Jump to content

Talk:Glyphosate/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Bloomberg and MEDRS

Just a note on a now removed edit by Gandydancer first inserted here that was later modified by Tryptofish. I've since removed that content since it isn't gaining consensus in different iterations at the moment.

The first issue I've brought up a few times now is that this is information from a pending lawsuit, which generally aren't too reliable in terms of WP:WEIGHT because either side typically will try to tell stories to put themselves in the best light (or opponent in a poor light) regardless of fact with posturing and all that other fun stuff. That especially goes for cherrypicking of emails, etc. that should be no strange topic for those who have kept up with "Climategate", ambulance chasing lawsuits, etc. Better to have the court decide what claims are actually merited if we're going to talk about the lawsuit here since Wikipedia is supposed to take the long view, not a blow by blow of every lawsuit out there regardless of merit.

The core issue though is that using a newspaper to try to criticize a WP:MEDRS is a direct violation of that guideline. WP:MEDPOP is very clear on the problems of using newspapers to criticize scientific sources, which is why we usually use other MEDRS sources to weight MEDRS sources if there is some valid criticism of the paper. If another appropriate secondary source were criticizing this one in question in terms of conclusions or study design, that would be something worth mentioning. However, no source citing the study in question on Web of Science or Scopus has been critical of it, and some citing it are even agreeing that the IARC had some methodological issues (in addition to studies outlining the correlation study claim of glyphosate to NH-lymphoma being confounded with more problematic insecticides like organophosphates). If the declaration of financial interests in the review were indeed incorrect, we'll get a lot more for sources than just claims from a lawsuit such as comment/retraction from the journal or other researchers pointing our what claims were flawed, etc. At this time though, there's no deadline to include what's essentially tentative or early stage material at best. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

As a slight background note on "ghostwriting" claims here, it is not unheard of (nor unethical in scientific publishing) to have a funding source review a draft of a publication just for their own awareness or for them to suggest minor edits etc. as long as the actual authors are independent and have the final say in the content of the paper. It's also not unheard of for groups to use hyperbole making it seem like any involvement means the paper was not independent. There's a whole mess of things that could have potentially happened here based on what's currently out there, but also many of which that wouldn't merit any mention here. That doesn't exclude that something unethical did happen, but this is a topic to take care on because the public and journalists often do not understand scientific publishing and what is often considered by academics guidelines to be independent. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
As a matter of fact there is nothing new here from you as this is the same thing you've been saying for years in your efforts to keep any negative information from making its way into the Monsanto articles. As for some sort of WP policy that defends your position, let take a look at articles other than those from Monsanto, the BP and the Chevron articles for instance. I worked on both of those articles and we discussed ongoing lawsuits at length and in all those weeks and months of discussion never once was it brought up that Wikipedia does not include information on on-going lawsuits. Not once, and both articles were about health-related issues. The news is currently full of articles related to this on-going lawsuit and the resulting Monsanto information release. Clearly, considering that my edits were deleted with no objections by any of the editors that are currently working on this article, I will not be soon seeing any of this information in this article. I must say, however, after my BP experience where a news outlet published a scathing story on the Wikipedia BP article, it would not surprise me to see the same thing happen to this article. Gandydancer (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Although I usually agree with KofA on scientific issues, I disagree very strongly here. I really wish that you (KofA) had not reverted it, because although technically it is not a violation of 1RR, it violates the spirit of it, and there are important WP:NPOV issues here. The revision that I made really did address the MEDRS issue, because after my revision, there was nothing in the content that was criticizing the science of the study. It is simply untrue that this was a case of using a non-MEDRS news source to criticize MEDRS content. It was using a news source that is an entirely reliable source as to news, to report news about the editorial process of writing a scientific paper (a paper that was not even named in my revision). The matter of who contributed to the writing of a publication is absolutely outside of the scope of MEDRS. As for the information having come from attorneys in an ongoing lawsuit, I would have opposed inclusion if it had been sourced directly to those attorneys – but it wasn't. It was sourced independently by Bloomberg, and as such, we should accept the factual nature of what Bloomberg said about it. There really is no question that the emails say what they do. And whether it's common practice is a matter of WP:OR. (In my area of science, which I do realize has a different culture than agricultural science, it would be considered unacceptable, by the way.) And finally, in my revision there was approximately equal weight given to the Monsanto response. I really do object very strongly. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
The issue with MEDRS I bring up is that at it's core, a criticism at funding, etc. is an attempt at criticizing study validity (by the lawsuit and other groups, not you Trypto). Your edit was definitely an improvement compared to the previous iteration, and barring the above issues I'm actually fine with your edits in that context.
Your mention of Bloomberg applies more to WP:V, but my issue is more WP:WEIGHT where pretty much any random lawsuit against companies gets publicity. Unless we get into WP:PARITY territory, we're generally going to want another MEDRS source criticizing the study. If all it was was just minor nonsubstantial involvement, sources will cite it like normal and nothing about the involvement will obtain sufficient weight for mention here. If that is not the case and there were problems that affected study validity, that will either be mentioned directly as inappropriate involvement or just the ultimate result of sources saying conclusions were flawed for which we would have strong sources for it that point. I'd be in a bit more a gray zone of a completed court case vs. a MEDRS source (is the study really MEDRS at that point if the court substantiates the claims?), but we're not there yet either. I'm definitely seeing this as more a wait and see instance. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll give a brief reply here, and a more in-depth reply below. I'm thinking hard about whether the content is a criticism of the scientific conclusions of the study (which I agree would require MEDRS sourcing) or a criticism of how Monsanto behaved during the publication process. Logically, there is such a thing as encyclopedically-relevant interference with a scientific study that nonetheless ended up with valid scientific conclusions – but on the other hand, I tend to agree with you that the effect of the content, on the face of it, is to make it sound like maybe glyphosate is unsafe. I'm generally sympathetic to arguments that current and in-progress issues are ones where it is best to wait for a more definitive resolution, but if this is purely about the ghostwriting issue, and not about the science, then I don't think that there is anything that we still need to wait for. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello User:Kingofaces43, can you explain offhand why Wikipedia should only use medical journals as a source about ghostwritten public relations material? Which medical journals cover corporate public relations, and can you point us to some relevant sources in this case? Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I more or less explained what I actually think above in this same diff to Tryptofish, and the way the question is framed is very different than what I'm describing. This is basically a criticism of study conduction, and criticism of that study is directly in the purview of journals in the field. You'll often find such unethical publishing practices dealt with by retraction, or statement by the journal too. The completed court case would also give additional context either way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with protection given we're getting multiple editors involved in the edits now. Just a reminder in general to editors (or note for those new) is that as part of the 1RR expectation is that we follow WP:BRD in that when it's clear a new edit isn't getting traction, work on gaining consensus on the talk page instead. That's as much as I'll comment on non-content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I have a few of comments/concerns.

First, I can't understand how we can claim that the addition doesn't need to meet MEDRS because it is not in any way critical of the medical science of the studies. The addition clearly refers to "a 2016 scientific evaluation of glyphosate safety". While it may not actually use the word critical, it seems disingenuous, bordering on dishonest, to suggest that there is no criticism implied. But perhaps someone can explain the reasoning here. If this section doens't imply any criticism of the study, then how is it in any way noteworthy? Why would a reader care about Monsanto's contribution if the reader assumed that Monsanto's contribution was proper and had no effect on the results? Should we also include statements about every other person and organisation that a RS mentions being involved in a Glyphosate trial? I think that if we are all honest, we would have to agree that this material is only of interest if the reader assumes that Monsanto's contribution is somehow improper. And if tht is true, then the text impies negativivity/criticism. But I'm willing to be persuaded if someone can explain why else the people/groups contributing to a study would be of interest if their involvement is utterly acceptable and proper.

My second concern is WP:ROC. This is an article about Glyphosate, not about Monsanto. The fact that Monsanto contributed, in a totally proper way, to some study on Glyphosate, seems way outside the scope of this article. If there is no criticism implied in this addition, then don't we need to include a similar statment for every other organsiation and individual who ever contributed to a Glyphosate study. For example, the first page of a Google search finds RS materiel that says Cornell university, USEPA, Oxford university and several other organisations all contributed to Glyphosate studies. Why do we not have similar statements about all of them? It seems to me that the only thing that makes Monsantos's contribution noteworthy is the implication that there involvement is somehow improper. But if that is the case, the it fails MEDRS since it is a criticism of the medical studies. It would be appreciated if someone coudl explain why they think that Monsanto contributing to a study is more noteworthy than Cornell contributing.

