Jump to content

Talk:Roundup (herbicide)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Coca

"The growing popularity of Boliviana Negra amongst growers could have serious repercussions for the U.S. war on drugs but nobody really wants to talk about because it could put an end to U.S. aid money in Colombia and the coca farmers who grow the new strain would stop receiving free weed control on behalf of the U.S. government and taxpayers."

This sentence should be rewritten in a more formal and more neutral manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.29.44 (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Interesting article, BTW. Gandydancer (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Scotts Miracle-Gro

This product is actually produced for consumers not by Monsanto, but by Scotts Miracle-Gro. Shouldn't that be mentioned somewhere? --CastAStone//(talk) 14:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

merge

User:Jytdog 19:14, August 26, 2012

I see no link to the discussion. Binksternet (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The three merges I found were very curious. En:wp and two other languages were tagged to merge 26, 27, 29 July, 2012. The other two never did merge. On August 1, 2012, a few days later, the jury ended the court case in favor of Monsanto. I doubt the jury verdict was announced ahead of time but three language wikis all tagged to merge beforehand seems odd. I haven't checked the other languages yet to see if they were merged early as well. Estonian and Czech We could probably unmerge this one and have an actual discussion on it this time.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it will be productive to try and identify a conspiracy with regard to the Monsanto court case. Let's just concentrate on whether Wikipedia will benefit from having two articles, one on Roundup and one on glyphosate. Binksternet (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Unless glyphosate and Roundup are identical in makeup, etc., there is no question Wikipedia should deal with them separately. (They are most assuredly not identical.) petrarchan47tc 02:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
It's in the Glyphosate archives, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I see the following discussions:
So it looks to me as if there was never a strong consensus for merging, just the slim majority in June 2008, with good arguments brought forward by both sides. The June 2008 discussion was critically flawed by the OP stating that Roundup only had one "active ingredient" and it was glyphosate. However, Roundup differs substantially from glyphosate in the supposedly inactive "inert" ingredient polyoxyethylene alkylamine (POEA) which can too easily be contaminated with dioxane to make for very toxic side effects, according to Scientific American. Mother Earth News talks about the concern over further "inert" ingredients of Roundup including the surfactants and solvents. Thus the June 2008 merge discussion was carried out under a false assumption. I think the two articles should be un-merged. Binksternet (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed some things. 1) I did not agree to an unmerge in June 2013. What I said sounded reasonable, was an approach to developing the glyphosate article that would easily lead to forks. I have agreed to that here, too. 2) When I particpated in the August 2012 discussion, I was fully aware that there are many formulations of glyphosate, and that some additives used in those formulations are more toxic than glyphosate. I have no idea what you mean about "false assumptions," binkster. There are many formulations of Roundup (not all of them have POEA); b) there are many generic (or other brand name) glyphosate formulations, some of which are the same as some Roundup formulations; and c) glyphosate is never used alone - it is always in some formulation. These have been true for about a decade now. No big shockers there. 23:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Additional note, Binkster. Neither of those two sources mentions "dioxane" with respect to POEA. I would guess you are thinking of a different herbicide, 2,4-D (which is an active ingredient, not a surfactant or other additive) Jytdog (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
No, I was not wrong in discussing dioxane, which I'm sure you know is found in POEA. The US State Department assembled a glyphosate health study which identifies dioxane in typical glyphosate recipes: "Evaluation of the Effects of Glyphosate on Human Health in Illicit Crop Eradication Program Influence Zones", July 2003. Binksternet (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I have never been able to find a reliable source for that claim about POEA being contaminate with dioxane. The link you provide there is not an RS - the claim about dioxane is not even sourced. Can you find one? I cannot.Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Disagree strongly. There is only one active ingredident in Roundup - glyphosate. Glyphosate is NEVER used alone - it is always in a formulation. One of the key elements in every formulation is a surfactant - glyphosate is highly water soluble and cannot penetrate waxy leaves - a surfactant holds the glyphosate on the leaf surface and helps it penetrate. Binkster is correct that the surfactant in some Roundup formulations is POEA Polyethoxylated tallow amine. One of the key things I brought up in the discussion that led to the merge decision, is that the content of the glyphosate and Roundup articles had become almost completely overlapping. Pointless to have two overlapping articles. More importantly, while the anti-GMO crowd remains obsessed with Monsanto's Roundup (which formulation of Roundup they never say because most times folks seem unaware there are about 10 formulations of Roundup, all with different qualities), w in the real world, the patent expired on glyphosate 13 years ago. 13 years ago. Now, in 2013, China makes and sells more glyphosate than anybody, and the focus on Roundup has more to do with politics than with realities of glyphosate and how it used in the real world. I have not had time to work on this article for a long time, but you can see that I left tags where we need to do a lot of work to provide the full glyphosate picture. An unmerge makes no sense, outside of politics. Jytdog (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Now you are talking about three things: Roundup, Roundup clones or generic competitors, and glyphosate by itself, without solvents, surfactants or carriers. The glyphosate article should not have to heft the load of Roundup controversy, including Roundup patent challenges, Roundup legal troubles and Roundup-related GMO crops. The glyphosate article should be a fairly simple affair which concentrates on the chemical and its characteristics, history and usage. The Roundup article should cover the historically important contribution of Roundup (notability does not diminish over time) and of course all the controversy related to Monsanto's Roundup product. A small subsection can cover the generic or clone products. Binksternet (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for talking! I would not characterize what I said that way. I said that there is one active ingredient, and many formulations of it -- including many formulations under the Roundup brand. "Roundup" is one brand, but it is not one thing - there are many formulations under that brand, each of which act differently. I'm also not sure what you mean about some specific "Roundup patent challenges" and "roundup-related GMO crops". The GM crops are glyphosate-resistant and Monsanto does not and cannot obligate farmers who buy that seed to also buy Roundup (that kind of forced sale of a related good is called "patent misuse" in patent law - that is a technical term in patent law - and if you try to do it and get caught, your patent can be invalidated in civil court). During the time before the glyphosate patent expired, Roundup was the only game in town, but for 13 years now farmers have had a wide range of glyphosate formulations to buy, to use with the glyphosate-resistant seed they buy. Also the patent was on glyphosate, not Roundup per se, so there are no "Roundup patent challenges" per se. Finally on this, you did not respond to one of the key arguments, was that Wikipedia tried to keep them separate for a long time - earlier merge discussions left them separate - and one of the key reasons to combine them is that they kept creeping back together, which is pretty inevitable if you have one article on an active ingredient and another on a set of formulations. Jytdog (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Wanted to correct something I wrote above! So, back when Roundup was the only glyphosate formulation approved by the EPA, Monsanto did have "typing" language in its contracts with farmers - farmers had to buy Roundup. During that time Monsanto caught a farmer saving seeds and sued him for infringement, and the farmer counter-sued, saying that the tying practice violated anti-trust and Monsanto's patent on the glyphosate resistant seed should be found invalid. The farmer lost, and appealed to the CAFC - and lost again. The reason the court gave, was that there was no anti-competitive effect of the tying language, because there was no product that competed with Roundup. The article describing this (here notes that when glyphosate went off patent, Monsanto dropped this language from its contracts with farmers - -they knew that once there was competition, they would put their glyphosate-resistant seed patents in jeapordy if they kept doing this. So we were each wrong, and each right, Binkster.Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Your assertion that Roundup comes in various formulations is an argument for its own article, one separate from glyphosate. Binksternet (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't follow... there are probably ~100 formulations of glyphosate, many grouped under brand names... what is special about the ~10 Roundup ones? Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Some additional points, already made above in different threads. We have wikipedia articles on acetaminophen (here, actually the british generic name, Paracetamol), not Tylenol or Excedrin - and likewise for other drugs; the articles are on the active ingredient, not the branded formulations which have other stuff in them along with the active ingredient. On the herbicide side, we have an article on Glufosinate (not the formulations like Basta, Rely, Finale, Ignite, Challenge, and Liberty); on 2,4-D not "Weed B Gon MAX", "PAR III", "Trillion", "Tri-Kil", "Killex" and "Weedaway Premium 3-Way XP Turf Herbicide. And so on with other chemicals. I cannot think of a case like what you propose here, where we have separate articles on one subset of formulations and another on the active ingredient. Do you have examples? Jytdog (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
gelatin is not an active ingredient, nor is sugar water, nor paper, nor is soap. The Raid (insecticide) example is interesting for existing in parallel to the active ingredient article on Allethrins, but the Raid article sucks (as evidenced by its multiple tags), and has sucked for a long time. Not a great example. Almost all relevant articles are focused on the active ingredient.Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Why do we have five articles on Salt water then. They all taste the same to me.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Un-merge from Glyphosate?

Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. There were many considerations to evaluate in this discussion. Editors who opposed this split contended that:
  • there was not enough sufficiently unique information about RoundUp to justify a separate article,
  • that making a separate article would attract promotional / POV editing / be otherwise dangerous, or
  • That by convention, we tend to not make articles about specific products and instead go by the chemical name.

Those supporting the split argued that:

  • There was evidence of unique information about RoundUp to merit its own article, and that it meets WP:N per the sources from Binksternet,
  • There are some meaningful chemical differences in RoundUp that differentiate it from glyphosate, or
  • Discussions of topics regarding the specific brand (history, marketing, controversy) are inappropriate on glyphosate, and can be discussed in an NPOV manner as are done on other products.
Given the above, I am going to discount concerns about POV editing / attack page / promo concerns because we have remedies to those issues. I will also discount those opposing on the basis of lack of unique material about RoundUp as it was presented without it being convincingly challenged as insufficient for a split. Therefore, consensus was that a split of the RoundUp material from glyphosate is appropriate. However, Bluerasberry's suggestion to leave some material on RoundUp here in summary style is worth consideration, but because it was not actively discussed, it is not part of this consensus. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the article Roundup (herbicide) be un-merged from the article about glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup? Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Previous merge discussions

Related articles: Monsanto, Polyethoxylated tallow amine, John E. Franz, Genetically modified crops, CP4, Aminomethylphosphonic acid, Glufosinate, Asgrow, Genetically modified food controversies, Genetically modified maize, Genetically modified rice, Genetically modified soybean, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, Séralini affair, Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, Bowman v. Monsanto Co., and Monsanto Technology LLC v Cefetra BV and Others.

