Talk:Glyphosate

Windrow or winnow?

The text "This dry crop does not have to be windrowed (swathed and dried) prior to harvest..." under Use links to the combine harvester page. I think perhaps this should have been linked to Windrow. The combine combines reaping, threshing, and winnowing, and the winnowing page specifically says it's not to be confused with windrowing. Can someone more familiar with farming check this? bendodge (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't look like winnowing is being confused here. For grains like wheat, oats, etc., the plant used to be mowed and rolled into windrows to dry, whereas it's more common today (regardless of using dessicants) that combines are used that do not need swathing. For now, I moved the link to windrow as the combine head section isn't extremely descriptive here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Duke and Powles

Plmoknqwerty you have now reverted this content twice [1], [2] and in doing so you have given edit summaries that have misstated policy. There is no prohibition on including opinions as long as they have sufficient weight and notability, and are not presented in Wikipedia's voice. Since these opinions are attributed, then merely being opinions isn't a problem. Geogene (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with what Geogene said. I'll add that, so long as the opinions are reliably sourced, then an editor disagreeing with the opinion becomes original research. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

So when some opinion states something good about glyphosate it can be added when "reliably sourced", but when some opinion (as you name it) or review (as pubmed names it) states something bad about glyphosate (see topic below) it is forbidden to add. Cathry (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

That's just playing games with words (you are not, for example, considering what was said about due weight, nor are you considering the consensus of the community at WP:GMORFC), and a continuation of your violation of WP:AGF for which I cautioned you below, to which you replied without any acknowledgment of my concern. WP:Discretionary sanctions apply here, as you have been made aware, so I strongly encourage you to conduct yourself accordingly. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, what I said about a narrative review below was in the context of WP:MEDRS, whereas this is not. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Narrative reviews are appropriate according WP:MEDRS. There is no reasonable cause to add outdated opinion by Duke and to not add fresh review about glyposate toxicity Cathry (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll explain this very precisely. The quotation from Duke is not about any sort of medical claim, and does not require MEDRS. The material based on the DeLong source does involve a medical claim, and therefore MEDRS applies. These are two different kinds of content, and the sourcing requirements are consequently different. And that is what I just said above. And as for what WP:MEDRS#Assess evidence quality actually says about narrative reviews is in the context of ranking the evidence quality of various types of sources. MEDRS places narrative reviews below systematic reviews, and says that narrative reviews "can help establish the context of evidence quality." Thus, they are useful in deciding what weight to assign to other sources, but they are not the final word in themselves. And that material comes just after the instructions to "summarize scientific consensus", which takes priority. MEDRS, taken as a whole, is not about "this kind of source is A-OK", but rather, about how to compare and contrast the usefulness of various sources, with some sources more useful than others. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Duke states glyphosate "ideal" because it has low toxicity, this is sort of very medical claim. MEDRS do not forbid narrative reviews. that's all Cathry (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that unlike some of the viewpoints you've been trying to add recently, the idea that glyphosate has low toxicity, effective against many weeds, requires very little active ingredient, etc. compared to older herbicides is a common viewpoint held by agricultural scientists. It's nothing controversial to say it's an "ideal" herbicide, and the source expounds on that more. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Low toxicicty concept is very outdated according to current studies. Cathry (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Review by Nicole E De Long

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5370400/ Nicole E De Long. Alison C Holloway. Early-life chemical exposures and risk of metabolic syndrome//Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy.

Added info from review: "Glyphosate has been shown to cause liver and kidney toxicities at low doses and to increase apoptosis and induce oxidative stress in preadipocytes"

It was reverted by Kingofaces43 with comment "Source cites WP:FRINGE Seralini study in addition to additional WP:WEIGHT issues"

Review cites study by Mesnage et al, including Seralini "Transcriptome profile analysis reflects rat liver and kidney damage following chronic ultra-low dose Roundup exposure." This study was not retracted. Increase of apoptosis and oxidative stress are also serious issues. Cathry (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: I'll let you speak for yourself of course, but here is my take. The fact that a particular paper co-authored by Séralini was not retracted does not change the fact that it was co-authored by Séralini. If we are going to include content about liver and kidney health effects, then WP:MEDRS must be applied to sources, and the De Long paper does not really satisfy the need for a secondary source. The authors describe it as a "narrative review", which sounds like a review article, but is actually an opinion piece. So we have somewhat inadequate sourcing for something whose due weight does not justify the amount of text given it. I agree with KofA's revert. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

