Talk:Glyphosate/Archive 5

gut microbiome
, about this dif. You have a pile of sources there and none of them comes out and says what you want to say. Here is the content you added: However, animals do contain microbes in their gut microbiomes which do contain the EPSPS enzyme.

The quote from Russell that you include there, is not about how animals obtain aromatic amino acids. It is about gut microbiota producing aromatic compounds via metabolism of proteins that people eat. The source says those aromatic compounds appear to be important, but that is a separate topic from where animals get essential amino acids.

I modified that as follows in this dif

However, microbes in the the gut flora of animals are an emerging subject of scientific research, and as of 2013, at least one study had identified an effect of glyphosate on gut bacteria from cows, in in vitro studies.

I will agree to use a primary source this way - this does appear to be an issue that will have more science built around this in next year or two, and this is a place to start, that we can update as reviews come out. Is this OK with you?Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess i'm almost ok with that for now, as i'm getting kind of flabbergasted at the moment and need breakfast. However, I do note that that study on dairy cows is a natural experiment in vivo, and the samples from the cows were analyzed, with the action of the experiment happening in the cows, hence "in vivo" .... thanks for your efforts. SageRad (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What is the dose or minimimum inhibitory concentration? This does not belong in the article even as a compromise if the glyphosate concentrations are 1000x greater than those that would ever actually be encountered. Formerly 98 talk  14:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are we going to be debating this here? I ask others to chime in. Is this a suitable conversation for this forum? I can answer this question but it's in depth and it seems out of place to me here, as i noted in response to another such question by the same user. SageRad (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * formerly i can send you the paper if you want. it is not a tox study.  it does show that gut micriobiota are effected by glyphosate such that their usual ability to suppress pathogenic bacteria are suppressed - in the vitro setting (at pretty high doses). they are bacteria and they do have EPSPS... it is not at all clear from the literature which have EPSPS that are sensitive to glyphosate and which do not.  i think the content i proposed is OK and as I wrote, we can develop it with time. it is a pretty interesting issue, scientifically.  way more is being out of it by Seneff and some kooks on the internet right now than the science can bear, but there is some interesting stuff there. Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It's primary research, done at what sounds like physiologically irrelevant concentrations, and it's health related so MEDRS applies. Suggest RFC, preferably on medicine page Formerly 98 talk 14:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * actually the content i added is about cows. Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

But no one cards about cows, it's importance is in its extrapolation to people.

I'll add that in my opinion this is a classic example of why WP:OR is a problem. Bacteria do synthsize aromatic amino acids, but this function is only critical when they are not available in the medium. This condition is unlikely to occur in the gut. The effect seen at these high concentrations is probably due to Mg++ chelation as seen with EDTA at high concentrations. It won't be relevant at realistic exposure levels.Formerly 98 talk 14:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * cows matter on a lot of levels. their methane contributes global warming and their gut bacteria have everything to do with methane production - they produce methane.   btw, the section is about the biochemistry and the content is not focused on aromatic amino acids.  the argument has been that mammals including humans don't have the shikimate pathway, and glyphosate has been thought to be pretty specific in its binding, so there has been no reason to think it would be very toxic to mammals.  now there is the interesting signal about NHL (unsure if that will play out and very unsure what the mechanism could be) and the stuff SageRad is bringing up is really interesting - we are understanding more and more that mammalian microflora are pretty important (we don't understand much at all yet in what ways, or how those ways change over time or across individuals (one imagines it is pretty dynamic even on the level of the individual).  So again, the statement about biochemistry is better with the brief discussion of microbiota, in my view.  And citing the one primary source is fine with me, for now, especially as it is appropriately stated (cow gut bacteria, tested in vitro).  Can you live with this, Formerly?  I'd like to reach consensus here so we can all move on. Jytdog (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

On phone so at a disadvantage here. Do we have a source for the opening sentence that glyphosate kills bacteria by inhibiting shikamate? (I'm skeptical this is true under physiological conditions). If we have a source that explicitly says this, I'll let this drop. Formerly 98 talk 15:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * yep they all say that. its target is EPSPS, a key enzyme in that pathway. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

i am somewhat infamously perhaps hesitant about using primary sources, and would like more input, though. and as you have been commenting here, what are your thoughts on this specific content and sourcing? thx Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC) I won't ping him without agreement from others lest I be accused of canvassing, but Edgar has subject matter expertise that is relevant.Formerly 98 talk 15:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * oh for pete's sake formerly. your thoughts on this? Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Its an important question to a medicinal chemist. The fact that a drug inhibits an enzyme, and has a physiological effect, is not by itself normally taken as proof that the enyzme inhibition is responsible for the physiological effect. Its more complicated than that by far.
 * This paper shows that Salmonella does not begin synthesizing aromatic amino acids until their concentration in the medium falls into the high nanomolar range. You will not find those conditions pertain in the GI tract of any mammal. Formerly 98 talk  16:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * shikimate pathway does more than just make aromatic amino acids. you are really fixing on that. Jytdog (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I may be completely wrong here. But the burden of proof is to show that there is a reliable source if we are going to add it to the article. I have serious doubts that the statement "glyphosate kills bacteria by interfering with the shikimate pathway" is correct, at least under physiological conditions.  All I'm asking is that you provide a reliable source for the statement.  If you cannot do that, its fine to include the material about disfavoring healthy bacteria in the gut relative to harmful ones. Just take it out of the biochemistry section and note that the doses used in the experiment were higher than would be encountered in real life. Formerly 98 talk  16:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * please read the cited sources. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, sourcing is the gist of our disagreement. If its in there, just say so. Then I'm done. I don't have access to the papers but will happily accept your statement. But I want a statement not just that it inhibits the enzyme, but also that this is the mechanism of bacteriocidal action. Formerly 98 talk  17:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been a bit busy and am just catching up with the conversation. My general take is that the findings of a primary source alone are rarely if ever reliable for Wikipedia unless you are going for extremely basic and uncontroversial statements of basic biology, and that generally should be something more in the introduction in those rare cases. That does not appear to be the case here at my first glance. Even if the context and weight is specifically for animal health only and not human, I'd still be looking for secondary sources that are clearly veterinary in nature saying problem, notable event, etc. Y occurs with glyphosate for actual context. If it's just random fact, then by definition it needs something weighting whether that random fact should even be included here.


