Tryptofish (talk | contribs) m →Cai review: fix sig |
Tryptofish (talk | contribs) →Duke and Powles: add |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
: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. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:27, 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. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Cathry|Cathry]] ([[User talk:Cathry|talk]]) 10:16, 29 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. [[User:Cathry|Cathry]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:DUE|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. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:19, 29 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. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 21:31, 29 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. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 21:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 23:19, 29 September 2017
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Assertion that using glyphosate as a dessicant results in residues
I have removed this statement because it does not seem to be supported by any of the sources provided. Only one source even mentions use as a dessicant that I can see, and even it never attributes residues to that practice. If anyone can provide quotes of where these sources state that use as a dessicant results in a residue on crops, then please do so. Thank you. Mark Marathon (talk) 02:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I concur that that wasn't supported by the sources. I wrote most of Crop_desiccation#Glyphosate a while back and at least on the sources available then this wasn't the case. The new Canadian report doesn't say that the residues were the result of desiccation. The British work does indicate that it can result in residues, but they were below the MRL. It's a pity the Canadian work doesn't report the figures in more detail though. Worth noting that the MRLs they use are lower than the UK (5 vs 20 ppm) and that they include AMPA in the figure as well. To reiterate though, there is a big difference between "results in a residue on the food crop" and "can result" and similarly between "residue" and exceeding the MRL. SmartSE (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with the removal. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- So we've had another attempt at adding this material. Problem is that four references are given. The University of Michigan one us pertinent, but only adresses one crop and specifically says that only incorrect application may lead to residue issues. I've changed the article to refect this. The WHO document never even uses the word Glyphosate that I can see. The Glyphosate.eu reference doesn't claim that use as a dessicant increases rsidue levels anywhere that I can see. The ec.europa reference only mentions the effects of preharvest use in Rounup ready crops: no mention at all is made of use as a dessicant that I can see. If I'm wrong and these articles do make a claim that use of Glyphosate as a dessicant increases residue levels, then please quote it for me and provide a page number. At this stage we have one reference saying that oncorrect use can lead to residue increases, something true of all pesticides and fertilisers by definition. If we can't find some more sources, we will have to discuss whther this material meets WP:DUE. I'm inclined to think that one offhand comment from one source that would be true of any crop treatment probably doesn't warrant inclusion And can we please discuss before making any more changes so we can avoid this constant reverting of unsourced claims? Thank you.Mark Marathon (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with the removal. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, still learning! I can see that my formatting is probably wrong for this page. The wording of the assertion is a little off. I would maybe rephrase as "the preharvest application of pesticides (such as glyphosate) results in residues". There are other potential (less common) preharvest usages and its not a dessicant but similar to the use of dessicants. I believe these are 3 additional citations for "preharvest application of pesticide results in residues":
Those appear to be the same citations, and they have the same issues. I don't see how you have adressed my concerns at all. Atthis stage we have a single reference saying that incorrect use can lead to residue increases, something true of all pesticides and fertilisers by definition. That's all that should be added to the article, and even that needs a discussion re WP:DUE.Mark Marathon (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- They are the same citations. I clipped the sentence/text (in quotes) from each that support the assertion that preharvest application of pesticide results in residues.Elmwoodie (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- "Preharvest applications and in-crop applications in glyphosate tolerant crops can produce higher residue levels, resulting in MRLs > 0.1 mg/kg" [1]
- "Many residue trials have been carried out over many years with pre-harvest uses. The residue data from these trials are used as the basis for the setting maximum residue levels (MRLs) for crops like cereals, pulses and oil seed crops where pre-harvest treatments are recommended. These MRLs are set for the highest recommended doses for weed control with the shortest pre-harvest interval" [2].
- 3 variables of residue level: "application rate, number of applications, and preharvest intervals" [3] Elmwoodie (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- ^ Reding, M-A. "Evaluation of the impact of glyphosate residues in food on human health" (PDF). European Commision. Monsanto Brussels.
- ^ "Clarification of Pre-harvest uses of glyphosate The advantages, best practices and residue monitoring" (PDF). Glyphosate Information Portal. European Glyphosate Task Force (GTF).
- ^ "Guidelines for predicting dietary intake of pesticide residues" (PDF). World Health Organization. Global Environment Monitoring System – Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment Programme (GEMS/Food). Retrieved 20 August 1997.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|accessdate=
(help)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- @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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingofaces43 (talk • contribs) 21:45, September 29, 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)
- @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)