Talk:Glyphosate/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Lawsuit

Just a reminder since we've had previous conversations on this, but the current glyphosate/cancer lawsuits are not something we've had consensus to include yet. Part of the caution is contradicting the current WP:MEDRS sources that say glyphosate is not a significant carcinogen. Someone filing a lawsuit is not enough to contradict that in terms of WP:WEIGHT. The bigger one though is that it's an ongoing lawsuit. Once has to be wary of ambulance chasing in a topic like this as it is, but until claims are considered to be valid in a completed cased, we're not really in a place to be showcasing claims in ongoing litigation that's prone to posturing, etc.

That being said, the whole lawsuit thing is tied to the IARC, conflicts of interest there, etc. so there may be areas to include mention of it before the close of the case. Tackling either one is messy, but if it's just mention of the case like I removed here (we're under 1RR which also includes essentially following WP:BRD), it's probably going to be easier on all of us policy-wise when the case is completed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether we could still have perhaps one sentence about the existence of the suit at this time, without going into the allegations. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking about that if we fit it into the IARC stuff in the last paragraph. The first sentence already mentions it to a degree. Maybe a slight tweak there if any? Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm dope-slapping myself for having forgotten that we already had that material in that section! Thanks for reminding me. Actually, I think that's OK for now, and a good reason to wait for more resolution in the case before adding more content. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Does this change anything????? https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/crnr/glyphosate-listed-effective-july-7-2017-known-state-california-cause-cancer Claustro123 (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

No, because that list includes pretty much everything, from chloral hydrate, warfarin, and asbestos, to ethyl alcohol, leather dust, aspirin, 'salted fish, Chinese style' and 'emissions from high temperature unrefined rapeseed oil' Sumanuil (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Case Resolved

This needs to be added to the page (as discussed above). The merging of RoundUp with Glyphosate needs to be reversed. Glyphosate is not synonymous with RoundUp, and this case is a good reason to finally make the correction I called for a year ago. It is the surfactants in the formulation that are being at least partially blamed for harm to humans. The internal documents show Monsanto is aware of this (pages 5-7 here). This was touched upon in The Nation who quoted one of the internal emails used in the case:

"Plaintiffs claim that Monsanto “knew or should have known that Roundup is more toxic than glyphosate alone” but continued to advertise the product as safe. In a 2002 e-mail, Monsanto product–safety strategist William Heydens wrote to Donna Farmer, one of the company’s leading toxicologists: “What I’ve been hearing from you is that this continues to be the case with these studies—glyphosate is OK but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage.”

HuffPost:

Brent Wisner, a lawyer for Johnson, in a statement said jurors for the first time had seen internal company documents “proving that Monsanto has known for decades that glyphosate and specifically Roundup could cause cancer.”

Until RoundUp has its page back, where do you all suggest this be added? petrarchan47คุก 09:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't belong anywhere in the article. One lawsuit in litigation crazy California is not proof of anything. We are seeing a law firm's perspective. I want to see these "secret" Monsanto documents. HiLo48 (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I linked to them in above. petrarchan47คุก 17:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

At a minimum, the case verdict should be covered in Monsanto legal cases and I will add it tomorrow if no one else does first. There is significant coverage of this case. I agree that Roundup and Glyphosate are not synonymous and should have separate articles, and have said so for some time. This case would certainly merit some coverage in the Roundup article if we had one. We are not here to 'prove' anything about glyphosate or Roundup, but instead reflect what reliable sources say about it.Dialectric (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, the resolution of the suit (with the caveat that I assume there are likely to be appeals, so this isn't final) does make the suit something that should be covered with some prominence. I'm neutral for the moment about whether it would be better to have it in a history section here versus a separate page about Roundup. But it unquestionably belongs in the legal cases page. I agree strongly with Dialectric that were are not here to 'prove' anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

For now, it’s probably better to take a wait and see approach beyond what’s currently up with WP:RECENTISM, in mind. Since this basically amounts to a fringe claim that glyphosate causes cancer (from non-qualified jurors), we do need to keep WP:DUE in mind considering the general scientific agreement on the matter. That being said, this stuff came out yesterday, so I’d expect independent scientists to be speaking out about it in the coming week or so that we could source to.