 * The above is just my general take, but is there a specific pairing of content and source that this currently being discussed? Are you asking for comments on your last sentence starting this section, "However, microbes in the the gut flora of animals are an emerging subject of scientific . . ."? I could give a more specific answer, but right now I'm just starting to dig through the conversation after my first glance, so I want to make sure I'm not missing anything. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks. I am asking about my whole statement blockquoted above. the comment about the gut flora makes no sense unless it is connected back to glyphosate, which is why - in this case - i cited a primary source. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To be succinct, my major concern is whether this finding is 1) real, since its a primary source, and 2) relevant, given that I'm told the study was done at high concentrations. The chain of reasoning here seems to have been (as I understand it) that glyphosate interferes with shikimate pathways, bacteria use these pathways, and mammals have microbiomes. Therefore glyphosate may affect mammals.  I'm not seeing the evidence that this is more than speculation and WP:SYNTHESIS. I'd like to see a study showing that microbiomes are affected by pharmacologically relevant concentrations of glyphosate.  And as a secondary issue, I'd like to see a source for the statement that shikimate inhibition is the mechanism by which glyphosate kills bacteria (rather than some other mechanism that is only relevant at very high concentrations). Formerly 98 talk  17:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * to be succinct, you haven't read the sources but you are making all these statements anyway. That is frustrating. Jytdog (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have access Jytdog. All I'm asking for is a quote or for your statement that the information I'm insisting on is in there.  Tell me its in there and I'm done. Can I be more reasonable than that? Formerly 98 talk  18:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Putting my scientist hat on, if I'm going to take a primary study or idea seriously, it needs to address the question of ecological relevance (ignoring experimental design issues, etc. for now). In other words, you found something in the lab or in a small field plot, but what does that mean in the real world? Some of the things Formerly mentioned above play into that where I would say I haven't seen ecological relevance demonstrated. As an editor though, "relevance" is the question that establishes weight for discussing gut microflora here. Do we have anything that establishes relevance outside of any involved authors speculation within their own papers? Why is it important and worthy of inclusion here? Right now I'm feeling like the inclusion of the microflora content is a little crystalbally without that context being mentioned in reliable sources. Do we have anything giving that context?
 * If reference 1 you provided gives a bit more context (back out in the field until tonight so I can't check now), the "However, microbes in the the gut flora . . ." part of the sentence seems fine with maybe a little more qualification. The latter half about the primary study (ref 2) doesn't appear needed to me either way though. There are all the issues about interpreting primary studies, but my main thinking is that the first half of the sentence seems like it can stand on its own for now, and specific examples can be given when the relevance of those studies is established by other sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * fThanks for joining in here and commenting. As someone who thinks about bacteria a lot, there are scores of papers coming out every year in which people target one bacterial enzyme or another, and it turns out that the enzyme is non-essential. So I'd like to address your attention to the question: Does the fact that bacteria have a shikimate pathway that is inhibited by glyphosate belong in the article at all without evidence that the pathway is essential in bacteria? I don't mean to be tendentious here.  Bacteria have a lot of redundancies. Formerly 98 talk  18:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't see any reason regardless of being essential or not to include this information about bacteria. It's looking like it fits [WP:INDISCRIMINATE]] pretty well, so I'd be up for removing the content here. It seems like we're getting outside of the scope of glyphoaate without something to really establish weight. I would keep, "EPSPS is found only in plants and micro-organisms. EPSPS is not present in animals." and leave it at that. When something noteworthy about EPSPS comes out in relation to gut flora, especially in relation to glyphosate, that's the time I think developing the sentence further would be in order. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * One thing that may be confusing this discussion is lack of context. sorry about that. Here is the whole little paragraph:

EPSPS is found only in plants and micro-organisms. EPSPS is not present in animals, but microbes in the the gut flora of animals are an emerging subject of scientific research, and as of 2013, at least one study had identified an effect of glyphosate on gut bacteria from cows, in in vitro studies.

What was bothering SageRad, is that formerly, when there was no reference to gut microbiome, it sounded as though there would be no effect on animals since there is no shikimate pathway. (which make sense, from a tox perspective, right?)  But bacteria in the gut microbiome do have that pathway, and emerging studies are finding that the gut microbiome is important. That is just basic biology. It is true that a) we don't know which bacteria have EPSPS that glyphosate can inhibit; and b) we don't know the effect of that inhibit at relevant doses... but the Big Point is that SageRad was making. Do you see? Jytdog (talk) 03:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that (on track with the conversation now). The problem I see though is that we don't really have the weight established for mentioning the gut microbiome. We already say that microorganisms have EPSPS, so we are not saying that animal gut microflora are not affected (or really any of the other favorite microorganisms people have out there for a WP:UNDUE red flag). That in my mind should be fine to alleviating SageRad's concerns. If we want to specifically point out animal microflora though, we need a reason why. Otherwise, this current version does read like synthesis to me by pairing together bacteria having the pathway and gut microbiomes being important in general. If we really want to have content making that pairing, I'd want to a a source that specifically says glyphosate is causing a problem in that system to really anchor that content in this article. Otherwise talking about microbiomes and bacterial pathways seem more appropriate at their respective articles until they get a claim to fame here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, so here is the other piece of context that you may not have. If you google "glyphosate autism" you will see that a presentation connecting glyphosate to gut bacteria to autism made by stephanie seneff has been making the rounds of the autism alt med community.  (Seneff is author of the Entropy paper that claimed glyphosate is responsible for a host of diseases including autism that was rejected as a reliable source for health information back in 2013, and is author of another paper from last year along the same lines  that i have opened a discussion on at WT:MEDRS (see Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine))).   That is additional background for all this.
 * if you search pubmed for "glyphosate AND ("gut bacteria" or microbiome) (see here) you find there are 9 papers.  if you select reviews (secondary sources) you get two results.  (seneff's 2nd paper now at WT:MEDRS and  which is a review on soil/plant microbiota (which looks pretty sound - written by USDA scientists).
 * maybe a better way to handle this mammalian gut bacteria thing, is instead of saying "EPSPS is not present in animals" (which is interpretable as untrue/against common sense because animals have a microbiome) the content should say something like "Mammalian genomes do not include genes for EPSPS" or the like, sourced to Maeda . That would work for me and then what you write above would better reflect the article's content. Does that make sense and is that language acceptable?  If so I will make an edit request. Jytdog (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

to make all this super clear:

EPSPS is found only in plants and micro-organisms. EPSPS is not present in animals, which instead obtain aromatic amino acids from their diets.
 * original content

EPSPS is found only in plants and micro-organisms. EPSPS is not present in animals, but microbes in the gut flora of animals are an emerging subject of scientific research, and as of 2013, at least one study had identified an effect of glyphosate on gut bacteria from cows, in in vitro studies.
 * current content

EPSPS is found only in the genomes of plants and micro-organisms. EPSPS is not present in the mammalian genome.
 * proposed content