My third concern is that the edition is WP:COATRACK. This article is about Glyphosate. And we have:

A newspaper article.

About an unresolved court case.

Wherein one of the plaintiffs allege what (editors agree) is totally proper conduct.

In the editing of a single report.

By one of dozens of manufacturers of the article subject.

This inclusion is at least 5 steps removed from the actual topic of the article. This inclusion gives at least an the appearance of using this article as a coat rack for a criticism of Monsanto. It seems of no interest at all to someone who wants to know about the chemical Glyphosate. Which leads to...

My final concern: the addition is dubious with respect to WP:NOTNEWS. I am sruggling to reconcile this with a guideline that says that inclusions should be of enduring notability. Are we seriously saying that someone interested in Glyphosate, in 10 years time, after the court case is resolved, will care that a plaintiff against one of dozens of manufacturers alleged that manufacturer contibuted in a proper way to a study of the chemical?

I can read this inclusion 2 ways. Either this is a criticism of Monsanto and their interference in the study. Or it's not a crticism at all and doesn't imply that the study is in any way suspect. If the former, then it clearly fails WP:MEDPOP. If the latter then I can not see how it is in any way noteworthy, enduring or of any interest to someone seeking information on Glyphosate. Mark Marathon (talk) 02:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You raise a lot of important issues and concerns. I'll try to make a few arguments from my point of view. I'll skip issue #1 for now and start with #2 This is an article about Glyphosate, not about Monsanto. If you look at our other chemical substance articles you will find that they too have information beyond what one might find in a chemistry book. See for example chlorpyrifos in which a Freedom of Information request by the NYT revealed that Scott Pruitt had lied about meeting with Dow Company Company representatives before he overturned the 2015 EPA revocation. You also say It would be appreciated if someone coudl explain why they think that Monsanto contributing to a study is more noteworthy than Cornell contributing. It's more noteworthy because Monsanto manufactures the chemical and it is to their advantage to produce only good reviews of it. This leads to this concern If the latter then I can not see how it is in any way noteworthy, enduring or of any interest to someone seeking information on Glyphosate. This issue is very noteworthy because it was used by EFSA to approve glyphosate and the EFSA review is now being used by the EU to determine if they should extend the license of glyphosate for another 10 years. There has been a lot of news coverage of this because a EU ban would result in loss of a substantial amount of income for Monsanto. Although KoF states "on "ghostwriting" claims here, it is not unheard of (nor unethical in scientific publishing) to have a funding source review a draft of a publication just for their own awareness or for them to suggest minor edits etc. as long as the actual authors are independent and have the final say in the content of the paper." However, in this case one can see for themself the comparison of the two documents and judge whether or not it was ghostwritten, which has been the conclusion of every independent source that I've read. This is all I have time for for now but will try to give more of my opinions as time permits. Gandydancer (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
A lot of these issues come down to whether the content is about glyphosate or about Monsanto, and I'm thinking very hard about how to parse that. If the content is about a meaningful concern about glyphosate safety, then it needs MEDRS sourcing and not just Bloomberg. If the content is about Monsanto's business practices, then it belongs at the Monsanto page and not here. But I'm seeing the content as being somewhere in the middle between those two poles.
This page about glyphosate devotes considerable text to the EFSA study, and Gandydancer is correct that the EFSA study is important on this page. If I understand correctly, the 2016 study came to similar overall conclusions as the EFSA study: both studies are cited as supporting approval of glyphosate use. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.) So something about the 2016 study is relevant to this page – but what? Here, we are dealing with how Monsanto, not listed as an author of the 2016 study, nonetheless took part in its writing. The last iteration of proposed text gave approximately equal weight to Bloomberg's interpretation (not a scientific one) that Monsanto was very actively involved in crafting the paper, and to Monsanto's rebuttal that they only provided minor copyediting. Nothing in saying that some parties consider Monsanto's role in the writing to be major, and other parties consider it to be minor, requires MEDRS sourcing. Does the content imply, however, that Bloomberg's conclusions indicate that there might actually be undisclosed health issues with glyphosate? That's a tough question, and maybe it does.
Mark Marathon says that editors here agree that there was nothing wrong with what Monsanto did. That is not the case. I clearly said above that I consider it potentially improper, so there are differing editor opinions about that. (Compare, for what it's worth, Wikipedia's own policy on undisclosed paid editing.) Bloomberg appears to have concluded that it was sufficiently improper to make it newsworthy. So that's a secondary source, and not editors, saying that there is potentially something problematic with human behavior during the editing process, separately from the scientific conclusions that were drawn, and that it was significant enough to write a news article about. So, about NOTNEWS, this isn't about whether future readers will care about what the plaintiffs claimed, but about whether future readers will care about why Bloomberg took notice of it. I think the content passes that test. Mark Marathon also asks what makes involvement of Monsanto different from involvement of various academic organizations. That's an easy question, and I agree with Gandydancer's answer to it. Monsanto, even if it technically isn't the only manufacturer, is by far the major manufacturer, and it has a for-profit interest in a particular result that academics, as well as government funders of science, do not. Sorry, but in my opinion, the position that Monsanto not just reading the study prior to publication, but also changing it prior to publication (without disclosing it in the published paper), is just normal scientific practice, fails the "can I say this with a straight face?" test. So is this a situation where Monsanto's reported "contribution was proper and had no effect on the results"? No, it appears to be that Monsanto's contribution was at least disturbing to an extent that was newsworthy, but probably had no significant effect on the results. Yeah, I know that's a gray area, but that's how I see the source material.
So, does this information belong on this page, separately from what is on the Monsanto page? At the time of page protection, we have a page section titled Glyphosate#Monsanto. Why do we have a section called Monsanto (and not separate sections about each of the other involved companies), even though this isn't the page about Monsanto? I think the answer is obvious: that Monsanto plays a unique and important role in the page subject. But there is also a case to be made that we should entirely remove that page section (moving some of its content to other sections – but please see also what I said in my edit summary here: [1]). But as long as we have such a section, I believe that this content is appropriate here, and not a coatrack. Delete the section, and I'll support deleting the disputed content.
And so, finally, how to resolve the issue of whether this is an implied criticism of the science? Well, in this version: [2], it does not say that at all, and gives due weight to Monsanto's position that it was just minor copyediting. But I'll agree that it indirectly sort-of implies it. So, that is what I think is now the nub of the problem. Please remember at this point that I'm the editor who was the filing party in the ArbCom GMO case and the editor who was the main force behind WP:GMORFC. But the community consensus there was that Wikipedia does not say "if you eat food from a plant that has a glyphosate-resistance gene you'll get sick". That's not the same thing as "if you are a field worker and glyphosate spray gets onto you, you might get cancer". So the RfC does not mean that there is a consensus that we cannot present both sides of the issue on agricultural chemicals (DS and 1RR apply there, but not the community content decision). We are therefore working here with NPOV and RS. And NPOV indicates that we should not leave out potential criticism of Monsanto – and that is my position as well. I think that to argue that we cannot even imply anything unethical about Monsanto because of the GMO RfC misconstrues the RfC and thoroughly violates NPOV. Finally, I don't think that the most recent version of the proposed content goes so far as to make health-related implications that require MEDRS. It makes non-MEDRS direct statements that are due weight and adequately sourced, with a slight implication that can be read into it but that is not said explicitly. In my carefully thought-out opinion, I'm open to revising the proposed content further or to removing the Monsanto section of the page, but I do not think that it is governed by MEDRS. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I planned to discuss the issue "A lot of these issues come down to whether the content is about glyphosate or about Monsanto" that you bring up as well since Mark saw it as a problem too. And you said, "If the content is about Monsanto's business practices, then it belongs at the Monsanto page and not here." I agree that it is problematic.
According to the released Emails, a Monsanto executive said, “What I’ve been hearing from you is that this continues to be the case with these studies — Glyphosate is O.K. but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage.” In a 2003 email, a different Monsanto executive tells others, “You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.” She adds, however, that “we can make that statement about glyphosate and can infer that there is no reason to believe that Roundup would cause cancer.”[3]
Note also that the released Emails show that Monsanto officials expected that the WHO's IARC report would find possible or probable cause. The IARC used studies that tested not only glyphosate but glyphosate formulations (such as Roundup) as well. Perhaps you or most of the editors here do not see this as a big deal and something that really does need to be put somewhere in this encyclopedia, but I do. If not here then at the Monsanto article. It certainly does not need medical source guidelines as it is not a debate about whether or not a weedkiller causes cancer. It is about Monsanto's cover-up of knowledge of the possibility of harm.
Perhaps it would seem undue to include Monsanto business practices in this glyphosate article but when the Roundup article was combined with this one it should not be used as an excuse for limiting what we can post here. Perhaps. I'm not sure. Gandydancer (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to bring up a distinction. You have quoted directly from the emails (here on the talk page, of course), but I think that editors drawing conclusions directly from those emails (primary source) ends up being WP:OR. Conversely, editors basing content on published conclusions drawn by secondary sources, in this case Bloomberg, is the correct way to go, and I don't want to go beyond anything that Bloomberg says. But having slept on it, I continue to believe strongly that Bloomberg is a reliable source for the role played by Monsanto in preparing the 2016 paper, whereas it is not an adequate source for what should or should not be the scientific conclusions.