This is somewhat on par with a how a jury could still be easily misled vaccines cause autism, etc. as HiLo alluded to, so we will need to take care with it being a prominent case while also keeping in line with the fringe guideline. It won’t be easy crafting content to say the least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I propose to reinsert the sentence, "Monsanto has been ordered to pay $289m damages to a farmer [per source: groundskeeper] in California, USA who claimed herbicides containing glyphosate had caused his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma " This is just a reliably sourced, neutral summary of the result of this law suit and clearly not WP:UNDUE in a section Legal cases. JimRenge (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

According to the source, the word "farmer" should be changed to groundskeeper in the sentence above. JimRenge (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about how to write it, and I do recognize that we need to be careful about recentism. However, I would oppose adding nothing at all at this time, and I think we need to say something about it now. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn’t thinking of adding nothing, but trying to fit it into the current cancer discussions somehow for due weight. Aircorn has been doing some trimming lately, so I’m ok with the rough current version for now until we can dig into the material more. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Jim, that content was already included, which is why I removed it. That being said, when some claims chemical X gave them cancer when the scientific community disagrees with such an outcome, we usually need some mention for due weight to avoid having WP:FRINGE viewpoints standing on their own. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, yes, I didn´t realize that you had removed redundant text/repetition. I see no serious problem with the short summary as it is. JimRenge (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem is this article is about one ingredient in Roundup. Glyphosate makes up only 51% of the formulation, and this case brought out the fact that the adjuvants and other additives are not inert. It is anti-science for WP to continue to pass off Glyphosate as synonymous with Roundup, and the problem is further elucidated by the fact that we are quibbling over whether to mention this case in the "history" or cancer section here.

From internal documents shown to jurors https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/monsanto-secret-documents/ is this quotation coming directly from Donna Farmer, lead toxicologist for Monsanto:

“The terms glyphosate and Roundup cannot be used interchangeably nor can you use “Roundup” for all glyphosate-based herbicides any more. For example, you cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.” petrarchan47คุก 17:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Petrarchan, this is getting into unrelated WP:OR or synth territory to the case with respect to Roundup vs glyphosate. Also, please be wary about cherrypicking emails provided by the litigants without context (I would hope most are aware of how bad "Climategate" got). A lot of the stuff in the case itself is going to be WP:UNDUE with respect to what WP:MEDRS sources have to say. If we're going to give any weight to the idea that the adjuvants are significantly causing cancer (not something really given weight by MEDRS from what I've seen), then we need MEDRS discussion of that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:No original research the "policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages". Petrarchan47 does not appear to be arguing that the quote be added to article space. Dialectric (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

It may appear as SYNTH/OR but that is only because I didn't include my sources. The internal emails were reported on over a year ago, in the New York Times. The Intercept, considered WP:RS has been reporting on the issue of the "inert ingredients" since May. The recent case found that "specifically Roundup" was responsible for the man's cancer, as reported in Reuter's. They singled it out:

"Brent Wisner, a lawyer for Johnson, in a statement said jurors for the first time had seen internal company documents "proving that Monsanto has known for decades that glyphosate and specifically Roundup could cause cancer."

I will return back when I have time, to include all of my sources that have informed everything I've said on this talk page. Once you read the reporting, you will see that everything I've has been covered in RS, and I'm not using SYNTH. [Adding: CNN article discussing the fact that these non-Hodgkins court cases specify Roundup; the article goes into detail about the additives they believe cause harm.]

And this from the Guardian, reporting on the recent case: "Now...Monsanto’s secretive strategies have been laid bare for the world to see. Monsanto was undone by the words of its own scientists, the damning truth illuminated through the company’s emails, internal strategy reports and other communications. The jury’s verdict found not only that Monsanto’s Roundup and related glyphosate-based brands presented a substantial danger to people using them..."

Now here is the tricky part for us, we cannot appear to be helping the defense by confusing the public about the distinction between Glyphosate and the formulations, nor by the fact that without a Roundup page, we can't really cover the story of this and future cases properly. It's a bit 'too' convenient for Monsanto, it will almost look like they're exerting some influence over this website, which would make sense but we have the whole WP:NPOV thing to consider. Besides, Glyphosate and Roundup are two different animals. Google "synergistic effect" (RS has reported on SE too, I'm not using SYNTN here either.]