If everybody agrees, as I said I can make an edit request or we can just wait til pp expires. Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this is fine, wonder if readibility might be increased by saying that "EPSPS is produced by (or found in?) plants and microorganisms, but not by mammals". Is the genome reference unnecessarily technical? Formerly 98 talk  14:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good clarification for me. Should be fine to make the edit request. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, i am catching up on this conversation. I am grateful that this is being discussed. I am understanding more about the process. I'd like to make a suggestion for phrasing -- we could say "EPSPS is not present in animal somatic cells" if you like, because that would be accurate. The problem that i had in reading "EPSPS is not present in animals" is simply that it's wrong. When i hear "animal" i picture an animal, and an animal contains a gut microbiome as an essential part of its biology. EPSPS is present in the gut microbiota. I can find a good reference to support this fact, if need be, but since my intention is to remove or correct a false statement and not so much to include a leading or synthesis statement, i hope it's enough to simply rephrase it. I do understand your critique that it may be "leading" toward a synthesis if the presence of EPSPS is stated there. I take that point. I am very curious as to whether glyphosate does affect gut microbiota, and if so, how, but i respect that this is not an established fact. It's a hypothesis -- a very interesting one to me, but not a verifiable fact, to be sure. (BTW, i'm not a Seneff fan and haven't read more than a couple paragraphs of her. I have worked in microbial ecology and this is what brought me to this interesting topic.) SageRad (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * yay! see this can be really fun if everybody just chills and talks about stuff based on sources and policy/guidelines. brain fun! Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not picky about genome vs animal somatic cells... i do think formerly 98's "produced by plants and microorganisms, but not by mammals" is closest to the ideal of plain english that is still accurate... that is what we shoot for as an enyclopedia for the general public. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've actually got more of a preference for Formerly's content as you described it now that I've taken another look. It's the most straightforward and doesn't get into the weeds. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if we want to get really accurate, then please note that EPSPS is not found in the genomes of any living thing. It's in the phenomes of many living things. A genome may contain genes that encode for the potential expression of EPSPS. And if we're talking about the candidate sentence "EPSPS is produced by (or found in?) plants and microorganisms, but not by mammals" then i would again question the accuracy of the use of "animals" to mean only animal somatic cells, because a gut microbiome is a part of the animal superorganism. An animal is not just animal somatic cells, but a functional superorganism. It may be unwieldy to say "Genes for expression of EPSPS are not present in the DNA of somatic animal cells." (Also a technical question -- why might i be no longer receiving notifications on this talk page when it's changed?) SageRad (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't be super picky. This is an encyclopedia and we aim as much as we can to be accurate but still comprehensible to the average person.  We also work by consensus and that means generally that nobody is perfectly happy - everybody "gives" some, within the boundaries of what sources and policies/guidelines allow.  This whole big ass section is driven by an effort to meet your concern.  If the content says "by animals" that is reasonable to interpret as by the animal itself, not symbiotic organisms living with it.   As to why you are not receiving "notifications on this talk page" I don't know what you mean.  Everyone in Wikipedia has a "watchlist" (link to yours is on the very top of every page when you are logged in, over near the right); you add a page to your watchlist by clicking the star-shape at the top of the article, just to the right of the tabs for Read Edit View history...  When changes are made to an article you watch or the talk page of such an article, the change will appear in that list.  There is also a setting in your preferences that lets you get emails for some things. I don't use it so I don't know what all that does)  Jytdog (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We have an EPSP synthase article, and some information could be added there instead of here. For this article, we are talking about the Biochemistry section which already contains a fairly complex molecular drawing and a number of words which will not be familiar to most readers who lack a chemistry background. Given this, a wikilinked mention of genomes, phenomes, or somatic cells does not seem out of place here, or unduly technical.Dialectric (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think i'm being super-picky. I want to be 100% accurate, because this is a very important question. I don't want to push a synthesis, but i also don't want a false fact reflected that would prevent anyone from making their own synthesis due to wrong information reported here. I almost even said "Please don't think i'm being too nit-picky, but this is important" and then i decided not to write that, as i thought that being accurate is assumed to be important here. SageRad (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

SageRad, WP:CONSENSUS is the absolute foundation of this place. You cannot insist on getting exactly what you want. You have to work with people. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, i understand this, but i want to work with people to the end of complete accuracy, and therefore i wish to express that i think complete accuracy on this point in particular is of great importance and therefore, i don't think i'm being any more super-picky than a lawyer on a critical point of interpretation on an important case would be called picky. SageRad (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * it doesn't matter if you insist on X because you want to be accurate, or because God told you to do it, or because you are paid by Monsanto or the Organic Trade Association to get certain viewpoint into Wikipedia. you have to compromise with other editors as sources and PAG allow. that is the foundation of everything we do here. it is OK of course to argue a bit for what you want but eventually everybody has to agree on something. we have already spent a shitload of time and bytes on this. i have bent over backwards to help you on this (explaining what i think you want and why to other editors here in the language of WP), since this is your entree into WP. but please be ready to compromise. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, i edited this as follows: "EPSPS is produced only by plants and micro-organisms; the gene coding for it is not in the mammalian genome." does that work for folks well enough? Jytdog (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, If you ever wanted the opinion of someone who wasn't involved in this whole discussion, I would say that the phrasing that has been settled on here looks perfectly fine. Whew, long thread to read through! Kinda interesting, but long! Sarr Cat ∑;3 17:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for bearing with the length and offering your opinion. I am ok with the phrasing, too. I do want to say that i hope we can work together to talk until we reach consensus on an edit, and that i think this particular point is very important. I believe it's a crucial fact in the understanding of the nature of the human food supply, and i am happy to spend time and bytes on this. I want to compromise, but not on accuracy. I would rather talk too much than not enough. I hope we'd be able to talk until we reach a common understanding about what is accurate, even if that common understanding may include a statement about what is importantly not known, or what may be in dispute or believed to be different by different groups of people. SageRad (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, at this point five editors have participated in a discussion that has gone on for several thousand words, and four of the five are in agreement. I initially thought Jytdog's comment above to you was a little harsh, but I think you do need to realize that "consensus" doesn't mean that we discuss this issue endlessly until the other four of us "understand" the topic better and come around to your position.  I think we've got a consensus and its time to acknowledge that rather that continuing in WP:IDHT mode. Formerly 98 talk  13:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, that sound harsh, Formerly. I am a fully aware participant in a dialogue here. I insist on good dialogue that is complete. That does sometimes take a length of time, and yet is not "endless" as you call it. I don't want to be shut down for the sake of saving bytes or time if an issue is very important and accuracy is what's at stake. Consensus means discussion until live issues are worked out and as much understanding can be reached as possible through dialogue. It does not mean democracy, wherein a majority or some percentage of people can vote an edit into place. Sometimes it may be the case that one individual has an important point and it may take some exchanges to get it communicated. I am not beating on dead horse or saying "You all just don't understand!" when you do understand what i'm saying. There have also been so many red herrings in this dialogue by my reckoning that it gets way longer than it needs if we were to address the main topic with more focus. So much about policies and so many meta-issue allegations, etc.... so please, reconsider. SageRad (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * For future reference, here is a review-level paper that states:
 * "Animals do not contain the herbicide molecular target site (EPSPS) of glyphosate. Intestinal flora of some animals do contain the EPSPS, but in studies with sheep, glyphosate had no significant effect on rumen fermentation parameters and in sacco degradation of grass hay and corn grain (Huther et al., 2005)." SageRad (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know how other people feel about this, but from my pov that is an adequate source for a limited statement of some sort. (Would have been nice to have found before we spent several days arguing about primary references. :>). Formerly 98 talk  10:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Bingo, that's why we reach for secondary sources for exactly that kind of context first rather than trying to drudge up any primary study or idea that an individual editor thinks is important. I hope time and energy isn't wasted in the future on conversations like this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Glyphosate in the war on drugs
Currently in the news and possibly worth mentioning, the large scale application of glyphosate for coca eradication:

