may have implied but did not require potentiation. It would be satisfied by simple addition. As it stands now, the whole issue is simply out of the sub-lede of the Toxicity section, appropriate as to WP:WEIGHT regarding prominence of placement. Good catch. SageRad (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

PANAP

We cited PANAP as a source in this article for a few statements. PAN Asia Pacific is an advocacy organisation for "food sovereignty" and its position is clearly anti-GMO. I think this is a partisan source and since the figures it cites cannot be of its own making, as it lacks the research base, we should use the original sources or not at all. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 15:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That looks like a good catch. I haven't had time to review all the sources listed here, but it's probably best to do that after the dust settles from ArbCom. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

For everyone's reference, i believe that this is the diff in which these were removed.

I do not believe that the fact that an organization has a point of view necessarily makes it unusable as a source. Please see WP:BIASED and please respect guidelines. "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." That seems very clear to me, that the fact of a source having an indication of bias according to an editor is not a sufficient reason in itself to remove any content sourced to that source. SageRad (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I am explicitly asking editors here to respect guidelines, and to work with other editors cooperatively. I am requesting that people stop deleting the content that others have worked very hard on, with insufficient reasons for those deletions. It's counter-productive to the making of good articles. We end up going in circles. Let us talk about content, and discuss why any particular content is good or poor, and let us edit the article to improve it, and not to push a point of view. SageRad (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

They are partisans, and they have no credentialled status on which to make the statement cited. If these are indeed true and significant points, they will be in mainstream scientific journals. If the best we can do is a "food sovereignty" campaign group then the claim simply is not significant. The article is not short of criticisms, many of which appear to be redundant to each other. "It harms frogs, here's how, source. It harms fish, (same mechanism), source. It harms worms, (same mechanism). Seriously, any reader is going to lose the will to live before they get anywhere near the bottom. The article needs to be about a third as long and a lot sharper. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 17:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

So, let's get specific here. Content that was removed, that was sourced to this document, which you removed, was "Low glyphosate concentrations can be found in many creeks and rivers in the U.S. and in Europe." This appears to be from this PANAP document passage: "A study in southern Ontario, Canada found residues of glyphosate in a wide range of creeks, brooks, lakes, rivers, and drains, with the maximum detected level of 40.8 ug/l (Struger et al 2008). A previous study found it in “most of the wetlands and streams sampled” in Alberta (Humphries et al 2005)" (as well as some other sources about surface water in France and a few other sources in that same section).

Now, if i were to look up the two sources listed there, Struger et al 2008 and Humphries et al 2005, and include the same content sourced to those two studies, then i think it's likely that they would be removed because those are primary sources.

On the other hand, if i find a review article that cites Struger 2008, such as this one, and use this to source content about effects on amphibians, then that should sit well with you, at least in terms of source type, correct?

I am trying to figure out your standards here. Of course i agree with raising source quality, but i am against throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Of course i agree with brevity, but there's a balance to be struck with completeness.

I am glad to be unpacking these edits, to see what principles underlie them. I agree with the goals of brevity, and i agree with using more secondary articles. However, primary sources and sources from organizations with a bias are not disallowed and can even be very useful. SageRad (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a good teaching moment :-) So: "Low glyphosate concentrations can be found in many creeks and rivers in the U.S. and in Europe." Unpack that and you get "A study in southern Ontario, Canada found residues of glyphosate in a wide range of creeks, brooks, lakes, rivers, and drains" - so we were overstating the source, which itself acknowledges that it comes from a study (not a variety of studies, it does not say how many samples were taken or - crucially - whether they were randomly selected). Now, that detail may be in the original, but we can't tell because the arms-length source we used is partisan so only reported the bits they like. Does the original paper say how many sites were sampled, what proportion were contaminated, and how they were selected? That's the difference between science and rhetoric. The key point is: look for review articles in the scientific literature (not articles outside the literature where we argue as editors that they are "review-level"), focus on journals with high impact and in the top tier for their speciality. That's the way to reduce the Sturm und Drang. You're dealing here not with fans of GMOs, industry or pesticides, but with supporters of science and the scientific method as the best way ever devised for separating truth from falsehood. Remember, in the early days of the scientific revolution the time taken to get from Newcomen's engine to the Rocket is comparable with the entire history of spaceflight: science is important because it works, it overcomes the weaknesses of our fallible biased brains. Homeopaths hate science because it shows them to eb wrong. Don't be like those guys, state the science, in full, with uncertainties, whether you like it or not. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