KoA43, would you be opposed to a "Roundup" article? petrarchan47คุก 10:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

For reasons that I'll explain just below, I would very strongly oppose the creation of RoundUp as a standalone page in addition to the page that has already been created. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm traveling and have an unreliable internet connection, so please bear with me, but I listened to some coverage of the verdict on NPR this (Sunday) morning, and something that struck me was that the reporter made a distinction in that the jury verdict was a legal finding, but that the jury may not have been in a position to make a scientific determination. I'm definitely in favor of covering the case prominently, but I think it may be useful to keep that distinction in mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Trypto for that information. I think its very important as well. Gandydancer (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

All that I am showing here is reason to go ahead and reinstate the Roundup article. Does anyone disagree? petrarchan47คุก 09:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47: The new article is at Glyphosate-based herbicides. There is some support for this title over "Roundup" because it includes also includes Rodeo, etc. and discussing them all together is relevant for some of the content like aquatic toxicology. I don't think another split is needed just yet since the article itself is still rather short.Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Um, no. I have just added many sources to this page justifying why Roundup should have its own page, called "Roundup". How do you tell the story of Monsanto's biggest selling product without using the word Roundup? How do you justify NOT having a page for "Roundup" specifically? This again, seems way too convenient for Monsanto/Bayer and not at all in keeping with common sense or how this encyclopedia usually operates. We have pages about high school rock bands but you all think not having a page called "Roundup" is OK? Please, defend your position. petrarchan47คุก 10:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

"Roundup is the most popular weed killer on the planet ... The leading seller of glyphosate is Monsanto, the maker of Roundup." But you don't think it deserves it's own page? petrarchan47คุก 10:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I think editors said they already added it to Monsanto legal cases. Roundup is a DAB page anyway, so that's unlikely to change. It would have to be called Roundup (herbicide) or something. I don't really want to get involved beyond that. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I feel strongly that Glyphosate-based herbicides is the correct way to go. RoundUp redirects there, and Roundup is a DAB page, and that's the way that it should stay. RoundUp from Monsanto is one of the glyphosate-based herbicides, and the effect of giving it a separate page would inevitably be the creation of a WP:POV-fork that says "Monsanto and RoundUp are bad". --Tryptofish (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Earlier versions?

A template at the top of the page says "he contents of the Roundup page were merged into Glyphosate on 26 August, 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page." However, beacuse of subsequent pages moves they are not at that location--which can happen sometimes after multiple page moves. Where are they? DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not entirely confident that I'm giving you the right answer, but the correct spelling of the glyphosate product is RoundUp (note that Up is capitalized), and so there seems to be a lot of edit history going back and forth between RoundUp, which currently redirects to Glyphosate-based herbicides and Roundup (lower case) that is a DAB page. Perhaps something got lost in going back and forth between those two. There is a discussion of the merge at Talk:Glyphosate/Archive 2#Merge completed (way before I started watching this content), and maybe looking at the contribution histories of the editors in that discussion would shed some light. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

See Roundup (herbicide) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) SmartSE (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's it. Never mind what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Ghost-written study still included in References

Can anyone explain why is Williams GM 2000 study still part of the references when we now know that this study has been ghost written by Monsanto. As has been made evident in Case 3:16-md-02741-VC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Document No. 187-12 p. 4 (email unsealed by Court) (CONFIDENTIALITY HAS BEEN WAIVED BY DEFENDANT). wherein Dr. Heydens writes

"we ghost-write.....have their names on the publication, but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names...Recall that is how we handled Williams Kroes & Munro 2000".

Alain Pannetier (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

That would violate WP:MEDRS since reviews haven't criticized the methodology or findings of that paper, and recent reviews still cite it as a seminal paper with caveats. What you link are basically arguments from lawyers in the court case, which aren't really reliable, especially given how emails can be cherry-picked (e.g., Climategate). Everything I've seen so far indicates the actual authors are listed as such, and people who commented on a previous draft or did things not up to the level of being a co-author where in the acknowledgements. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The deontology problem posed the ghost writting of this study is well described in McHenry 2018 "The monsanto papers: Poisoning the scientific well". Including the very passage I cite above. So it's not accurate that the academic community does not acknowledge the paper has been ghost-written by Monsanto consultants. In addition you seem to dismiss quite easily as "arguments from lawyers" what are actually legal pieces which a court has agreed should be made public. Finally, if papers citing Williams GM 2000 now do so with caveats, then I can't see why the Wikipedia article should be exempt of these same caveats - especially now that the press at large has largely reported the issue.

Alain Pannetier (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

References

• • This is now an open issue on more then one article and it may be better to post the question be posted to RS/n so we can have the discussion in one place. WP:MEDRS says Claims of bias should be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and are not reason to omit sources without consensus - there are definitely reliable secondary sources that have covered this, including NPR:

Monsanto executive William Heydens proposed that the company "ghost-write" one paper. In an email, Heydens wrote that "we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak." Heydens wrote that this is how Monsanto had "handled" an earlier paper on glyphosate's safety. That earlier paper, published in 2000, acknowledges Monsanto's help in assembling the data, but does not list any Monsanto employees as co-authors.

Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

To some extent, this depends on what kind of content is being cited to the source: it may be more reliable for some things than for others. It also depends on the extent to which other sources come to opposite conclusions, in which case it may be necessary to cite various sources according to due weight. But I'm skeptical of arguments that these emails automatically render the source unreliable, because lawyers on one side of an ongoing court case do not determine scientific consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It's mostly that we don't need to use this source. There are other sources available for the content about the active ingredient and we shouldn't be using it to give undue weight to other content anyway. The problem isn't the emails, it has received coverage in reliable secondary sources. That is enough to call the reliability of the source into question - there would have to be a really good reason to justify continuing to use it and I don't see one when the source can be replaced by more recent sources. Per WP:MEDRS It may be simpler to find a "better" source - the argument for this is pretty much common sense. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Glyphosate-based herbicides

• It was mentioned in a talk section above, but because of the multiple discussions here I want to make sure that everyone is aware of it, that a new page on Glyphosate-based herbicides has been created. I've redirected RoundUp to target there, instead of here. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I've taken the liberty to create a separate section. If we really need two articles, we need to decide (probably here) what content should be in each article. Right now, most of Glyphosate-based_herbicides#Background is about glyphosate - not formulations. Admittedly our coverage in this article on residues and MRLs is absent, but those sources there are crap too, given that they make no distinction as to whether the quantities are within MRLs or not - (Edit to say that this no longer applies). Then there is all of Glyphosate#Glyphosate-based_formulations which should be moved there if this is only about glyphosate, same for Glyphosate#Use. SmartSE (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

At this point, it would seem better to solidify what has any staying power over at that article (if anything) before removing anything here. This article is still going to include information about the formulations since that is how the active ingredient is used, and you can't really separate the two in this article. The content here isn't very long though, so the opportunity for the other article will be fleshing out that information more if anything is WP:DUE. It doesn't look like that's the case to me, but I'll be trying some stress testing on that later when I do some cleanup over there later. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Smartse: Uh, thanks for the ping - since you are talking about content I added, the sources most certainly are not crap, unlike the content that was dumped into that article from here with almost verbatim close paraphrasing and all kinds of other problems. They are The New York Times and The Guardian. I thought it was removed because it was about glyphosate and not the formulations, and it should be added to this article. Why are you saying they make no distinction as to whether the quantities are within MRLs or not? - it's already in the content that was removed - "at levels that fell within EPA regulations" and "trace amounts". [1] Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: The reason I removed it was indeed because they are about glyphosate, not a formulation. Source quality goes beyond way beyond who the publisher was. By "crap" I was referring to the fact that you were referencing glyphosate residues (not a formulation) to newspaper articles when this kind of material can and should be sourced to academic literature. The reason for this is that journalists rarely put things into perspective, nor are capable of determining whether the results are of significance. "Roundup found in Ben and Jerry's" makes a good headline, but the information comes from the Organic Consumers Association who have their own stake in this debate, just as much as Monsanto. Trace amounts of pesticides will be found in pretty much all foods (incl. organic) and this is why we need academic sources that discuss whether they are anything to be worried about. This article has long needed a good discussion on residues of glyphosate in food. We don't need a running commentary on which food brands contain tiny amounts of glyphosate. Again, this brings me back to why we even need two articles? There are definitely things to improve here, so why not work on this and then work out what should be forked off and summarised if and when it becomes too long? SmartSE (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

We need more then two articles. This is pretty absurd, new article creation is not restricted this way, and I shouldn't be getting this much grief from it. As long as the subject is notable editors are allowed to create new articles. It's not a split from this article, because I haven't removed anything from this article and I don't want to remove anything from this article. I think I didn't really make that clear, I thought the discussion was about creating a new article, not removing content from this one. I have no opinion on that. But I don't think I did anything wrong by creating a new article, and I don't know why RoundUp was merged into this article in the first place because I haven't even been able to find the previous discussion that led to the merger.Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Separating most of the material on Roundup into the page on the formulations was a good first step, though there is some unavoidable duplication. But Roundup is a famous brand in its own right, as a brand, quite apart from its constituents, and it was so long before the present controversy. We make pages on famous brands, chemical and otherwise. I think the best way of proceeding would be in draft space, with the title "Roundup (herbicide)". For the moment i've made redirect from that title to the foumulations article. I am not sure whether tit is appropiate to also make an article on Roundup Controveries. We normally avoid such a split,but the amount of material may turn out to require it.