Survey

  • Support. I think Monsanto's Roundup, being a very prominent herbicide product which has made Monsanto billions of dollars, should have its own article. Historically, Wikipedia hosted the article for nearly ten years from late September 2002 to late August 2012. This is what the article looked like in July 2012 before it was merged by Jytdog. Throughout the various merge discussions I saw good arguments for keeping the articles separate, while those in favor of merging were concerned over the amount of duplication between the Roundup and glyphosate articles. I think the Roundup article should concentrate on the brand, product and patent, and the interlinked product families, while the glyphosate article should focus on the chemistry. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose
1) The merge was agreed to several months ago because:
a) despite previously stated good intentions like those Binksternet states now, the two articles came to be nearly identical as different editors worked separately on them, and it was clear several months ago that efforts to keep them distinct were pointless in the wiki-world;
b) glyphosate went off patent 13 years ago and ever since then Roundup has been only one brand among many, and China has come to dominate the worldwide market (the relevant patents were on glyphosate, not Roundup per se);
c) it is the norm in Wikipedia for articles about chemical products to focus on the active ingredient, not the branded formulation e.g. Paracetamol, not Tylenol or Excedrin and likewise for other drugs; herbicides Glufosinate (not the formulations like Basta, Rely, Finale, Ignite, Challenge, and Liberty) and 2,4-D not "Weed B Gon MAX", "PAR III", "Trillion", "Tri-Kil", "Killex" and "Weedaway Premium 3-Way XP Turf Herbicide. And so on with other chemicals.
2) Additionally, let me state that:
a) a reader interested in this herbicide should be able to find information about all formulations in one place, including all additives and surfactants used in those formulations;
b) The glyphosate article is not so long that it needs a fork for the Roundup branded products; and
c) pretty much the only reason I can see to having a separate Roundup article is to serve as a WP:POVFORK which we don't do in Wikipedia.
I think split-supporters need to explain how a Roundup article is not a POV fork. Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Negatives are hard to prove. No one has demonstrated that the Roundup article is a POV fork. Even if it were, a separate article could easily be edited so that it would not be a POV fork. Boghog (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
In theory yes, but please see this dif above, by the originator of this RfC. Basically all the controversy goes into the Roundup article, which I think pretty well fits the definition of a POV fork. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Huh??? How does that fit the definition of a POV fork? I am not seeing it. And again, even assuming if it were a POV fork, it can be certainly be edited to remove any POV. The Roundup story, just like Tylenol and Excedrin is noteworthy from a purely business perspective. Furthermore Roundup was fascinating from the standpoint of how the Monsanto was able to establish extend a proprietary position, not based on composition of matter use, but rather an efficient synthesis. The scope of Wikipedia is not just science. It also includes business. The glyphosate article should focus on the science while the Roundup article should focus on the substantial historical/commercial aspects specific to Roundup. Boghog (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
If it is left in the article on the chemical then that may be considered POV as well. If we have a section on this brand there then we should have a section for all brands. As it is now it can be construed as spam material for Monsanto.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Two responses (both kind of agreeing with you, Canoe, but not completely): a) wikipedia articles get built up over time; I think it would be great to have sections on the major formulations and a table showing market shares among them. This can all be built over time. b) there is no doubt that some readers want to find information on Roundup in particular - they should be able to find it, and find it with information on the other formulations, so the reader can see the real world and not a sliver of it. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia should be expanding and creating articles not collapsing and deleting. I think these two seem to clash far too often. I can see articles deleted on the grounds of notability but this is not the case here. By moving the material to the chemical article is just turns it into a huge spam section. In order to balance a perceived corporate POV we should create sections for all brands there. That would cause a huge raft of non-notable material. This is far more POV of a merge than any claims of a POV fork.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
How is this spam? Again, I am not seeing this. Wikipedia is full of article about specific products (e.g., Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Big Mac, Whopper, Microsoft Windows, iPad, Google Search, Pentium, etc.). As long as these products are notable as documented by independent sources, these articles are not spam. Boghog (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand. If we merged Big Mac into hamburger without including an equal section on Whopper and all the smaller burgers then that would be spamming the hamburger article with one of the main products. If we trimmed the material way down it may wash but then we lose material our readers should see.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The scope of Wikipedia also includes history. As the innovator product, from a historical perspective, a Roundup section in this article or as a separate article is clearly justified. Boghog (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the sensible proposal of Zad68 (talk · contribs), Talk:Glyphosate#Glyphosate_v._Roundup. The Glyphosate article should be developed first, and then content split off when a significant amount of Roundup specific content builds up. The old article is of poor quality, including a hodge podge of primary sources making medical claims, particularly of note are those by Seralini of Seralini affair fame. It's an editorial decision to have an article, being notable doesn't mean it is required to exist, and the content is better covered at Glyphosate. I don't see why we would separate the chemistry from the brand Roundup. It provides more context than each separated from the other. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
These issues can be solved as suggested below. Unmerge the article, repair it, and then decide whether to merge the remaining material. I still feel that so much will remain that our readers will think the chemical article will look like Monsanto spam.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The summary above notes that I merged these a while back, but it suggests that I went ahead without much notice or discussion which isn't quite true. I believe that a merge proposal tag was up for a long time and a discussion occurred on a separate page. These topics are closely related and easier to monitor when combined. II | (t - c) 23:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion didn't have much input. After it was closed then one editor did the merge according to his POV of what should be merged. There was no discussion on what should be kept and what shouldn't be. This resulted in material lost that our readers can no longer see.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Copied:"Products should not feature so prominently in an chemical article, at best they are to be discussed in a general fashion. It would be like discussing low-carbon steel, hex-nuts in the iron article. Moreover, there is an abundance of information on Roundup to warrant a separate article. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)"