A good illustration of the difference between evidence and anecdote imho. (Addendum. Word.) -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 11:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on, i hate the term "teaching moment" -- it places you above me, as teacher, in this context for sure -- this is a learning moment -- for me and you both, i hope. I'd love to tell you about the last time someone used the term "teaching moment" on me. You write, above "we were overstating the source," but in fact this is not the case. I had written above citing two studies (not one), and i had also written "(as well as some other sources about surface water in France and a few other sources in that same section)." You're speaking so condescendingly in the above comment, as if you're the one with the knowledge and i'm the student who needs to learn how things are done. In fact, you have actually made apparent that you didn't read the PANAP source, i think, and that you also didn't really read my comment with any generosity of spirit. The PANAP study was actually rather good as a source, in the part i read, and it reported on many studies regarding surface waters, and the results reported agreed with the review article that i read in a scientific journal regarding amphibian toxicities. I do support science, sire. I'm a scientist. I know about how these things work. You don't know me. All in all, i don't stand corrected or "taught" by you, here. I have learned some things from this dialogue, and i really hope you have too, perhaps about how you can sometimes see what you want to see, and not what's there. I suffer the same prejudicial effect sometimes, i admit. It's human. Please really notice that you are insinuating some really unfriendly and untrue things about me here, and you're plain wrong about it all. I'm trying to work with you and to be generous in my interactions with you. It must go both ways. SageRad (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

You state elsewhere that you are a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, I accept that. I am pointing out how Wikipedia typically approaches this kind of content. I've been here a decade and my children are older than a fair chunk of the editors I deal with, in my experience you can sum up most Wikipedia disputes with: "oh no, not this shit again", so I want you to understand that this is not special. It's more of the same.

I don't have a lot of generosity of spirit to give here. I am prett convinced that you are a net drain on the project, but you seem to know a lot about glyphosate and this would be a good article for you to demonstrate that you can check your agenda at the door and put that knowledge to good use. I'm not convinced, but I am willing to give you the benefit of what doubt remains. I don't like you very much, but I am doing my best to ignore that and give you a chance to prove that you are not just here to push a POV. I comment only because I do not think this is a lost cause, but you have a big hill to climb, and that's not just my view, several others seem to share it.

Remember the purpose of Wikipedia. We are here to describe something neutrally. Glyphosate is licensed and widely used, we are not here to tell people why that's wrong, we're here to tell them about it, not to recruit them tot he cause. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Large removals

I am disturbed by large removals of content such as this one by Kingofaces43. There may be some valid changes to the content that would be good to make, but removing such a huge chunk of other people's hard work does not strike me as productive for the article's content. It strikes as a clear-cutting of a section of the article. We really need to be working together.

Please note, primary sources are allowable for content that does not fall under WP:MEDRS. Of course, secondary articles are useful for contextualizing and for helping us as editors to determine what is most relevant in a field, but we do indeed have some discretion in using primary sources and if it's called for in terms of making a better article, it is allowable. Removing content simply with an edit reason that says not to use primary sources is not justifiable. If the concern is about due weight or if a particular point seems irrelevant, then perhaps we could discuss that, point by point.

I would like for us to work from the top down on the toxicity section, deciding what sort of approach we'd like to take, and then to implement this as a team. We seem unable as a group to do so, however, as has been apparent for a month now with this section. We do have some very good content in the sandbox, as well. But as long as we have people coming in and making huge removals, nothing will ever be done well. SageRad (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Pushing in primary sources carte blanche is not justified by simply saying primary sources are allowed. The article is getting bloated from people inserting the findings of whatever study they find rather than relying on secondary sources to summarize the literature to date for an encyclopedia (WP:NOTJOURNAL comes to mind). We are in a topic that has plenty of literature in the secondary sources and is controversial. There's really not a reason to be using primary sources in a topic like this with what WP:RS actually says. This conversation has been had many times here already, so I have no idea why people act surprised when primary sources are removed. It's time to raise the source quality to improve the content first, then we can figure out what kind of ordering actually fits. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI, i didn't say that "pushing in primary sources carte blanche" is justified. In fact i said something quite different to that, that actually agrees with a lot of what you just said here. I would like to raise source quality. I would like the article to provide a more summary-level overview of toxicity and not get too nitty-gritty. I would like the article to avoid being a list of negative-sounding details about glyphosate. I would like it to be grounded in reality, especially as reflected by the best secondary sources available. However, i wish that you would perhaps help with improving sourcing beyond deleting content that is sourced to primary articles, especially content that is critical of glyphosate, so that we can evolve to a better-sourced article gradually. I also encourage DrChrissy to slow down in adding new content, and to use secondary articles whenever possible. Currently, we seem to be in a cycle of flip-flopping with Kingofaces43 and Jzg/Guy removing content, and DrChrissy adding content, and it seems the two "sides" are feeding each other. SageRad (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

SageRad, please be reassured that I am, and will continue, to use reliable secondary sources wherever possible. However, these are not always available.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Good to know this is your intention, DrChrissy. This review-level source on amphibians may be of use to you. I've added it as a source to the article with the ref name "Mann". I do agree with Kingofaces43 and Jzg/Guy that it would be good to keep an eye on level of detail and aim for brevity as well as completeness. That may be a hard balance to strike. SageRad (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I advocate removing all primary-sourced material, and where possibly relying on secondary and tertiary sources that discuss significant areas of content, so we can avoid the appearance of having mined the archives for every paper with a negative mention of glyphosate. The fact that it's "other people's" is not just a red herring, it's anti-Wikipedian. I believe "edited mercilessly" is the term of art. And that is very much what we should be doing. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 18:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Bloat