I also think that WP:NPOV is important here (while at the same time, editors should not just insert negative content based upon WP:RGW). And I'm troubled by the logical implications of arguing that, if content can be interpreted as implying anything negative about glyphosate (or GMO) safety, even if the content does not actually say anything about it, then anything that might reflect badly upon Monsanto must be sourced only to MEDRS sources. If we were to follow that approach consistently, then we end up being unable to have pretty much anything at all critical of Monsanto, and that is manifestly a POV problem, just about a roadmap for pro-Monsanto POV-pushing. It seems to me that any content that is actually about health or safety must be sourced according to MEDRS. But content like what we have here (I think, depending on how we end up presenting it), that is only about what people did during the preparation of a scientific paper, but not explicitly about health or safety, cannot be held to that standard, particularly when the content is not directly about the conclusions of the WP:GMORFC. Here, we have a difficult borderline case. On its face, the disputed content is not about health or safety – but it can lead to inference about scientific validity. I still think it appropriate to include the content on this page, but I'm also friendly to taking a good hard look at exactly how to word it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Trypto, I am certainly not suggesting that we use the emails as a source for the article and I am surprised that you might think that I don't know any better. On the other hand, IMO we can be a little more free with what we link to on the talk page. Perhaps I'm wrong. Gandydancer (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't think that at all! Rather, I was making sure that everyone was clear on it, that's all. I think that there could have been room for misunderstanding, that I wanted to head off (and ironically created another misunderstanding of my own). --Tryptofish (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Quote: "On its face, the disputed content is not about health or safety – but it can lead to inference about scientific validity." And exactly who will make that decision? We are after all a bunch of anon people with no documented expertise what so ever and it is best to not speculate about "inferences" that our edits may introduce. It is not our place to make that sort of speculative thinking, IMO. (though always ready to be convinced otherwise) Gandydancer (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
That's a significant part of my reasoning that we should be mainly concerned with what the content actually says, as opposed to what it implies. But at the same time, I readily acknowledge that it's very reasonable to look at this particular content and think something along the lines of if Monsanto influenced the writing of the study, then they might have influenced it to downplay any safety issues with glyphosate, and if that's what happened, then maybe there are safety issues with glyphosate that we don't know about. I think that it's very reasonable that editors would be concerned that we must not make it sound that way unless we have reliable sourcing that such safety issues have actually been scientifically identified. After all, a great deal of WP:WTW is about avoiding language that implies an unstated opinion, and WP:BLP means that we must not let slip unsupported implications about persons. So for that reason, while I'm making the case that something like this content is still OK, I'm very receptive to revising it to make it as objectively worded as possible. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll reply primarily to your paragraphs first Trypto. First on the note of "Monsanto's business practices" there is so much WP:FRINGE material out there on that subject that we do need to tread extremely carefully. That especially applies to when it comes up in a lawsuit where either side can more or less try to spin things how they want, especially before it is decided. That applies in either hypothetical worst case scenario of Monsanto having underlying wrongdoing related to the lawsuit or the claimants essentially being spurred on by ambulance chasing business practices using weak studies themselves (there's some potential sourcing I'm checking out on this). That is why regardless of which news source reports on it right now, it's difficult to obtain any measure of weight even leaving the scientific portion out of the question, which brings up the need to raise source quality.
On your second paragraph, we need to be very careful about WP:OR here as you also mentioned, so just reiterating too that personal opinion about what constitutes major involvement really can't be doled out by us. The bright line for academic publishing is that funding source, etc. cannot have editorial control. If that was violated (as well as the disclosure statement that the journal editors and 9 journal reviewers did approve of), we'll hear about that either from the journal itself or other scientific publications. Speaking with my editor hat off for a moment now, if it was only minor involvement, that's something doesn't qualify for authorship and maybe acknowledgements instead, but a more serious case of someone who should have been an author, funding source having editorial control, etc. is something that tends to make waves even in SCIRS/MEDRS sources for less controversial companies that results in retractions, statements from the journal, etc.
Following up on the later part of your second paragraph with your mention of MEDRS, what you mentioned is a criticism of study design / writing. If we're following MEDRS, other MEDRS sources are needed to criticize the study at all whether it's the conclusions it came to or how it was conducted and communicated. If there are issues of weight as I gave potential examples of above, we'll hear about it in sources qualified to ascertain the validity of the study in question both in terms of the publishing process and conclusions.
On the third, I overall agree with nearly all of Mark's points. I've been trying to cut back on my verbosity a bit, but he fleshed out my thoughts as well overall. The one thing I differ with Mark on is that we really shouldn't be talking about judging whether what Monsanto did was wrong or not in terms of being editors (I've been trying to be careful about separating my edit-based discussion from trying to give context of what to look for down the road). I haven't even dug into all of the details (as rigorous or more than what Bloomberg did) for me to personally judge that yet, but that's also because we as editors want appropriate sources to ascertain that for us (see previous paragraph). Basically, we want something that can rise above the WP:FRINGE fluff that often comes up on the intertwined Monsanto business practices subject as well as familiarity with what constitutes as substantial problem with the paper writing when you exclude the fringe question. An incomplete lawsuit or general news sources citing that lawsuit are going to have a tough time reaching that bar. That circles back to the need of MEDRS to criticize a study's development and publication though.
For your fourth, I overall agree with you on the Monsanto section that it could go either way (maybe a discussion for later), but this gets back to WP:WEIGHT. If the claim to fame of a particular piece of information is truly business practices, that belongs at Monsanto. If it's more about glyphosate, and in this case, its health effects, it has more weight for being included here instead. There's an interplay between the two, but if we do get MEDRS criticism of the study in question, that would warrant mention here and potentially at the Monsanto page too.
For the last, while your version was an improvement, it is still implying criticism. There's really not a way to separate the two even if we don't outright say it, which can run aground of NPOV. I agree with your on including criticism of Monsanto when it is due for this page. I'm entirely on board with such criticism when it is warranted (that's part of my profession in agricultural extension to call such instances out in my own field for the public afterall), but we just haven't reached the level of source quality needed for that yet.
The best way forward right now seems to be time. As I've said before, I consider a completed court case a bit of a gray zone on this subject, but it does have the potential to be used as something of sufficient weight depending on the outcome. Otherwise, we should be getting MEDRS sources with some commentary to establish weight. In that case, such a source could be used as an anchor to use other sources like Bloomberg as background sources on the subject. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for genuinely engaging with what I said, and I'll certainly try now to do likewise. Taking your comments paragraph-by-paragraph, your first paragraph addresses the need to avoid fringe sources. I agree with you that there's a lot of such sourcing out there, and that we should not rely on it. But I do not see Bloomberg as being fringe, and as I said before, I think they are a reliable source, and not fringey, for the basic fact of who took part in the writing. Just because there are many fringe advocates of "Monsanto is evil", I don't want to set aside a reliable source.
In your second paragraph, I see that we both are concerned about OR, but we are each seeing it in different places. As I said before, if the only sourcing were the plaintiff's attorneys releasing the emails, I'd have opposed the content. But Bloomberg says that it was major, so our relying on that is not OR (and again, whether it really was major gets Monsanto's response in my suggested version). I, on the other hand, am concerned that it is OR to conclude that Bloomberg got it wrong. But, because I have not myself read the 2016 paper, I'm interested in what you have said about the disclosure statement. If it says that Monsanto did copyediting, I'll reverse my position here completely.
In your third paragraph, you say that it is "a criticism of study design / writing." Sorry, but no. It's a criticism of the writing, yes, but that is absolutely not the same thing as criticism of design. Criticism of study design does, I agree, require MEDRS. But a statement that some people took part in writing in a way that was not disclosed has nothing to do with scientific methods of data analysis.
You next say that you agree with Mark Marathon (and implicitly disagree with me) on some points. I agree with you that we should not judge things based on our own opinions. But I disagree that the potential involvement in writing was no big deal, and it sounds to me now like you also agree that there is at least a potential that if there were undisclosed major editing, that would potentially result "in retractions, statements from the journal, etc." Indeed. And I continue to disagree that manuscript involvement by Monsanto is no different than involvement by a university, and I hope that you see my point there. But again, even though there are fringe groups glomming onto this, the Bloomberg sourcing does not seem fringe to me. Not the emails as a primary source, and not the plaintiffs or their lawyers, but a mainstream secondary news source.
Now, I'll take your remaining points together as a group, because I want to find a way to get a consensus based on what you raise there. Basically, we are at an impasse where I'm satisfied that the Bloomberg sourcing provides adequate sourcing and sufficient due weight, and it sounds like you firmly are not. Can I still change your mind, based on what I said here? If not, I hope we can find a way to resolve that without needing an RfC. If you, instead, can persuade me that there was sufficient disclosure in the 2016 paper to have made this a mountain in a molehill, I'll reverse my position and agree with you. Or, if you can come up with some way to further revise the content so as to better minimize the "implication" problem, I'd be happy to work with that. But failing all of that, maybe we should go directly to the approach of removing the Monsanto section of the page entirely, instead of putting it off. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, apologies for not getting to this yesterday (I make a policy of not editing Wikipedia after coming back from the bar). A few clarifications first. On the note of fringe, I mention that because in agricultural topics, fringe ideas can permeate even into normally mainstream news sources that also tend to intertwine with anti-corporate views and other politics. While I don't outright consider Bloomberg fringe, I was moreso mentioning that this intersection of topics is often a mess even in normally reliable sources.
For your second paragraph, I'm not saying OR is an issue for Bloomberg, but rather they are not a WP:RS for scientific content (namely the assessment of the scientific process ranging from data analysis to the publishing process). When you are criticizing how a study was written, you are ultimately criticizing its conclusions in that text. Part of that requires subject matter expertise in the area of health in this case, but also expertise in the publishing process that is intertwined. In WP:MEDASSESS for example, it outlines some things outside the analysis, like funding source, references, etc. that are covered by MEDRS. The writing and publishing process itself is also discussed by MEDRS to a degree.
On "potential involvement not being a big deal", that hasn't been my personal viewpoint. If it appeared that way, maybe it wasn't clear enough that I was trying to outline a dichotomy of where this could potentially end up at the extremes with what we know from sources so far (i.e., either not actually being a problem that was overexaggerated by the suit, etc. or a case where the funding source actually had editorial control). Personally, I'm saving my judgement until I dig into the material myself, but in terms of being an editor, I'm waiting for better sources as I mentioned (at least better than a news source not really qualified to evaluate the claims).
With that clarification, I'll reply to your summary comment shortly. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks (or maybe I should say cheers ). Those clarifications are good, but we clearly aren't much closer to consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Break