  • Support per my own comments above, common sense, and Plasmic Physics. It might be said that the 'abundance of information on Roundup' becomes somewhat hidden from the reader because of this merge, which should not have happened according to the guidelines. Also agree with Binksternet: "the glyphosate article should focus on the chemistry". I think this is what the reader would expect. petrarchan47tc 02:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The chemistry and product articles should be separate. Having them together dilutes the potential quality of both articles and impacts on clarity. I also believe Roundup meets the Wiki Notability guidelines. LT90001 (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
And what would it contain? Would it just be Glyphosate#Monsanto? What about the issue where some scientific papers discuss Glyphosate, and some discuss Roundup? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Those papers can either be included in either article or both depending on the paper.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose We generally name products by their generic names rather than brand names. Thus we should keep the merge. We do not for example have articles on Plavix and clopidogrel we simply redirect the former to the latter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The problem with that is the material on this one product is far larger than many other sections in the chemical article. Our readers would just see that as spamming Monsanto. Much good material was removed in the merge. If it were added back it would just amplify it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • This isn't accurate. We generally name products by their generic names rather than brand names unless the brand is in itself notable enough to warrant its own article. See Tylenol for a perfect example of this. The article on Tylenol doesn't focus on the active ingredient (leaving that for the article on Paracetamol), but rather on the history and branding of the particular product, which doesn't belong in Paracetamol. I would make the same argument for Roundup: the product itself is notable in ways that the active ingredient is not. Arathald (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose split Binksternet is correct that it would be nice to have a separate article for Roundup as it is a product which meets Wikipedia notability criteria, but I will oppose any split for so long as there is not sufficient unique content with which to make a unique article for this specific brand. The article on Roundup, if it exists, should contain information about the brand and marketing and not about the chemical. Information about the chemical should go in the chemical name article. Right now, there is not enough information about the brand to justify breaking the Wikipedia precedent of not having distinct articles for brands when all the available information is about the generic name for the product. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • A separate article for Roundup could go into much greater detail about the brand activity. Plenty of books, papers, reports and articles discuss the brand:
There are many more sources we can draw from to discuss the Roundup brand—quite a lot has been written about it. The current section of Glyphosate#Monsanto barely scratches the surface. That section is what I consider to be a summary style section which should be headed by a link to the main article about Roundup. Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The Wildlife Ecotoxicology one is especially interesting. One big focus of that, is on POEA which is known to have bad effects on fish and ambphibians. Do you know what other brands of glyphosate use that surfactant? I don't know and I am still trying to find out. It bothers me not to know. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
That should be brought up at the other article not in a merge discussion of this redirect.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure what to say. If someone made a different article talking about the brand, and breaking from the history of this article, and not talking about the chemical, then I would support that. That is separate from this RfC - anyone can start that in their userspace and if it happened, content which is about the brand should not be merged into this article except in summary form to link to the article about the brand. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Just because we can have an article does not mean we must. We can arrive at an editorial decision to merge articles. There has not been any specific proposed text for an unmerge. The cart is being put before the horse here, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
It isn't a matter of 'can' or 'must' but a matter of 'should'. If the article was merged correctly and it filled the chemical article with too much material on one product then our readers may see that as spam. In that case we 'should' split it off. There is plenty of "specific proposed text for an unmerge" for this here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I support separate articles for several of the reasons already offered above. This statement also has a bearing on my decision: Monsanto has responded, saying that (a) Roundup formulations do contain surfactants (detergents) to help the active ingredient penetrate the waxy cuticle of the plant. (b) The surfactants are indeed more toxic than the glyphosate. Gandydancer (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Round-up is just a brand name stuck on glyphosate. Except the turnover and profits made by Monsanto, there is not much left that is unique for Round-up and not related to glyphosate. The Banner talk 12:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
There is much material left. If you look at the last historical version you can see it. If we can have that version restored then we can work on it. If it is trimmed to the point where it won't look like spam in the chemical article then it could be merged. Many readers will still think there may too much material on one product though. If you look at Broad Arrow (pigeon), All Alone (pigeon), War pigeon, and the other Dickin Medal recipients you will find that they all have their own articles. Most of these articles will never expand but they are still worthy of stand alone articles. RoundUp is far more notable than most of them so it should have its own article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Having a separate article on a specific brand of glyphosate could be seen as both unduly promotional and as an attack on the product, neither of which is WP's purpose. It would clearly be an unnecessary and contentious article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Any attack material should be removed or made NPOV. To keep it listed in the chemical article is spam of one brand over the other brands. Since it may be the historical main brand then it does warrant its own article to avoid these issues.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
