Talk:Glyphosate

Cancer? Not so much

http://academicsreview.org/2015/03/iarc-glyphosate-cancer-review-fails-on-multiple-fronts/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.97.168 (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It would be great if you could find a secondary source that considers both suites of claims. Lfstevens (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

not about content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
well hello Lfstevens! surprised to see you post here. I ve seen you cleaning up on lots of agrochemical pages and fracking i think. i thought you avoid controversial articles " I'd even recommend that the powers limit such pages to links to fora that focus on the debate" ? and what are "suites of claims"?--Wuerzele (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC) "avoid controversies" was a general rule. So far this is the only real controversy that has snagged me. I work on many topics (and too many non-topics, as it happens.) Suites of claims are multiple claims made by one side. And thanks for noticing! Lfstevens (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a report on it's way which is reviewing the claims made in the IARC report. Obviously people are going to dispute whether they should be included, but I hope that we can at least agree that it is still disputed and a topic of debate. I came across another view in a toxicology review journal the other day but I can't find it again now. We should provide readers with context about the cancer risk though - e.g. this source already cited: "glyphosate ... is ranked 2A, lower than alcoholic beverages and formaldehyde". SmartSE (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Found it and another [1] [2] but unfortunately can't access them. They look like good sources though. SmartSE (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sources

@Boghog: You recently reverted an edit of mine apparently because it was a primary source. Which PAGs are you using to support your revert?DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

"Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper". The content that you have replaced twice (in controvention of the discretionary sanctions) _{not sure if it was} sounds to the reader as if those are concrete findings that are relevant to the real world rather than the reality which is that they are the results of a single experiment conducted in a controlled environment. It is not our job to pick and choose from primary literature. SmartSE (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

E/C I see that Boghog has just reverted me for the second time. You have accused me of contravening discretionary sanctions and edit warring by reverting twice - presumably your accusation applies equally to Boghog.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: As far as I am aware, I am not under discretionary sanctions. Concering alleged edit waring, please respond directly to my post below. Boghog (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe I don't understand discretionary sanctions. But anyway the content - we've explained why we removed it, so please let us know why you disagree. SmartSE (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Minor side note: I was referring to discretionary sanctions awareness. At the time I reverted, I was not aware that this article was under discretionary sanctions. Boghog (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: Per WP:PSTS, primary sources may be used, but only with care because they can easily be misused. Given this is a highly controversial topic and given there are relevant secondary sources, insisting on secondary sources is reasonable. The source in question is "status quo" only from 4 October 2015 well after the GMO arbitration request was filed (and it generally is agreed that Glyphosate is a Core GMO article). Since the "other side" has recused themselved from further edits on this page since the filing of the arbitration request, the addition of this source is hardly status quo. My reversion of your edit is to re-establish the status quo. Boghog (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Boghog and SmartSE you argue WP laws to push an opinion. You can flag it "better source needed". but reverting certainly looks like censorship.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wuerzele and DrChrissy: SmartSE's orginal edit summary was pretty clear. The primary source in question (Gaupp-Berghausen, et al. PMID 26243044) directly contradicts a secondary source later in the same paragraph. Primary sources should never be used to refute reliable secondary sources. Furthermore, the Gaupp-Berghausen study is flawed (note that the author of this blog post is an established expert in the field). This is a good illustration of why secondary sources are preferred over primary. Time is needed for independent experts to critically evaluate the study before drawing any conclusions. Boghog (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you happen to notice that in the CV of the blog's author (Andrew Kniss) he is funded by Monsanto?DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Regardless, given that the Gaupp-Berghausen study (1) used a mixture of the pelargonic acid and glyphosate herbicides (so that it is impossible to tell which component was responsible for the alleged effect) and more importantly (2) didn't include a control treatment group, it is pretty obvious that this is a seriously flawed study. Boghog (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have an RS to verify these criticisms, or is this OR?DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup, Andrew Kniss. OR policy applies to Wikipedia articles and not to talk pages. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. – WP:PSTS Common sense leads to the conclusion that this is a questionable study and because of this doubt, removing this primary source from this article is good editorial judgment. We need to wait for a secondary source before deciding on whether it is appropriate to include the conclusions of this study in this article. Boghog (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That link is only to demonstrate the potential problems with citing the source not as the primary reason for removing it. We're still waiting for any policy-based argument for why it should be included. SmartSE (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Rather than edit warring, achieve consensus here and then edit. We don't have consensus for the change, therefore it should be status quo ante. I see no other way to handle topics that are this polarized. Do you? "Find something that supports your side and jam it in" is decidedly inferior and how we got to sanctions in the first place. Loaded words like "censorship" don't add value, either. Lfstevens (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Re "therefore it should be status quo ante" : Exactly, Lfstevens. I completely agree with that.

Re "jam it in": but you erred here, since smartse and boghog started the process, want to excise something , keep something out, see?

and again, I am surprised you post here, since on your user page you "recommend that the powers limit controversial pages to links to fora that focus on the debate". I would really be interested what "powers" you mean: admins?arbom, Jimbo Wales or what?

And what fora would you like to see here, instead of an article about glyphosate? can you list examples? are there fora that discuss glyphosate's earthworm toxicity?--Wuerzele (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see an issue adding this source as long as it is prefaced correctly, example: "according to a recent study, by x et al., published in x, such and such." That way we avoid something that looks like a statement of fact that rests on a single primary cite. Semitransgenic _talk. 11:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

As pointed out above, the problem with this source is that we don't know if the effect was caused by glyphosate or pelargonic acid or simply the reduction in plant mass. Better to wait for a relaible secondary source that reviews this study before including it. Boghog (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

No that's really not a good way to cover such a controversial topic - we need reviews to sift through the hundreds of studies published this year and tell us which of those findings are significant. SmartSE (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

what's the issue with Nature.com and it's Scientific Reports publication process that is problematic here? I see the paper is also cited here. Aren't there already multiple primary sources used in this article, or am I mistaken? If correct, should we perhaps remove them all? Semitransgenic _talk. 12:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not specific to Nature.com and Scientific Reports. It is a problem with all primary sources, even those published in high quality journals. The amount of time allowed for peer reveiw is not sufficient to catch all problems. Furthermore the quality of peer review is very uneven and glaring errors unfortunately often slip through. This is why Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, especially for controversial topics like this one. The additional time between the publication of primary and secondary sources allows more in depth checking and comparision with other studies as well as a second round of peer review. If relevant high quality secondary sources are available, we should work to replace primary with secondary sources. Boghog (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I accept your reasoning, this is not a WP:MEDRS matter. There is nothing to say primary sources cannot be used if the source is reliable, which it appears to be. WP:SCIRS suggests that "primary sources should be used when discussing a particular result...When citing a primary source, be especially mindful of the policy on undue weight...An individual primary source should never be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of a reliable secondary source...," accordingly, I don't see such an issue mentioning the findings in an appropriate fashion. Worth noting here also that we should use up to date evidence. Semitransgenic _talk. 15:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that primary sources are not forbidden. However the problem with this particular source is that serious doubts about its reliability have been raised. The only accetable way to include the conclusions of this source is to also to mention the doubts. Much better to wait for a review to publish. Boghog (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

so what you are saying is the POV of a single commentator writing on a blog should determine whether or not we accept this study published by Nature.com via Scientific Reports. The blog is not WP:RS, but Nature.com is. It's difficult not to doubt the veracity your reasoning. I fail to see why we should exclude an appropriately worded mention of this study in the article. Semitransgenic _talk. 17:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

As I have already explained elsewhere, this particular blog is a reliable source. Furthermore, with or without this link, common sense dictates that a study which lacks a critical control is worthless. Boghog (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that the link provided above for "serious doubts" is weedcontrolfreaks.com, which is a clear industry-biased POV-pushing blog site, so it's not a reliable source for showing that there are serious doubts about the paper in question. It's a site that is oput for blood of anyone who dares to criticize agrochemicals. SageRad (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Nobody said it was RS and I had no idea of that blog when I removed it and to me it makes no difference. I just happened to swing by here and noticed what I thought were fairly extraordinary claims, checked the source and realised it was based of primary research, so removed it. SmartSE (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Would you call a review published 15 years ago in a topic area with hundreds of publications (perhaps per year) a "high quality secondary source" for 2015 standards?DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

How many of these publications deal specifically with earthworm toxicity? Has enough new data been generated to warrant another review? A 15 year old review is still relevant if more recent reviews have not yet been published. Boghog (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. If a review came to incorrect/unfounded conclusions 15 yrs ago, its results remain incorrect/unfounded irrespective of whether there has been a subsequent review. At the moment, we are using a 15 year old source and a blog to delete up-to-date information from Wikipedia.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that the 2000 review was in error? Using a clearly flawed study, even if it is more recent, is not going to fly. In order to question the conclusions of a secondary source, you will need another secondary source. Boghog (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I was addressing your comment more generally. I do not have evidence that the 2000 review is in error. I was commenting more on your statement that we have to wait for a 2nd review before we can consider the 1st review irrelevant. There have been such developments in science in the last 15 years (e.g. much more powerful meta-analysis) that I really can not consider a 15 year old review as being totally robust for the situation in 2015. For instance, have the glyphosate formulations changed in the last 15 years? I do not know this, but I strongly suspect they have.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, according to WP:SCIRS, "Primary sources should be used when discussing a particular result or recent research directions." There is also a section there titled "Use up-to-date evidence". It becomes a tricky balancing act, but in a case where the review article is 15 years old and recent primary sources appear to show something significant, it becomes a judgment call by editors and can't be simply boiled down to policy. Policy would wish for a more recent review article but there are tradeoffs. We want to avoid recentism, but also not to limit ourselves to a 15 year old secondary source for no good reason, either. SageRad (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This secondary source from 2010 summarises the reviews and is about clear about the low toxicity of glyphosate to earthworms. Why does a single primary source that contradicts many other studies merit inclusion? Reinforcing what Boghog's link states, I draw your attention to the source stating that it "may exert indirect effects". While the reviews are relatively old this is a very specific area of study and given the findings that it is "relatively non-toxic" it is hardly surprising that there haven't been other reviews since 2000. That's the established knowledge in this area of research and that is what we should present to readers. It's still the highest quality secondary source that there is. SmartSE (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Smartse, in the original revert starting this discussion, your EC said that the primary source was contradicting a secondary source mentioned later in the paragraph. Just to be clear, were you referring to the review published in 2000?DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes I was. SmartSE (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Not about content. SageRad (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Does anybody else think this thread is a deliberate snub to ArbCom, and more generally us, the community? -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC) and you think being a shit-stir helps? Semitransgenic talk. 15:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC) You could have said no. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Nice try Roxy. But you know much better than this. The article's Talk page is to discuss content of the article, not for you to try and goad editors. Please stick to the subject matter.DrChrissy (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Good faith editors who are about to be topic banned would normally stay away from such an area, and most some have. What conclusion should I draw? -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Good faith editors who are WP:HERE and who are about to be topic banned, may still continue to edit in good faith, until they actually are topic banned. Good faith editors may also strongly believe that the topic ban is unjust and incorrect, and biased according to a deep systemic bias that has pervaded Wikipedia, as well. That's a completely valid position. Good faith editors may also hope that some arbitrators see their continuing edits, and see that they are of good quality, and of measured tone, and of sound reasoning and judgment, and then may question their own judgment in banning said good faith editor(s), if they take the time to look without bias in their hearts. Let's avoid more polarization and aggregation of points of view into cliques of influence, a dynamic that has happened on Wikipedia so far by my reckoning. SageRad (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Can we please stick to the content? SmartSE (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC) I would certainly prefer to. SageRad (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

We're making some progress here, but this thread is beginning to stretch out (WikiPong?) like the pre-ArbCom back and forth that consumed so many bits. Can someone look for a review that is more recent than 2000? Hard to believe that there are none. We all want to close this topic and move on, right? Lfstevens (talk)

First of all, the disputed content was in the incorrect section (it should be in the Glyphosate formulations section). How about we reword it, place it in the appropriate section, and tag it with .DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

As Smartse points out above, the problem is that there are no new secondary sources that review earthworm glyphosate toxicity and the 2000 review is still the best source we have. Moving the disputed text to the formulation section only addresses the less serious of the two concerns (that the study was done with a mixture of two herbicides). The more serious concern is that the study lacked a critical control. The only acceptable way to mention this study is to also mention that serious concerns about its reliability have been raised. Far better not to mention the study at all. Boghog (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sagerad - would you be willing to consider moving the bottom of your hatting up by three posts - I feel these last three posts are related to content.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I have been bold and moved the hatting up. Boghog (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

E/C One of the problems I am trying to address here is the behaviour of "delete and discuss later". Whilst this may be perfectly OK with policy, it sometimes raises hackles and polarises editors (it is also the reason why I was railroaded into arbcom, and possibly Sagerad). I feel a much more positive approach is to first tag disputed content. This reduces the possibility of a source, and potentially valuable content, being lost from the WP article forever. In the present case, we could possibly use . Then, if we find an RS which points out the faults with the source, we can deal with it as editors and not as supposed experts.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

How does reintroducing a questionable source back into the article change things? With or without a reliable source to document the concern, the study in question is clearly flawed because it lacks a critical control. How do we know if the observed effect is to due the herbicide mixture or simply because of a reduction in worm food? One doesn't need to be an expert to understand that the study design is flawed and hence conclusion from the study are questionable. Boghog (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

the source of the study is WP:RS, saying, "according to a recent study, by x et al (date), published in x, such and such" is perfectly acceptable under WP:VNT. If undue weight is not given, and it is not framed in such a manner that it reads like a refutation, there is no problem here. Semitransgenic _talk. 19:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

We as Wikipedia editors are assumed to not be experts and to not be able to judge the integrity of a scientific study as if we are an expert in the field. We're tasked with using reliable sources, and if a paper (yes, even a primary study in many cases) has passed a peer-review process in a reliable journal, then it's got that going for it. I think DrChrissy's understanding of Wikipedia policy here is correct. WP:SCIRS promotes secondary sources over primary or tertiary sources, but does allow primary sources and even specifies them in cases where secondary articles may not yet exist in the recent time frame, and it seems this may be such a case. Perhaps there are more secondary sources that refer to the study.

On moving the hatting, thank you to DrChrissy and Boghog both, for i had included a couple on-topic comments within the hat. So thank you both for noticing and fixing that. SageRad (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Also per WP:VNT Wikipedia should avoid untruth, even if it appears in otherwise apparently nearly reliable sources. We have such a case here. Boghog (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

unless there is a reliable secondary source that clearly demonstrates a lack of "truth" this proclamation is an wikitorial opinion rather than a factual assertion, as such, the verifiable aspect weighs more heavily here. Semitransgenic _talk. 19:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The burden of proof for inclusion is higher than for exclusion. In particular, OR is allowed on talk pages when judging the reliability of sources while OR is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. When in doubt, it is better to omit the material entirely until relevant secondary sources appear. Boghog (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

the doubt you cite stems from an opinion piece, on the personal blog of a researcher who states, I’m speculating here, but my guess is...I’m not an earthworm expert, but I would guess..... Essentially, a bunch of guesswork. Also, there is an apparent COI, we see Arysta LifeScience, BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, FMC, Hatch Act Funds – USDA, Loveland Industries, Monsanto, NovaSource, Repar Corporation, StateLine Bean Cooperative, Syngenta, amongst others, listed as funders of this individuals activities. OK, he appears to have a disclaimer, but why, as Wikipedia editors, should we perceive this to be a more reliable source than Nature.com? It doesn't add up. All things being equal, my view is it makes more sense to include it, in an appropriate fashion, rather than negate it. Semitransgenic _talk. 19:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

He is being modest, but his CV clearly demonstrates that has has expertise in this field. He also asks some highly relevant questions about the study that raise serious doubts about its conclusions. The referees at Scientific Reports clearly didn't their job when reviewing this article. Boghog (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I have found a secondary source supporting the observations that glyphosate is damaging to earthworms - "....common application concentrations [of glyphosate] have been found to cause growth deficit in the earthworm Aporrectodea caliginosa (Springett and Gray, 1992)..."[3] Should this text be introduced to the article?DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Springett and Gray, 1992 was in turn cited by the JP Giesy, S Dobson, KR Solomon - 2000 review. Since we already have cited the more recent review, there is no need to cite the older primary source particularly when the conclusions conflict. Boghog (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Additionally in non-controversial non-MEDRS topics, I do consider introductions of primary sources to be ok with a lack of formal literature reviews, but we are far from dealing with a non-controversial topic. There won't be consensus for this primary source either from the looks of it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Boghog. You misunderstand me. We should be citing this article (Herbert et al., 2014)[4] I suspect you are a scientist and as such, you will be aware that the Introduction of a research paper is a review of relevant work. It is therefore secondary material. The quote I gave above is in the Introduction of the Herbert et al. article and is therefore material that has been reviewed by an expert, i.e. it is secondary material.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

(Herbert et al., 2014) is not a review article. It does not critically evaluate the Springett and Gray, 1992 article and only mentions it in passing. Boghog (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy and Boghog: Just want to point out that the 2000 review does mention Springett et al. and does report that "glyphosate applied to the soil at the prescribed rate was reported to have caused significant reductions in the rate of growth and maturation of earthworms at lesser concentration than that selected for the TRV." Thus, indeed, the 1992 study was reinforced by the mention in the 2000 review. The 2000 review is what we're considering here as "the last good secondary source" on the topic, so far, and it does affirm that glyphosate has an effect on earthworms, apparently. SageRad (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems like we're at the point that there won't be consensus for changes. Three of the editors wanting some sort of inclusion already have topic ban motions that will pass barring any last minute changes by ArbCom. These editors are well aware that there won't be consensus for including primary sources in the fashion described above per many previous talk page conversations. That they will be topic banned shortly makes this conversation mostly moot point. As alluded to above, it's probably best to let the dust settle from ArbCom before diving back into this topic as I and others have done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this an argument about content, Kingofaces43? Or does it moreso show what's going on here in a realpolitik sense? Clearly it's the latter. Anyway, see my comment above this one in response to Boghog and DrChrissy. Apparently the 2000 review does report effects of glyphosate on earthworms, so it would be wrong to say that it reports no effects on earthworms. I would say that the current phrasing that cites the 2000 review article under "Glyphosate alone" -- "The findings of negative effects of glyphosate on earthworms has been criticized" -- is not an accurate representation of the source. SageRad (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - There is no prohibition against using primary sources, and earthworm health does not fall under MEDRS. 23:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Minor4th