So to reply to summary comments from Tryptofish:

  1. I do not think Bloomberg is a reliable source for this content on its own. If it was cited alongside a MEDRS/journal commentary source or the completed court case giving context to the claims, I would be fine with it as a supplementary source.
  2. Now that I am looking up the "source" again, I'm finding there are two articles we (and maybe sources) have been mixing up (Wiliams et al. and Acquavella et al. I'm still digging trying to sort out which one is actually being criticized here, but the disclosure section for each is at the end the paper (they're a bit to copy and paste, but they're similar for both).
  3. I don't see a way to remove the implication any more than Tryptofish did here. That's about as good as it gets, but it just doesn't really fit with MEDRS in my book even then.
  4. I am open to removing the Monsanto section entirely. We could integrate some of the content in the article. I'll see what you think of the previous points before fleshing this out more, but paragraph 1 is really the only main one to keep as well as potentially the last sentence of 3, and maybe some part of 5 or 6. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
OK then, it sounds like I didn't really change your mind. And unfortunately, you didn't change mine. There's no point that I can see in staying stuck here, so I will pick up from where you talked about removing the section, and try to make that into a precise proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for removal of section

I think that we will have a stalemate if we simply continue to discuss whether or not to include that passage about the emails. So I'm going to propose here that we completely remove the section Glyphosate#Monsanto from this page, and consequently any content about Monsanto and ghostwriting could go instead at Monsanto or a related page about the company itself (and I personally am not going to be involved in discussions at those places).

So I propose that that section would go, with portions of the current section relocated elsewhere on the page as follows:

  1. Move the first paragraph of the existing section ("Monsanto developed and patented... expired in September 2000.") to Glyphosate#Discovery. Put it after the second paragraph (about Franz), and before the last paragraph (about Duke and Powles).
  2. Delete the current second paragraph.
  3. Move the third paragraph ("The active ingredient... tallow amine.") into the second paragraph of Glyphosate#Formulations and tradenames. Put it just after "as the counterion", and before "Some brands include".
  4. Delete the current fourth paragraph (the blue-linked phrase simply goes to the top of the GM crops page, so the link isn't worth keeping).
  5. Combining the last two sentences as: "In 2003 Monsanto patented the use of glyphosate as an antiparasitic,[82] and in 2017 they marketed a Roundup formulation without glyphosate, as a lawn herbicide.[83]" Put that at the end of Glyphosate#Use (just before the GM crops subsection).

I think that keeps everything worth keeping, and reduces the overall focus of this page on Monsanto as a company. Then, as I said, issues of ghostwriting as a business practice can be addressed at other pages.

Would this be a workable compromise? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
We can fork it to an independent article on Roundup, a topic with obvious notability of its own, lots of coverage of its own, lots of tests which are separate from the tests on glyphosate only. It should be the main article for that topic, not a disambiguation page. Web searching confirms its prominence among topics with the same name. groupuscule (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
As to the fork, that is certainly one of a number of possibilities, and we do not need to choose among those options here. For now, I think the important issue is whether or not to implement the proposal for this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Well it rather does bear on the decision for this page, since its a question of whether Wikipedia at large will cover this extremely important topic. Fortunately there is no obstacle to recreating the article on Roundup, which was merged here several years ago. groupuscule (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Tryptofish that such a fork really isn't germane to this conversation. There would, however, need to be consensus to unmerge it in addition to other problems. At best, chemical trade names of sufficient weight get mentioned at the active ingredient page, but they do not get their own page if we're following Wikipedia chemical convention. There's also a WP:FRINGE aspect in the formulation topic, but that's a conversation for elsewhere. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
There was never a consensus to merge them in the first place. The Monsanto lobby quite clearly only invokes consensus or lack thereof when it works in their favor. Furthermore, Roundup is not simply a trade name of the chemical glyphosate, since as you know it includes other active ingredients. As you know, also, Roundup specifically has been the subject of numerous tests. There is no excuse for not having a page on it. Furthermore, there is no reason—and no consensus—for deleting the section on Monsanto here. Monsanto invented the chemical and it's a central part of the company's business model. There should be expanded coverage of Monsanto and Roundup, not less. It looks ugly indeed, resisting the inclusion of factual mainstream information on Wikipedia. Cordially, groupuscule (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
It is not proposition for article improving. It is obvious, this proposition aims to distance company from unpleasant issues. It's horrific how wikipedia is run by pro-industry editors. It's impossible not to notice conflict of interest here. Cathry (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense. The "pro-industry editor" who made this proposal (me) has been arguing at length for inclusion of this criticism of Monsanto on this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh please. This "good cop/bad cop game" was not at all convincing. When after some "arguing" you propose to delete any possible place for criticism of Monsanto on this page. Together with describing any my statements as "battlegroundy" and promotion site-ban for me Cathry (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
(Note, edit conflict with Trypto's 18:23 comment, so not aware of his most recent post -- and not at all sure why it has appeared above mine at 18:21 ...) Regarding the deletion of this WP editor's comment, surely we have not reached the point where we can just delete comments that we don't agree with by saying "not helpful". This is our talk page, this is not the article. Please keep that in mind. Gandydancer (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I also would not have reverted that comment, preferring instead to reply to it. However, there is an element of commenting on the editor rather than on the content there, and this talk page is subject to Discretionary Sanctions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, I will not tolerate that conduct, and if it has to eventually go back to Arbcom, that's okay with me. Geogene (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Gandydancer, sorry about that edit conflict; that's just the way the software handled it and it surprised me too. There is an ongoing discussion at ANI, so I think that AE might be redundant, but it is true that the comments are in direct violation of what ArbCom determined about "shill" accusations. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Now, please, can we get back to discussing the actual proposal about content? Not forks and not editor motivations, please. I would really like to find a way to get consensus, instead of having to escalate this further. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. And in all honesty I was just about to"escalate this further" when I looked back to June when this editor was clobbered for (correctly) suggesting that an edit was a "rumor". Trypto I do get pissed off when I feel that a newbie or someone who has not been around the (politics)} block of Wikipedia is being bullied. It is my nature. Gandydancer (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. But please let's get back to the proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm okay with that, and in favor of spinning off most of the stuff about Monsanto to other articles. Nevertheless, some issues like lawsuits against Monsanto over glyphosate should still get brief mentions here, but I don't want that stuff to coatrack this article or outweigh expert determinations on chemical safety. Geogene (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done, after plenty of time for discussion, which has clearly quieted down. I still think that the ghostwriting material should be covered elsewhere, but I'm going to leave how and where to other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Introduction