"spam of one brand over the other brands", as Doc James has shown this is fairly standard practice for articles of this type, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Just because other articles are corrupted by spam does not mean more need to be.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Like other editors have said, Wikipedia isn't an Encyclopedia of Science, but rather one of general human knowledge. This includes business and brands. Roundup itself is certainly notable enough to warrant its own article, especially given the direct role that the specific product played in the current state of GMOs. The argument that some editors are making that if we make an article on Roundup, we must also make articles on other pesticide brands is not a terribly good one. We should ask ourselves if the other brands are, by themselves, notable. If they are, then, yes, they should have their own articles. We shouldn't try to reduce the quality and scope of articles to the lowest common denominator. Maybe there is another brand that is also notable enough to deserve its own article, maybe not. But that has absolutely no bearing on whether Roundup itself is notable enough for its own article (which, in my opinion, it most definitely is). Arathald (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Some folks are discussing Roundup as though it were merely the brand name Monsanto has slapped on the chemical glyphosate. In fact, Roundup is a mixture which includes glyphosate along with other significant ingredients. As I recently commented at Talk:Glyphosate, Roundup also includes the surfactant TN-20, which studies have found is responsible for Roundup's unique toxicity. One study found that Roundup's toxicity is not even proportional to the amount of glyphosate included; it is based on other ingredients. I hope that this information changes the votes of some users who voted "Oppose" because they considered Roundup to be merely a brand name for glyphosate. Additionally, I agree with comments such as Arathald's, above, that Roundup is independently notable as a brand. groupuscule (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi User:Groupuscule - just fyi, TN20 is the same as POEA that has been discussed here; the greater toxicity of pretty much all glyphosate formulations vis a vis glyphosate alone is well known. Glyphosate itself inhibits an enzyme humans don't have, which is why the safety profile (for humans and other mammals) is so much better than other herbicides. The surfactants and other additives are indeed the nasty stuff. One of the points I have been making here is that more than half the glyphosate being used on the planet today is non-Roundup - what are the surfactants and additives in those formulations? Which are the most widely used ones? I think it benefits are readers to have a picture of all that. Jytdog (talk) 08:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I also think our readers would like to know that. What are the formulations, etc.? I see that that section of the glyphosate section is blank. Gandydancer (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes! And you will see there is a tag asking for help expanding it, which I put on there! We all have our hands full including me.Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
We can include material in both articles if it is justified. These aren't valid arguments to keep it merged.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
But what would be the point of having the information repeated in more than one place? Doesn't that just lend itself to having its intended message diverge and become jumbled beyond recognition over time? It seems far less efficient a way to compare and contrast the actions and effects of related chemicals in a uniform way in broad terms, which I think is a necessary thing to do in an article like this, as explained by Plasmic Physics in the section below. Otherwise we'll just end up comparing apples to oranges. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This un-merge proposal is not about having "material in both articles", though a degree of overlap will be necessary to give context. The main point here is to have a Roundup article within which the Monsanto brand and the specific Roundup product can be described with more detail about the brand and product, independent of the chemical composition and chemical characteristics of glyphosate. There is a lot of good material written about Monsanto's very successful brand strategy and brand management, for instance, which is not appropriate to the glyphosate article. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with that. But I just mean to say that I think it's important to do a better job of clearly defining the scope of the article in a way that minimizes that overlap so it doesn't end up looking like it did before, perhaps even by making the title something more specific than just "Roundup", to avoid tempting editors to add in information from any story or study that mentions "Roundup" when what really is being talked about is glyphosate or surfactants common to other herbicides as well. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Binkster. In your post above, on 20:41, 21 August 2013, you list several sources that would be more appropriate for a Roundup article than a glyphosate article. But one of those sources, the Wildlife Ecotoxicology: Forensic Approaches one, has nothing to do with the Roundup brand, as it is about the toxicity of glyphosate formulations. It seems that even you, who is proposing the split, cannot keep the topics separate (although perhaps I am missing something!) .... the creeping back together seems inevitable. Additionally, I think that the success of Monsanto's strategies has made "roundup" the generic term for glyphosate-based weedkillers - it is effectively "kleenex" or "xerox" now, as discussed here. In other words, would glyphosate even be notable, if it weren't for Roundup? Finally, unless the proposed "Roundup" article would be really strictly limited to something like a business-school case study of marketing a brand, I don't see how the creep could be prevented, and I don't know if such a case study is really encyclopedic.... Jytdog (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The book Wildlife Ecotoxicology: Forensic Approaches, that is, the chapter by Rick Relyea about Roundup's effect on amphibians, discusses at various times the Monsanto Roundup® brand, the Monsanto Roundup Ready® brand, various "Roundup-type formulations of glyphosate"[1], "Roundup Original (containing POEA)"[2], and so on. The author is clear that "the application rate we used... came straight from the bottle of Roundup Original." It was Roundup being tested, not straight glyphosate by itself. The concern of the study is not the properties of glyphosate but the properties of Roundup including its surfactants and other ingredients, all acting together. After testing with Roundup itself, researcher Rick Relyea makes broader conclusions about similar "glyphosate-based herbicides containing the POEA surfactant"[3], which does not render irrelevant the testing he did with Roundup. Relyea is not confused about this topic. Binksternet (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Binkster. So you would indeed have the Roundup article get into effects, toxicity, etc, not just branding. This is exactly what led to the "creep" issues before. In order to argue that a separate article on Roundup should get into issues of efficacy and toxicity, you need to show that Roundup is chemically different than generic formulations (by definition, generics come into existence when patents expire, so there is nothing to prevent generics from being exact knock-offs). I don't think you can successfully argue that, but I would be interested to see what sourcing you could bring. Information is hard to find, by the way. I did find this, which shows testing that the Australian government had done, of "13 of Australia’s most commonly used .... glyphosate products... (including) ... Roundup and generic varieties..." They stated that "Generally, most Australian-made 450 g/L products use an ethoxylated tallow amine surfactant system" So if POEA is the point of concern, Roundup is not unique in using that. And one wouldn't expect it to be. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