( FWIW, I am personally undecided about whether it poses a health hazard in harvested products, though I do think its uses poses a direct and indirect environmental hazard, but my views on such matters are irrelevant to whether we should have a separate article.) As a specific comment, I think most of the popular reporting -- and some of the commentary, even scientific commentary, does not seem to distinguish between "There is no evidence that x causes y" with " there is evidence that x does not cause Y." As a responsible encyclopedic tertiary source , we need to clarity this when it is necessary. . DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

One thing that I think we need to take very seriously is whether a separate page on RoundUp alone would become a WP:POV-fork. As for your point about "no evidence that it does" as opposed to "evidence that it does not", I agree with you entirely that we need to be accurate about that. There is discussion right now that relates to that at Talk:Glyphosate-based herbicides; I'm way behind in getting familiar with all the sources, but comments from editors who have read more than I have do suggest that some of the source material actually tests the toxicity and finds it to be low. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

"""I see no reason for it to be a PPOV fork. It would be an excellent place for the information on its introduction and the development and encouragement of its widespread use, and the fefforts ofthe manufacturers to promote it, along with the undoubted immediate benefits on production of important commercial crops. The history of it is a topic in itself. Of course, so is the litigation. I can see the advantage in moved material on the litigation there, to remove it from the general pages., which should concentrate on the science. I think in discussing the validity of the science, which is important and should indeed be kept together and use high academic standards, we also need to discuss the equally important social. [p;otoca;l, and economic aspects--which can use a different set of Rss altogether. We could agree easier on the science if we mover the other aspects. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest discussing that at Talk:Glyphosate-based herbicides rather than here, since the potential split of pages would really be there. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Coverage of Roundup Cancer Case

RfC is live at the Monsanto page petrarchan47คุก 04:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Weeds or forbs?

A recent edit changed "weeds" to "forbs": [2]. I think that "weeds" would be the more reader-friendly word choice. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that weeds is the much better word. Forbs is not a word in general use outside of ecology and could confuse, and in the context of that edit, it does not significantly aid clarity.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   18:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Forbs also aren't always weeds, so weeds is more accurate. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I should have checked the wikilinks, but the broadleaf link only redirects to trees. I went ahead and linked to forbs instead in this edit, so hopefully that fixes both issues. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that completely resolves it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

A recent edit

I am concerned about this edit: [3]. I understand the rationale given in the edit summary, but I am not convinced by it. The source ([4]) is not "randomly selected", and it is incorrect to treat the IARC report as though it were a MEDRS-applicable source that reflects scientific consensus. The edit has the net effect of treating the IARC report as being more scientifically-accepted than it actually is, and it seems to me to be perfectly appropriate to cite comments by recognized experts in the field as including a significant amount of criticism; there is no need for each expert to have said the same thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

While the "group of scientists" has been described as a "lobby group" [5] Gandydancer (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking into whether or not the Science Media Centre is some sort of non-neutral advocacy group, I find this: [6]. It began as a British government agency and is now part of the Wellcome Collection. It is most definitely a reliable source about the opinions of scientists. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Glyphosate / Honeybees

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to our guidelines:

Respect primary sources - A primary source, such as a report of a pivotal experiment cited as evidence for a hypothesis, may be a valuable component of an article. A good article may appropriately cite primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Use of primary sources should always conform to the No original research policy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well yes, actually we do have a secondary source which used the same outfit that KoF recommends below -- which he apparently accidentally overlooked. [7]. Gandydancer (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

Another recent edit

About: [8] (added by an IP, with a spelling correction by another editor). I think there might be a WP:POV problem with it. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent European Parliament report and Beanbrook claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New verdict

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

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

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

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

About MEDRS sources

I've just made this edit: [9], and I want to explain why, because it may not be entirely obvious.

For content such as this, that says or implies that something may cause birth defects, Wikipedia relies on WP:MEDRS to evaluate sources, so that we don't mislead readers with preliminary or one-off health information (which gets published in the scientific literature all the time, and needs to be replicated subsequently by independent researchers). I previously had placed this tag: [10]. That's because the source was a press report rather than a peer-reviewed study, and because it was about a case report of a single patient, rather than a retrospective review of the literature as a whole. More information was then added, which I appreciate: [11]. But that only compounded the problem. First of all, these amount to three separate reports, so there is WP:SYNTH in treating two of them as justifying the first. Also, the two new sources are primary sources, rather than retrospective reviews of the kind of observation reported in the first press report. That's why I removed it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)