Talk:Glyphosate/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

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)

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)

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)..."[1] 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)[2] 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)

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)

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 [3] [4] but unfortunately can't access them. They look like good sources though. SmartSE (talk) 20:56, 10 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

"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)

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)

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. [5]

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)

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 [6]

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

See comment below. Same deal. Lfstevens (talk) 23:32, 12 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.[7] 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)