It would be a failure in coverage to have the Roundup article avoid a discussion of toxicity. The Relyea paper is a key finding, widely cited.[4] In the glyphosate article, however, Relyea is relegated to a footnote without text, just one reference of a group of four which all follow this sentence: "Glyphosate formulations are much more toxic for amphibians and fish than glyphosate alone." This is insufficient coverage of Relyea who tested Roundup against malathion, Sevin and 2,4-D and made conclusions based on this setup. Relyea did not test Roundup against straight glyphosate chemical, so I have no idea what the reference is doing there. This example demonstrates how the glyphosate article is not doing its job. I think what we have right now is a glyphosate article that does not want to cover any controversies that can be laid at Roundup's door, and arguments here in this un-merge discussion about how controversies should remain at the glyphosate article where, unfortunately, they are not adequately covered. I am getting the sense that some people here are happy that Wikipedia has inadequate coverage of Roundup's controversies. With the articles un-merged, the Roundup brand can be described, and the toxicity experiments which used Roundup specifically, that is, ones which are not covered by the glyphosate article. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, so I think you just made the point that a separate Roundup article would fatally overlap with the glyphosate article, which will cover generic versions that are identical to one or more formulations of Roundup. Your suggestions above about focusing the Roundup article on the branding strategies could possibly have worked, but since you clearly intend to also include efficacy and toxicity content, there is no way to prevent the messy thicket that drove the merge in the first place. Please also note that as per WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS we rely on secondary and tertiary sources for all content, and especially for health-related content. The Relyea article should not be used as a source due to this, as there are lots of reviews on toxicity of glyphosate per se; some reviews on adjuvants/additives, and some on formulations.Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
So why is Relyea not given a stronger voice at the glyphosate article? Hundreds of authors have cited the study—there must be secondary and tertiary discussion.
You can take my arguments for including Relyea as a criticism of the current state of the glyphosate article, and work from there. Since you admit that the Round brand article has a foundation, the Relyea conclusion should be brought to the glyphosate article. It would be a mistake for you to say that the Roundup brand article cannot be un-merged after your observation that the branding strategies might work as a separate article. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi binkster, I don't quite follow you. The Relyea article you cited just above, is a primary source and should not be in the article as per WP:PSTS... so I don't understand why you are saying it should be given yet a "stronger voice"... sorry I am not being difficult I really just don't understand. I am not following your other line of thinking either - I said that I could kind of see a basis for a Roundup article focused on its branding etc but that this seems more like a biz school case study, not a wikipedia article - I never said that a Roundup article that was more broad makes any sense... Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Jytdog, you said, "there are lots of reviews on toxicity of glyphosate per se; some reviews on adjuvants/additives, and some on formulations". I know that you have done thousands of edits re Monsanto-related articles and have an excellent understanding of all the related information. It would help the editing community to get a better grasp of the available information if you would perhaps give us a list of the available reviews. Perhaps you could start a new thread as this one is getting quite hard to work with. Thanks in advance. Gandydancer (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
hi gandy. i don't think that "thousands" is accurate, but i have done lots of edits in GM-related articles; and my understanding is only good (not excellent - would that it were) and is still evolving as i learn. The more i have learned about glyphosate formulations the more bewildering the variety becomes, and the more clear it becomes that there is not nearly enough public information, especially about the identity of inactive ingredients (much less their individual toxicities). but I will make a list of sources that i think are really good, in a new section in the glyphosate article Talk page. I will try to do that tonight. There are big holes in the list - you can see in the glyphosate article where i have asked the editing community to kick in content and sources and there has been nada. :( Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. That would be helpful, but right now I am much more interested in the reviews rather than all the studies. Gandydancer (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Specifically, I meant effects on fish and amphibians as this question is related to your statement above. Gandydancer (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I am not surprised to find that there actually are not a lot of recent reviews on amphibian toxicity. In fact, the one that I did find states as much and suggests that more studies need to be done. The Relyea study (here [5] would certainly be OK as long as it is noted that the opinions are the author's opinions rather than spoken as a factual statement. Gandydancer (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