There is a prohibition against using fatally flawed studies that lack proper controls. Boghog (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, we've established for a long time at this talk page that primary sources used in this manner will not have consensus, and that secondary sources such as literature reviews, etc. (not primary research studies) are needed. Arguments that guidelines say primary sources are a potential option in general cannot be used to refute issues with primary sources being inappropriate in situations like this. We are also called to raise source quality here, and rely on secondary sources per WP:SCIRS in this situation. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

To correct a couple things, the study in Nature Scientific Reports is not necessarily "fatally flawed" just because a pesticide promoter (Kniss) said so on his blog "Weed Control Freaks". Please see me longer comment above on whether the study had "no control" as Kniss and Boghog are saying, for it is not the case. Secondly, note that the 2000 secondary source that's been cited in this discussion repeatedly to claim that there's no effect on earthworms actually does mention Springett et al. and does report that "glyphosate applied to the soil at the prescribed rate was reported to have caused significant reductions in the rate of growth and maturation of earthworms at lesser concentration than that selected for the TRV." Therefore, these two arguments (secondary sources don't support, and Kniss says the study has "no control") are both flawed. Please consider these points of fact, and revise or restate your concerns. SageRad (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I should have perhaps mentioned earlier this essay I wrote some time ago Wikipedia:Identifying primary and secondary sources for biology articles. It has direct relevance here. I would welcome constructive criticism at the essay's talk page, but I think editor's should resist the temptation to discuss it in detail on this Glyphosate Talk page.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Reminder

Please let me remind everyone here about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Proposed decision#Discretionary Sanctions and 1RR, which explicitly applies to this page. It includes a 1RR restriction. That means no more than one revert per editor per day at this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that reminder and I apologise to the community for breaking that 1RR a day or so ago. I completely forgot. I thought a notice was usually put on articles with DS or 1RR (this is not an attempt to wriggle out of it - I broke the rule)?DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a template at the top of this talk page that says: "This article is subject to discretionary sanctions. Please edit carefully." However, it's not very conspicuous and I am under the impression that a better template exists and probably should have been used here instead. I think that it's understandable that editors might not remember having seen it, but I cannot vouch for what an administrator would say about that. For what it's worth, I have also made a request that the page be full-protected for 24 hours. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I just made the template at the top more noticeable. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I would also recommend people give WP:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness_and_alerts a read. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Again I appeal to the community to accept the fact that this topic is controversial and that we'll only make progress (better articles) if we establish common ground rather than spending so much energy on the talk page. While herbicides are not medicines, we need something better than SOP to get anything done on these articles. I encourage all editors who wish to make edits that advance their viewpoints to bring their changes to the talk page where can discuss them rather than subjecting our poor readers to our battles. Lfstevens (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the "reminder"Trypto, the "recommendation" King of faces and the "appeal" by Lfstevens. Lfstevens why are you posting here and why are you recommending to post here, even though you say on your userpage that you "avoid controversial pages" and "recommend that the powers limit controversial pages to links to fora that focus on the debate". you mentioned "our poor readers" why? first, i never ever use pluralis maiestatis as King knows,-:) right ? secondly why are "our" readers poor?

if its about the editwarring started by smartse and continued by boghog the readers dont see any war. only the editors see it. so maybe you should write "you poor editors" ? you and not "us", because you' ve never added content here, correct me if I am wrong. you like to vacuum around after hours with that (AW) thing, that I know.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Appropriate use of NON-WP:MEDRS primary study.

per WP:SCIRS and WP:VNT, is an appropriately framed mention of this NON-WP:MEDRS primary study (Mailin Gaupp-Berghausen, Martin Hofer, Boris Rewald, Johann G. Zaller. Glyphosate-based herbicides reduce the activity and reproduction of earthworms and lead to increased soil nutrient concentrations. Scientific Reports 5, Article number: 12886 (August 2015)doi:10.1038/srep12886), recently published by Nature.com acceptable? Semitransgenic _talk. 23:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment – the only way to appropriately frame this source is to state that its design is seriously flawed and hence no conclusions can be drawn from it. Boghog (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

on that blog, the author states, "I’m speculating here, but my guess is...I’m not an earthworm expert, but I would guess.....," there also appears to be a COI (Arysta LifeScience, BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, FMC, Hatch Act Funds – USDA, Loveland Industries, Monsanto, NovaSource, Repar Corporation, StateLine Bean Cooperative, Syngenta, amongst others, are listed as funders). I see a disclaimer, but why, as Wikipedia editors, should we perceive this POV to be a more reliable source than Nature.com? Is it an acceptable reason to exclude the study Semitransgenic _talk. 22:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they should. The blog points out an obvious problem with the study, the lack of an essential control (where the plants are killed without use of herbicide). Studies lacking appropriate controls are worthless. Boghog (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it "common sense" to understand about controls, in/appropriate controls, etc, or is this a scientific editor behaving as a reviewer and showing OR?DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC) This editor was subsequently topic banned by ArbCom.

The OR policy is not an excuse to turn your brain off. As I have already stated above, prohibitions against OR only apply to Wikipedia articles, not to talk pages. It is appropriate to use OR on talk pages to judge the appropriatness of a source. And it doesn't take a expert to realize that this particular study did not rule out an obvious alternative explanation (worms are not happy when you take away their food source). Boghog (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I accept your reasoning, this is not a WP:MEDRS matter. There is nothing to say primary sources cannot be used if the source is reliable, which it appears to be. WP:SCIRS suggests that "primary sources should be used when discussing a particular result...When citing a primary source, be especially mindful of the policy on undue weight...An individual primary source should never be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of a reliable secondary source...," accordingly, I don't see such an issue mentioning the findings in an appropriate fashion. Semitransgenic _talk. 00:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I never claimed this is a MEDRS issue and I am not rejecting the study because it is primary. I am rejecting the studying because it is so fundamentally flawed. It is appropriate for editors to discuss the quality of sources on the talk pages and to apply common sense in deciding whether a particular source is reliable. This one clearly is not. Boghog (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

What some blog author thinks or doesn't think about some scientific publication in nature.com is completely irrewlevant. If one wants to point out potential weaknesses or problems of that study it normally requires a properly published scientific review or at very least a statement by a reputable scientist. Generally I see no problem with using a study published in Nature in the article on glyphosate and I don't see any WP:MEDRS as we're not dealing with a human health issue or human health claims.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Blogs authored by established experts may be considered reliable. The author of this blog post is a reputable scientist that works in the field. Finally no one has claimed this is a MEDRS issue. Boghog (talk) 07:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The author of that blog is a pesticide promoter with a strong POV. SageRad (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC) This editor was subsequently topic banned by ArbCom.

He is still qualified to comment on the quality of the study and his criticism of the study are spot on. It is not OK to run a study without proper experimental controls. Boghog (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

granted he may be qualified, but doesn't the stated COI perhaps undermine our confidence here? Wouldn't it be more appropriate for you to present a WP:RS that refutes the methodology of this study? Lacking said secondary refutation, it would seem that given the source of the study is WP:RS, saying, "according to a recent study, by x et al (date), published in x, such and such" would be admissible under WP:VNT (if undue weight is not given, and it is not framed in such a manner that it reads like a refutation of another source). Semitransgenic _talk. 13:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

We should not be adding material based sources whose experimental methods are seriously flawed. Andrew Kniss' blog supports the doubt, but we don't need his blog post to come to that conclusion. We can independently come to the same conclusion. How do you know that the negative effects glyphosate on earthworms was not simply to killing plants rather than a direct action of the glyphosate on earthworms? Why didn't the study include an appropriate control for plant killing? How can the authors possibly justify their conclusions based on a study without proper controls? Once a source is determined to be reliable, OR policy dictates that we should simply state the conclusions of reliable sources. The OR policy does not prohibit applying common sense and editorial judgment to determine whether a source is reliable and appropriate to begin with. Boghog (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia lacks the necessary expertise to ascertain the degree to which this study might be flawed. For an editor to state it is flawed, based on his/her speculative analysis, is WP:OR. Kniss's blog does not constitute a WP:RS, and, his speculative conclusion, might actually be flawed (especially in light of his COI). Nature.com is WP:RS, and per WP:VNT, appropriate mention of the study is justifiable. On balance, I see little harm in including it. Semitransgenic _talk. 15:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I have already stated this several times, but the message is not getting through. OR policy does not apply to talk pages nor to evaluating the reliability of sources. Wikipedia does rely on common sense and editorial judgement to evaluate the reliability of sources. There is no question that the study is flawed and we do have the required expertise right here to make that determination. A study which lacks appropriate controls is worthless. Basing articles on worthless sources damages Wikipedia. Here is a simple, straightforward question that anyone should be able to comprehend and to answer: How do you know that the negative effects glyphosate on earthworms observed in the study was not simply to killing plants rather than a direct action of the glyphosate on earthworms? Please answer the question. Boghog (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

unfortunately, owing to my lack of expertise in the areas of weed biology, ecology, and Lumbricus terrestris, it would be inappropriate for me to offer a speculative opinion on this matter. Semitransgenic _talk. 16:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

But surely you understand for the need for scientific controls. Boghog (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Affirmative, however, what I understand is irrelevant, it's not my role to speculate. Under existing guidelines, the inclusion of the source is legitimate if it is worded correctly. Semitransgenic _talk. 16:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

E/C @Boghog Please could you state who you believe has the required expertise and how you have come to this conclusion. I will assume anyone you do not mention means you do believe they do not have the required expertise.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC) This editor was subsequently topic banned by ArbCom.

Anyone that understands the importance of experimental controls (I and believe that includes everyone here) has the required expertise. However some here don't want to apply that expertise because it leads to conclusions contrary to to the position that they have already staked out. Boghog (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

So how do we distinguish between experts choosing not to use their knowledge, and experts who are not really experts?DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC) This editor was subsequently topic banned by ArbCom.

As it has always been done, by consensus. This thread has gone on long enough. We can avoid all these problems by insisting on secondary sources. Boghog (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Basically, we have two chocies. Either critically evaluate primary sources ourselves, or wait for secondary sources to do the evaluation for us. The later is simpler and much more reliable. Boghog (talk) 06:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. It's slightly odd for this RfC to say the source was published by "nature.com" - while this is technicaly true it sort of implies this is a Nature source, when in fact the journal is Scientific Reports, a rather less prestigious open access journal and just one of the many publications within the Nature stable (and one which has published some rather dodgy stuff in my view). Alexbrn (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Do not use the source. Wikipedia is meant to reflect accepted knowledge, and generally that is found in high quality secondary sources. Of course sometimes primary sources are useful for painting a fuller picture, but they should generally be in line with the base accepted knowledge established by stronger sources. In this case, it is right that editors exercise their judgement in assessing the proposed source, and in my view there is sufficient doubt over its quality that it would be better for the Project if it was ignored. We can always revisit this information if and when better sources on this aspect of the topic appear. Alexbrn (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, it is acceptable. Should we use it? I don't know. That's an editorial decision, but it's completely acceptable by the guidelines of Wikipedia. If it is used, then it must be represented accurately, to state that it was glyphosate-based formulations that were tested, and not glyphosate alone, and that the formulations applied included Roundup Speed, which contains another active ingredient (pelargonic acid). That should go without saying that sources must be represented accurately. SageRad (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC) This editor was subsequently topic banned by ArbCom.
• Use secondary sources. We can either spend infinite time arguing (or warring), source by source, point by point, over each change, or we can adopt a convention that allows everybody to get on with things. The waste of energy on this (talk) page is incredible. The best chance we have to make a better WP is to go with secondary sources on controversial articles. Trying to figure out whether a given primary source is acceptable is OR on its face. We already know that one group of editors will celebrate any anti-GMO/anti-pesticide piece and attack any pro- piece, while the other side will do the reverse. The details of any of these disputes are stupefyingly boring in their repetitiveness. Use your heads, folks. Life is short! Lfstevens (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

perhaps you have a point, but I fail to see why such staunch resistance to a tiny mention of this study exists when it is perfectly clear that it can be included under existing guidelines. It's the principal of the matter, there is actually a middle ground between including it, and suppressing it outright, but the culture here is so hostile, that no one is interested in reaching a compromise; which is, as far as I'm concerned, worth highlighting, even if it is "stupefyingly boring" for onlookers. Semitransgenic _talk. 16:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You say I have a point, but then you immediately go back to your position. The problem with this subject is that it is so inflamed that we have entire WP articles discussing the validity of individual studies. We know that there are study authors/groups that are pushing political agendas (on both sides). We are not competent to adjudicate their reliability. I have successfully added material on a primary anti-pesticide study (actually I got Jytdog to do so). I now regret that. I apologize for the "hostile" climate. Everyone involved with this topic is feeling abused, including me. Thank you for sticking with it. I still hope we can find a modus vivendi, even though nobody is pleased. Lfstevens (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought the point of an RfC was to get fresh views (which is why I commented). But I agree, in a vexed topic surely if a source looks even a bit iffy the safest thing to do is to avoid. Surely there are enough strong sources on this topic to write a decent article!? Alexbrn (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: IMO, to favor practical discussion, some form of proposed wording should be included in this RfC.

Meanwhile, the overarching issue here is that, from what I've seen in our debates over science and medical content, the fallback position presented as the voice of middle ground reason, that we should generally choose to exclude all but the most conservative review sources, would seem to introduce a serious, systemic bias in our coverage, in that the most "reliable" positions on modern technologies are continually qualified and often reversed or otherwise brought into question - at times within a few years, methods with the approval of "reliably mainstream" review are discounted, products are withdrawn, the probably safe is found significantly unsafe. Therefore, to suggest that we regularly avoid ongoing coverage that continues to develop a particular topic from what we determine is its last most stable current position, would seem to be contrary to the role of a modern, digital, uncensored, real-time-edited general encyclopedia, which should (and is expected to) provide the most up-to-date, balanced and verifiable information available.

As difficult as reasoned, balanced coverage of newer findings in the primary research area may be to accomplish in our situation - an editorial method without appointed expert arbiters, using an unruly consensus-seeking mechanism applied case by case - inclusive coverage is exactly what Wikipedia is built on, and this is clearly spelled out in our core policies. While those policies remain, we must be open to all reliably sourced information, broadly speaking, and strive to reconcile it with fairly balanced coverage, no matter how inconvenient and frustrating that way at times may be. --Tsavage (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, this particular source qualify as WP:RS, whereas http://weedcontrolfreaks.com (used to disprove the source) is questionable. This is very simple. I agree with SageRad. Writing essays is not the way to undo policies, such as WP:RS and WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: – you have got to be kidding. Did you read the blog or are you applying a rote formula (blogs automatically bad, peer review automatically good)? Please reread the blog very carefully. The problem with the paper is that it has not used appropriate controls and therefore no conclusion can be drawn from it. A really, really bad paper. Boghog (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the blog is that it is a blog. My reading of WP:RS is that blogs are the lowest of the low in terms of reliability. Please drop this. You are just wrong.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC) This editor was subsequently topic banned by ArbCom.

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications WP:BLOG. What we have in this case is an established expert in the relevant field. At the very least, it raises serious questions about the primary source which we need to take into the account. Boghog (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about this source? It was linked in the RfC question above. It looks like an article by Nature.com to me. My very best wishes (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The journal in question is not Nature (journal), but Scientific Reports which is part of the Nature group of journals. This particular journal has been rather controversial as it has accept additional fees for expedited review and several of the journal editors have resigned over this controversy. But that is besides the point. Even in the highest quality journals, questionable papers are sometimes published. That is what happened in this case. Please carefully read the blog. It is written by an established expert in the field and he makes a number of excellent points. Boghog (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

So, you are trying to disprove something published by RS based on a blog post by expert. OK, except that I do not really know who that expert is. My very best wishes (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The author is Andrew R. Kniss. Again, please read the blog. The study left out a critical control. Not all peer reivewed articles are reliable. Boghog (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I wish to acknowledge some valid points made by Boghog. (1) We can discuss things on talk pages in a frank manner and that in itself doesn't cross the WP:OR guideline which applies to articles. (2) The study is indeed not on glyphosate alone, but on glyphosate-based formulations, and includes Roundup Speed, which has a second active ingredient besides glyphosate, and GBFs also include some rather potent and often biocidal ingredients like POEA which are not even considered "active ingredients" by the common usage, so if the content is included, it must make this clear. (3) Nature Scientific Reports is not Nature itself, yet it does have a high impact factor and editorial process with integrity. (4) Andrew Kniss has some valid points. However, that said, we must also recognize that this is not Andrew Kniss' field of expertise, and that his critique is not peer-reviewed. Also, on the point of "no control" that depends on the question the researchers are asking. If the question is, "What is the effect of these glyphosate-based formulations on earthworms in a small ecosystem that is similar to that of agricultural fields?" then they did indeed have a control. It is clear that the death of the plants in the experimental group was part of the causal network. This was an ecological question. Kniss and Boghog are assuming that the question is only "What's the effect of the glyphosate-based formulations, all other things being held equal?" whereas it seems the researchers' question was "What's the effect of the glyphosate-based formulations on worms in a small ecosystem that simulates that of a typical agricultural field?" So, i hope this may help to untangle the knot here. I think the question of how glyphosate-based formulations affect worms is a relevant question. I'm not sure if this study is the ideal one to answer the question, but it seems like it could be useful to readers, as long as it is described in full with the caveats mentioned. SageRad (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC) This editor was subsequently topic banned by ArbCom.