The article is becoming bloated with the addition of ever more detailed claims often based on primary sources (e.g. [7]). I think it is time to start looking for broader reviews and pruning the article, because right now it comes across as List of reasons glyphosate is devil's spawn. Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 17:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I've just done a huge amount of work on the "Toxicity" section -- trimming, removing duplication, removing the commented-out clutter, making the headings flow logically and work with the sub-lede, and much else. That section is much improved in terms of brevity. (final diff of my string of edits). SageRad (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The format changes are good, the content changes not so much. Here's an interesting thing: you know how the statement "Laboratory toxicology studies have suggested that other ingredients in combination with glyphosate may have greater toxicity than glyphosate alone" was left in for a long time despite being a complete misrepresentation of the source? When the source is correctly represented as "Although surfactants probably contribute to the acute toxicity of glyphosate formulations, the weight of evidence is against surfactants potentiating the toxicity of glyphosate", suddenly the whole thing is problematic and you remove it. That's why people think you are a POV-pusher. Now, you can address that by "writing for the enemy" - for example, proposing summarisation of the mantra "Glyphosate is evil because it affects fish. Glyphosate is evil because it affects worms. Glyphosate is evil because it affects frogs. Glyphosate is evil because it affects tree frogs" and so on - and I promise you, that 'is how the article currently reads. If the critical material were about half as long and much more sharply written, it would be four or five times as effective, and the reader might actually get to the end of it. Do you see my point? Guy (Help!). Warning: comments may contain traces of sarcasm. 22:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, let me explain, so you don't get the wrong impression.

I had not seen that statement before you changed it earlier today. I think it would have been out of scope in the Toxicity section sub-lede as it was, and then as you modified it, it was even moreso, being a detail that didn't belong in the lede.

Secondly, in my reading today in the Mann (2009) paper, i did read about glyphosate/POEA synergy and this review-level article actually contradicted the conclusion that you had added to the article. Section 5.2 of that paper says, "Because of its anionic nature, glyphosate on its own does not penetrate the plant cuticle. Therefore, the herbicide’s phytotoxicity is facilitated by the addition of a surfactant. The surfactant incorporated into most glyphosate-based products is a polyoxyethylene tallowamine (POEA)." The paper then goes into toxicity to amphibians and fish.

Given that, i thought of changing the content in the sub-lede there to include this other finding from a review article that was later than the source you had used. Then, instead of doing so, i chose brevity and to remove the content because it was (1) out of place in the sub-lede and (2) questionable and contradicted by a later review paper, and (3) seemed to be a denial of a no-longer-extant claim. Therefore, i chose to simplify rather than to keep the trail of a past edit. I did respect your flagging that to begin with.

So, i am glad that you asked about this one specific piece of content, and i could address my thought process on it.

I do indeed see your point, and i do agree with the principles you are outlining. Brevity, accuracy, completeness, representation of reality the best we can manage. SageRad (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

In fact, i was about to remove the first two sentences under Toxicity-->Glyphosate alone-->Human, as this applies to glyphosate formulations, not glyphosate alone, but the page appears to be protected now, so i could not. I was hoping to show you that i am not editing only in one direction, but rather toward accurate representation of reality. Alas, the conflict around this page has blocked my ability to do so. Perhaps as an admin you could do this for me, JzG. I would like to move this source to apply to the section under formulation toxicity relating to human accidental ingestion of the formulation, and delete the first two sentences of the toxicity for humans under "Glyphosate alone". I would be much obliged if you would be kind enough to do this as a favor to me. The first source there contains good information, so i would like to retain it, but to put it in its correct place. SageRad (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Canadian herbicide survey

This information was removed:

A survey of multiple sites within multiple watersheds in Canada during 2007 found glyphosate was one of the most frequently detected herbicides of eight that were monitored.[72]

Canada said this about the survey:

Public and scientific concern has grown over the last decade in Canada over the cosmetic use of pesticides in urban centers. With this in mind, a national survey was designed to monitor eight commonly used herbicides in urban rivers and streams across Canada. [8]

How is it that Wikipedia non-experts feel free to judge the survey and decide it not be included in this article while the nation of Canada does not find it problematic? Gandydancer (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That's the abstract from the study itself. Government agencies will archive publications indiscriminately like that when a government employee is a co-author. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, they did conclude that "Concentrations of 2,4-D, mecoprop, dicamba, glyphosate, and AMPA were linked to urban use and frequently detected in all geographic areas." SageRad (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

There was a high concentration of DHMO, too. Was it significant? Was there evidence of harm? Or is this just yet more for the list of reasons why Glyphosate is the spawn of Satan? This article is written by the department of redundancy department, I reckon. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It just says that glyphosate was found in all locations tested. Varying levels, but found. That's all it says. I'm not implying anything more, but this is just a point of fact. It's not saying "glyphosate is satan" or anything. It's just establishing where glyphosate has been detected by one study. I don't see why you hjave to go to "is this just yet more for the list of reasons why Glyphosate is the spawn of Satan?", JzG... that seems like quite a leap, and makes me think you're approaching this topic with a bent already looking for trouble instead of seeing what is simply there. SageRad (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I have just made exactly the same point at AN3.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)