So what about having a third article, something like EPSPS inhibiting herbicide as suggested in the thread below? That could 1) allow Glyphosate to talk about the chemical characteristics of the active ingredient, 2) allow us to compare and contrast the properties, efficacy and safety of all the various formulations of related herbicides, including Roundup, and 3) allow room for Roundup to contain only information unique to the brand, without any such coverage gap. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Jytdog, Please stop accusing editors of being children. I think we are fully capable of editing article content to match the subject of the articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a dangerous chemical in the hands of the uninitiated and I like the idea of the common man able to make the connection more readily by the articles having been merged. An article strictly for Round Up would end up this glossy brochure with the noxious stuff toned down by someone somewhere along the way. Keep them attached, please. I use this stuff in a commercial setting daily, it's not something to mess around with.Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 09:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Good points but an unmerged article will still link to the article on the main chemical for our readers. If we do as you suggest then the main article will be unbalanced as to NPOV because it will coatrack this one brand. I doubt an article about this brand will be a 'glossy brochure' without being tagged as an advert and trimmed down.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
There was lots of specific material before the merge that was removed in the merge. A copy is at User:Canoe1967/Roundup (herbicide). Since this was the only product for 20+ years then any benefits and drawbacks are noted in this archive.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Not responding; not productive. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I find it as a good response. How do you consider that as not productive?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The claim "There was lots of specific material before the merge that was removed in the merge" is baseless. The old Roundup article that you link to, is at least half comprised of content not specific to Roundup, but rather is general to glyphosate. Content on Roundup that was compliant with wiki policies and guidelines, or that we were able to make compliant, was brought over. Nothing useful was lost. Your claim is baseless - you have shown nothing that was left on the table that was useful. Not one thing. Much less "lots." But you keep repeating this claim. Not productive. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to remove any unsourced material from the archive then. Once that is done then we can see if there is enough left to either balance the chemical article or outweigh it with spam for the Monsanto version.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer but I have no interest in doing that. btw, Wiki polices and guidelines are broader than merely "unsourced." Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
That is what should have interest before any merge because material was lost to our readers. We can still do it correctly from the archive.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Not responding, not productive. Same reason as above. Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
What is meant by a comment like that? It seems you have no interest now nor then about which material should be restored.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
You continue to attack. I continue to respond that you are making baseless claims and have demonstrated nothing. The endless circle. You could break it by showing this "lots of material" that I left out. Or you could just keep repeating the baseless claim, which I will keep denying. This is not pretty. I think I will go back to not responding for real. Over and out. Jytdog (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Why do you keep accusing me of attacking you when I am merely asking questions that you refuse to answer. The archived RoundUp article is 50kb and the chemical article is 80kb. You have just stated that you have no interest in deciding which material should not have been deleted. You had no problem unilaterally deciding before so why do you have a problem justifying it now?--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Two different reasons seem to be put forward for splitting. (1) There should be a discussion of Roundup as a brand, its marketing, sales, commercial success, etc. with minimal reference to its chemical composition. This seems quite reasonable to me if there is enough material, which doesn't seem to be established. (2) There should be a discussion of the specific combination of glyphosate and wetting/dispersal agents in Roundup. I don't find this convincing; it seems that all formulations of glyphosate include wetting/dispersal agents, as do many other herbicides and insecticides. The toxicity of such agents, particularly to aquatic life, is to be a generic issue, not specific to either Roundup or glyphosate-based herbicides, so is not an argument for splitting. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
As I stated above there is lots of material that was lost in the merge. There is an archive at User:Canoe1967/Roundup (herbicide).--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm quite new to this article, so I read through this archive. I honestly can't see that there is all that much material on Roundup which is independent of glyphosate. Too much of it switches somewhat randomly between the two terms. Given the present quantity of information, I'm inclined to think that JonRichfield's suggestion below has a lot of merit. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
As I stated earlier. Feel free to trim the repetitive material. Then we can see if there is enough left for a stand alone article or so much that it would spam the main article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Having scanned the foregoing largely reasonable points on both sides, including the question of maintaining the separation between proper content of the topics, I think that there is no doubt that the subject matter relevant to the active ingredient is distinct from that referring to the history of the branded product, and should accordingly be kept separate. However, instead of creating a separate article, I think it would be better to include the material on the branded product in the section Monsanto#Glyphosate_herbicides, but also creating a Roundup redir to that section, and of course, including links between that section and the glyphosate article. Having the branded product "article" in the form of a redir also would assist in discouraging subject matter in the wrong place. Then there could also be a Ridder (section of Bayer) article, with similar links. It might be easier to maintain discipline in excluding technical material from sections of a company article than from a separate branded product article, reserving such material for the Glyphosate article. JonRichfield (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support The brand and its economics, management, and controversies are a not the same topic as the active chemical ingredient. The article content and readers' expectations as to the article content are not the same. SPECIFICO talk 00:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The glyphosate article now is already a Wikipedia:UNDUE overloaded Wikipedia:Coatrack with unbalanced material about RoundUp, including the logo. If we are going to do that then we should include logos for all brands. Our readers will just think it is a cheap advert for Monsanto otherwise. We have five articles for Salt water so no reason not to split this one off to show the aspects of the brand. It was the only brand for 20+ years and has a huge history that goes with that.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with SPECIFICO- the product and its main chemical are two different things. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Motions before Discussion