Use secondary sources The seriously flawed Gaupp-Berghausen 2015 study is an excellent example of pitfalls of using primary sources. While it is debatable whether the blog is reliable or not, the blog has become an important part of the process of checking the reliability of publications. These doubts will be taken into account when review articles are written. I agree with Lfstevens. We can spend endless unproductive time debating the merits of various primary sources. It is much safer and more efficient to rely on high quality secondary sources. A suprisingly high percentage of scientific work cannot be repeated. It takes time for other scientists to digest, reflect, and to write review articles that undergo a second round of peer review. The result of this process is much higher certainty about the results. Boghog (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this subject, but can see what you are talking about [5]. This paper itself looks to me as a scholarly source, and I think it should be treated as such, unless the paper has been officially retracted... My very best wishes (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It does appear scholarly, but serious question have been raised about its reliability. In any case, it would be much better to wait for a secondary source that reviews this work. Boghog (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, the secondary sources are better, but I do not understand why this is so hotly debated, given that negative impacts of pesticides are generally well known. Telling that it has no any negative environmental impact would be an "extraordinary claim".My very best wishes (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• This is an herbicide, not a pesticide. No one claimed this particular herbicide is 100% safe, but the available reviews indicate it is relatively safe. Because this safety claim is back up by reliable secondary sources, it is not at all extraordinary. Boghog (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• It is also important to point out that the primary source directly contradicts a older secondary source:

Giesy JP, Dobson S, Solomon KR (2000). "Ecotoxicological Risk Assessment for Roundup® Herbicide". Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 167: 35–120. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-1156-3_2. ISBN 978-0-387-95102-7.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

and repeating what Smartse said above: This secondary source from 2010 summarises the reviews and is clear about the low toxicity of glyphosate to earthworms. Boghog (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, these reviews qualify as secondary RS. But it does mean anyone should eliminate other well sourced materials about harmful effects of the herbicide - as in "bee section" just below - I agree here with DrChrissy and Montanabw. My very best wishes (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You will at least acknowledge that because the Gaupp-Berghausen 2015 primary source contradicts the conclusions of the best avaiable secondary sources, that it is not appropriate to cite this primary source? Also it is important to note that this is a highly controversial topic both outside (see for example the Séralini affair) and inside Wikipedia (see GMO arbitration request and it generally is agreed that Glyphosate is a Core GMO article), it is best to stick to high quality secondary sources. Because of the tempation to cherry pick, primary sources can easily be abused. Everything becomes toxic, if dosed high enough. The critical question is glyphosate toxic at concentrations that are found in environment. This is a difficult question to answer and it is best to wait for secondary sources to analyze and integrate the avaiable data. Boghog (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

What secondary sources are you talking about? If you are talking about the blog, then no. If you are talking about reviews, then it matters that the original paper has been published later than reviews, so that could be a new scientific finding in the paper. If reviews refer to an original publication X, one should use reviews. If they do not, one should use publication X. I do not have time for this, but quick look at Séralini affair shows one of the problems. It tells "genetically modified maize, as well as glyphosate". GMO and herbicide(s) are completely different subjects, scientifically speaking. The reason for them to be combined are probably interests of certain industrial corporations... My very best wishes (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

New sources are not automatically better than old. Per WP:SCIRS: An individual primary source should never be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of a reliable secondary source, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim. The primary source in question, PMID 26243044, does not cite the secondary source and hence does not directly make such a claim. On that basis, we should exlucde the primary source, even if it is newer. Glyphosate and glyphosate resistant plants are not completley different, they are complimentary. If one is doing saftey testing, is it reasonable to test the combination because the combination is commonly used in agriculture. The reason why they are combined is not only interest to Monsanto, but also farmers who are looking for higher yields. Boghog (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Do not include An outlier result, in a primary paper which is published in a low impact journal which is criticised in "pop=sci press" (which includes blogs) probably shouldn't be included until picked up in a secondary source. SPACKlick (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Boghog is repeatedly referring to the Weed Control Freaks blog post by Andrew Kniss to call the study in question "fatally flawed". To correct a couple things, the study in Nature Scientific Reports is not necessarily "fatally flawed" just because a pesticide promoter (Kniss) said so on his blog "Weed Control Freaks". I'm sorry to be posting similar information several times, but it's needed because Boghog has been placarding his claims everywhere, so this message needs similar visibility as to not get lost in the shuffle. Please see my longer comment in the previous section of this talk page on whether the study had "no control" as Kniss and Boghog are saying, for it is not the case. If the question is ecological and not solely about effect of GBF on earthworms directly, then there is a control. Secondly, note that the 2000 secondary source that's been cited in this discussion repeatedly to claim that there's no effect on earthworms actually does mention Springett et al. and does report that "glyphosate applied to the soil at the prescribed rate was reported to have caused significant reductions in the rate of growth and maturation of earthworms at lesser concentration than that selected for the TRV." Therefore, these two arguments (secondary sources don't support, and Kniss says the study has "no control") are both flawed. Please consider these points of fact. SageRad (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC) This editor was subsequently topic banned by ArbCom.

OK, farmers should not remove weeds by what ever means because it will hurt worms. Got it. Boghog (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

it is important to known whether the effect glyphosate is direct toxicity on worms or indirect (through glylphostate killing weeds). If the effect is direct, then the study is relevant to this article. If the effect is indirect, this study would be more appropraite for weed control. The "environmental" control does not answer this critical question. The Springett and Grey study was exluded for methodological reasons which is the same as saying it is unreliable. Boghog (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Boghog Re removing weeds by what ever means will hurt worms: not true. instead of sarcasm respond to Sage Rad's arguments. --Wuerzele (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC) This editor was subsequently topic banned by ArbCom.

@Wuerzele: How do you know removing weeds will not hurt worms? With out an appropriate control, there is no way to distinguish between glyphosate directly hurting the worms or indirectly hurting the worms by removing their food supply. Boghog (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Boghog: The study hypothesized that killing the plants "would stimulate earthworm activity and reproduction due to the increased availability of dead plant material that earthworms can use as food source." In addition, the study "provided extra food for earthworms in all treatments (i.e., dried chopped hay spread over the soil surface)." Why are we joining Kniss in arguing against this study with personal speculation, that seems to be more armchair guessing at anything that may raise some sort of conversational, circumstantial doubt, than an expert challenge to specific details and conclusions? --Tsavage (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tsavage: The blog is an expert challenge to specific details and conclusions. Have you read it from beginning to end? Regardless, we should wait for secondary sources that discuss this study before drawing any conclusions. Boghog (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it from beginning to end.

• Kniss concedes his lack of expertise in half of the primary subject, earthworms. He then claims an absence of control based on his own interpretation of the study objective and earthworm behavior.
• The other claim is that the result is invalid because one RoundUp formulation contained a second herbicide, pelargonic acid. PA is a naturally occurring fatty acid found in most plants, and an FDA GRAS substance used among other things as a food additive; according to one source, "Toxicity tests on non-target organisms, such as birds, fish, and honeybees, revealed little or no toxicity." Another source says, "glyphosate-based, ready-to-use weed control products often contain pelargonic acid (PA) at a concentration equivalent to that of the glyphosate." All of which of course doesn't eliminate PA, however, this study as titled is simulating real-world conditions for "glyphosate-based herbicides," specifically "the most widely used glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup", and not simply glyphosate, so the presence of PA is not unaccounted for.

From what I can make out, we would not be discussing any of this if not for Kniss' non-expert argument being introduced as a way to discredit the study, which does appear to explore new territory not covered in existing sources. And there's a fundamental difference between describing and drawing conclusions, as made clear in core policy (WP:PRIMARY). --Tsavage (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it is obvious to both experts and non-experts that scientific studies need controls to eliminate other explanations. Without proper controls it is impossible to determine the cause of the effect. The control Kniss suggested is an obvious control. However it gets messy for non-experts to debate the merits of this argument. That's why we need to wait for a secondary source that reviews this study. Boghog (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

As a general concept, controls are being argued here at a high school general science level, it's not difficult to grasp. Regarding the specifics in this case, you say, "it gets messy for non-experts to debate the merits of this argument," meanwhile, Kniss declares that he is non-expert and only guessing ("I'm not an earthworm expert, but I would guess"), and says he can't find any literature to back him up on his guess ("I wasn’t able to find any studies that specifically evaluated the impact of plant removal on earthworms"). I haven't taken anything out of context. So why are we to consider that expert commentary? --Tsavage (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Lack of an obvious control is common sense commentary. In addition, Kniss is an expert on the use of glyphosate to kill weeds. One of the other points he raises is the amount of glyphosate they applied is about an order of magnitude too high to be relevant to a field situation. Hence we do have expert commentary questioning the amount of glyphosate used in the study. Boghog (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The study explains the application amount: "In total for all applications, 176.12 ml m−2 of herbicide was applied which is 53% lower than the recommended plant-based application rate of 1000 plants l−1 for ‘Roundup® Speed’ and 62% lower than the recommended dose of 800 plants l−1 for ‘Roundup® Alphée’ (Monsanto Co., St. Louis/Missouri, USA)." Apparently, they're following instructions, and if they'd misfollowed, presumably Kniss would have caught that directly, rather than introduce a novel calculation and a new application rate of his own (a rate based on what? for which products?). So, another questionable criticism.

This seems a bit unnecessarily painfully drawn out, as I'm simply following up on a point that others have made, that Kniss' post is not a reliable critical source for our purposes in this case, and that should be discussable without explicitly examining the blog post, line by line.

As it stands, you're proposing that the opinion of Kniss, a self-declared non-expert in the main focus of this study, earthworms, in a non-rigorous blog post discussion where he literally "guesses" that his central critical argument is valid, should outweigh the peer review of a Nature Publishing Group journal, to the point where we should consider that study fatally flawed. That does not seem reasonable, or RS - we should just stick to reliable sources, including waiting for an independent, rigorous negative assessment of this study by subject experts, until then, it seems fine for careful use per WP:PRIMARY. --Tsavage (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

SageRad - The 2000 source discusses why Springett and Grey isn't reliable: "for these and other methodological reasons, the study was not included in this analysis". Yet another example of why we need to wait for reviews rather than including primary research findings. SmartSE (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The 2000 source doesn't call Springett at al. (1992) unreliable. They excluded the study from their results for other reasons, isn't that the case? SageRad (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC) This editor was subsequently topic banned by ArbCom.

That's a polite way for the authors to say that the results weren't reliable. SmartSE (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Science isn't polite. If they wished to say the study was flawed, they would have. From what i glean, they excluded all studies that didn't use natural soil because that's the criteria they set up for their methodology and their particular question, but that is not the same as saying the study was unreliable. Please quote whatever description you may be referring to from the review article to make you think that they say it's unreliable. SageRad (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC) This editor was subsequently topic banned by ArbCom.

Here is a quote from the 2000 review which makes it clear that the Springett and Gray 1992 study is unreliable. They didn't exclude the study because the soil wasn't natural. They exlcluded the study because (1) the population size was too small, (2) variability in the study was not adequately reported, and (3) the relative toxicity of Roundup to insecticides was not consistent with other studies.

• Giesy JP, Dobson S, Solomon KR (2000). "Ecotoxicological risk assessment for Roundup® herbicide". Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 167: 35–120. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-1156-3_2. ISBN 978-0-387-95102-7. In the first study, glyphosate applied to soil at the prescribed rate was reported to have caused significant reductions in the rate of growth and maturation of earthworms at lesser concentrations than that selected for the TRV [toxicity reference value] (Springett and Gray 1992). Only six worms were included per treatment, and variability among worms and treatments was not thoroughly characterized. Results of the assay indicated that RU [Roundup Herbicide] was as toxic or more toxic than several insecticides, which is not consistent with other literature. For these and other methodological reasons, the study was not included in this analysis.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Boghog (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Do not include (obviously as I removed it). If we are to have any hope of editing this article in a collaborative manner without arguing over every single sentence ad infinitum, we need to stick to secondary sources. While MEDRS may not apply, the justifications for requiring high-quality sources apply equally to agrochemicals. While the criticism of this specific source on Kniss' blog is of interest (and strengthens the case for excluding the source per SCIRS: "Blogs by relevant subject matter experts may be useful in talk page evaluation of the relevance of very new results") this wasn't the reason I removed it and nor is it required to justify exclusion. The content made some extraordinary claims about both earthworm reproduction and nutrient leaching and primary sources should not be used to contradict the established knowledge in secondary sources. SmartSE (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Where is your justification that agrochemicals require these overly-high quality sources? If I want to write about the harm that glyphosate/Roundup causes to fish, amphibians, non-human mammals, where are the PAQs indicating secondary sources must be used?DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC) This editor was subsequently topic banned by ArbCom.

There aren't, but given the controversy, don't you think that is something we should strive for? SmartSE (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It's absurd to use a 2000 review as the principal reference for any topic, unless there is nothing more recent available. I see one from 2014, "Pesticides and earthworms. A review" by Céline Pelosi , Sébastien Barot, Yvan Capowiez, Mickaël Hedde, Franck Vandenbulcke from 2014 in Agronomy for Sustainable Development Volume 34, Issue 1 , pp 199-228. OpenAccess at [6] I found it by the subtle method of looking at the references in the Nature Scientific Reports paper. Didn't any of the people disputing about that article actually read it all the way to the end, where the references are listed?

On the general matter, of course a primary study in a good journal can be used to supplement a review. The question is rather if the blog criticizing it can be used. If the author is not an authority on this subject, our rules are quite clear it cannot. Unfortunately, this may give a false impression, but if the criticism are valid they will appear in something actually citable in a year or two and can be added then. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You read my mind - before reading your post, I made my own post below regarding the source you mention above!DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC) This editor was subsequently topic banned by ArbCom.

Thank you so much, DGG. Always preferable to simply look for better sources. I missed that one because apparently the journal is not indexed by PubMed, which i used for searching for review articles. SageRad (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC) This editor was subsequently topic banned by ArbCom.

I actually found it independently of the nature.com paper by using Google Scholar.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC) This editor was subsequently topic banned by ArbCom.

It is not absurd to use a 2000 source if the source is still the best one avaiable. I did see this review, but didn't think anything of it, because the only conclusion the authors came to was: We believe that responses observed at infra-individual or individual levels have an impact on higher organisation levels (populations, communities) but there is currently no strong proof. I agree that the blog is not the final word, but it does give us sufficient doubt about the primary source that it is prudent to wait until review that discusses the primary source is published. Boghog (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes, this review from 2014 is an excellent source. And it tells a number of times that glyphosate adversely affects earthworms. How significant that adverse effect was, according to this review, is another matter that needs to be examined more closely by people who are interested in this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: – How significant that adverse effect was – exactly. Everything is toxic if dosed high enough. Also where exactly did it say that glyphosate was toxic to worms? All I see are statements like Glyphosate may affect cocoon hatchability and Despite these data, information is lacking on the pesticide effects on earthworm reproduction and growth. They did list conclusions of primary studies, but they did no critical evaulation of individual studies. At a minimum, a review should evaluate primary studies to determine whether appropriate methods were used and exclude those that did not. This "review" did no such thing. The only definitive conclusion this review offered is that we need more data. Boghog (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

c Boghog Re Everything is toxic if dosed high enough. that is not a uniformly correct premise.it is old school toxicology. Many substances are toxic at certain low and high concentrations. Plus developmental windows. --Wuerzele (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC) This editor was subsequently topic banned by ArbCom.

@Wuerzele: The fact that laboratory animals when exposed to low doses of toxins often do better than vehicle control animals (hormesis or the j curve) in no way invalidates what I said above. I was referring to the effect at high doses, not low doses. The dose makes the poison is not old school toxicolgy, it is still very relevant. Boghog (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, at least at the first glance, none of these reviews tells something like "glyphosate is bad for the environment". But whatever it tells (like "glyphosate may affect cocoon hatchability") can be quoted here. In addition, the exclusion of recent research publications that can be reasonably viewed as RS seems rather questionable to me. My very best wishes (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Your arguments are becoming absurd. We are finding secondary sources and now you are asking for significance levels! This is a technical interpretation, way, way beyond "common sense". Furthermore, how do you know that the authors did not conduct a critical evaluation of individual studies. That is precisely why you are insisting on using secondary sources because we assume (correctly or incorrectly) that secondary sources have made such a critical evaluation. You can not have this both ways.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC) This editor was subsequently topic banned by ArbCom.

The 2000 review explcitly includes and excludes various sources and explains why. The 2014 review does not. The former is a high quality sytematic review which comes to definitive conclusions. The later is superficial review whose only definitive conclusion is that we need more data. Boghog (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The title of the 2014 review is "Pesticides and earthworms. A review". Read the conclusions carefully - they relate to pesticides! Glyphosate is a herbicide, and nobody here is suggesting we use content from the Conclusions. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC) This editor was subsequently topic banned by ArbCom.

To ask the obvious question, if the review is about pesticides, why are we even discussing it all? In reality, the review is about both pesticides and herbcides (glyphosate is mentioned 22 times) and its conclusions are equally vague about both. Boghog (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

We are discussing it because you incorrectly insisted on secondary RSs. These have been provided. You now appear to be rejecting these for reasons you are making up as we go along.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC) This editor was subsequently topic banned by ArbCom.

• The term "pesticide" includes herbicides. SageRad (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC) This editor was subsequently topic banned by ArbCom.

@Boghog:: A new question from the "I'm not an expert on earthworms, but" camp: Are the secondary sources you're citing referring to the same type of earthworm as the study in question, and does that matter? The study here states that most glyphosate earthworm studies to date were conducted in lab conditions with epigeic species that "commonly do not inhabit agroecosystems," while this study was conducted in greenhouse conditions with anecic and endogeic species that "are indeed frequently found in agroecosystems." Also, the study that weedcontrolfreaks cites to support-in-passing the idea that plant removal may have been the source of the effects, says in the abstract: "A significant decrease in earthworm population density of 63% and in total earthworm biomass by 84% was the single most prominent response to the reduction of plant species richness, largely due to a 50% reduction in biomass of the dominant `anecic' earthworms." So ecological categorization would seem to matter, and again, this study used anecic and endogeic species, so even on the surface, that study doesn't seem to squarely apply.

I'm not trying to argue science here, I'm pointing out how murky it gets when we try to argue for exclusion by attempting to trump with other, "better" sources, scientific or pop-sci, things can quickly become original interpretation, which of course is totally off-policy. Better to get context and weight right than try to cut things out entirely without a sufficiently supported reason.