Hello, in the introduction the sentence "especially after Monsanto introduced glyphosate-resistant" seems to me misleading. Actually there is more around than 30 years between the commercialization of Glyfosate and the introduction of GMO glyfosate-resistant. The "success" of the herbicide was already important before the GMO technology. As you can see I'm not a native english speaker and I do not know how to introduce this slight modification showing the two phases of Glyfosate market. Why I propose that, I think it's important for the reader to understand that the glyfosate was already massively adopted by farmers and that the introduction of GMO tolerant to glyfosate increased again this adoption. It can be correlated with the information about the "100-flod increase" between 1974 and 2016. I dont' know if a sentence like this would be ok : "In the 70's farmers quickly adopted glyphosate, and even more in the 2000's after Monsanto introduced glyphosate-resistant Roundup Ready crops, enabling farmers to kill weeds without killing their crops." . Sincerely --Chandres (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the information on the history of Glyphosate use and popularity is thin. Do you have references for usage rates in the 1970s or 1980s? All I see in the article are stats from the 2000s.Dialectric (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I found this source that could be used to propose a better history. It remind me that Glyphosate was initially used only on field or area without crops, and only after the introduction of roundup ready plants it starts to be used on planted fields, then the major increase in term of adoption by farmers. --Chandres (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
That does look like a good source for objective statements about the history of Glyphosate use. Some editors may have issues with Charles M. Benbrook, who has been critical of GMOs, but we can discuss concerns as they arise; it would be good to have a few more sources. I found sales for specific years, like a 1993 NYTimes Article that describes annual revenues as $1.4 billion. By 1999 this was up to almost $2.5 billion according to ICIS Chemical Business Dialectric (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Stephen Duke at the USDA recently wrote 'The history and current status of glyphosate'- https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=335759 - but I only see the abstract. Can someone with access read it and see if it has useful content not already covered in the article? Dialectric (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Glyphosate is not synonymous with RoundUp; RoundUp deserves and needs its own page

From Monsanto Faces Blowback Over Cancer Cover-Up (Der Spiegel):

Above all, the Monsanto papers show that the experts were very aware of a fact that is often lost in the public debate: In addition to glyphosate, herbicides like Roundup contain other dangerous chemicals that are necessary to enable the active ingredient to penetrate hard plant walls, among other things. These ingredients are often more harmful than the active ingredient on its own...
...The Monsanto experts came to a similar conclusion. "Glyphosate is OK, but the formulated product causes the damage," Monsanto researcher Heydens wrote to Donna Farmer.
Monsanto did nothing to warn the public. Instead, the company continued its massive lobbying campaign and did everything conceivable to discredit researchers whose work was not in Monsanto's interest.

Why was RoundUp removed from WP, did the community believe it was no different from its active ingredient? That was a mistake and should be rectified soon, so that we can keep it updated with new information coming out. petrarchan47คุก 02:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, Roundup deserves its own article. At the time of the merge, one of the major justifications was that any Roundup specific issues could be discussed in this article if required. Five years later, that is no longer the case, as the discussion above demonstrates. We can no longer discuss even a fraction of the RS material on Glyphosate without hopelessly unblacing this article. A Roundup article will need a lot of eyes to prevent it becoming a dumping ground for generic glyphosate information, and to prevent it being used as a coat rack. Byt those issues are not unique to Roundup. Roundup is also not the only product to get its own article, even when the primary active ingredients have articles; cf Drano, Raid insecticide, agent orange. There is a lot of RS material specific to Monsanto's formulations that don't belong in this article, more than enough to provide notability for Roundup. Mark Marathon (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that the community thought there was no difference between glyphosate and roundup. The article already contains substantial information on the formulation of products and why this can influence toxicity and indeed we devote substantial space to the toxicity of formulations. I'm not dead against a separate article, but I think there would be a lot of overlap between the articles and we run the risk of making it more confusing for readers to understand. Since glyphosate is never used un-formulated, I think a better approach would be to include more information here on the range of adjuvants that are in the different formulations (of which roundup is only one of 750). SmartSE (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
There are sufficient RS sources which cover the history, economics, and marketing of RoundUp as a brand for an article to be started with that content, none of which would overlap with the content here. It was Monsanto's biggest selling product-line for many years.Dialectric (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
As I said when I argued, as a compromise, for making this page less about Monsanto in the recent discussion about ghostwriting, I also want issues of Monsanto's corporate conduct to be adequately addressed at more appropriate pages, so I see that as a good reason for such a separate page. And I very much agree that, by this point, there is plenty of sourcing about the brand, separately from the generic chemical, to support such a page. So I'm in favor of this. At the same time, I have a very important point to make with regard to treating the subject in an appropriately encyclopedic manner, especially keeping in mind that the new page will be subject to the discretionary sanctions from the ArbCom GMO case. It is important that editors recognize that this is not an opportunity for WP:RGW, and that the new page not become a WP:POV fork for one-sided presentation of the POV issues. This needs to be a content fork, not a POV fork. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Corporate conduct would be for the Monsanto page as well as mention of glyphosate specific information related to them. I'm not seeing anything that would warrant a true content split at the time as we're either going to have the broad conduct you mention at Monsanto, and formulation type information discussed at this page.
I agree with you on the concern of POV forking, but I also can't see right now how even creating the page wouldn't be a POV fork. Part of that is because we need to be wary of real-world fringe viewpoints and goalpost moving like we see in climate change denial, anti-vaccine, etc. (in this case transition from GMOs being unsafe, then glyphosate, then specifically Roundup). That just means extreme care is needed in discussing glyphosate and Roundup specifically, but that's a secondary issue to the following.
The more important issue that I hope people remember (not really in response to anyone's specific comment here) in this discussion is that simply because the name Roundup is used a lot (as is often the case for trade names) that does not mean the branded pesticide has unique notoriety that would qualify for WP:GNG in terms of pesticides. As SmartSE mentioned, there are many adjuvants, etc. in pesticide formulations, and the community was aware active ingredient and formulation not being the same. Information we currently have in the article like other ingredients having different half-life or toxicity are pretty low level details in terms of pesticides until you get into an Agent Orange type situation. That's from the science end. Roundup itself was a big product on the corporate end for Monsanto, but that type of information about the product branding, sales, etc. is more suited for the company page. Nothing that really justifies a whole article focus on Roundup though.
So in short, in response both to you Trypto and other comments, I'm just not seeing any unique content or notability justification in the context of pesticides being made here yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Mark, one thing to keep in mind is that brand names of active ingredients generally do not have articles. Even in articles where an active ingredient is only used in one formation (i.e., a patented ingredient), we still don't have a page for the trade name. Your examples were Drano, Raid (insecticide), Agent Orange. Both Drano and Raid (especially Raid) pages are broader brands, not individual formulations. Agent Orange is an example of a mixture of different herbicides, but that isn't what gives it notability. It's the inclusion of a contaminant in the production of one of the active ingredients that had major health effects that did that. If we had a similar case to Agent Orange in terms of surfactant, contaminant, etc. for Roundup specifically having major issues, then we would have something to talk about in terms of an individual article. We're a long ways from that though.
From the content perspective, this article also hasn't been edited heavily since ArbCom nearly two years ago. At the time, a number of now topic-banned editors were edit warring in content related to this very subject just before ArbCom. A lot of us just threw our hands up at the time due to lack of energy, which led to the mess. It might be possible now to streamline the article a bit more, but I'll admit I had been putting that off for a time when I had a lot of energy to comb over this article. Might be worth reconsidering though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, that Roundup should have its own article. First of all well known products tend to have their own articles on WP and I don't see a good reason not to do that in the Roundup case. There is enough Roundup spefic information in reliable sources to justify a separate article. Yes, there will some redudancy to Glyphosate and Monsanto, but that's no different from other product articles and not really a problem as long as the redundancy is within reason. More importantly it relieves pressure from the Glyphosate and Monsanto articles, which either have to deal with too much Roundup specific stuff ("off topic") or keep the information on Roundup shorter than desirable, neither of which is ideal. Hence a separate article on Roundup seems the best approach.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