--Kmhkmh (Talk) 13:33, 14. Mai 2015 (CEST)
 * http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-32677411
 * http://www.theguardian.com/environment/andes-to-the-amazon/2015/may/12/colombia-monsanto-glyphosate-coca
 * http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/10/colombia-chemical-spraying-furor-continues-201310291027411132.html
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17432331
 * http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4045990
 * Where we can mention that? Do we require some new section? VandVictory (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure this is worth mentioning. People opposed to the war on drugs have wanted to add content on this before, and love highlighting the Monsanto connection.  But glyphosate went off patent 25 (yes 25) years ago and is generic; most glyphosate is made in China now (although the Guardian, for example, has no clue about that).  Based on what I have been able to find about usage, most useage of glyphosate is on conventional groups; the next chunk is on GM crops, and uses like this come after that.  I'll go ahead and add some brief discussion of this. Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability of content is not defined by (current) production/usage volume, but if anything by coverage in external sources. The use of glyphosate in the drug war and its use to hamper/kill the coca plant has seen significant press coverage and scientific coverage as well. That seems to justify mentioning it here. In doubt I#d put it in a separate section/subsection.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems relevant to me that the chemical has been used for this, and also that now there is so much coverage about pressure for its cessation. I would suggest it fits under the "Use" heading. SageRad (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * as I said, i already added here. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Human Toxicity Status Change
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) appears to have changed the stance on Human Toxicity/Carcinogenic nature of Glyphosate:  "What were the results of the IARC evaluations? The herbicide glyphosate and the insecticides malathion and diazinonwere classified as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A)." 20th March 2015 (from http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf ) The article doesn't mention this and appears to reiterate no link found. Haven't time to adjust at the moment as it would probably need several edits. Seajay (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * the article does discuss this. it was discussed extensively here as well (see Talk:Glyphosate/Archive_4). please look more closely at the article.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it could use a reformulation in regard to emphasis or presentation to avoid bias or appearance of bias in the form of favoring of one assessment over another. In other words, we'd hope that the article does not favor the BfR report over the WHO report, for unknown reasons, for example. SageRad (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverted claim that glyphosate kills cancer cells
I reverted this good faith edit by for two reasons: SageRad (talk) 09:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a claim about human health of a rather significant magnitude in an important section of an important article, and therefore needs to be discussed and sourced better if it's to be added. For that, please see WP:MEDRS, which are guidelines about sourcing claims related to human health. The guidelines strongly prefer review-level articles, not primary research articles, for any claim regarding human health and etiology of disease, and i think this claim qualifies for that, as i read it to imply that glyphosate may be helpful to human health in that it may cause death of cancer cells. A casual reader may infer from this that glyphosate is actually good for human health, whereas that is not at all supported by this statement, and the statement is not sufficiently source to establish a fact about human health either.
 * It's also *not* about the topic of the heading, which is human toxicity. If it's true, it may be seen as a positive attribute about glyphosate, and so it's not about human toxicity but would rather be placed under some other section, yet to be created, or in the general text about the chemical.