More or less what I was going to say. Definitely low quality in terms of MEDRS. I'm on limited internet connection tonight, but the Seralini experiment in question is another criticized one such as being the type of experiment where if you bump the desk the cell culture petri dish is on, the cells die. Basically, its another experiment that overexaggerates itself. I'll see if I can pull up some of the sources discussing it if it's relevant in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The fact that a particular paper co-authored by Séralini was not retracted does not change the fact that it was co-authored by Séralini. It does not mean anything as long is it published in reliable journal and cited in review. Cathry (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

is actually an opinion piece It is not true. I found it at Pumbed review section. You name it "inadequate" because you don't like it. Cathry (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

About "you don't like it", per WP:AGF I would appreciate it if you would be more polite towards me. I think that I understand how the sourcing works here, and that what I said was accurate. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You didn't provide arguments why it is "inadequate", except "opinion piece" and that is not true according to Pubmed base. Cathry (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No, narrative reviews are already explained as being of weaker quality in MEDRS because they are essentially author opinion instead of systematic weighing of studies. You need to stop personalizing disputes as you've already been reminded this topic is under discretionary sanctions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Narrative reviews are appropriate according WP:MEDRS Cathry (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Please reread the above as this has been covered already. Such a narrative review is not given much weight in MEDRS, especially with terms of WP:DUE in a controversial topic with contradictory literature. It's not going to work here in terms of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Cai review

This source was recently added in this edit. I was originally going to leave it be for the time being, but I had a chance to look at the full text, and it's quit the mess. I've removed it due to a few issues. First, it cites Seralini extensively, which is a pretty big WP:REDFLAG It's also extremely difficult to get through the source due to poor English and extremely poor data presentation (I'm kind of surprised it was accepted without taking care of the basic readability prior to publishing). The studies used for the meta-analysis also are not even cited in the references for the most part, and the few that are are not peer-reviewed.

The additional problem with the edit itself is that is says nothing of glyphosate concentrations (i.e., ecological relevance), which is generally needed in toxicological reporting as the previous sentence on maternal effects. This isn't included in the source either. Basically, there's too many red flags to try consider it the type of study we're looking for per WP:MEDASSESS at this point or to even gleam appropriate information from. If we are going to consider it as a source, better to wait for other experts to comment on it to see if someone can make sense of the study as well as avoid WP:RECENTISM. If it doesn't get discussed, that would be an indication that scientists didn't take it seriously. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not your responsibility to judge whether it is poor data or good citations. It is responsibility of journal reviewers. Cathry (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cathry: It most definitely is our responsibility to consider that, especially on a subject as controversial as this. I've also had a look at the full paper and concur with KoA about the problems. It's illogical for the paper to state that it is toxic without stating the doses at which toxicity occurs. If we base a claim in our article that it decreases sperm count in rats, our readers are likely to misunderstand the conclusions that the source made. SmartSE (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not illogical. Exposure doses are in cited studies and at page 20 in this paper. Cathry (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No, the studies are not cited anywhere in the paper. The page numbers are from 148-155, and there is not even a 20th page within that. Slow down and re-read the actual paper. Regardless of what page is being looked at, the papers are not cited in the references cited, which is on the very last page. Also keep in mind that we do not engage in peer-review as Wikipedia editors, but this basic level of assessing evidence quality is far from that. There are basic red flags as well as problems with the presentation of the paper that makes us unable to generate content from it, much less consider it a reliable source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

There is all data about exposure in Table 2. Specific characteristics of Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis of Sperm Concentrations. It can be seen here http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1382668917302041?via%3Dihub Cathry (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

No, that is not data we can use per WP:OR. Secondary sources are supposed to synthesize that information for us, which this source did not do in addition to all the other problems with it. I think that's one of the points you've been missing here. Also, keep in mind the source is paywalled. I can access it with my university, but many editors will only see the abstract with that link. As mentioned before, there isn't really anything more to do with this conversation except wait for other experts to comment on it at this time. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)