For notability justification, start with the 1997 NYTimes article which states in its opening that Roundup is the 'world's most popular brand of weed killer', and is about advertising tied to that brand. For another WP article on a prominent brand based on a widely used chemical, see Tylenol (brand). The Monsanto article was long enough that Monsanto legal cases was split off - creating a standalone article rather than adding to the long Monsanto article has precedent.Dialectric (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
That's a rather old NYT source back when the patent was still active and you really only could buy Roundup due to glyphosate being patented. In that case, it would be synonymous with glyphosate being the most popular type of herbicide at the time. It would be rather erroneous to use that article as an argument for a split because of that. As for Tylenol, that falls into examples described above of overarching brands rather than individual formulations. For the Monsanto legal cases article, (I was the one who split it), that wasn't done because of length per se but to give the topic focus for more of a WP:CONSPLIT rather than size split with the intention that the two be merged back together if the legal cases page become more manageable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
As mentioned above, this would go against Wikipedia convention for active ingredients usually housing information about trade names. It can also get us into trouble with WP:OR with editors saying there's a lot of information about Roundup to source when in reality it applies to glyphosate in general. We really need to be able to separate a formulation's notability from the active ingredient to do a split, which in most cases cannot be done here. We're also not in a position of particular strain at either article. There's very little over at Monsanto, and it only looks like a lot at this page because of the table of contents with multiple headers (working on some ideas there). That looks like more of a case for cleaning up the content presentation here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Where can i find the "Wikipedia convention for active ingredients"?
Independent of that I somewhat disagree, whether there is an WP:OR issue or not depends on the sources used. In fact sources dealing with original product rather than just active ingredients do not represent an WP:OR for an article on Roundup but rather one for the glyphosate article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
There is not and can not be any convention. The issue of whether brand names generally have their own articles actually violates WP:OSE I know that I introduced the topic to this discussion, but that was really in response to comments made in discussions above. As noted, some brands do have their own articles, for reasons including the brand being broad, safety issues involved with the brand, to discuss the marketting or public reaction to the brand and so forth. IOW, when the brand is somehow notable in its own right, it gets its own article, which is as it should be. I think that anyone wanting to write an article on Roundup would easily satisfy the notability requirement at any of the discussion/resolution fora.
I accept that Roundup is often used as a generic term for Glyphosate, which can make separating the subjects in some sources difficult. But there area also many reliable sources which do discuss Roundup, the specific formulation produced by Monsanto. More than enough to meet GNG.
Dialectric has produced one such reference. Yes, it's old, but it remains RS. A Search on Google scholar finds at least two reviews on the safety of this specific product that look like they should meet MEDRS or any other appropriate standard. A quick Google news search finds multiple articles concerning Roundup and Monsanto because of issues with the Roundup formulation and the way Monsanto markets and researches it. While these may fail MEDRS, feature length articles in der Speigel, London Times, LA Daily News, the Australian and so forth all meet RS and notability guidlines and are valid information on the public perception of this brand, its safety and the way it is marketed. Based on my involvement in similar discussions in the past, these sources alone more than guarantee that Roundup meets GRG. It's undeniable that the Monsanto formulation specifically is widely discussed in the popular press and has been regularly for decades. Yes, it's often muddied through confusion with glyphosate, but Roundup is named specifically, the formulation blamed and the way it is marketted and researched evaluated. That is the very definition of notability. It's not an endorsement of the way it is discussed, or an acknowledgement of the truth value of those discussions, simply a statement of fact that this is a topic that reliable sources discuss. We have articles on Bigfoot and the Lizard People too, with exactly the same justifications. Remember, the policy is verifiability, not truth, and we can easily verify that the popular press talks about Roundup, a lot and regulalrly.
Basically, I see a Roundup artcle as being similar in general outline to the Prius article. A lede with a breif history and some facts and figures on sales and efficacy. A section on development history. A section on safety. A section on features of the product, including wetting agents etc and its tie in with GMOs. A section on sales. A section on marketting and culture. And somewhere, and with most difficulty, a section on safety. I think the Prius article does a really good job of showing us how we can construct a brand article without having to descend into endorsement or criticism. There is more than enough RS material available on all those subheadings for editors to be able to write a Glyphosate specific article. And most of that material will not be appropriate for an afticle on glyphosate, but would seem to clearly be motable on its own right.
As far as I can see the only legitimate reasons given so far for why Roundup doesn't deserve an article are that it may not meet GNG and that we may not have enough specific material. I think that if it goes to any sort of resolution forum, the article provided by Dialectric, the reviews of safety and environmental effects in peer reviewed journals and the numerous newspaper articles dicussing issues with marketing and safety of the specific product will be more than enough to nullify those concerns.
Apologies for the length of this post. I am trying to adress points raised and hopefully preempt some others.Mark Marathon (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
What you described is the problem I'm getting at though. Nothing you mentioned inherently describes notability on Roundup itself even though the name is being used. If someone Googles Roundup and Monsanto and finds articles from various sources, that does not establish GNG as described previously. Roundup isn't just used as a generic name, but Roundup was the only herbicide containing glyphosate until glyphosate came off patent (hence why the NYT being an old source was a problem). The two are going to be instrinsically intermingled where discussion of Roundup is primarily discussion of glyphosate. That gets into WP:UNDUE focus territory for zeroing in on mention of Roundup, but also potentially WP:OR too if someone superficially looks at a source talking about Roundup and says it's good enough to be notable for its own article because it specifically mentions Monsanto's Roundup (i.e., inadvertent misinterpretation depending on subject matter familiarity). Related to why we normally keep redirects pointing towards the active ingredient, remember that OSE is an essay, and cannot really be used to upend community norms in specific topics.
It's undeniable that the Monsanto formulation specifically is widely discussed in the popular press and has been regularly for decades.
Not particularly. These articles are rarely truly focusing on the formulation Roundup, but rather the use of glyphosate as an herbicide. Roundup is just what's primarily available. Using the word Roundup basically falls into passing mention territory in the context of pesticides here. If Roundup was really going to pass GNG, what you've suggested won't cut it. We instead need sources that show glyphosate and Roundup are significantly different from each other beyond basic things like formulation, etc. already discussed in this article. Until then, this article already covers everything needed for things specific to Roundup without the need for a second article, so there's really no reason to push for a split at this time unless such sources do appear. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Kmhkmh, you are welcome to look up most any pesticide article we have on Wikipedia. A good recent example is Sulfoxaflor that is in a similar position as Roundup since it is currently patented and produced by one company. In that case, we don't create separate articles for the formulations because they get mention in press too, but deal with various topics related to the active ingredient and related companies as they pertain to the pesticide at the active ingredient primarily. Chlorpyrifos is a little different in that it has many trade names, such as Lorsban, where you can find sources discussing them by trade name, but primarily talking about the effects of the active ingredient. In pharmaceutical topics, it's also the norm to redirect trade names to the active ingredient[4], as well as general chemistry to go to the IUPAC official name. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