"Use" section should discuss Roundup Ready GM crops
The "Use" section really should talk about herbicide-tolerant crops engineered to resist glyphosate, as that is a huge aspect of the use of this chemical in the world today. It is not the only use of glyphosate in agriculture, nor the first, but it is a huge factor as to the levels of the use of this chemical, and its presence in our food supply and ecology. SageRad (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Basic science about glyphosate
I made several changes to more accurately reflect the basic science of glyphosate, and they have been undone by Jytdog, i think unjustly. A couple of the changes were on unreferenced sentences, to note that glyphosate is taken into plants by root uptake as well as by foliar uptake. This is basic science on glyphosate and in a basic science sentence with no reference, i made a correction based on well known science. I could reference if needed to a research article. SageRad (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I also introduced a paragraph on correlation to changes in rumen composition and antibody levels in diary cows with glyphosate level in the cows. This was also removed by Jytdog, because, s/he said, it was a "primary source" -- well if a peer-reviewed article is not an acceptable source, then what is? Is this just that these changes were removed? The citation i provided is: Schrödl, Wieland, et al. "Possible Effects of Glyphosate on Mucorales Abundance in the Rumen of Dairy Cows in Germany." Current microbiology 69.6 (2014): 817-823. SageRad (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I see you've been talking to Jytdog on your talk page where most of your questions have been answered already, but the main issue is that we don't use primary journal articles here for much of anything. Those are articles where researchers publishes results of actual experiments. What we want are secondary sources that give context to those sources, such as literature reviews. Primary sources in science are not meant for the general public, but are instead presented to other scientists in the field who are versed in experimental design, statistics, etc. to determine the validity of the study. Others make very shaky conclusions that are easy to embellish when laypeople start reading them such are correlative studies, etc. Without scientists sorting through that all and saying the findings have merit, we can't establish what we call WP:WEIGHT here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * if you look at my edit notes, I explained each reversion. there were two main buckets. some of the changes were WP:OR and not in the sources provided; the others were based on primary sources, as noted.Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * like this edit you made - what is the source for the underlined parts of "EPSPS is not present in animal somatic cells, though it is present in animal gut microbiomes, and animals instead obtain aromatic amino acids from their diets and production in gut microbiomes " There are two bits there a) that glyphosate affects the gutmicrobiome broadly, and b) that the gut microbiome is an important source of aromatic amino acids (worth mentioning next to diet).  there is not source for those bits in our article.  this is what i mean.. when i say that you cannot just add stuff to Wikipedia. I could  just as well make the same edit and replace "microbiome" with... "cilia" in your edit, and could be just as adamant .... and within Wikipedia, would be just as wrong.  do you see? Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the whole paragraph that cited Funke et al because the original statements were not reported by the paper referenced. You would see that there is no reference to sources of aromatic amino acids within animals in the paper, nor is there any such statement that EPSPS is not present in animal organisms, so the whole original content seems to have been bad. To answer your question, however, it is basic science. It's background knowledge at this point. I am sure i could find a source, though you might then remove it given the track record. I counter, however, with a question: What is the source for the original assertions in that very same paragraph that i edited? SageRad (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please find a secondary source for the facts that you adduce. Your efforts and your facts are welcome on the page. They just need the right sourcing. The lack of proper sourcing is a huge problem in WP and is obviously an issue in this article's existing content. Rather than wholesale removal or allowing the situation to worsen via inadequately sourced additions, the middle ground is where we are at the moment. Cheers! Lfstevens (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am having serious issues with the aggressive removal of all my edits to the page. I sense something of a bad sort happening here. I don't think it's value-neutral. Answer me this: isn't a peer-reviewed journal article a reasonable source for inclusion of a fact in the entry on glyphosate? For example, the fact that it *is* taken up by the roots, not just foliar spraying? I will now add this fact -- AGAIN -- with two such references. If that is then taken away -- AGAIN -- due to some concern that the source is "primary" and not "secondary" -- then show me any absolute policy that "primary sources" are indeed not allowed on Wikipedia? Or otherwise WHY is makes sense to remove something based on a peer-reviewed journal article. SageRad (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, i have made two edits. One is to restore the fact that glyphosate *is* taken up by plant roots as well as foliage. I supported this with two peer-reviewed research articles which show glyphosate being taken up by plant roots. I hope this is adequate source documentation for this fact. If it's not then tell me why, specifically, and not just by referencing a policy but by quoting the relevant text in said policy, because i have found past mentions of policy to be inaccurate when i went and read the linked page. I have also made a change to reflect the fact that animals contain organisms that contain the EPSPS enzyme. I made this edit because the preceding sentence "EPSPS is not present in animals" is not fully accurate as animals contain as part of their own super-organism, microbes that do contain EPSPS and therefore EPSPS is present in animals. My addition provides this important knowledge in the article to resolve the contradiction to truth in the first statement. SageRad (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Disputes over the removal of peer-reviewed research articles are an ongoing issue on science articles.  For human health claims, WP:MEDRS sets a high bar which effectively limits sourcing to scholarly review articles. For non-health related claims, there is no guideline in place, only the essay, SCIRS. SCIRS allows the use of primary sources. While reviews are preferred, addition of a brief mention of peer reviewed research that adds new information to an article is allowed, and removals of such content should have a detailed explanation for the removal on the talk page rather than just a 'removing primary source' comment.Dialectric (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Dialectric, thank you *very* much for the comment. I see that in the case of natural sciences, primary sources are indeed valid, although secondary sources are preferred when available. I appreciate this, and i will keep a watch on what happens, as i learn about how to contribute to Wikipedia in more depth. I intend fully to be fair and accurate in my work, and to reflect the scientific record about the reality of how glyphosate works. That is my only goal here. I trust in truth. SageRad (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * my edits/discussions about primary sources, when content is not health-related, are not based on MEDRS, but on the overwhelming call in NPOV (especially), OR, and VERIFY, as well as RS, that content should be based on secondary sources, and primary sources should be used only with great care. There is rarely a reason to use primary sources, and when editors insist on it, i generally find there is some misalignment going on.  And as this is a controversial article, everybody working here should be reaching for the best sources (what policy and guidelines say we should do) per the advice in the essay, WP:Controversial articles.  There are almost 2000 articles in pubmed on glyphosate.  If we start adding primary sources there is no end to the baloney that we will get into;  somebody brings a primary source that says "X", another brings 2 that say "Not X", and on we go.  It is a recipe for ridiculous content and endless disputes about WEIGHT; secondary sources are above all crucial for dealing with WEIGHT. Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I've been discussing with Jytdog on my own talk page, but i wanted to move this to a more public location to have this substantial discussion in relation to this page, not on my user talk page. So here is a good jumping-off point, i hope: Yes, my edits are meant to be factual. The inclusion or exclusion of facts can be value-laden of course. The frame of an explanation can be value-laden. The claim that animals do not contain the shikimic acid pathway and therefore glyphosate has no effect on animals, though, is not a real fact. It's not true. It's a weasely lie which is in favor of the industry that wishes it to remain the de facto assumption about glyphosate. EPSPS being present in microbes in the human gut means that the human organism has the shikimic acid pathway, in an organismic sense. To be human is to have a gut microbiome. To call it otherwise is, to me, a distortion of the truth that does not serve human knowledge and transparency. As to the "primary vs secondary" distinction, i'm still working on understanding precisely what this means. I get a sense of what it means, and from what i gather, it would tend to make Wikipedia reflect a sense of "scientific consensus" but this can be manufactured by attentive effort by an entity that has an agenda, as has been the case sometimes in the field of climate change study. There may be no review-level paper that reports something important that is reported in a primary research paper. Or, the review-level paper that does mention it may be disallowed by things like your assertion that Seneff papers are not worthy of being cited as sources. I do not like Seneff papers, and i haven't used them. However, who gets to make that determination? Who gets to decide whether a fact is to be reported from a primary source or omitted, or whether a particular source like a Seneff paper is to be excluded from the realm of possibility? SageRad (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from, but the emphasis on secondary sources at Wikipedia comes from hard experience. It's our first line of defense against POV pushing, since you can find a primary source that says almost anything.  On the other hand, I know it can be frustrating to find a secondary source that states what you "know" to be true.  I just spent a futile hour doing that myself this morning.
 * In the present case, you've clearly stated above that your goal in adding the microbiome material is to show the potential for an effect on human health. So this would clearly fall under WP:MEDRS, which states " Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. Many such sources represent unreliable information that has not been vetted in review articles, or present preliminary information that may not bear out when tested in clinical trials." I sympathize with the first principles argument that "glyphosate affects bacteria, and bacteria are part of the human microbiome, therefore glyphosate may affect human health".  (I sympathize a lot less with the WP:SOAPBOX commentary about "weasily lies", which do not contribute to the discussion here).  But ultimately this is WP:OR.  You need a secondary source that makes this statement per WP:MEDRS. Formerly 98 talk  13:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Basic facts about the ecology of the chemical are not a medical question, so i don't think that attributions of my motivations should make this fall under MEDRS guidelines, do you? SageRad (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say so, as you have explicitly stated that the purpose of this addition is to show a possible human health effect. What you have put together here is a textbook example of WP:SYNTHESIS: Bacteria contain the enzyme that is inhibited by glyphosate, bacteria are part of the human microbiome, therefore glyphosate may kill the bacteria, disrupt the microbiome, and affect human health.  It sounds reasonable, but we don't do that here.  You need to find a secondary source that says this.
 * One example of why this is a problem is shown in this paper: The minimum inhibitory concentrations of glyphosate for enteric bacteria are in the 0.15 to 3.0 mg per mL range.  This is equivalent to 150 mg to 3 grams per liter. The EPA level of concern for long term glyphosate exposure is 3 ppb (0.000003 g per liter).  Nobody is being exposed to 150 mg per liter in drinking water or from any other source. Formerly 98 talk  13:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I say that this is wrong of you, to use speculation as to my motivation to categorize a fact about a non-medical scientific fact as requiring the criteria that a medical fact would require. My motivation is to see the basic truth about glyphosate properly represented. If there are implications for human health, then this is a separate issue, and *that* would require the rigor of a medical fact. SageRad (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your honesty and I "use it against you" in this argument with reluctance. But you do see that what you've done is WP:SYNTHESIS, don't you?  There do not appear to be secondary references out there that make the statement you are implying with your string of connections.  And did you see my point that the concentrations that affect the microbiome are unachievable in practice?  If we allow your WP:SYNTHESIS, then we have to allow mine, and we end up in an extended debate on the subject in the article that simply confuses the reader.  There are good reasons for our sourcing rules. Formerly 98 talk  14:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is patently unfair to attribute motivations to me. I think you should judge any edits by a uniform standard and not pigeonhole me as a person with an agenda. I reject that label and characterization. My agenda is truth and that is the goal of Wikipedia as well. SageRad (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably no secondary references that you would approve of, although there are probably secondary references. You would probably call them "not credible" or something judging by the tone and the clues at this point. I've replied to your comment regarding concentrations, in that i refuse to debate that here as it seems inappropriate, but if i must have that debate i would easily do so and overcome your reasoning. Anyway... i don't know where this leaves us but i feel a serious hostility here that i would not expect at Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In reply to the comment "Formerly 98" citing a paper and getting into dosage and MIC, etc. --> I could very easily speak to this point of yours and refute the relevance of MIC in this context, but i don't believe that this is the place for that discussion, is it? I may be fairly new to the Wikipedia editing process, but i thought that the talk page is to discuss factuality, and here you are trying to make an argument (flawed though it is) that implies that i have an agenda other than truth, and that i am wrong on it, as well. This is so strange. I don't think i feel right about this. Or do others say that this is the place to debate on the point raised? If so then i would, but i think it's not appropriate here. This is the place to establish what's a fact and what's not, to a good degree of reliability and verifiability. SageRad (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't question your honesty at all and I have no doubt of your good intentions. What I'm doing is insisting that you abide by sourcing rules that have been put in place with broad consensus and which have been here many years before either of us got here. And this discussion illustrates my point that if we allow WP:SYNTHESIS, our articles rapidly devolve into debates about the theories of non-experts.  We don't do original research here.  You disagree with my comment about MICs (I'm a chemist, but as you will see on my user page, I specialize in antibacterial research), and I disagree with your implied conclusions about the microbiome.  None of this belongs in the article.  Not because I think it doesn't, but because it violates the sourcing rules. Formerly 98 talk  14:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