Perhaps a section, Recent developments or similar, might be useful. --Tsavage (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

No reply? My impression is that expert opinion on Wikipedia is best suited to actually clarifying questions like these, directly in Talk page discussion. --Tsavage (talk)

@Tsavage: Sorry for not responding sooner, but during the middle of the week, I am busy in real life. You raises some excellent points. Yes, the type of earthworms used in studies clearly matters. I also agree that things do get murky when we try to interpret sources. Hence given that questions have been raised about the methodology used in the primary source and given that this is a highly controversial topic, wouldn't it be better to wait for secondary sources to review the methods and conslusions of the primary source? Per WP:PSTS, it is generally agreed that secondary sources are more reliable therefore preferred over primary. If we do mention the primary source, then I think we should also mention that the methodology of this source has been questioned as is done in the German Glyphosat Wikipedia article. Boghog (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

"I think we should also mention that the methodology of this source has been questioned" - That certainly seems like the thing to do if there's an appropriate critical source. As editors have pointed out, the Kniss critique itself appears to be flawed. He self-declares his non-expert status and then goes on to "guess," and he questions assigning the effects to glyphosate in isolation, when the study is clearly about glyphosate-based herbicides, and specifically, about the RoundUp brand, following manufacturer instructions for ready-to-use products. To note that the methodology may be flawed, we'd need a reliable source for that. And thank you for the reply. --Tsavage (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Use secondary sources, per long-standing practice. Dumpster-diving the primary sources is not only dangerous, it's completely unnecessary when a subject has as many secondary sources as this one does. Guy (Help!) 08:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Yes the above mentioned Berghausen,Hofer study from 8/2015 even though primary can be used. there is no evidence in the peer reviewed literature that it is flawed, as has been amply argued above. On top of that one can add the 2014 secondary source "Pesticides and earthworms. A review" by Céline Pelosi , Sébastien Barot, Yvan Capowiez, Mickaël Hedde, Franck Vandenbulcke from 2014 in Agronomy for Sustainable Development Volume 34, Issue 1 , pp 199-228.

Sarcasm ("Dumpster-diving") again used by an opposing editor, rogue administartor User:JzG is WP:UNCIVIL and has no place here. it is WP:Disruptive. Therefore, I think the RfC should be closed soon or modified to include the 2014 review. --Wuerzele (talk) 08:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC) This editor was subsequently topic banned by ArbCom.

You really want to go down that route? It's a very bad idea. Wikipedia always prefers secondary sources, the use of primary sources is discouraged to reduce the tendency to synthesise from them. This is documented in WP:RS, one of our longest-standing guidelines. Also, it's spelt "rouge". Guy (Help!) 08:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. I just checked the policy here. It tells:

1. "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible...", meaning that primary research papers can be used, but should be quoted directly rather than interpreted by wikipedians.
2. "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses", meaning that primary research papers are great.
3. "Completed dissertations or theses ..." meaning that even PhD theses which were not published in any journals (!) are good. My very best wishes (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment and further to the above, this is a direct quote from WP:RS "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." I have highlighted the word "recording" as this means if an author in the Introduction or Discussion section of a research paper discusses previous work, this makes the source secondary for that content.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC) This editor was subsequently topic banned by ArbCom.

• Per WP:PRIMARY, this source seems fine for use, subject to the information selected and the wording. It is published in a reputable journal, and no independent, expert argument against it has been brought up. Also, the general claim is not exceptional, as other studies indicating generally comparable effects have been cited in this discussion. (I also find this RfC to be poorly formed, it should have at least a draft of the proposed content, rather than present the source for blanket approval.) --Tsavage (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Do not include per WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS, and our science sourcing guidance in WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS. All relevant policies and guidelines strongly recommend against the use of a primary source like this in scientific topics. That a primary source can be used in some instances according to policy doesn't allow carte blanche use of them. Being a controversial topic, editors are expected to raise source quality. It's been a longstanding expectation on this talk page that we rely on secondary sources and not use primary sources because of how easily they can be cherry-picked or misinterpreted. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Include this primary study per our present guidelines. Our guidelines were set up so that we could avoid going through this argument over and over. Kingofaces43, you keep saying that there is a longstanding agreement on this talk page that we rely only on secondary sources. I've been watching this article for a long time and I can't recall that decision. I'd appreciate it if you'd point it out to me. This is an argument that you have brought up at other articles as well, honey bees for instance. Gandydancer (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not an acceptable source. It's a primary source. Moreover it describes an experiment done without a control: if you kill all the vegetation, the earthworms are affected, that is unremarkable. A controlled experiment could compare the effect on the earthworms of killing the vegetation using glyphosate, with killing it mechanically, say by using a sickle or by uprooting it. And contrary to what has been said above, it was not published in Nature. Maproom (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Do not include. This is undue WP:WEIGHT to a primary study. There are literally thousands of primary studies published every week, we do not include every one of them here unless there is a secondary source that determines they are significant. Yobol (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Do not include. Per WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:WEIGHT. Primary studies are manifold and require non-trivial coverage in secondary sources before their merit may be assessed. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Include - This is sorta a silly RfC because the person who started the RfC didn't seem to point to exactly what content we were thinking about adding. Since the question seems to be, can we use this primary source, the answer seems to be an obvious yes. Primary sources can be used. Look at WP:PRIMARY. This RfC should be re-done and show exactly what content the proposer is suggesting we add with the reference in question. NickCT (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

RFC closure

I see no new editors opinions and no new arguments. continued repeating of same comments is unproductive. Since this issue is contentious, I will request formal closure by an uninvolved administrator.

• Boghog, Alexbrn, King, Jzg, SPACKlick, Lfstevens and Smartse oppose the source mentioned in the RFC question.
• DrChrissy, SageRad, myself, myverybestwishes, tsavage and Semitransgenic support the source
• Kmhkmh commented without expressing yes/No --maybe they can add that to their section ?
• Aside from the RFC question DrChrissy, SageRad, myself and DGG support the 2014 review first mentioned by DGG. --Wuerzele (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC) This editor was subsequently topic banned by ArbCom.

I requested closure as repeats and strawman arguments continue, and a discussion of alternative sources (2014 review) outside of the RFC make this section increasingly difficult to review.

Please do not add RFC comments in this section.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC) This editor was subsequently topic banned by ArbCom.

The request for closure is inappropriate at this time, especially going on only five days. RFCs typically last 30 days, and users requested by Legobot typically don't come in until some time has passed already. Even with the topic bans of multiple editors coming soon, there's no rush here or agreement to end this early. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The request for closure is appropriate at this time. The stalling is inappropriate, especially since no new editors no new opinions and no new arguments have surfaced.

Re "no rush": By King's advice the 3 deletions of sourced content over the last wee, that probably need >than 3 Rfc's times 30 days place us into spring 2016.

There is an obvious rush to delete instead of flagging. King ignores this, , Hogbin was the last Smartse ignored the advice, JzG ignored it, Boghog ignored it here and [7] and here creating a doublestandard. This is disearnest.--Wuerzele (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC) This editor was subsequently topic banned by ArbCom.

• Comment I had hoped to offer my thoughts but time is very short these days what with the holidays coming up. I thought that I still had time... Gandydancer (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You do. Weeks, in fact. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I cannot do the controversy as it stands justice, which would be good reason for recusing myself, but I think that part of my problem is that the article is an unnecessary and undesirable conflation of concerns. I say as much below and propose that the article should be separated into at least two articles, one dedicated to matters of controversy and the other(s) to matters of material fact. If there is any general feeling that there is merit to the suggestion I shall be willing to contribute, but otherwise I cannot see myself being of much value in the issue. JonRichfield (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Editors flagged as topic banned: Why?

Editors of some comments have been marked as topic banned. What is the purpose of this? IOW, do the reasons for the bans call into question their opinions? Is what is presented in each of the so-marked comments likely to be interpreted differently in light of the editor's ban, and if so, is that justified? If these comments were post before the editors were banned, then what is the relevance now - should all of their comments, or at least, their comments that could be considered current, going back, say the span of the ArbCom case, or perhaps in all non-archived related Talk pages, or for some other arbitrary period, be also marked? Maybe I'm missing something here...? --Tsavage (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I did that, and I'm fine with discussing it. As I understand it, it's pretty simple: if someone is topic banned from a topic, there is a consensus that their opinions are not considered helpful, based on conduct before the ban was issued and reflected in edits made before the ban. The topic bans were issued in the recent ArbCom GMO case. I didn't delete any comments, or even strike through them, but it seems to me that at a minimum, this information should be available to whoever determines the consensus when the RfC is closed. I only did it in this section, because there is a consensus to be formally determined, as an RfC. I didn't do it in other talk sections, although a case can be made for doing so. Where you ask about the time frame of before and after the ArbCom case, talk page edits made after the topic bans were issued would be struck or reverted and would result in blocks. Here, these are edits made shortly before the bans were issued, and which would be subject to interpretation while the bans are in effect. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

There's also the more pragmatic issue of people following up comments or questions and getting no response. Also a lot of edits and proposals were made in the closing days when the likely outcome was already clear. Guy (Help!) 01:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the position that a ban in the GMO case can be read as 'there is a consensus that their opinions are not considered helpful'. Bad behavior and bad opinions are not equivalent, and arbcom's findings target disruption/behavior issues in the topic area, not incompetence. Dialectric (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Some topics bans had already passed before the large push from those editors on the talk page in various areas. We also shouldn't be engaging in WP:PROXYING for these editors or their opinions they tried to bring up at the close of the case. A topic ban simply means the editor has no weight in discussion here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to see that this discussion about process is becoming, itself, a sort of proxy argument, with editors lining up to vote in favor of not labeling the edits. I am not arguing that the editors were "incompetent", for goodness' sakes. I'm saying that they are now banned from contributing to a consensus. And all of their comments are still here. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't care one way or another whether the names are tagged as banned, and I have no interest in voting on the issue. I do care if past comments from recently banned editors are being dismissed solely on the basis of their ban, when the comments were made before the ban was finalized. Dialectric (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Putting the tags there is not the same thing as dismissing the comments outright. Whoever assesses the consensus of the RfC will be able to see everything, including what we are discussing here, and place however much or little weight on any given comment that they deem appropriate. You would be absolutely right to object if anyone were blocked or otherwise sanctioned for having made the edits before the ban was finalized. But assessing the weight of a comment is not a punishment. It is an assessment of community consensus at the time the RfC is closed, and the close will necessarily be after the bans have come into effect. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this is outright bizarre, on top of being mean spirited. No, there's no consensus that a now topic banned user's opinions were unhelpful. Would you please stop this nonsense and self revert whatever scarlet letters you have imposed. Minor4th 02:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not bizarre. It is not intended to be mean spirited. It is not nonsense. They are not scarlet letters. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Then why flag them if not to draw attention to their topic ban and encourage discounting their opinions? I believe it is al the things I mentioned. Please revert and allow the closing admin to evaluate consensus without such influences.Minor4th 02:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

For those worried about the tagging, remember that the RfC will be closed based on a consensus of views. If the tagged views are held by a significant number of editors, they will be picked up and supported and expanded upon by other contributors. If no one agrees with and is willing to support them, then they do not reflect consensus anyway. For the record, I have not looked at the topic or formed a view, beyond that an ongoing debate about the tagging is unnecessary (at best) and counter-productive (at worst). EdChem (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The essential concern is not over whether the tagging affects the RfC, it is over the tagging. From the little I understand of ArbCom, it is a forum for behavioral issues, it does not speak to content, and its sanctions are not punitive, they are intended to alleviate problems. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm not, then how is labeling banned editors relevant to anything ongoing? And how is it not disruptive behavior to continue to highlight those editors? I'm not posting for the sake of arguing, and certainly not to defend anyone, I am sincerely, profoundly disturbed by this behavior, and more so by an environment that condones it. --Tsavage (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be saying that I am being disruptive, and that's a serious thing to say. I have, throughout this discussion, been polite and been open to discussing the issue, even when other editors have called me mean-spirited, nonsensical, and so forth. Here, I will go now to the AN link given in #FYI, below, and ask that an uninvolved administrator take a look, and either revert me or not. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

[8]. --Tryptofish (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)This editor has an axe to grind

bee section

@Kingofaces43, you recently reverted an entire new section from the article stating in your EC that "there isn't consensus for these sources in current talk page discussion". These sources have not been discussed before so you are correct, there is no consensus. What is your reason for deleting this section. Is it solely because they are primary sources?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This reversion is yet another example of the Delete-First-Ask-Questions-Later mentality which is causing so many problems - and Kingofaces43 has just run off to tell ArbCom that I am edit warring and trying to get sanctions against me. Talk about hypocrisy.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

And this not the proper venue for complaints or accusations. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You were already made aware in the above talk section that one specific source did not have consensus, and you added it in anyways (i.e., edit warring). Outside of that specific source, you've been told time and again here by many editors in multiple talk sections that this kind of primary sourcing is not appropriate in this controversial article and wouldn't have consensus. We need to stick to review articles here. There's no need to rehash this with you for the umpteenth time, especially with your upcoming topic ban. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

What I'm seeing here is another round of removing material that is unfavorable. Seems it is not that difficult to cite peer-reviewed journals on this. Montanabw^(talk) 09:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Given this is a highly controversial topic, it is appropriate to first gain consensus on the talk page before adding new material. It is also not that difficult to cite secondary sources. Boghog (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Does this also apply to removal of content?DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

If there was no consensus to add the content in the first place, then no. It is appropriate to remove statements that are not adequately supported by reliable sources. The burden of proof is on those adding controversial material to provide high quality sources, preferably secondary and discuss this on the talk page before attempting to re-add the material. And as the Gaupp-Berghausen 2015 study makes painfully clear, peer reivew does not automatically make a source reliable. Boghog (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Then you, Smartse and Kingofaces43 should have taken your deletions to the Talk page before making the edit.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

As there was no consensus to add this material in the first place, its removal without discussion was clearly justified. Before adding the material to the article, you should have discussed it on the talk page first. Boghog (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the section I would like to include. Kingofaces43 has already spuriously objected to this on the grounds the content is not from review articles, however, we do not need to rehash this for the umpteenth time. especially when his behaviour is being discussed at ArbCom.

Honeybees (Apis mellifera) are the main pollination vector in several commercial crops. They make multiple foraging trips each day which may be kilometres long. During these foraging trips, the honeybees obtain information about their journey by perceiving different sensory stimuli and use associative learning to establish links between them to assist their navigation. Groups of bees exposed either acutely or chronically to glyphosate concentrations within the range of recommended doses show a reduced sensitivity to sucrose and impaired learning performance. Similarly, honeybees fed with a solution containing 10 mg l⁻¹ glyphosate spend longer performing homeward flights than control bees or bees treated with lower concentrations, and their homeward flights are more indirect. The researchers concluded that "...in honeybees, exposure to levels of GLY [glyphosate] commonly found in agricultural settings impairs the cognitive capacities needed to retrieve and integrate spatial information for a successful return to the hive."

References

DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

On two occasions, the United States EPA has caught scientists deliberately falsifying test results at research laboratories hired by Monsanto to study glyphosate.

As far as I can see ther was no wrongdoing in the study of glyphosate, or have I missed something? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

There was apparently serious wrongdoing on the part of two laboratories, as far as i can tell, if that answers your question. SageRad (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

...but unrelated to Glyphosate. What is that statement doing in this article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Not directly answering your question, but just noting that two of the sources [9] [10] don't contain any mention of glyphosate or roundup. SmartSE (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You have missed something. There are three sources in that section, a Monsanto backgrounder on IBT and Craven is one of them[11], and it specifically mentions RoundUp and glyphosate regarding IBT (in the third sentence of the first paragraph of that report), and "pesticide residue" regarding Craven. A quick web search indicates a number of reliable sources specifically relating Craven to RoundUp and glyphosate. including the New York Times, in 1991: "a spokesman for Monsanto, said Craven has performed analytical chemistry studies for the company for 10 years and conducted 9 of the 15 residue studies needed to register Roundup"[12]. Apparently these were huge cases as far as lab fraud. Perhaps more detail is required if the content is not clear in the article. --Tsavage (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The article you refer to says, immediately after the mention of the invalid Roundup results, 'As a result, Monsanto repeated all the studies in accordance with applicable EPA testing guidelines. Today, no IBT-generated data are used to support glyphosate registration anywhere in the world'. So Monsano have done no wrong and there are no invalid Roundup results being used. The whole paragraph should go as it has nothing to to with Glyphosate. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It's part of the subject's history: from reading sources, these were major cases, and Monsanto held exclusive US rights during that period, so Monsanto was in effect glyphosate (in the US, at least) at that time - what is the argument for deleting well-sourced historical fact directly about the article topic? --Tsavage (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Because it has nothing to do with glyphosate. I.e., it's coat-racking. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Then argue to remove the entire section it's in, "Legal cases," because it seems to fit in that section, as much as ad controversies and trade issues. And if this isn't about glyphosate, and it's "coat-racking," what's the tangential point that's being made by including it? I understand the general concern, and I think it's arbitrary - if editors want to include legal issues related to glyphosate, and the material is well-sourced, what's the policy-based objection? --Tsavage (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

If there is no mention of glyphosate in the sources of this statement as SmartSE says, then the statement should be removed from the article. This article is about glyphosate, not Mosanto's legal issues. It looks to me as if the statement is intended to imply that current research funded by Monsanto is invalid. --Iamozy (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. The sentence seems to an attempt to improperly discredit Monsanto. I shall remove it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The sources do talk about glyphosate and this is part of the history of the chemical that is the subject of this article. I think the removal was not with consensus. SageRad (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin: If you are reading this discussion, which you started, I have indicated that all of the information in that piece has RS. In light of that, your deletion of content that you know is verifiable is against core policy:

"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. ... When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. (WP:CHALLENGE in WP:V)

Given this discussion, you are aware that the content is (easily) sourced where an existing source may be lacking, in part simply by duplicating one of the existing citations to apply it to another statement - this is literally spelled out above, directly in reply to your original post. And there is no consensus for removing a section of this article, just your opinion.

I will restore the section, and update citations, in a bit, if it remains deleted. If editors are concerned with the wording, well, address that. This move to summary deletion is against the spirit and letter of core policy, and only leads to unnecessary strife. This article is under Discretionary Sanctions, and as much as I personally dislike sanctions and appeals to authority, this sort of aggressive editing is, I believe, exactly what DS is meant to address. --Tsavage (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not in sourcing but in relevance. As far as can be determined from the cited sources, the deleted material has nothing to do with glyphosate. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Your query about sources was answered above, twice now. Deleting content as unsourced in the midst of ongoing discussion, and a discussion that clearly indicates sourcing, is counter to the recommendation of verifiability policy, and as we can see here, is disruptive.