All I can really say is that you are incorrect. This will probably have to go to some form of arbitration, where I am more tham comfortable that your objections will be overruled.
Reviews of toxicology or safety or ecological effects that specifically name Roundup in the title, specifally note that they do not not look at glyphosate products other than Roundup and specifically look at formulations and surfactants, is not a passing mention. And we have at least three of those.
The article from der Speigel specifically says Roundup, and possibly its active ingredient glyphosate, are toxic. This isn't a passing mention or some conflation. It's about Monsanto's formulation and the way Monsanto researches it. It mentions glyphosate in passing. Not the other way around.
The NYT article specifically says that Roundup has a PR problem and mentions in passing that glyphosate is widely used elsewhere as well.
The Law360 article says that Monsanto is requestion dismissal of evidence in acse pertaining to its formulation Roundup.
The GLP article notes that Roundup has had PR problems, noting that Roundup is involved in US court cases while the active ingredient glyphosate has legislative problems in Europe.
I could keep going in this manner. Everything that I can see says that you are simply wrong when you assert that these authors are using Roundup as shorthand for glyphosate. What is literally written says exactly the opposite, and I am quite confident that any dispute resolution will find otherwise.
And. yes, OSE is an essay. It's also an longstanding guideline. As already noted, plenty of brands have their own aricles when they have multiple formulations (as Roundup does), or when there is significant RS duscussion on there effects (as glyphosate does).
At this stage my opinion is that there is more than enough RS material specific to Roundup to enable editors to write a good article on the subject, and more than enough for Get NG. Since you seem to be reading statements that I think are saying that the material applies specifically to Roundup as saying exactly the opposite, I am not sure where this discussion has left to go. Mark Marathon (talk) 03:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect, it is my impression that KoF has tortured and twisted information to make his viewpoint appear to be reasonable. Mark Marathon seems more reasonable to me. Gandydancer (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Yup, personal attacks like that are not helpful here, especially in a DS topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
In this case, your comments are engaging in the basic mistake I mentioned previously. In the process of a pesticide being developed and marketed, the active ingredient is patented so the only formulation(s) out there is the one by the patent holder. That's why in this case, glyphosate and Roundup being mentioned by news sources and the like reporting on general topics like you've mentioned are mostly synonymous. Once the patent expires, other companies can produce the pesticide, and then you'll get other formulations out there. A lot of times though, the original patent holder and it's original product get mentioned regardless even after that point though. That's a real-world reality that needs to be dealt with in dealing with these sources. It obviously doesn't make things easy on us as editors, but it's something we cannot ignore and need to deal with nonetheless. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with the claim that the chemical and its marketed version are synonymous. I also don't see anyone else making or supporting this rather strange argument. Monsanto put millions into advertising RoundUp to build awareness of the RoundUp brand, not awareness of glyphosate. Few farmers are chemists, and it is likely that many users are and were unfamiliar with what exactly the product contained. In any case, we don't need to convince KingofAces; if we have 3 RS sources that specifically cover the branding / marketing / advertising of RoundUp as a product in depth, that is sufficient for a new article. While I hope Kingofaces can work with us to improve the article at that point, if instead he continues to have issues, he is free to take the RoundUp article to afd.Dialectric (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
That's why claiming they are not snynonymous is getting into WP:OR problems. At the time of many of the sources out there, Monsanto was also marketing their patented chemical, glyphosate, as well as the resistance gene to glyphosate, not just Roundup. Those are all going to be interlinked in discussion of the products because referring to Roundup is referring to glyphosate in most contexts being mistaken above. That also tends to carry on after the patent expires for some time. When subject matter is complicated like that, ignoring the real world reality is not a valid excuse. The sources you discuss are sufficient for generation of content, but not for notability as you want to use them. There is no WP:DEADLINE, so if there is content specific to Roundup and Monsanto, you have a whole section over at Monsanto#Current_products waiting to be filled and split off into a new article if it reaches that point as a summary would be needed on that page anyways. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

A more near-term alternative

So it doesn't get lost in the above, but take a look at Monsanto#Current_products. Roundup barely gets any mention in the glyphosate herbicides section. Part of that is because we have the see also section, but when people have brought up information like sales, etc. that would be a prime place to put information specific to the company in their selling of Roundup (in addition to lesser mention here). If someone really wants to expand the Monsanto related aspect of glyphosate from selling Roundup, that is the place to begin and even potentially justify split by showing there is plenty of non-overlapping content that shows notability. Right now though, I don't see anything that's been mentioned above that wouldn't have a comfortable place over at the Monsanto page or here. If there really is a need for a new article either from a notability or content size perspective, that should become pretty apparent if someone tackles that section.Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

This online encyclopedia is made for expanding, when needed. There is no reason to argue for squishing information about RoundUp into this or Monsanto's page. The RoundUp article was removed without proper reasoning or community discussion, so the page should be restored. If the community wishes to then argue for its removal using proper procedure, great.
Glyphosate is only one ingredient in RU. From Intercept:
Independent scientists have been reporting since at least 1991 that pesticides containing glyphosate along with other ingredients were more dangerous than glyphosate on its own. More recently, two papers — one published in 2002, the other in 2004 — showed that Roundup and other glyphosate-containing weed formulations were more likely to cause cell-cycle dysregulation, a hallmark of cancer, than glyphosate alone. In 2005, researchers showed that Roundup was more harmful to rats’ livers than its “active ingredient” by itself. And a 2009 study showed that four formulations of Roundup were more toxic to human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells than glyphosate by itself. petrarchan47คุก 08:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
It isn't helpful to repeatedly keep bringing in newspaper sources. You already know MEDRS sources are needed for this content (and a lot of your post is off topic of this particular section topic). Also keep in mind that glyphosate is relatively non-toxic as it is, so it's easy to have a relatively increased toxicity for other adjuvants, etc. That doesn't imply notability when those other ingredients also are considered to have low toxicity. That's the detail omitted from your posts (and often in WP:FRINGE arguments if you follow such discussions). Instead, you need to demonstrate that at ecological relevant concentrations, the mixture does have significant health effects. It sounds like you're trying to cite in vitro studies in addition to rat studies, both of which need careful interpretation, especially in vitro where cell lines tend to do weird things if you even look at them weird. You can force an effect at unrealistic concentrations in those types of studies too. Point is, the literature you are trying to bring up is a long ways from indicating the kind of separation you are proposing, which is why your original proposal is in WP:POVFORK territory due to what I'm assuming to be a lack of familiarity with toxicological science given your current comments.
Also, there is nothing being squished. As I mentioned prior, there is next to nothing over at Monsanto even though major products often get fleshed out at the company page for the kind of information you were wanting in terms of sales, etc. If the Roundup aspect really interests you, the WP:BURDEN is on you to start developing that content over at Monsanto and demonstrate we have unique content that really belongs in a separate article. From the looks of what you are proposing though, it's relatively little that will fit rather well into both this and the company page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Previous version