"Formerly 98" -- i would just like to note that i am not doing synthesis or original research in any edit i attempted to make to the article, in my estimation. I have attempted to get some facts other than those already in the article to be represented, as well as to correct one or two things that i do not believe are true, but it's not based on just "my belief" but rather on other sources, primary sources for the most part, i.e. results of published research. In regard to MICs, by which i believe you mean MIC of single-strain cultures in vitro (as the term "MIC" typically describes) i do believe the relevance is limited when we're talking about microbial communities and the influence that selective pressures can have even when they may not be the bottleneck to growth in single-strain culture with plentiful resources. I don't think that i implied any conclusion about the microbiome and potential effects of glyphosate upon it in my attempted edits. I only tried to maintain the space by correcting what were not true assertions -- that the EPSP synthase enzyme is not contained in animals. This is to make sure that an untruth is not broadcast as true. If people wish to think about it themselves, they should at least have an accurate and clean starting point, and they can read speculation elsewhere, and then come here and check the basic facts on glyphosate. If they do so, i want them to at least not see an untrue statement like that. It's so easy to state what it true in this case, accurately, and that is what i tried to do. I just wanted to state these things for the record. Thanks. SageRad (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, we all have our opinions and these are to some extent set by our backgrounds. I'm very skeptical of a lot of the arguments being made here. But I've spoken my piece and will let you guys decide how to handle this. Formerly 98 talk  21:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Reviews do not report new research by the authors, but instead present reflections on earlier research that has withstood extended scrutiny by the community. I'm comfortable with using that standard instead of "peer reviewed" for human health claims. The business about whether glyposate "affects" animals screams out for clarification rather than argumentation. No, it has no direct effects on animals that lack the pathway. Yes, it may have effects on the animal microbiome, which may indirectly affect animals. Putting such claims in the article should await the availability of a review that backs up the initial research. GMO critics have successfully added their critiques given supporting reviews. It's working. Lfstevens (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * LFstevens, in this converation, we were talking not about some synthesis theory, but about getting the basic facts correct, and not stating incorrect facts in the article on the chemical. Others in this conversation tried to paint this as a synthesis. This is about presenting correct facts, and if anyone does their own synthesis as a result then so be it. SageRad (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Leading in the summary fourth paragraph?
The fourth paragraph reads like an editorial in favor of glyphosate, to me. I just added the word "some" to lead the first sentence, to make it clear that not *all* regulatory and scholarly reviews found it to be safe, as was falsely implied by the previous phrasing even though the paragraph goes on to cite a meta-analysis that associates glyphosate exposure with a cancer, and the WHO report that classifies it as a probable carcinogen. This paragraph on the whole seems to be in the category of "the lady doth protest too much, methinks" as it is written. It seems out of place in the introduction of an article about a chemical compound. I quote it here, and remember that *I* just added the initial word "Some" without which it would seem even more skewed: "Some regulatory and scholarly reviews of the toxicity of glyphosate found it to be relatively safe as an herbicide. The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment published a toxicology review in 2013, which found that 'the available data is contradictory and far from being convincing' with regard to correlations between exposure to glyphosate formulations and risk of various cancers, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).[9]:Volume 1, pp. 64–66 A meta-analysis published in 2014 identified an increased risk of NHL in workers exposed to glyphosate formulations.[10] In March 2015 the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer published a summary of its forthcoming monograph on glyphosate, and classified it as 'probably carcinogenic in humans' (category 2A) based on epidemiological studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies.[5][11][12]" SageRad (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No discussion here yet, so i am going to edit to remove the editorializing content. I do not think it accurately represents the lay of the land, or the sentences that immediately follow it, and it makes a generalization which could be called a synthesis or otherwise unsupported statement. I changed it to "Many regulatory and scholarly reviews have evaluated the relative toxicity of glyphosate as an herbicide." That, to me, sounds like a basic intro statement without reaching a foregone conclusion. SageRad (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Factual errors and editorializing in toxicity sections
Currently, toxicity is broken down into "Glyphosate toxicity" and "Additive toxicity" and "Formulation toxicity" sections. It seems a good idea but also rather clunky, and there is also the issue that formulations and additives vary from one product to the next. I could also see this section being integrated, so for example, toxicity of formulations and glyphosate alone on aquatic life could be discussed in text in one section.

I detect a lot of bias / editorializing in the text of these sections, to the effect of arguing that glyphosate is safe. I also see some factual issues. An example of both is in the section of "Glyphosate toxicity" on "Fish and amphibians", which currently reads as follows:

"Glyphosate is generally less persistent in water than in soil, with 12- to 60-day persistence observed in Canadian pond water, yet because glyphosate binds to soil, persistence of over a year has been observed in the sediments of ponds in Michigan and Oregon.[31] In streams, maximum glyphosate concentrations were measured immediately after treatment and dissipated rapidly.[31] According to research done in the late 1980s and early 1990 (Ecotoxicological Risk Assessment for Roundup Herbicide), glyphosate in ecological exposures studied is 'practically nontoxic to slightly toxic' for amphibians and fish.[64]"

From all my research, glyphosate is actually *more* persistent in standing bodies of water than in soil, because in soil it's generally metabolized or bioaccumulated by bacteria (depending on species) whereas in water, it is not broken down as much by bacteria. The whole mention of the fact that in streams there is a maximum glyphosate concentration that then dissipated rapidly, is a non-sequitur. That is what streams do -- they flow. They flow to other places, and the glyphosate goes with the water, being highly water soluble -- so this text makes the appearance that glyphosate disappears, whereas it's the obvious statement that flowing water flows making that appearance in this article, which is not what we want, for it gives a wrong impression.

The source numbered "[31]" in the above excerpt is this document, and it does not appear to support the claims it's used to support.

Last big issues: the source cited in "[64]" is this one on Roundup, not glyphosate alone -- therefore it's in the wrong section. And, to make it worse, Roundup *has* been shown to be very harmful to some species, notably tadpoles. I'll need to take time to work on these issues and find better sourcing too. SageRad (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, i think environmental fate is another topic apart from toxicity to fish and amphibians.