• "Monsanto was one of several pesticide manufacturers who had used IBT test results. The audit found some toxicology studies conducted with the original Roundup® herbicide1to be invalid. As a result, Monsanto repeated all the studies in accordance with applicable EPA testing guidelines. Today, no IBT-generated data are used to support glyphosate registration anywhere in the world." -[13], a source already cited in the piece you deleted
• "Hundreds of residue studies for Monsanto agricultural products, required for product registration by the EPA, have been completed by Monsanto or by one of 16 independent laboratories that are used under contract. Of these, a small fraction were conducted at Craven Laboratories. Monsanto, along with other pesticide manufacturers, repeated the pesticide residue studies conducted at Craven Laboratories. The repeat studies cost Monsanto approximately $6.5 million. The damage caused to Monsanto's reputation by discussion of this issue by the media, and then further use by activists to question the integrity of Monsanto’s data, cannot be calculated. All affected residue studies have been repeated and the data are sound, up-to-date and have been accepted by the EPA."-[14], a source already cited in the piece you deleted
• "a spokesman for Monsanto, said Craven has performed analytical chemistry studies for the company for 10 years and conducted 9 of the 15 residue studies needed to register Roundup"[15] (New York Times 1991), additional clarifying source, already presented above

You seem to be studiously ignoring what has been plainly stated, in favor of deleting of well-supported content. In addition, as far as I can make out, you move between three different arguments, making discussion difficult. You variously claim:

• content is unsupported (content is supported, as has been demonstrated)
• content is irrelevant to this subject, glyphosate (sources clearly indicates relevance by direct mention of RoundUp and glyphosate)
• content is intended to discredit Monsanto (irrelevant speculation about editor behavior: reliable sourcing and noteworthiness to the topic determine content)

I suggest you self-revert your undue and unsupported content deletion.

(A little off-topic, but coincidentally interesting, I just now found that our article for Craven Laboratories is currently up for deletion.) --Tsavage (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

And? I still fail to see the relevance. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

ArtifexMayhem: Relevance? "Legal cases," an existing section - these are major cases involving glyphosate? History of glyphosate development and regulation? Interesting, well-sourced info about glyphosate? I'm not sure how your seeing the relevance pertains to inclusion: if the content is reliably sourced, and is directly about the subject of the article, you need a significant reason to propose exclusion. Editors determine what is included in articles on this basis. If you have a clear, policy-based objection, please state it. --Tsavage (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Might be interesting information for an article about the labs that committed the fraud, but we are going to need some actual sources that indicate these are "major cases involving glyphosate." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

(←) The subject is glyphosate - have you read the relevant sources, or all of this thread? Speaking to the connection between these major cases and glyphosate (repeating from above):

• "Craven ... conducted 9 of the 15 residue studies needed to register Roundup."
• According to Monsanto: "The repeat studies cost Monsanto approximately $6.5 million. The damage caused to Monsanto's reputation by discussion of this issue by the media, and then further use by activists to question the integrity of Monsanto’s data, cannot be calculated. All affected residue studies have been repeated"
• In our article, IBT was described at the time as "the most massive scientific scandal in the history of this country and perhaps the world." According to Monsanto, about IDT: "some toxicology studies conducted with the original Roundup® herbicide1 [were found] to be invalid. As a result, Monsanto repeated all the studies in accordance with applicable EPA testing guidelines"

Many products and tests were involved in these cases, and glyphosate was one of them, to the point where tests critical to glyphosate approval had to be redone. Major cases, involving glyphosate. --Tsavage (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary

I second Tsavage's comment. Martin Hogbin's opening statement was immediately replied to and corrected by sageRad, further responded to by Tsavage, demonstrating that the section is related to Glyphosate. Hogbin did not counter that argument, but switched the topic arguing, Monsanto had done nothing wrong, quoting from NYT "Today, no IBT-generated data are used to support glyphosate registration anywhere in the world", and thereby acknowledged that the matter had to do with glyphosate. In summary:

• there remains no reason why to delete a well-sourced historical fact.
• this is the third wholesale deletion (first, second) by the same group of editors here: Hogbin, Smartse, echoed by Iamozy, rouge administrator Jzg, KIngofaces, Geogene, and brandnew contributor ArtifexMayhem with remarkably advanced WP skills, who cast doubt on sourced info WP:FUD, and undermine any info that negatively reflects on glyphosate and or Monsanto.
• the editors state clearly why they want the section gone: it "discredits Monsanto" (Hogbin); Iamozy speculates an "intention to imply that current research funded by Monsanto is invalid". This is WP:POV editing. --Wuerzele (talk) 08:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you mean to link Wikipedia:Fair use deletion? Regardless, I know what insult you were going for. See WP:SHUN and enjoy your topic ban. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

ArtifexMayhem, first please indent your replies. second: looks like you are trying to bait me, -forget it. also you write totally offtopic stuff above. --Wuerzele (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you intentionally misinterpreting the arguments stated above? The question of the intent for the inclusion and wording of the info is relevant, because it could be indicative of editing that violates WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. --Iamozy (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Iamoz]] more rhethoric. that is bad. you dont want to earnestly discuss if you use such tactics. You speculated an anonymous intention present in teh article, that is completely unproven "intention to imply that current research funded by Monsanto is invalid". I dont see where I misinterpret. you are doing it. but that's the point It is not about me, you just make it so. I watch what This is WP:TENDENTIOUS editing.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Legitimately discussing bias in an article is the point of this discussion. I am not an advocate for Monsanto as you so rudely suggest. I came here because there was a request for comment, and a bot invited me. My only interest in this discussion is to accurately represent the information in the most neutral way. Don't play the victim when you are the one making ignorant, baseless accusations. --Iamozy (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

On two occasions, the United States EPA has caught scientists deliberately falsifying test results at research laboratories hired by Monsanto to study glyphosate implies that Monsanto hires labs to deliberately falsify results. There's also the question of due weight. It's fact that it happened, how important is it to glyphosate? Geogene (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Geogene, pease indent your responses; you come with another speculation ("implies that". ) Tsavage addressed the importance in detail above. it looks like you WP:I can't hear. This is disearnest behavior and ultimately WP:disruptive.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Wuerzele, don't address me again unless you have something of substance. Geogene (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin, Iamozy, Geogene: I believe its ok to say what you mean, no need to circle the point. Some of the wording of the section, while factual and accurate, may seem to be trying to present glyphosate and/or Monsanto in as negative a light as possible. For example, an evocative word like "caught" - caught cheating, caught in the act - and"deliberately" used redundantly to emphasize "falsifying" add a certain tone, sure, and it's also not great writing to entertain the humble reader. As I mentioned earlier, reword, then, improve the content, as POLICY suggests. Meanwhile, discussing possible editor bias and bad intentions, and outright deleting the content, is against policy, and doesn't make much practical sense, either. All it does well is create a contentious editing environment. --Tsavage (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact remains that this history has no relevance to the safety of glyphosate, and that the wording is problematic for the reasons I've already given. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and sourcing a fact doesn't mean it must be included. WP:Burden is on the editors that want it included. And finally, there's no policy that says you can't delete sourced information. Geogene (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It's pointless to argue about arguing. When I get a chance, I'll rewrite and post the section, and if there is a problem, request a formal close on this discussion, where your arguments have been made clear. --Tsavage (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussing bias is directly relevant to the topic at hand. I brought up the possibility in the most gentle way possible, and I made no accusations of any particular user. As you acknowledge, the wording did appear to be biased, and that was exactly my point. --Iamozy (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Separation of concerns

When there are strong disagreements on topics related to a factual subject, it is time to look very carefully at which topics are directly and unavoidably linked and need to be in the same article. If they are not, they should be split into separate articles, even if in the absence of dispute, they could equally well be combined. When we deal with a topic such as a chemical about which there is political or biological dispute and finger pointing, such as in discussing most pesticides, then it very commonly is constructive to put the politics and controversy and their history into a separate (but linked) article. In this case I should put the chemistry, applications, and any technical history into one article (the present one) and create a new article say, Glyphosate (concerns) or possibly Glyphosate (controversy). The result could be two useful articles, instead of one time-wasting mess. JonRichfield (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

JonRichfield: I agree that the separation you suggest is useful when applicable, I believe the whole WP:SUMMARY approach with its spinoff articles is based on essential that principle (minus, and in some cases cautioning against, the disagreement criterion). However, suggesting that article content be separated largely in order to in some way keep the peace is another matter (even if that separation is based on a "careful look" at what really belongs where). One concern your approach raises, as soon as an aspect of an article appears controversial, which can happen rather easily - see the dispute above, the one with the really long section title - then by your reasoning, there is an argument to segregate the problem into its own article, which in turn some might say, effectively buries the controversial information. You say "but linked" - if by that you mean a section that summarizes a separate article, that's fine, and we're back to WP:SUMMARY (which considers the notability requirements for standalone articles, and avoiding POV splits).

Until there is sufficient information to suggest a spinoff article, keeping all aspects of a topic together, appropriately sectioned, is our common PAG-based approach, probably for good reason. --Tsavage (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

While I agree with the sentiment as this article is far from providing a balanced view of the available sources, creating a WP:POVFORK would only make this worse. The focus should be on ensuring all content is from high-quality secondary sources. SmartSE (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

SmartSE" "this article is far from providing a balanced view of the available sources" If you can see that that's the case, are aware of what is not balanced, and therefore what is over- or underemphasized, and what is missing or shouldn't be here, I suggest you write a quick point form list or outline. A simple list of the main points should take a few minutes, and certainly a lot less time than arguing just one or two points piecemeal. I would do that in a heartbeat if I had that ready overview of this subject. --Tsavage (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage Well it's mostly a list of bad things about glyphosate - should we list the toxicity to every animal group and note every plant species that has become resistant? While there are two schematics of the synthesis there are no references and no text about them. How much is produced and where is it produced? How has use changed over time? What are the advantages of it over other herbicides e.g. lower toxicity, controlling perennials, allowing Conservation tillage? When did it go on sale? When did Monsanto's patent expire? SmartSE (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

SmartSE: That's a step in the right direction! I'll start a new section, with yourlist broken out into handy bullet points.

Interestingly, part of your list suggests an idea I've had for a while and only briefly mentioned elsewhere once, a form of usability testing: a simple test to measure an article's comprehensiveness, organization, and overall readability, one that can be performed by anyone and is almost impossible to skew. We create simple basic questions about a subject that readers would likely ask (we can use published FAQs and other sources to augment common sense), and see how easily the article answers them. For example:

• When did it go on sale?
• When did Monsanto's patent expire?
• Did Monsanto have exclusive rights around the world?
• What are the advantages of it over other herbicides?
• Is RoundUp the same as glyphosate?

...and so forth.

No matter how biased one may be, it's practically impossible not to come to agreement on simple wording, let alone to argue for exclusion of a Talk page QUESTION entirely, and then, to not see whether the article quickly and easily answers the question... Usability testing for the win! --Tsavage (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Is Monsanto fact-sheet RS?

In the article we have - Monsanto's education sheet on soil microbes from 2011 argues that abundant tests have been done to satisfy regulators, that laboratory based tests are inferior to field tests and focuses on an "undisturbed" Rhizobium relationship. My question is simple. Should the fact-sheet of the manufacturer of such a controversial substance be considered as RS? To my mind, the COI is so overwhelming, it should not.

References

DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems to me, we should just use the sources that are cited in that fact sheet for the claim:

11. Estok, D., B. Freedman, and D. Boyle. 1989. Effects of the herbicides 2,4-D, glyphosate, hexazinone, and triclopyr on the growth of three species of ectomycorrhizal fungi. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 42:835-839.

12. Busse, M.D., A.W. Ratcliff, C.J. Shestak, and R.F. Powers. 2001. Glyphosate toxicity and the effects of long-term vegetation control on soil microbial communities. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 33:1777-1789.

13. Wan, M.T., J.E. Rahe, and R.G. Watts. 1998. A new technique for determining the sublethal toxicity of pesticides to the vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus intraradices. Environmental Toxicology Chemistry 17(7):14-21.jps (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Chemical company documents should not be used for any scientific claims that overlap with areas covered by independent peer-reviewed studies and review articles. The sources cited in the fact sheet appear to be studies rather than reviews; per past discussion on this page, review articles are greatly preferred and cause less conflict - do we have any review articles which cover the effects of glyphosate on soil microbes? Dialectric (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's a relatively highly cited one: Angela D. Kent1 and Eric W. Triplett Microbial Communities and Their Interactions in Soil and Rhizosphere Ecosystems Annual Review of Microbiology, Vol. 56: 211-236. October 2002. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.micro.56.012302.161120. jps (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Monsanto is not generally an RS re glyphosate. They do primary research. We should work to replace primaries with secondaries throughout these articles. Lfstevens (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

we can't really have double standards here now, can we? Monsanto is the primary source when it comes to all things Monsanto, in protecting their own interests (as with any profit making entity) they use a particular frame of reference, revert to the secondary sources, cite what they say, not what Monsanto states they say. Semitransgenic _talk. 11:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

so far there seems to be agreement that what Monsanto calls "fact sheet" (which could be called adverstisement material by another name) should not be used. I agree with dialectric that the 3 studies monsanto cites from 1989, 1998, 2001 should also not be used, for various reasons, outdated, (even though the "fact sheet" is recent) primary sources etc. worse than the sources though is the claim that the "fact sheet" supports.--Wuerzele (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That fact sheet is RS for Monsanto's opinion, as long as it's attributed in Monsanto's voice. Something like "In 2011, Monsanto said that abundant tests had been done to satisfy regulators....". Calling it an "education sheet" wasn't neutral. Geogene (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to note, the primary sources used in the "fact sheet" are quite/very dated. The most recent I can find is 2010 and there is even one from 1989 (read a quarter of a century old)! The majority (I could be wrong) appear to be pre-2005.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy see my comment and jps's.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It's their opinion, whether it's based on reality or not is a separate issue. If it's not, then tell the truth in Wikipedia's voice right below and cite a bunch of more recent independent studies. Geogene (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)oposal

Can anyone clarify this please

In the article we have: "The findings of negative effects of glyphosate on earthworms has been criticized"

Unfortunately, I do not have full access to the Giesy article, but the title leads me to suspect the criticism relates to GBRs rather than Glyphosate per se. Can someone who has full access to this article clarify this, please.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

That sentence is too vague to mean much, especially when most people won't be able to access the source, and we have a 2014 review much more recent than that 2000 review now. SageRad (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The 2014 review doesn't conclude anything beyond we need more data. The 2000 review is still the best one we have. Boghog (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The 2014 review does summarize results from a number of primary studies that show reduce viability of earthworms on exposure to glyphosate. As for the content currently in the article being questioned in this section, i think it's WP:WEASEL and not specific enough to mean anything. I think that should simply be removed because it adds nothing specific to the article except a tone of favorability toward glyphosate, and therefore strikes me as not WP:NPOV and not adding anything to the article. It's a strange fragment. If we're going to describe the state of the art in regard to glyphosate effects on earthworms, this is not how it would be done. Better to leave this weasel sentence out altogether and start fresh on the topic.

By the way, the continuation of that sentence (... and conflicts with results from 1989 field studies where no effects were noted for a number of nematodes, mites, or springtails after treatment with Roundup at 2 kg/ha of active ingredient) also makes no sense and sounds WP:WEASEL, because springtails, mites, and nematodes are not earthworms. That seems like synthesis to me. SageRad (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree with SageRad, whose reasoning is clear and direct. Jusdafax 12:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think we have consensus that the sentence, and the following one should be deleted. I am going to risk being hammered by some editors and taken to one noticeboard or another, and delete these (does anybody else feel like editing this page is a "risk"?).DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Letter by 96 scientists

An editor added and another editor removed content on an open letter by 96 scientists about the EFSA evaluation of glyphosate. The revert edit reason was "Bring reliable independent coverage establishing significance. (TW)".

I found this article at Deutsche Welle by Gero Rueter, Ruby Russell covering it. SageRad (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for civility and hard work.

I know this is not about content. I hope you'll forgive me. I want to thank all the editors here for all the hard work, and for remaining civil. This is an incredibly contentious article, as it represents a contentious debate in the world at large. Of late, we've been managing to describe the battleground without becoming the battleground, and that is a good development in the history of this article. We need to get the article right, according to WP:V and WP:NPOV. That takes people with all points of view working as colleagues, and i think we've been able to do that in the last few days. Thank you, from one editor to another. SageRad (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

And thank you SageRad for your measured and positive attitude to us all now working here under DS. The article is now improving, although perhaps a little slower than some of us would like.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

GBFs and amphibians

I propose to insert the following text

The half-life of the surfactant POEA (associated with GBFs) in the aquatic environment has been conservatively estimated at 21–41 days.

and

The toxicity effects of pesticides on amphibians may be different to those of other aquatic fauna because of their lifestyle. Amphibians may be more susceptible to the toxic effects of pesticides because they often prefer to breed in shallow, lentic or ephemeral pools. These habitats do not necessarily constitute formal water-bodies and can contain higher concentrations of pesticide compared to larger water-bodies. Studies in a variety of amphibians have shown the relatively high toxicity of GBFs containing POEA to amphibian larvae. These effects include interference with gill morphology and mortality from either the loss of osmotic stability or asphyxiation. At sub-lethal concentrations, exposure to POEA or glyphosate/POEA formulations have been reported to result in delayed development, accelerated development, reduced size at metamorphosis, developmental malformations of the tail, mouth, eye and head, histological indications of intersex and symptoms of oxidative stress.

References

DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

First, thanks for bringing this to Talk. I object to "may be". I.e., it also may not be. Does the review quantify the risk? It's worth noting whether these risks are greater in GBFs than in alternative herbicides. If GBFs offer the lowest risk...A quote would be the best move. It also says "relatively high", but not compared to what. Context is necessary. Also "result in". Does the review support causality, or is this more the epidemiological "associated with"?

I assume the suboordinate points are all substantiated by the source, but have not examined it. Also, I tweaked your cite. Lfstevens (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes. One more thing: if you say "some researchers" you don't say "may be". You are fine to say "are" unless the research actually says the latter. Lfstevens (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

"Vision" GBF content

The article contains:

In 2001, the Monsanto product Vision® was studied in a forest wetlands site in Canada. Substantial mortality occurred only at concentrations exceeding the expected environmental concentrations as calculated by Canadian regulatory authorities. While it was found that site factors such as pH and suspended sediments substantially affected the toxicity in the amphibian larvae tested, overall, "results suggest that the silvicultural use of Vision herbicide in accordance with the product label and standard Canadian environmental regulations should have negligible adverse effects on sensitive larval life stages of native amphibians."[116]

The reference is a primary source and therefore I propose that this content is deleted.

DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

So, thiis a test case. We have enormous amounts of primary research in these articles. Do we delete it all? Do we delete one pro-claim along with one anti-claim? I think both are too radical. I think we should adopt a procedure that won't drive the combatants back into war mode. How about:

• If a claim looks bad to somebody, they present an opposing primary source of comparable worth, preferably more recent, or a more recent review.
• They also present the way they want the revised text to read.
• Everybody chimes in and majority rules.

Please propose revisions to this as you like.

There is no justification in policy to delete all primary sources wherever they occur. Geogene (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Majority rules isn't how Wikipedia works, but the best thing to do at this point is just wait for editors deemed disruptive by ArbCom to have their topic bans formally instated and not engage them or the behavior issues we've been seeing here from them in the meantime. Once those editors are removed and the dust settles, that will be the best time to see how to move forward. I get the feeling we'll have a lot less pushing for primary sources at that time, and we can defer to secondary sources instead as our policies and guidelines say we should in situations like this. The last thing we want is to deal with a dueling primaries situation where editors can cherrypick the sources they want and engage in original research to assess the weight of the primary source.

That all being said, I do agree there is a lot of primary literature that has snuck it's way into this article (usually by edit warring and it remaining at the time the article was locked down). There will be some cleanup to do on that front, but best wait until the ArbCom case if formally closed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

So is that support or oppose?DrChrissy ^(talk) 01:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a wait until the case is closed. There's no rush here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• For continuity of this thread: I previously replied here thanking Kingofaces43 for their clarification. However, my edit was deleted by @I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc:. I remind the user that WP:TPO states "...you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." I invite I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc to self revert your reversion.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like an unfriendly and not-content-related reply. Just cause you're "on the side that's winning" doesn't mean you're right. Advocating delay so that editors who you disagree with will be gone is gaming the system. Yes, "pesky DrChrissy" and "pesky SageRad" will not be able to edit here anymore, but thank goodness there are a good number of other very skilled, very smart, and very talented editors who edit according to principles, with integrity to sourcing and WP:NPOV, so i feel confident that the topic area is in good hands. The way Kingofaces43 speaks above is evidence of a battleground mentality. SageRad (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Glyphosate does kill and inhibit bacterial growth

Regarding this edit, it is quite clear, eminently clear from the literature on glyphosate, that it does kill bacteria and at lower levels inhibits bacterial growth. Therefore the deletion does not serve accuracy of the article in relation to reality. The paper originally cited does indeed show that glyphosate inhibits the EPSPS enzyme from a bacteria (Aerobacter aerogenes) at concentrations of 5 to 7 uM. I added the Jaworski (1972) paper because it confirms with earlier results the inhibition of Rhizobacterium japonicum at similar levels, in whole living cell form, so this adds confirmation of inhibition of bacteria in vivo (which is also confirmed by dozens of later papers, so a deletion would be contrary to actuality). I added "inhibition and eventual death" because this more accurate to the way the glyphosate kills. It's not instantaneous but rather starved the organism of aromatic amino acids if they are not exogenously available. SageRad (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Neither of those sources come even close to supporting the "many bacteria" claim though. SmartSE (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@SageRad: Of course glyphosate kills some strains of bacteria as already descibed in antimicrobial activity section. This is not controversial. It is also important to note that other strains of bacteria are resistant to glyphosate and are essential to its degradation. The the biochemistry section explains the basic mechanism of action of glyphosate and it should be clear that any organism that relies on EPSPS to synthesize aromatic amino acids will be adversely affected. Boghog (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the reason I reverted your edit was that this material is better discussed in the antimicrobial activity, not the biochemistry section. Boghog (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Then why did you not move it or discuss it? We are supposed to be avoiding reversions on here. Your revert is very probably inflammatory to the already heated feelings on here.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Because it simply does not belong in that section and is in fact redundant. Boghog (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The reversion of my edit is against consensus and the edit reason calling my edit "irresponsible" is absurd and accusatory. The Jaworski paper is a seminal paper, in fact is THE seminal paper on glyphosate, and it very notably includes effects on bacteria as well as plants in its presentation of the biochemist of glyphosate. So do many secondary sources citing that paper. To not include that dynamic here is top deny half the reality of the chemical. Which "side" here is on the side of science, and which "side" here is pushing a POV? It's quite obvious to me. Let this be an object lesson in the reality of the social dynamics in this topic area. Let the arbs observe what is going on here. Let them see the behavior they have aligned with. SageRad (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

No one disputes glyphosate has adverse affects on some bacteria. The only reason that I removed it is that belongs here, not here. Your edit is simply out of place. Boghog (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's in exactly the right place. We want the biochemistry section to describe the biochemistry of the chemical, right? A complete description of the biochemistry includes that which was found to be the way it works in biological organisms, from day one, by Ernest Jaworski in 1972, and includes how it affects all living organisms (who fall under the topic of biochemistry) and is described in detail in numerous primary and secondary sources from the 1970s to the present. Dozens if not hundreds of papers have focused on the biochemistry of glyphosate and described effects on microbes. To omit it here would be WP:UNDUE, and why does it take extreme measures to make this point? Why are you pushing to omit a real and salient aspect of the chemical's biochemistry from the biochemistry section of the article about the chemical? Please answer me that. Thank you and good day. SageRad (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Where the Ernest Jaworski 1972 paper really belongs is in the discovery section. The paper by Jaworski suggested but didn't prove that glyphosate interferes with aromatic amino acid biosynthesis and suggested but didn't specify which enzyme was inhibited. The proof came later from Steinrücken and Amrhein (1980) which is already cited in the section. Also the Jaworski 1972 paper only examined one species of bacteria. Hence the paper cannot be used to support the statement that glyphosate kills "many bacteria". The biochemistry section should concentrate on the mechanism of action, not how many species of bacteria are killed by glyphosate. No one is disputing that glyphosate is harmful to some bacteria. The only dispute is where best to present this. Boghog (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I am literally taking a break from farm work, clearing vines and weeds from around the fields, sitting in my pickup truck, to make sure the article about glyphs reflects reality, while people for god knows what reason are pushing against the actual science to change the article toward what the industry would prefer. And for this kind of work, I'm being topic banned. Those with eyes can see the absurdity of this. SageRad (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

SageRad, I am sure reasonable editors are seeing what is going on. It is indeed an irony that others are suggesting that the editing you and I are doing at the moment on this page is somehow "undesireable" or sticking 2 fingers up at ArbCom because of their current vote, not a decision. You and I are both POV pushing...the POV is to leave the article a better article than we found it. I am exasperated at the amount of incivility and ****-stirring this attracts. Wishing you peace. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

We're arguing over where in the article an agreed-upon statement goes? Seriously? Or maybe on whether reverts are acceptable? I agree with Boghog on the former and with Sagerad on the latter. Can everybody just take a breath? Lfstevens (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It is important you recognise the background to this. Kingofaces43 considers it acceptable to be criticising edits and editors on the basis of the possibility of a topic ban by ArbCom when their own behaviour is also under investigation at ArbCom. I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc feels it is ok to completely delete a posting of mine on this talk page where I thank another user. Now we have Boghog deleting and then admitting they should have discussed this first. And you wonder why breaths are needed?DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I edited the biochemistry section to state that Glyphosate kills organisms by interfering with the synthesis of the aromatic amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan. The actuality of glyphosate is that it kills plants and some microbes in those ways, so either we include microbes in the list of organisms affected, or we just say "organisms". Either way is accurate. To say only "plants" is inaccurate by omission. The fact that there is information about glyphosate's effects on microbes elsewhere is not a reason to make the biochemistry section less accurate. SageRad (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The term "organism" is also inaccurate because it is too broad. The fact remains that higher plants are most sensitive to glyphosate, some bacteria are also sensitive, and animals are insentive since they don't express EPSPS. Hence the use of the term organism is misleading. Most reviews that discuss mechanism of action refer to glyphosate killing plants:

• glyphosate kills plants by inhibiting the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase – PMID 2679650, see also Plant Biotechnology and Genetics: Principles, Techniques and Applications and Glyphosate Resistance in Crops and Weeds.

Google search statistics:

• "glyphosate kills plants" – About 1 640 results
• "glyphosate kills organisms" – 2 results

It is also relevant to note that Most studies show little to no effect of glyphosate and other herbicides on soil microbial communities – PMID 20077127. Many bacteria species are resistant to glyphosate because (1) their 5-enolpyruvylshikimate 3-phosphate synthase activity (encoded by aroA) is insensitive to glyphosate, (2) they have carbon-phosphorus lyases that degrade it and use it as a phosphate source, and/or (3) over express membrane efflux transporters that pump out glyphosate from the cell (PMID 24600043). The biochemistry section already mentions that some bacteria express glyphosate sensitive EPSPS. Either we change the wording to state Glyphosate kills organisms that express glyphosate sensitive EPSPS or change it back to the original wording which is much simpler and more acccurate. Boghog (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It is significant that the wording "it kills plants" dates back to 11 August 2003, the very first version of this article. This wording has not been changed until now. Boghog (talk) 08:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you're getting pedantic here. Glyphosate kills organisms that contain sensitive forms of EPSPS. That does not include animals' somatic cells. That does include many microbes as well as some archaea and fungi. So, originally the text stated "plants and some microbes" but you changed it to only "plants". I changed it back to include bacteria with another citation and then it got again reverted.... so then i changed it to "organisms" and now you're objecting citing search statistics... you see, there would be hundreds of hits of you search on glyphosate and bacteria, as well, as that's a huge area of research, but you're objecting to including bacteria and want to state only "plants" -- i'm not really interested in lawyerly argumentation. I'm interested in representing the honest reality about glyphosate according to sources, without concern for whether it "sounds better" for the industry or for activists opposed to the industry. What's the reality of it? Why do you continue to push for only stating "plants" in this section about biochemistry of a chemical? Why does it concern you if it states "plants and bacteria" as seems to be most notable in the literature? SageRad (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, you're wrong about most studies saying that glyphosate has little or no effect on soil microbial communities. It also has an effect on endophytic microbial communities. But i'm not debating that here, and that's not the question, so it's a red herring in this dialogue. I don't understand your positions here and why you're arguing this way, seemingly defensive about the chemical glyphosate. SageRad (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't change it to plants. I just restored it back to the state which existed continously from the date this article was created (11 August 2003) until yesterday (11 December 2015)‎ and also to the way it is described in reliable sources. I also restored it because the wording "kills organisms" is highly misleading. This wording immediately raises the question, kills which organisms? One could qualify this statement by writing "glyphosate kills organisms that are dependent on a glyphosate sensitive EPSPS for aromatic amino acid synthesis and do not express carbon-phosphorus lyases nor express glyphosate membrane efflux transporters". This will immediately confuse most readers. It is much better to simply state that "glyphosate kills plants" and expanded the list of things it kills as this article already does. Finally one could ask the same question of you. Why are you so intent on describing glyphosate in the worst possible light? As this is a highly controversial subject, it is essential that we describe glyphosate the same way as reliable secondary sources do. Boghog (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Right, it wasn't you that changed it to plants, it was SmartSE here who deleted "and many bacteria" and you argued for that change. The status quo was "plants and many bacteria" which is accurate. I want the article to be accurate. I have no other agenda. I reject your aspersion and resent it. I push back when someone pushes something inaccurate into an article. That's the pushing i do, for accuracy. To say "plants" is not accurate. It omits a great body of literature that represents glyphosate's effects on bacteria. Yes, i know "organisms" is not the ideal solution and could be misconstrued, but the ideal solution is to keep it how is was before. You're refusing to accept that. So will you accept "plants and many bacteria"? This article needs to represent science and not what would be best for any interest group or special point of view. SageRad (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Because Gly kills both plants and bacteria as agreed by Boghog above, I agree with SageRad that it is misleading by omission to state only plants.

By the way, this is referenced by a 1980, primary source. Shock! Horror!

DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, after further digging, the phrase "and many bacteria" was added by SageRad on 7 April 2015. What Smartse stated in this edit summary was the supplied sources did not support this statement and this is true. Again, no one disputes that glyphosate kills some bacteria. I would support changing the wording to "kills plants and some bacteria" if were backup by a proper source. The phrase "kills organisms" is too broad and can easily be misinterpreted. Boghog (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Does it not also kill some archea and fungi?DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It does indeed inhibit metabolism in archaea and fungi, but i also do agree with Boghog that "organisms" sounds too broad and verges on "scare sounding" language that i would like to avoid. I do understand that point. The main organisms that have been investigated in the literature have been plants, of course, and bacteria, quite significantly. It's quite easily done to find many papers that support the bacteria point, include secondary sources. Let's continue this discussion, though, about how to represent the subject accurately. Of course, the long phrase that Boghog wrote above -- glyphosate kills organisms that are dependent on a glyphosate sensitive EPSPS for aromatic amino acid synthesis and do not express carbon-phosphorus lyases nor express glyphosate membrane efflux transporters -- is totally accurate, but it's also unwieldy and confusing for the lay reader. We could use "some organisms, mainly plants and bacteria". Let's continue to discuss in a spirit of generosity and good faith. SageRad (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I had initially written a suggestion to insert "...kills some organisms..." but thought that you both rejected the word "organisms". We could also parenthetically include the organisms "...kills some organisms (various plants, bacteria, arachea and fungi)..."DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

My 2 cents on this is that "some organisms" is different from "organisms", is accurate, and has less of a tone of scare than "organisms" alone. SageRad (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Another recent review relevant to this thread and the area of discussion is Wolmarans, K., & Swart, W. J. (2014). Influence of glyphosate, other herbicides and genetically modified herbicide-resistant crops on soil microbiota: a review. South African Journal of Plant and Soil, 31(4), 177-186.[16] DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for locating the review. The review points out that there are contradictory studies with respect to glyphosate effects on micro-organisms. The review says little on the direct effects of glyphosate on individual species of bacteria or fungi but does suggest that glyphosate may act as a microbiocide on some species while other species that can use glyphosate as a phosphate and/or carbon source may be selected for. Hence glyphosate usage may cause shifts in bacteria and fungi communities. The review also states Most herbicides used at normal field rates are generally considered to have no major or long-term effect on gross soil microbial activities. The main conclusion of the review is that Glyphosate application may increase soil microbial activity, which may be either beneficial or detrimental toward plant growth, and soil quality. My reading of this review is that it can be used as a source to support "glyphosate usage may cause shifts in soil microbe communities" but cannot be used to support the assertion that "glyphosate kills many bacteria". Boghog (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

highly toxic to amphibians

I would like to introduce the following.

Glyphosate herbicides are classified as "moderately to highly toxic to amphibians".

References

And using the same reference -

Tadpoles are detritivores and may therefore ingest glyphosate and POEA even when they have been adsorbed to bottom sediments.

DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Is that peer reviewed? Lfstevens (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Back to bees

I would like to introduce-

Glyphosate per se has virtually no toxicity for honey bees, however, common formulations such as Weathermax® do.

The source is here [17]

DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

See comment below. Same deal. Lfstevens (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

GBF's are unusual in their toxicity

I have read several statements similar to the following-

"Quite unusual for a pesticide formulation is the co-formulant considered to be more toxic than the active ingredient." when discussing GBFs.

page 325 in Castro, M. J., Ojeda, C., & Cirelli, A. F. (2013). Surfactants in agriculture. In Green Materials for Energy, Products and Depollution (pp. 287-334). Springer Netherlands. [18]

Should this be included?

DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Aren't those surfactants used in other pesticides? Why do they become more dangerous mixed with glyphosate? Lfstevens (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Trade secrets

@Gandydancer and ArtifexMayhem: The statement Glyphosate-based formulations (GBFs) may contain a number of adjuvants, the identities of which are considered trade secrets. was added in this edit. It is implies that the EPA allows holding adjuvant information as trade secrets. What the manual states about confidential business information (CBI):

• FIFRA section 10(d)(1) limits the types of data that may be claimed confidential. Safety and efficacy data (such as studies submitted to the Agency) on registered or previously registered pesticides are not considered CBI and must be made available to the public.
• Certain information is excluded from the definition of safety and efficacy data, and may therefore be claimed as CBI, such as information that discloses the identity or percentage quantity of deliberately added inert ingredients (FIFRA 10(d)(1)(C)).

First of all, the source is an EPA document that applies to the US, not to the rest of the world. Second, the statement is misleading since not all adjuvants in pesiticide formulations are treated as trade secrets. The manufacturer must request trade a secret exemption. It is not automatically granted. Third, it appears that only adjuvants that are generally considered as inert (i.e., safe) can be granted this trade secret exemption. According to the Guidance for Requesting the Approval of a New Nonfood Use Inert Ingredient, the EPA makes a determination whether the inert ingredient is safe before approving it. It would be more accurate to state: Glyphosate-based formulations (GBFs) may contain a number of inert adjuvants, the identities of which may be held as trade secrets in the United States if the EPA determines that the adjuvant is safe. Boghog (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

According to the EPA Basic Information about Pesticide Ingredients, All inert ingredients must be approved by EPA before they can be included in a pesticide.. Boghog (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, that seems like a good idea. I would consider adding the identities of which may be held as trade secrets in the United States if the EPA determines that the adjuvant is safe., but I would like to delete "in the United States" because I do not believe that to be accurate. Gandydancer (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

But the source doesn't say anything about the rest of the world. Other countries may have similar regulations, but we need a source that states that. Boghog (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Do we have any sources that cover real formulations containing secret ingredients, or are we making stuff up? The original source was propaganda. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Clearly US Federal Regulations allow it:

• Johnson, Barry L. (2007). "Chapter 7.2: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)". Environmental Policy and Public Health. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press. pp. 262–266. ISBN 978-0-8493-8434-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |name-list-format= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)

and this is a recent source that covers the controversy:

• Erickson, Britt E. (January 2015). "Pesticide Industry Stands Firm Amid Pressure to Reveal Identity of Inert Ingredients". Chemical & Engineering News. 93 (2): 22–23. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |name-list-format= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)

Boghog (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, clearly they do allow it. However, my question is how this tidbit of information is germane to the specific topic of this article? I'm not necessarily against inclusion, but I question the relevance. If it is included then it should probably be clarified as suggested above by Gandydancer. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Ingredients are generally germane; so the reality that some are not disclosed is also germane. I favor Gandydancer's phrasing and am fine with adding additional sourcing if that will help. Montanabw^(talk) 02:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

At the very least it should be clarified with something along the lines of Boghog's suggestion above, ...the identities of which may be held as trade secrets in the United States if the EPA determines that the adjuvant is safe. Otherwise we risk inferring a total lack of oversight. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

How about this: ...the identities of which may be held as trade secrets in the United States and not listed on the product label if the EPA determines the adjuvant to be safe. Gandydancer (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

in the United States Boghog (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I deleted the words in the United States - we don't need them. Gandydancer (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The source supplied only applies to the US and one cannot exptrapolate to the rest of the world based on this one source. I do not believe that to be accurate doesn't cut it. Per WP:V, we need a source that applies to other countries in addition to the US. Boghog (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

FAQ page?