Are there editors present who happen to be familiar with the process of reversing an error such as removing an article? If not I can bother one of the Arbs familiar with the Monsanto suite. petrarchan47คุก 08:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
It was moved to userspace for some reason and then deleted from there.[5][6] That should not have happened as the history at the merged article is required to be kept for attribution purposes. User:Canoe1967/Roundup (herbicide) needs to be undeleted and then moved back no matter what happens. FWIW the latest discussion I could find was in 2013 and the result was to unmerge the herbicide article (Talk:Roundup (herbicide)#RfC: Un-merge from Glyphosate?. AIRcorn (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Left a note at Edgar181s talk page[7] as they were the deleting admin. We should sort out the deletion at the very least. AIRcorn (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed since the lack of history makes things a bit wonky. I'd be wary of beginning to use chunks of content out of the draft immediately (it was deleted for a reason). Looking at the the history, Canoe moved it to their own userspace and including a lot of fringe content in there that now appears to in the redirect's history instead. Some of it is indeed a mess, but I'm pretty much just seeing a mirror article of our current one for the most part. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The admin did a restore of the edit history, and here is a link to the previous version: [8]. It looks to me like it duplicates a lot of this page, as opposed to being a standalone page about the brand. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
If the info was merged then it makes sense that a lot is duplicated. As far as I can tell this is what the article looked like before it was merged and then moved to user space. AIRcorn (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Right, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Kof, (I've had no power for a week and am now once again online), you say "Yup, personal attacks like that are not helpful here, especially in a DS topic." What's a "DS" topic? And BTW, that was not a personal attack but my impression of how you came to your conclusion. Nothing more, nothing less. Gandydancer (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
"DS" stands for Discretionary Sanctions, from the ArbCom GMO decision. When you edit this talk page, there is a notice about it at the top of the screen, with links to the details. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I see. Since I did not call KoF a jerk, etc., but suggested that his reasoning re our dilemma was poor, it seems that he should be more careful about throwing the "be careful about this Monsanto article because Arb Com said so" thinking around. I for one have had about enough of this be careful because Arb Cm said so regarding Monsanto. I have more respect for Wikipedia than to believe that ArbCom has given special protection to this corporation. They did not give it to BP or any other large corporation (or corporate official) article that I have worked on and IMO they did not give it to Monsanto either. There has been support for this corporation from some editors because they apparently believed that all Monsanto naysayers are freaked out over genetic issues. That has not been my concern, for one, at all. My concern is their corporate practices. Sorry to say to some of you, but this discussion reminds me very much of the unreasonable support that a certain politician has received of late...which is very disturbing. Anyway, hopefully we can stick to the point without bringing up any more dire warnings about ArbCom. Please. Gandydancer (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
In fairness, it's getting pretty personal to say that someone's position only "seems" reasonable, and that they are "torturing and twisting" what they say. In my opinion, there is nothing "dire" if I suggest that, given that DS means that editors should be on their best behavior, it would be really nice if everyone would just focus on which content is better, and not on editors or their motivations. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Pretty much my thoughts exactly. I usually just like to remind people of WP:FOC policy when this happens and leave it at that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The most recent RFC regarding the issue I have found is Talk:Roundup (herbicide)#RfC: Un-merge from Glyphosate? which was closed as unmerge by an experienced editor. If there is nothing more recent with a similar level of consenus that says otherwise I feel we should respect the process and unmerge. AIRcorn (talk) 07:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

We've also had local consensus since that time to keep the redirect/merge since at least 2014 when I started editing here often. The merge hasn't been controversial since that time, so that would be the most recent rough consensus where WP:SILENCE applies. I can't find exactly when the two were merged, but Roundup (herbicide) was moved to Canoe1967's userspace immediately after the start of the RfC you mention. Based on the diffs we've seen at the undeleted page and lack of additional history, it might suggest editors later didn't find enough unique content to warrant such a split afterall. Something definitely happened (or failed to happen) in the years since the RfC, so I'll see if I can do some digging. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Community consensus (RFC) > Local consensus > WP:silence. As always there are exceptions (and four years is a long time for nothing to happen), but I don't think we should choose which RFCs to honor and which to ignore without good reason. AIRcorn (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Time is the main factor here where no issues over multiple years since that RfC is implied local consensus at least. Generally at that point, we don't jump back to old RfC's and say that was the last consensus. Regardless of type, consensus can change.
It's also possible that some people really pushed for a split in the RfC, but didn't bother to do the actual split (implied consensus can change again). Maybe they realized it wasn't feasible. If that were the case, that would reiterate the need to actually propose a draft first showing the unique content that the idea would even be workable. That's why I've been mentioning we have the Monsanto page to at least set up a summary of the branded product and make the case for a content split if that's truly warranted. Either we end up with a short paragraph or two like I'm expecting that doesn't require a whole different article when we already have glyphosate, or we end up with a lede section we'd need anyways to set up the framework for the resulting Roundup daughter article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Please let´s try to make this a more fair article

As many others I also feel the article shows a biased opinion in favor of the huge corporative interest. First of all it diminishes the fact that the WHO finnaly has accepted that is "probably cancerigenous". The importance of the WHO declaring it "probably cancerigenous" should be the most significant consideration on the matter as it´s the ultimate current worldwide opinion. Other considerations seem to be presented as equally important or at times even more.
It´s worth noting in the article that while Monsanto and other companies have got many papers giving results in their favor, most of those have come through universities that have been heavily influenced by their generous donations, it should be noted how Monsanto has expend a lot of budget on this. Please notice that this is not something that we haven´t seen before, for example the tabbaco industry. Still there has been a load of studies with no conflict of interest showing strong links beteween glyphosate and cancer and they keep coming every day. Truth is at the current state, the article gives a reassuring view, while the scientfic comunity is actualy leading towards the other side.
It is important also that scientific study has shown that many hygienic products have residue of Gyphosate in them... tampons for example [1].
I also think that this article should have pictures showing why there´s a dispute in the first place, please check this link for people that look as if they survived Chernobyl[2]. It surely shouldn´t be ignored. It could be put under a title called "Controversy" or something, but an enciclopedia should show both sides and the claims beign made towards a subject despite the editor´s opinion. There should also be some mention and picture of Fabian Tomasi a former fumigator for Monsanto that has been litigating against the company for years Https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ELJ5aFnLpBM/V9FrFhGfXOI/AAAAAAAAfvc/SFOZTfaj9hgwxzIFvGL4mz9ZVpNOlScRgCLcB/s1600/fabian.jpg (again I don´t own the picture, it´s just an example).
Also there should be a section talking about the cientific frauds perpetrated in this field. The US EPA has denounced 2 times a cientfic forgery made by Monsanto. Here it´s a reference: [3].

Please excuse any mistake I´ve made. I have no experience editing wikipedia, it´s just that this article striked me as extremly biased and dangerous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.22.213.228 (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://www.infobae.com/2015/10/20/1763672-hallaron-glifosato-algodon-gasas-hisopos-toallitas-y-tampones-la-plata/
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1jFSFmIMJ8
  3. ^ (US EPA Communications and Public Affairs 1991 Press Advisory. EPA lists crops associated with pesticides for which residue and environmental fate studies were allegedly manipulated. Washington DC Mar 29)

It appears the the science just evolved: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-cancer-glyphosate/large-u-s-farm-study-finds-no-cancer-link-to-monsanto-weedkiller-idUSKBN1D916C Lfstevens (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

A/an herbicide

I've already reverted an IP once, when they have changed "an herbicide" to "a herbicide", and I don't want to mess with 1RR, but I think they need to be reverted again, if someone else will do it. My understanding is that the WP:ENGVAR convention for this page is to use US, not UK, English. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. I've also placed the 1RR template on the IP's page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Cancer incidence

Just a note that I removed this addition as a non-MEDRS source. There is technically a secondary source citing the new publication, but that's a commentary often published alongside journal articles, so it's not really independent. It does comment on a common criticism of the some of the studies used by the IRAC though (i.e., correlative studies and using a population prone to other exposures), which we may want to flesh out with other sources in the future. The study has been discussed in scientific circles though (outside of what we can use on Wikipedia), so it may be worthwhile to keep an eye out for secondary source citations of this study. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

+1 on this reversion. And that IP has a history of making inappropriate edits to various articles. – SJ + 18:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Added PR conflict

Since 2015, and especially since the release of some Monsanto emails in 2017, the role of industry in shaping public discussion about & research on glyphosate has been notable in and of itself. I added a short section on it and a sentence in the lede. – SJ + 19:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see the talk section immediately below, where I raise some questions about that content. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Discovery section

In this edit: [9], Magnoffiq removed a paragraph (and modified the section header) of that section. The removal of that paragraph has been discussed previously: Talk:Glyphosate/Archive 12#Duke and Powles, and the previous consensus had been to retain it. (One of the editors in that discussion has been topic banned since that time.) I think that editors should discuss putting the paragraph back. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I see that while I was posting this, that edit was reverted. I also notice that some other edits were reverted at the same time, so we should sort that out. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm being careful about the appearance of 1RR, so I'll say this here instead of making the edit. Although I agree with most of the reverting, I think that it would be fine to put:
As of April 2017, the Canadian government stated that glyphosate was "the most widely used herbicide in Canada".
back. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I've restored that part. I'm not strongly against the stuff about surfactants in glyphosate formulations in Canada, but it struck me as parochial. The comparison to penicillin is always going to be kind of controversial because it does sound fluffy, but it's also sourced and has been discussed previouly. And if it's literally true, then it gives important context. Geogene (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the partial revert, Geogene. I see your point about parochialism. Could we add:
I'd be content with that. Magnoffiq (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm okay with that. Geogene (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
That looks good to me too. I've made a fix because POEA is a DAB page, but I'll implement that with the fix now. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Tryptofish, your amendment is spot on. Magnoffiq (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glyphosate/Archive_13&oldid=1136768411"