SageRad (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't you think that this review article would be a good source for statements on environmental fate of glyphosate and glyphosate-based-formulations in regard to surface water, and also in regard to toxicity to amphibians and aquatic life in general? It's recent (2014) and it's review-level, and it's right on target in terms of the topic. I will do this soon. Here would be another source. SageRad (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Updated sourcing on resistant weeds
Soon i will get into the weeds, so to speak, with this 2014 review paper to see about updating the section on weed resistance, and i hope to look at the weighting and level of detail in the section, as well as the content and feel of it. SageRad (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent removal of effects on fish citing MEDRS/SCIRS?
Is this complete removal of the text added by another contributor, long-time Wikipedia editor, really justified based on use of WP:MEDRS guidelines, which relate to medical knowledge regarding humans, since this relates to the effects of a glyphosate formulation's effects upon fish? Is the edit really defensible in terms of WP:SCIRS? The latter reads, "A primary source, such as a report of a pivotal experiment cited as evidence for a hypothesis, may be a valuable component of an article. A good article may appropriately cite primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Use of primary sources should always conform to the No original research policy." Review articles are *preferred* but primary articles are not prohibited, and even respected. So why this edit? It seems like it throws away a decent contribution with no remorse as to the complete loss of the fruits of an effort by a contributor, instead of honing the issue that the editor has, if any, with the addition? SageRad (talk) 09:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As you've already been made aware, we use secondary sources to establish scientific fact that cite the study in question to establish it's weight in the scientific community after they've had a chance to vet the study after publication, especially in topics like this. Primary sources are rarely if ever acceptable when using that source to report it's own findings whether that's in human medicine, veterinary, or otherwise. Findings of toxicology studies are not basic fact in that rare case we actually do use a primary source (usually only the introduction in cases when reviews on the subject are not available). In this subject, reviews come out extremely often, so if it is a noteworthy study, it will be mentioned in secondary sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's drop the condescension and implication of the tone of "As you've already been made aware..." and then let's get admissions that:
 * (1) This is not subject to MEDRS as you first alleged in your edit reason, and
 * (2) Sometimes editors *do* indeed source knowledge to primary research articles, and you're overstating that when you say "rarely or ever acceptable". SageRad (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It may be true that the toxicity related to the full formulation glyphosate toxicity to aquatic life is better categorized under the toxicity section for the full formulation rather than glyphosate alone, but it deserves to be there. It is notable. SageRad (talk) 11:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't need to circle around the bush each time the topic of primary sources come up, so that's what the "As you've already been made aware..." comment was about. MEDRS does not specifically state it is only pertaining to human medicine. Some people do include veterinary medicine under MEDRS. Regardless, it definitely falls under SCIRS, which also strongly cautions against primary sources. This isn't a case where primary sources are acceptable for this usage. We wait until we get reviews in this topic as you've been told a few times now. A lot of editors who try to use primary studies on Wikipedia are not aware of how the scientific literature is set up and intended to be used by other scientists, but that isn't a discussion for this page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your use of "As you've already been made aware..." implies that your interpretation of MEDRS and other guidelines is correct, whereas there has been discussion about this point, and valid discussion at that. This is not circling around the bush, but avoiding an incorrect assumption being inserted into this dialogue. Your assertions are your assertions and i happen to disagree with them, very solidly. And yet, you removed that text that another user had added. And again for the "as you've been told a few times now..." -- you're not God. You're not the one who knows that true answers in all regards. You're not my parent and i'm not a 7 year old child. That's the way you're positioning yourself. And SCIRS does *not* prohibit primary sources. So where do you get off using this to delete another user's contrbution on that basis? SageRad (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We reach for secondary sources in all topics first, and that's enshrined in policy. All policies and guidelines relating to scientific sources strongly caution against the use of primary sources in that use of them should be the exception rather than fair game. That's very different from just saying not prohibited. If you feel this study will have some weight to it, just wait for a review. This is not a topic where we're lacking timely reviews that we would go to the introductions of other primary studies citing this one to give us context. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Bans
According to this glyphosate has been banned in El Salvador and Sri Lanka, other countries are (going to be) following suit. Should that be mentioned? Wassermelone89 (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems a good thing to include. It's relevant to the chemical, being banned in some countries. I hope we would include a brief summary as to why they've banned it, and some history. SageRad (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The source itself is what we call WP:FRINGE and an advocacy site and wouldn't be a suitable source for establishing weight for a particular topic. Per WP:RECENTISM though, it's probably best to let this one wait for a little while to let other reputable sources comment on it. I'm sure it will be mentioned a bit more in the very near future, but we do need to be wary when discussing bans in a topic like this with fringe in mind by some mention of if the ban is actually warranted. Not sure how they would turn out in content at this moment, but best to see how things unfold for now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources can be found:
 * Buenos Aires Herald: Campaign against glyphosate grows in LatAm
 * Colombo Page: Sri Lankan President orders to ban import of glyphosate with immediate effect
 * Official Government News Portal of Sri Lanka: Decisions taken at the Cabinet Meeting held on 27th May 2015
 * As for WP:RECENTISM, the question is, will this seem relevant in 10 years. I think it will. SageRad (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The information is important, relevant, and well sourced. It should definitely be included in this article. Jus  da  fax   09:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I find this interesting, relevant, and apparently reliably sourced per above. WP:RECENTISM seems to be a mit of a misapplication, as that doesn't seem to be an issue here, the guideline appears to be aimed at things like breaking news and developing stories, a court trial, for instance, where reporting day by day is obviously likely to include details that would be not be particularly consequential in an encyclopedic view of the completed trial and its larger context. In this case, if national bans have been legislated, that is part of history, and will have reasonable significance no matter what else happens. --Tsavage (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:RECENTISM is an essay and on its own not grounds for excluding referenced content. Mention of a nationwide ban is international news and sufficiently notable for inclusion. The subject is covered in additional sources including abc news Australia and the star (Malaysia)] Dialectric (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * sorry this page fell off my watchlist. i think it would make sense to have a section on regulation and mention these bans in that section.  i can do that tonight or over the weekend.  hands full at work today,. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * done. see here Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Jus  da  fax   04:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Removed statement on clover from "Use" heading lead paragraph
I removed this statement from the first paragraph of the "Use" section in this diff: "It has a relatively small effect on some clover species.[33]" Reasons i did this: this statement seemed out of place in terms of weight (level of detail too small for summary paragraph), and also seemed biased as there are many plants that have more resistance to glyphosate than clover, and glyphosate does kill clover, and the statement was sourced to hearsay reports from a dated agricultural extension page that is no longer on the Internet, and was using the "Wayback Machine" to source it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SageRad (talk • contribs) 10:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Extension publications are pretty reliable secondary sources in agricultural topics (5 years is not that old in this field). That they mentioned clover specifically does establish weight. There are obviously more problem species out there, but if that's an issue someone wants to pursue, then they should pursue other sources that establish what species especially have either natural tolerance or have developed resistance probably in a new section. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * User, what do you see as the point or purpose of the text that you restored in this diff in this section? What is the purpose for including this statement in this section? What point do you see it as getting across to the general reader who comes here to find out about glyphosate? I best, whatever your purpose, we could find a better way to write this section of them article. The specific mention of one plant in this section feels like the weighting is way off -- in other words too much specific detail out of context, in a paragraph of generalities. SageRad (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As to your opinion that an extentions service's single-author blog-style non-reviewed writing that is no longer even on the Internet except in an Internet archiving service establishes weight, i disagree. SageRad (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * May i suggest that if you think that in this section, some comment on naturally occurring resistance is notable, then we could find a better source pretty easily? And we could discuss the premise that you want some statement on the differential resistance of plants to glyphosate in this section, and consider that as a proposal in general principle? SageRad (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like you're unfamiliar with how extension publications work. They are intended as secondary sources as summaries of current research for groups in the general public (usually farmers in this case). They used to be put in print publications like a journal, but they've moved to primarily online publication in the last decade. They do undergo internal peer-review, much in the same manner that USDA white papers do. While it's true UNL extension pubs are ugly ducklings in terms of their layout not being updated, that doesn't affected reliability.
 * In terms of weight, that's what the source makes prominent. It's not up to us to argue that it's missing other species, but for other sources to update that information instead. For now, that's what we have until we add in new sources and expand on the content to the point where it would likely have it's own section. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Looks like you're unfamiliar with how extension publications work." No, i don't think that it's less weighty because i am not familiar with how extension publications work. Will you please acknowledge that the link was to the Wayback Machine Internet Archive and not even to an extension service? Secondly, other plants were mentioned besides clover and morning glory in the site, and those were not carried into the article. It was a strange inclusion of a detail. For what purpose do you want it re-included? What makes you think it belongs in that paragraph? I could equally as well cite an extension service page that is still online, recommending to use glyphosate to control white clover in vegetable gardens, here, and yet i don't think this is relevant to the article because of weight proportionality. And anyway, i leave clover in my gardens and if i wanted them gone i'd do something amazing -- pull them with my hands. I don't think it's relevant or useful to the article. SageRad (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of your questions are irrelevant in terms of reliability and weight. Reliability and verifiability is determined based on the source itself, not where it is archived (i.e., journal pdfs can be hosted at the journal website or archiving sites like Researchgate.) All that matters is that there is a record of the source. We also don't include content based on why an editor themselves thinks the content should be included (that's WP:OR), but based on how the sources mention the topic. We for instance, aren't going to get into the problems with sweet clover as an agricultural pest, its invasiveness, toughness to kill, etc. because the source doesn't mention it, and it's not releveant to glyphosate specifically aside from that it's one of a group of problem weeds that has been documented to be resistant. If you want to get into why a particular weed species is important, that's a topic for another article. Focusing on content, there doesn't seem to be much more to discuss unless the idea of a resistant species section is fleshed out. Kingofaces43 (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about whether that sentence makes any sense in the article. How much simpler can i state it? Why does that sentence make sense there? You could find any source in the world and include any sentence. This is about writing a solid article isn't it? You wrote, "If you want to get into why a particular weed species is important, that's a topic for another article." --- Um, no i didn't say that i want to focus on why a particular weed species is important -- YOU did -- YOU are the one arguing to include the sentence specifically focused on morning glory and clover based on some obscure extension service archived text. Your seeming confusion on who said what, and yet continuing to simply disagree, makes me think you're just being oppositional. We are editors supposedly working together to make a strong article about a chemical, to be read by millions of people. We are talking of editorial matters. I don't get your dismissal of these matters. SageRad (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is it in the article? The source mentions those species as a primary issue with respect to use of glyphosate and its efficacy (again WP:WEIGHT). With weight for inclusion established, why did I keep it in the specific section? It matters for its intended use (as established by the source).
 * If you are concerned that other problem species are not represented that should be (which appears to be your concern about mentioning only these species), then it would be best to expand the content and start a new section, especially if the placement of the text if your concern. If you have other improvements to suggest, I suggest you simply propose them so they can be done. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