Now that the case has closed and DS imposed, I suggest that this talk page include a FAQ per {{FAQ page}} (either on this page or on a linked page, examples: Talk:Race and intelligence/FAQ or Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson) here that reflects past consensus on topics that come around again and again but are buried in the archives. This will assist in avoiding misunderstandings and good faith bold editing. Consensus can always change, but it is helpful to know if a prior consensus existed. Montanabw^(talk) 02:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't typically have overarching things that would normally be listed in a FAQ (e.g., consensus of saftey on GMOs), but rather smaller more ephemeral making it tough to predict what may be a question in the future. That being said, I did add one template I've found to be a helpful reminder. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, given that you just templated me claiming I was going against a consensus that I didn't see on this page (at the time, though a discussion has now been started), I think it would be well worth doing. Consensus of safety is probably the #1 thing that is in dispute about the topic and an FAQ would help minimize the non-disputes (i.e. things like "why isn't source foo a RS?) The Obama article is actually a really good example of how an FAQ could be used. I would be glad to assist in creating one here in terms of formatting and phrasing. Montanabw^(talk) 03:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces I have warned you before, and I warn you now. Knock it off! Your templating of regular editors is an offensive tactic designed to create a chilling effect. It will not be tolerated further. Jusdafax 06:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Enough warnings, bring this straight to ANI and alert all related editors, thank you. prokaryotes (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Might be worth doing if the page ever become stable. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Heh, you think that Barack Obama is ever totally stable? LOL! My take is to do an FAQ that at least touches on the main areas of argument and the basic outlines that have been continually repeated. Even if no real consensus, a summary (short) of the past drahmahz would help new editors avoid minefields. Montanabw^(talk) 10:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit warring on Seralini source

Given that the ArbCom case has just closed, I was hoping people would do their best to avoid edit warring going forward. As a reminder, if newly added content has been disputed by an initial revert (or already been discussed on the talk page already) it should not be re-added, but rather talk page discussion should be started per WP:BRD if someone feels strongly about it. Consensus should then be reached on if or how the content and source should be included before adding anything back. I for one do not want to see us needing to go to WP:AE immediately after the cased closed.

That being said, this source was recently re-added by Gandydancer[19], which I removed.[20] That was the point for reverts to stop and people to go to the talk page if they felt strongly about including the content. This very same content was edit warred around Sept 9, 2015. I mentioned in edit summary previous talk page discussion that had no consensus for inclusion. Various issues outlined in the past talk page conversation included being authored by Seralini from a WP:FRINGE advocate perspective in terms of being a reliable source to weight concerns as other reviews made no mention of the cited information. Considering there was no consensus in that conversation, the WP:STATUSQUO should stay until there is consensus to include specific content as had been occurring until just a few days ago, especially now that any editor seeing this page knows the edit is controversial. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It appears that there are a couple existing refs to the Séralini study already, [21], [22] though not as strongly stated as the edit in question. I guess my position is that it is a question of Due or undue weight. I looked at the previous debate, and it appears that it involved most of the people now topic-banned. My take is that it isn't a fringe position so much as mere POV. The work was peer-reviewed, but also controversial and the study design was questioned. Perhaps the solution is to move some of the material into the article with a brief paragraph that states what the study concluded but that it was questioned, with appropriate links to Séralini affair. If it keeps coming around, then it's best to just pop in something and address it head-on, that way, future edits can be reverted with an edit summary that says, "already mentioned in article" or some other form of drama-minimizing comment. Montanabw^(talk) 03:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

This article has been in flux with some previous edit warring, content either getting in under the radar during other disputes, or being left after the article was locked down. The sections you mentioned are some of the ones in need of major clean up or checking, but there wasn't consensus for many of the edits in there either. That's really more of an article history thing to put behind us, but those sections are probably going to need to be reworked a bit. That's a topic for another day though. I'm going to try to compare the article to a version earlier this summer to check new edits (especially why I'm hoping for a tamer environment when it comes time to work through each piece). Most things should be ok, but we're at a point right now that we can't really assume that a piece of content is actually accepted simply because it's in the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore everything in this discussion other than substantive discussion about the source in question and the content that was edited out several times today. Please respond in kind. Could the editors who have some scientific expertise and who oppose this content please explain whether it is the wording of the content or the source or what exactly it is that has prompted 3 separate editors (two of whom were parties to the Arb case) to systematically remove the content today.

I have seen references to Seralini, but this is not the retracted publication - and there are two other editors of the content besides Seralini. It also appears that the conclusions are published by a US government scientific body, which is about as reliable as you can get. So is it our place to override a high quality reliable source that is peer reviewed and is subject to editorial oversight just because some take issue with one author for a study he conducted over a decade ago? This is a tox study and not meant to be an evaluation of carcinogenic effects.

Seeing as this content and the source do appear to meet WP guidelines, how can we include the information and present it in a way that gives proper weight? And what exactly are the arguments for and against the weight of this content.

Finally, there is no policy that tells us we have to keep an article at status quo ante - this is a developing field with new content being published and evaluated very frequently.

Collaboratively yours, Minor4th 05:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Another question - when was this content originally added. I mean this source exactly, because I was under the impression that it had been around for a couple of months. Minor4th 05:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Stop reverting. Stop adding the disputed content. We need to sort this out on Talk. Stop punishing our readers with our inability to reach consensus.
• Present your case (pro and con) for/against making this change.
• Ask for the opinions of other, uninvolved editors.
• Stop the madness.

Lfstevens (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First for background, the content and source was first introduced here (and multiple reverts [23][24][25]). The previous talk page discussion I linked came after that. As a slight aside there was also a big sandbox migration in the middle of that that resulting in the page being locked down with the contested edits included.[26] I only mention that last piece for clarity because it's intermingled a bit in some edits.

As for the current day, I removed the content because that talk page discussion had already occurred, there was no consensus on the source, and the specific edit that Gandydancer made a few days ago was never re-added to the article after the original conversation. Generally, talk page consensus is needed first to re-add something that earlier (just a few months ago) wasn't added due to lack of consensus. That is currently why the content/source were removed by me.

As for your questions on the source, this is not the retracted Seralini paper. It is a separate review published by him (being last author typically means the lab head). It is not published by a US government body (the link is just a search engine), but by Food and Chemical Toxicology. With that context in mind the discussion in the previous talk section on this should outline the issues with it as it was focused on the issues with it as a secondary source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 you keep saying that I added this review even though I knew or should have known that it is/was controversial. I have not followed this article closely for many months and had no idea that it had been brought up and argued about. Please stop saying that. Gandydancer (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I never sad anything of the sort. I have said that to others after you that would have read my edit summary, but in your case I assumed there was a chance you weren't aware of the previous talk page conversation, which is why I mentioned there was one in my edit summary to you in the first place as part of a good-faith revert simply saying discussion would be needed to reinstate it. Nothing more than that with respect to you. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 - I do not see anything in the previous talk page section that says anything about this being a bad secondary source. Could you point me to that? As I recall, there was not any kind of legitimate consensus to keep this content out of the article - just a bunch of edit wars back and forth. Food and Chemical Toxicology seems to be a reliable source and peer reviewed journal, and you didn't mention anything about the other authors of the study. I am still not understanding what argument there is for this not being a reliable source. And as far as weight goes - it was only one or two sentences at the end of a section - not prominent or presented as the majority or only view. Minor4th 06:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to the the last conversation on this source here linked in my earlier response. When a new edit doesn't gain talk page consensus it doesn't go in. We can't say because there wasn't consensus that it must go in. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Great, you refer to a banned editor and your buddy Yobol. Also it has been pointed out to you before that consensus doesn't have to be unanimous. Also i notice that you devote a lot of time here to disrupt legit edits and other editors. prokaryotes (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

KOA - that is not how WP works. There doesn't have to be talk page consensus to edit. We follow the PAG - V, N, and RS, and give appropriate weight to all significant viewpoints. We do not exclude a significant minority view completely. I don't think we can agree to not follow policy, even by consensus. I will look at the previous discussion you linked. Minor4th 13:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Please keep in mind WP:CONSENSUS is how Wikipedia works and is our overaching policy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Study is totally fine, Wikipedia is not a anti science place, or a place to only present a single narrow view. Notice how editor KingOfAces43, above frames the discussion as fringe etc. He is using tactic to discredit other opinions, and everybody who follows KOA43 edits knows that this is always what he does, to try to smear and discredit valid science. prokaryotes (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Study is highly suspect. Clearly the author is highly biased and any conclusions this author makes demands extra scrutiny. Also several editor have stated that the PMID 26282372 publication is a "US government scientific source". This is false. While PubMed is funded by the US government, it is only an abstracting service. Neither the publisher of the paper Elsevier, nor the researchers that authored this paper received any funding or endorsement from the US government. Boghog (talk) 06:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The author? Apparently you fail to acknowledge the other authors. However, your opinion on an author is irrelevant, what we need is a reliable source which disputes the study. Even then we would add the mention including the dispute (if there is any). prokaryotes (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes: All of the coauthors of the 2015 review were also coauthors of the retracted 2012 primary study. Furthermore Séralinia is the senior corresponding author of both papers. It is legitimate to use an author's publication track record as a criteria to judge the reliability of other publications by the same author. In this case, the earlier retracted paper makes all subsequent papers published by the same author immediately suspect. At a bare minimum, if we do cite the 2015 review, we must also mention that an earlier paper by the same author was retracted. Boghog (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The paper has been later republished and later announcements by the WHO or ICAR, and even from EFSA seem to support his findings. prokaryotes (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The paper was later republished without peer review. Also, where did WHO/ICAR and EFSA "seem to support his findings"? EFSA assement of the assement of the retracted 2012 primary study was very negative. Boghog (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Study meets sourcing PAG and should be included This is a review article, not a primary study, and it is published in a journal that everyone accepts as a reliable source for this type of information. I read the discussion from September that Kingofaces43 linked above, and here's the breakdown: In favor of including the content and source were Everymorning, prokaryotes, SageRad, and DrChrissy; opposing inclusion were Jytdog and Yobol. The arguments in favor were more persuasive while the opposition arguments cited only to an older primary study by Seralini, without any discussion of the 2015 review article. I would say there was no clear consensus either way. Minor4th 13:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment While this article is a review, it would be foolish of us to not take into account that it comes out of the Seralini lab given the controversy surrounding the Seralini affair. The authors themselves state that their findings are contrary to perceived wisdom on glyphosate "it is generally assumed that glyphosate is safe for mammals, including humans". Saying it is FRINGE is probably going too far, but I hope everyone can agree that their views are not shared by the majority of the scientific community and the current wording does not reflect that. The most concerning thing to me about the current content is that it quotes directly from the abstract which suggests whoever first added it couldn't access the full version and assess whether or not the abstract is truly representative of the text. For example, I find the current content very different to: "Drawing any firm conclusion from these studies is not possible at this stage and further work is needed to determine the safety or risk of the herbicide alone or in formulations, especially at levels below the regulatory safe limits and over longer durations". I'm undecided on whether we should include it or not given the authorship, but I think that if we do decide that it merits inclusion, we should at the very least alert our readers to the Seralini affair so that they are able to place the review in context. We should also work on summarising it ourselves rather than copying the abstract and particularly include the author's own uncertainty about conclusions. The current version makes it seem as though they definitely concluded there are negative effects rather than calling for their to be more research. SmartSE (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh and if anyone would like a copy of this or anything else, ping me or ask at WP:REX. SmartSE (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I have a serious issue with the referencing of the paper being debated. At present, the reference reads:

<ref name="Pub Med">{{cite web | url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26282372 | title=Potential toxic effects of glyphosate and its commercial formulations below regulatory limits | publisher=Pub Med | date=14 August 2015 | accessdate=7 December 2015 | author=Mesnage R, Defarge N, Spiroux de Vendômois J, Séralini GE}}</ref>

producing a citation to a web page:

Mesnage R, Defarge N, Spiroux de Vendômois J, Séralini GE (14 August 2015). "Potential toxic effects of glyphosate and its commercial formulations below regulatory limits". Pub Med. Retrieved 7 December 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

which puts the publisher as Pub Med and has led to comments in edit summaries that the source is from the NIH. This is inaccurate. Look at the link and it is clear it is journal article which is listed in PubMed. The publisher is Elsevier. The reference should be:

<ref>{{cite journal|journal = [[Food and Chemical Toxicology|Food Chem. Toxicol.]]|year = 2015|volume = 84|pages = 133-153|doi = 10.1016/j.fct.2015.08.012|title = Potential toxic effects of glyphosate and its commercial formulations below regulatory limits|author1 = Mesnage, R.|author2 = Defarge, N.|author3 = Spiroux de Vendômois, J.|author4 = Séralini, G.-E.|author-link4 = Gilles-Éric Séralini|pmid = 26282372}}</ref>

producing a proper journal citation:

Mesnage, R.; Defarge, N.; Spiroux de Vendômois, J.; Séralini, G.-E. (2015). "Potential toxic effects of glyphosate and its commercial formulations below regulatory limits". Food Chem. Toxicol. 84: 133–153. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2015.08.012. PMID 26282372.

If the material is to remain in the article, the reference should be corrected. Consequently, I am requesting an edit through full protection. On the substantive point, I notice that the journal article has been cited in a recent paper (http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/reveh.2015.30.issue-4/reveh-2015-0028/reveh-2015-0028.xml) in Reviews on Environmental Health so maybe looking at what that review says might be helpful. Note: This is not my area of science and I do not know the reputations of journals or authors. EdChem (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we need to at least have the proper citation format. Montanabw^(talk) 07:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Don't use it Wikipedia's policy is that articles should be based on reputable published sources. There is no consensus that Séralini is reputable. In fact there is a rather strong consensus among people who work in the field that he is not. Looie496 (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Dont use. Summarizing the previous talk discussion that found no consensus

was a poor reputation for fact checking associated with the author or expressing views not widely accepted by scientific community. With that scrutiny in mind, weight becomes an issue because the views become an extreme minority view when only expressed in this source. Best to rely on sources with authors with a better reputation for not engaging in advocacy in place of science, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

How PubMed works

I have no interest in getting involved here, but there are some very serious, fundamental misconceptions evident in the above section (and in the recent edit-warring) which require correction. Please understand that PubMed is a search engine which accesses biomedical content. This search engine is operated by the National Library of Medicine—a branch of the NIH and thus of the US government. But I repeat: it is a search engine. The content you locate using PubMed is not published by the NIH nor by US government, just as the content you locate using Google is not published by Google Inc. It is absolutely vital that you all understand this, because it's painful to watch edit-warring and arguing based on ignorance of this basic fact.

The Seralini paper in question was not published by or endorsed by the NIH in any way. The Seralini paper is not an "NIH source". It is simply accessible using an NIH-hosted search engine. The reliability of the NIH has absolutely no bearing on the reliability (or lack thereof) of the Seralini paper. If that is not clear, please let me know on my talkpage and I would be happy to discuss further. Again, I have no interest in or opinion on the underlying content question, but I feel compelled to make sure everyone understands how PubMed works, since this basic understanding is crucial to any sort of informed discussion of the source in question. MastCell ^Talk 07:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. I did indeed misunderstand the publishing info for the source. Minor4th 07:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

At some level, I knew that, but when you see nih.gov, it sort of feels like an override... yes, thank you. Montanabw^(talk) 10:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Looking back at my first post, it comes across as harsher than I intended, for which I apologize. This confusion is pretty common and understandable, and has come up before. Cheers. MastCell ^Talk 01:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Correct Reference

Replace incorrect reference

<ref name="Pub Med">{{cite web | url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26282372 | title=Potential toxic effects of glyphosate and its commercial formulations below regulatory limits | publisher=Pub Med | date=14 August 2015 | accessdate=7 December 2015 | author=Mesnage R, Defarge N, Spiroux de Vendômois J, Séralini GE}}</ref>

with

<ref>{{cite journal|journal = [[Food and Chemical Toxicology|Food Chem. Toxicol.]]|year = 2015|volume = 84|pages = 133-153|doi = 10.1016/j.fct.2015.08.012|title = Potential toxic effects of glyphosate and its commercial formulations below regulatory limits|author1 = Mesnage, R.|author2 = Defarge, N.|author3 = Spiroux de Vendômois, J.|author4 = Séralini, G.-E.|author-link4 = Gilles-Éric Séralini|pmid = 26282372}}</ref>

EdChem (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support: Correct citation is needed, whether it stays in the long run is a different issue. Montanabw^(talk) 07:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support Minor4th 07:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Common sense edit. Jusdafax 08:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Obviously needed. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support revised citation, with the obvious proviso that the study must only be included at all with the context of prior retraction and the external commentary showing the work to be scientifically worthless, per WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. @Guy:: if the study is scientifically worthless, why did the referees for Food Chem. Toxic. accept it? If it merely repeats a retracted paper, why would the referees not reject it? Do we have a peer-reviewed source that asserts the paper to be scientifically worthless or fringe? I am not familiar with this province of the literature, but as a general rule, material recently published by a strong peer-reviewed journal is unlikely to be scientifically worthless, though of course exceptional situations do (very infrequently) arise. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I have made the edit request in question as it is uncontroversial and supported by all parties. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Source incorrectly included in glyphosate only section

I'm hoping this will be straightforward - currently ref 69 is to the same source and included at the end of Glyphosate#Other_mammals:

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."[69]

It's incorrect to list the source there because the source is about glyphosate formulations. Can we agree to remove this and merge with ref 98? SmartSE (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI

WP:AN#Eyes on Talk:Glyphosate. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Genotoxity

Missing health related info, per EFSA "some studies suggest that certain glyphosate-based formulations may be genotoxic" http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/corporate_publications/files/efsaexplainsglyphosate151112en_1.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prokaryotes (talk • contribs) 10:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Also useful from that source, "...because although some studies suggest that certain glyphosate-based formulations may be genotoxic (i.e. damaging to DNA), others that look solely at the active substance glyphosate do not show this effect. It is likely, therefore, that the genotoxic effects observed in some glyphosate-based formulations are related to the other constituents or "co-formulants", and "The substance is unlikely to be genotoxic (i.e. damaging to DNA) or to pose a carcinogenic threat to humans." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, very important indeed. There are also news article about this topic and ofc the studies, of which some mention dramatic increases of toxicity when used in combination with other agents. prokaryotes (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Basic questions this article should be able to answer with ease

Recently, SmartSE commented that "this article is far from providing a balanced view of the available sources" and, with my encouragement, provided several items to address that. They are included below, with a few additions of my own. Please feel free to add to and edit this list, and use the list to literally test the article, as well as, of course, for article improvement, and also as a reality/context check in the midst of arguing the crap out of single, piecemeal points. --Tsavage (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• What is the toxicity to various animal groups?
• Which plant species have become resistant?
  • This and the first point are already amply covered - evidently I should have been clearer that I think that these are over-emphasised in relation to the other areas the article should cover. SmartSE (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Animals: It should be possible to summarize a lot of the Toxicity section, as a significant amount of it is quite highly technical and will impart zero practical information to the general reader. Summarizing this will be no doubt be...polarizing, but need not be if we can pose a couple of basic questions first - I will try.

Resistance: "Efects of use" section seems a little unfocused, starting with the heading itself. A good rule is that every heading should have a brief lead, and not be used as a bare umbrella for subsections, so, what is "Effects of use" about? The Resistance section seems more of a list, without summary. After the first three sentences, it is all a bunch of facts that become a blur without a framework. Needs a unifying question... --Tsavage (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict)More generally though, here are some sources which review resistance to glyphosate (not cited here, highly cited elsewhere). SmartSE (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • _{Powles, Stephen B.; Yu, Qin (2010). "Evolution in Action: Plants Resistant to Herbicides". Annual Review of Plant Biology. 61 (1): 317–347. doi:10.1146/annurev-arplant-042809-112119. ISSN 1543-5008.}
  • _{Shaner, Dale L; Lindenmeyer, Richard Bradley; Ostlie, Michael H (2012). "What have the mechanisms of resistance to glyphosate taught us?". Pest Management Science. 68 (1): 3–9. doi:10.1002/ps.2261. ISSN 1526-498X.}
• Are plants that have developed resistance - so-called superweeds - a significant problem?
• Is it toxic to animals?

If the article can't answer this quite completely, quickly and easily, it is failing to address our target general reader. --Tsavage (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

This one's not so basic as this discusses (linked below. Basically no (historically), probably is (IARC), unlikely to be (EFSA). SmartSE (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a fine (summary) answer to me! Why not write it up, that can't hurt. If it flies, it can be the lead to...somewhere, the current Toxicity, I guess. There's of course a not so fine line between cautiously saying nothing, and expressing a blunt and supported, "We're not sure, there are opposing views." And it will frame the whole contentious section. Be bold! :) --Tsavage (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• What is the process that explains the two schematics of synthesis?
  • _{John E. Franz; Michael K. Mao; James A. Sikorski (1997). Glyphosate: A Unique Global Herbicide. American Chemical Society. ISBN 978-0-8412-3458-1.}
  • This source looks like it should be able to answer this any provide a great deal of other information currently lacking. It's a 650 page book written by the discoverer of glyphosate in 1997 and cited hundreds of times. We don't currently cite it at all and unfortunately AFAICT it's only available in paper form. SmartSE (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• How much is produced and where is it produced?
• How has use changed over time?
• What are the advantages of it over other herbicides?
• When did it go on sale?
• When did Monsanto's patent expire? Answered in first para of lead, and in Monsanto subsection. However, this pertains to US only (I believe), and has no context, suggesting a broader question about "Commercial history."

• Yes, but without any citation. This says the rights for gly expired in 1991 but they had other rights on the formulation until 2000. This may not be RS but says the second patent was on the isopropylamine salt. SmartSE (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• What is its commercial history?

This could be a top-level section to reorganize some existing material AND it should be a summary paragraph covering key points of US and rest of world commercial deployment, in the general form: "First marketing by Monsanto in US and wherever else, for Agricultural, industrial and consumer applications..., patent expired.... other companies own brands...." --Tsavage (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Did Monsanto ever have worldwide rights?
• Is RoundUp the same as glyphosate?
• How does it work? Geogene (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • This could be made clearer by changing the 'biochemistry' header to 'mode of action'. SmartSE (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, easily done...if the article wasn't locked!!!! (That's actually how I found it's protected, by trying to make this edit.) --Tsavage (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Rereading that - it doesn't actually explain how gly kills plants though - only that it inhibits an enzyme and (to the layman) it just does things to long and unusual words. Surely there must be more information on how the inhibition leads to plant death? SmartSE (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

No doubt. A 60-second search for "glyphosate mode of action" turned up this (I'm not sure if the source is reliable, but at least we have one answer to start with): "Inhibiting the function of the shikimic acid pathway causes a deficiency in aromatic amino acids, eventually leading to the plant’s death by starvation."[27] --Tsavage (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

(Do plants have feelings, too?) --Tsavage (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Inhibiting the enzyme (mechanism of action) prevents the synthesis of essential aromatic amino acids that are required for life (mode of action). We should explicitly state the obvious, but do we need a source for this statement? Boghog (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

As the source below explains it's more complicated than that - shikimate accumulates and drives carbon away from other processes leading to starvation. I still don't agree with 'organisms' in this paragraph either since it is about how the herbicide works. Somewhere we should describe the biochemistry in more detail. The same source mentions that the K_i differing between lower in plants and microorganisms as well, but there is probably a better source for this elsewhere. SmartSE (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This covers it in detail:_{Bertold Hock; Erich F. Elstner (28 September 2004). Plant Toxicology, Fourth Edition. CRC Press. pp. 292–296. ISBN 978-0-203-02388-4.} SmartSE (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

A great source that would justify a more complete description of the mode of action. As discussed elsewhere, I also agree that the use of 'organisms' is inappropriate in this section and unnessarily complicates the discussion of toxicity which may differ significantly between plants and glyphosate sensitive bacteria. Most readers are interested first in how glyphosate kills plants. The way glyphosate may affect bacteria is best left to the bacteria section. Boghog (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I added a sentence that should be well within the ballpark. Since we agree it is verifiable, it should be only a matter of tweaking if necessary, and adding a citation. --Tsavage (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• What did it replace?
  • This is not-RS but may help to find RS that answer this. This is RS and lists a two: atrazine and alachlor. SmartSE (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• How broadly was it tested, evaluated for safety in humans?

(How transparent is access to studies which were used to justify the release of the agent?) prokaryotes (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

My indenting, parenthesizing, italicizing: I don't see this as a straightforward basic question a general reader might be most likely to ask, but it could be addressed in answering the previous "how broadly tested" question. (It'd be good to stick to the "real basic" theme here, else the list will become meaninglessly broad and even more likely to join the hundreds of thousands of other words in the discarded Talk pile.) --Tsavage (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for article addition - California to label G as a carcinogen

California is probably the first state to label Glyphosate as a carcinogen. http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2015/09/glyphosate-roundup-labelled-carcinogen prokaryotes (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, legislative alchemy, the process by which nonsense becomes science after special pleading by committed legislators. In New York, there is such a thing as chronic Lyme disease and it can be cured by long term antibiotics, despite the fact that the medical science rejects the diagnosis and treatment as being without convincing evidential foundation. No doubt we'll see anti-WiFi laws too, in the near future. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: again with this nonsense? Like your previous archaic pronouncements, your latest example of medical science "rejecting" the treatment of chronic Lyme disease is no less than fifteen years out of date. Thank goodness for small things: at least you have finally accepted climate change, forty years after the fact. There is hope for you yet. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is a long time since "chronic Lyme" was rejected, hence the quacks using legislation to protect themselves when offering their unethical treatments. 15 years? Not hardly. See NEJM 2007, for example. The "Lyme-literate" quacks have completely given up on science. Obviously post-treatment Lyme syndrome exists, but that's not treated by quacks with long-term antibiotics. As to accepting climate change, feel free to point out any venue where I have made any statement rejecting it, ever. I used to read George Monbiot before the Internet was even a thing. Here's a comment by me from 2000 which mocks climate deniers. I have no idea at all where you got the idea that I have ever been a climate change denier. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

"This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject," as it says at the top of the Talk page. JzG/Guy, please strike your opinions or prepare for them to be removed from this page, and refrain from adding your personal views, important as you may feel it is to express them; Wikipedians expect better of an admin. The source is bolstered by this Reuters ref from October, and the fact itself belongs in the article, regardless of editor belief systems. I suggest the information be added to the 'Legal status' section. Jusdafax 15:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It's news and therefore notable. So glyphosate joins bacon in the pantheon of carcinogenic substances. I don't think it tastes as good, though. Lfstevens (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

What Lfstevens said. And I will add: It's fine to report that California has done this, but the source is insufficient to say in Wikipedia's voice that glyphosate actually is a carcinogen. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Trypto said, but the source is insufficient to say in Wikipedia's voice that glyphosate actually is a carcinogen. Since I'm new to this discussion, please direct me to the previous discussion in which some poorly-informed editors attempted to use this information in that unusual manner. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean it with that kind of specificity. If someone has discussed saying flat-out that it's a carcinogen, then that's a discussion that I haven't followed. What I meant was that it's OK to cite the source, but there is a correct way and an incorrect way to cite it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice to see you treat the editors here with a little more respect than to pass out such basic information as though the editors here need a lesson in such fundamental understanding of how we do things here. Gandydancer (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I misunderstood your question then. I thought incorrectly that you were actually asking me. I was trying to treat the question that you asked me with respect. But I realize now that I had made a mistake. If you believe that my original comment violated WP:NPA, then I suggest that you raise it at WP:ANI. Perhaps saying that there is a correct way and an incorrect way to cite a source is a personal attack and I did not realize it. I thought that it was sufficiently non-obvious that it would be helpful for me to point it out. But if I am not as smart as other editors here, then never mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I wonder how many anti-GMO activists will celebrate this listing by raising a glass of Group 1 carcinogen? ;-) Guy (Help!) 21:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@ Trypto OK, I will accept in good faith that you believe that some of the editors here are so poorly informed that they need to be made aware that just because CA plans to list GMOs as carcinogenic does not mean that we can now use the Wikipedia voice to say that GMOs are carcinogenic. Gandydancer (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for being so nice to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Back to the topic, yes, this is newsworthy and as actual legislation that has been passed, it would be irresponsible not to include it. With due weight, proper sources, and all that. Guy, please focus on the issue of inclusion, phrasing and sourcing. Tryptofish is right to not that precise phrasing matters. How about someone posting a small paragraph here, and where they think it needs to go, and once we have a working model (may not yet have consensus, but at least has proper sources and no glaring errors) we can post it as a requested edit down at the bottom of the page. Montanabw^(talk) 23:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I was, albeit with a strong wrapper of snark. See the section heading? "California to label G as a carcinogen". Either California is going to label glyphosate as a carcinogen, as the source suggests, in which case they have gone beyond the evidence, or they are going to label it a probable carcinogen, in which case the edit request is tendentious. The truth is, there is no credible evidence that glyphosate has ever caused cancer in any human, or is ever likely to do so in future. Turning it into a carcinogen by adding it to a list, is "legislative alchemy". Guy (Help!) 10:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Include the info and tie into the IARC and EU studies and findings Please see my comment below [28] Minor4th 03:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• Include the CA infomation Does someone want to write something up? Gandydancer (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The sources listed only say that they plan to label it, not that they have decided to. If it's included please make sure to frame if like that and link to Proposition 65 as it's important information for the lay reader and both sources mention it. SmartSE (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

E.P.A. Revokes Approval of New Dow Herbicide for G.M.O. Crops

Recently the EPA has revoked approval of a new formula, dubbed Enlist Duo, which includes Glyphosate. It seems this news has not found its way yet into the article. Therefore i propose to add that info. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/26/business/epa-revokes-approval-of-new-dow-herbicide.html prokaryotes (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Should also include why approval was revoked. According to the source given above it's because the EPA is concerned about a possible synergistic effect from glyphosate and 2,4-D. Geogene (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a mention of Enlist Duo on the 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid page; information on the revocation could be added there as well.Dialectric (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

How about doing up a good, solid, properly-sourced paragraph in one of the other articles mentioned and then post the diff here as a proposed addition? It's best to have a working version to discuss. Montanabw^(talk) 22:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This information would flow well with the recent glyphosate studies by IARC and EFSA. While it seems they came to opposite conclusions, they really didn't. IARC tested glyphosate formulations and noted that the synergistic effect of glyphosate combined with other pesticides provides evidence of possible human carcinogenicity (is that a word?); the European study tested glyphosate alone and found no carcinogenic effects on humans at the current regulatory limits. It may sound like it's splitting hairs, but it's not. IMO, while the EU study does find that glyphosate is not carcinogenic - that's sort of misleading because glyphosate is never used alone, it is used in formulations such as Roundup and Duo. So the stuff that is actually being sprayed on crops and soil is what poses the risk to humans and other animals (potentially). Minor4th 03:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

My reading of the Nature news article was that the IARC intended to test the carcinogenicity of glyphosate, full stop. I think I see what you're saying here, that they used human exposure histories, which implies mixtures. But an emphasis on that aspect would be synthesis. Geogene (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

No, the IARC specifically tested glyphosate formulations (like Roundup), not glyphosate alone, as well as some other formulations. I'm not trying to say anything about human exposure histories or implied mixtures (not even sure what you mean). The IARC specifically reviewed studies dealing with glyphosate formulations. I can find some secondary sources discussing it if you like. Minor4th 04:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I see the Nature source you gave below helps to explain the different conclusions. If you've got anything on cancer-causing properties made worse by synergistic effects, can you post those as well? Geogene (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The nature article discusses it some. I can look for other sources but it starts to get technical and beyond my understanding at a point. Minor4th 22:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Here's a Nature article that explains it pretty well. [29] There are other secondary sources out there that discuss the differences in the two reports, including the EFSA's access to Monsanto's own research studies and most importantly the fact that the studies tested different things and even the EFSA did not say glyphosate is "safe." They recommended that regulates put a cap on what is considered acceptable, non hazardous exposure. Minor4th 05:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Good source, thanks, a very well written and balanced treatment IMO. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Right, so our article should similarly the studies and their conclusions - and the new California legislation should be included as well because it's the first state to take such action based on the recent glyphosate studies. To some extent the EPA reversal on a glyphosate formula is related as well. Minor4th 16:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, you know that my problem with the CA legislation is a problem with the real world, not with Wikipedia's coverage of it. Some evidence of mutagenicity in rats --> "possibly carcinogenic" despite no evidence a single human has ever been affected, even after carefully studying the most exposed population --> CARCINOGENIC!!!one one shriek eleventy!!!. The world pisses me off that way :-) And actually this is normally more of a problem in quackery, where "kills some cancer cells in petri dish" becomes CURES CANCER! So, ignore me, I'm just being grumpy about the prevalence of scientific illiteracy. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Minor4th: Above you said ...they really didn't. IARC tested glyphosate formulations and noted that the synergistic effect of glyphosate combined with other pesticides provides evidence of possible human carcinogenicity' Is that what you meant to say or did you mean combined with aduvants? Gandydancer (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I meant to say what I said. I don't know anything about adjuvants. What I said is taken directly from the IARC and EU studies. Minor4th 19:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal - someone could take a stab at including the info about the IARC and ESNA conclusions as well as the EPA revocation and the new CA legislation. I have been sick so am not up to doing it right now. If someone else wants to take a stab at it, feel free. If not I'll look into it when I'm feeling better. Minor4th 19:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Not appropriate for this page. Parabolist (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Current Arbcom case regarding JzG There is currently an active Arbcom case which includes admin JzG/Guy and his edits on GMO related pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_JzG prokaryotes (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC) No there isn't, there's an AE request by you. That's a different matter. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Review article

Should mention of this review be included in the article? [30] Gandydancer (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I doubt it. Seneff S is Stephanie Seneff, she is an activist with no expertise in the field who nonetheless insists on publishing an endless stream of speculative agit-prop. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know and I saw the comment at the article as well. I thought that perhaps it could be noted in the article that the study has not been accepted very well by other researchers. Gandydancer (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

This source is neither reliable nor notable. This article would quickly be overwhelmed if we mentioned every such source accompanied by an explanation for why we should pay no attention to it. Boghog (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree with it being unreliable with a scientist known for advocating such things are the cause of a handful of things. Even disregarding that, this isn't the kind of secondary source we'd reach for summarizing the literature. Instead, this is constructing speculative hypotheses that are not formally being tested (i.e., armchair biology). These kinds of "reviews" pop up every now and then in controversial topics, so it's best to be on the lookout for them. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a literature review but not in the typical sense because it is formulating a new theory from existing information. Unless there is evidence that this has become accepted by celiac disease experts it shouldn't be mentioned as it is the definition of a fringe view. SmartSE (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

As a coeliac, and one who watches the research, I am pretty confident it hasn't even been noticed by most of them, let alone taken seriously. Most of the current effort is in looking for genetic markers, exploring the role of FODMAPs and working on earlier diagnosis and possible a couple of new treatments. I'd be really interested to hear how GMOs became prevalent in Utrecht in the late 1930s though :-) Guy (Help!) 18:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that it probably should not be included now mainly for the above reasons. I could be swayed Minor4th 19:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The reason I brought it up is because in the past I have wondered about including info about poor information because it was being circulated on the blogs and I thought that it would help to set the record straight. But it seems that there is agreement to not include anything about it. Gandydancer (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)