There are a million sources available. We are editors. We make editorial decisions. I will do some more work on resistant species, perhaps, as per your suggestion. My suggestion here was to remove that sentence, as it seems out of place to me, both in content and level of detail. When i get time, i'll pick up the review-level source i mentioned in the section below called "Updated sourcing on resistant weeds". SageRad (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

French ban
The wording used in the references concerning the French ban made me think that this ban isn't what it seems. Further digging has shown that the substance hasn't been banned from sale, just from sale on open display. In this respect it is the same as the restrictions on cigarettes, spray-paints, glues and solvents in Australia, and a claim that Australia has banned the sale of paint or cigarettes would clearly be incorrect. Added to that the ban is planned to take effects in 7 years time Additionally, it isn't clear at this stage whether it is a ban at all. While some articles say it is a ban, they only note that the French minister responsible has requested that certain retailers conform to certain standards of display. That by itself does not make a ban, any more than Tipper Gore asking TV stations not to show teenagers shaving sex meant that the US had a ban on teenage sex. Since multiple sources have said that France has banned the sale, when in fact it is at most a ban on sale from open display, in certain outlets, I don't think this breaking story is being reported very accurately. To avoid the worst perils of WP:RECENTISM, I've toned down the wording to what I think is a non-controversial version of events. Before we can say more we need to ascertain what the facts are. Perhaps the French Wikipedia group could be asked to assist? The main point we need to know is if this is an actual ban on selling the product from open display, with some form of official penalty for non-compliance, or if this is simply a request from a Minister that retailers can comply with as they see fit. If it's the former then we should call it a ban on selling from open display, not a ban on sale as the reverted edits claim. If it is just a request from a Minister then we need to use wording that reflects that the minister asked stores to voluntarily comply by not selling form open display. Mark Marathon (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A little more digging. All these stories seem to be garbled forms of the original Reuters story "French minister asks shops to stop selling Monsanto Roundup weedkiller". As the headline states, the story only notes that the Minister only asked shops not to sell from open display. The story then notes that "She did not specify how she would enforce any move to curb over-the-counter sales". it also notes that France is considering a banning all sales of all pesticides to unlicenced people by the year 2022. This isn't anything specially applied to Glyphosate, it will also apply to Raid and 2,4-D. I've changed to text to reflect that there is no ban. The general french ban on pesticides proposed for 8 years time doesn't warrant inclusion in this articleMark Marathon (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it warrants inclusion, as it was a special request. I thank you for your fact-checking and corrections. "I have asked garden centres to stop putting Monsanto's Roundup on sale," here. SageRad (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "I have asked garden centres to stop putting Monsanto's Roundup on sale....". Those ellipses are important.
 * There's no argument that this is notable enough for inclusion, but the inclusion needs to be an accurate representation of the facts. At this stage a politician has politely requested some people to do something, but the request has no legal enforcement. The people concerned can, and probably will, politely say no. IOW the legal status of Glyphosate in France hasn't changed at all and it certainly hasn't been banned. Even the word translated as banned in "France must be on the offensive with regards to the banning of pesticides" is most often translated as "control" or "regulation", which have rather different meanings in English. My French is nowhere near good enough to know which translation is more accurate.Mark Marathon (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)