I've split this off to keep the RfC being bogged down with irrelevant side tracks, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You are the one that brought up both issues. I don't suppose you would like to list the primary sources below. If you feel these issues are irrelevant then why did you use them as an argument?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Me saying an article is a hodge podge mess does not mean I think you need to go start an RfC question on listing the sources. It does not follow, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
That isn't an RfC. You brought up that it had too many primary sources. Should we list all the sources and remove the ones you think should not be included as being primary? Thee are 138 sources now. You could just list the numbers of the ones you think are primary. If we have consensus that those shouldn't be included then we can remove the material related to them. That would develop the article as well, which is your second objection to an unmerge.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
"Thee are 138 sources now". There are no sources because the article is a redirect. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
See the last version in history. Click the history button at the top of the page and then select the last version before the merge to view the article in its final state before the merge.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Unmerge so we can work on it

  • If you want to work on the Roundup article, choose one or more historic versions and copy them into your user space. We are not going to un-merge the article before this un-merge RfC is concluded. Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
What is the problem with unmerging it first? Many arguments for keeping it merged are problems with the article. If we unmerge it we can address those problems and keep it as one history database and not a second one from user space.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Because considering the previous discussions, you need consensus before unmerging. You can address the issues in your userspace. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Any user space creation would split the histories. This was fine as an article for years and the merge discussion was far too minimal. It should be unmerged to correct your issues with primary sources and article repair needed. The aim of the project is to expand and split, not collapse and delete.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you claiming no consensus based on the two votes above that support it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support petrarchan47tc 03:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose - this is the opposite of how articles grow! There is plenty of work to be done on this article - if and when any section becomes too big, we can discuss a split at that time. I have seen no one make an argument that the article is too long now and that it makes sense, content-wise, to cut it down by splitting off Roundup (or anything else). Jytdog (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
It isn't the fact that it is too long. It is the fact that much material was removed during the merge. If all that material were added then it would look like a Monsanto spam article. We merge when all material fits, not to shrink and remove material.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Canoe, I did the merge and I worked hard to preserve everything that was not OR, was NPOV, and was well sourced, (and for some content, I kept it but found better sources), and I and others have added lots of material too. If there is material that I left out that you feel should be put back in, please bring it, with sources! Really, there is plenty of room to improve the article. There is no need to be inflammatory or make accusations about intent, so please stop using ABF language, like calling it "spam" with respect to naming Monsanto or Roundup in the context of discussing Roundup formulations. It is just common sense, and a matter of fact, to call Roundup formulations, "Roundup." Additionally, readers expect to find discussion of brands - especially Roundup - here. Other brand names and formulations are named too, and are not fleshed out yet, but should be. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
One person doing a merge should not have happened in such a drastic way. It is too selective by one editor's POV about what should be merged and what shouldn't be. The material should have sought consensus for removal first. After that removal then all the remaining material should have been merged. If there is too much remaining it would seem like a spam article to our readers and in that case there shouldn't be a merge. That is why this article should be unmerged, discussed/repaired, and then decided to move the entire contents or leave it as an article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Things happen on Wikipedia when individual editors do them. Lots of people were watching and did stuff to do. more importantly - if there is material from the old roundup article that was left out and that you feel should be included, please bring it. Please focus on improving the article. Again canoe, please do not personalize this - what is the point you are making, in now criticizing how I did the merge months ago, "alone", with my "POV"? Again, this is what you promised to stop doing! Please stick to discussing content. Please. Content. Improving the article. Please.Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The merge was done incorrectly. The article should have been trimmed according to discussion. After that trim the last accepted historical version should have been merged. If I were to take the last historical version as it is now and replace it with the material in the chemical article then it would probably be reverted. One editor cherry picking his choices of material is not the correct method. My method would not involve a POV. It would just be a copy/paste of consensus material. This is why the last historical version should be restored and discussed before any merger.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Not responding. Not productive.Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean? I thought this whole page was productively discussing how many feel it should be its own article and the merge was done incorrectly.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Whether or not the merge was done correctly is not the main issue here. What we are doing is determining the next step forward. Jytdog will not be chastised for performing a merge which looked at the time (last year) like it was well supported. The article will not be un-merged prior to the conclusion of the un-merge discussion! Let's concentrate on discussing the benefit to the reader of a) having a separate article on the Roundup brand, or b) working the Roundup brand more thoroughly into the glyphosate article. Binksternet (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I see no reason we can't unmerge it before we discuss what material should be merged. If too much material remains after we edit it then then it will create a coatrack of the other article. This has been brought up as an argument to keep it merged: 'too many problems with the article'. Articles should be fixed, not deleted and merged. We can't fix it while it is stuck in history. We would all need to open each version individually and edit independently.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
You keep returning to this point so I have taken the liberty of putting two versions of the article in your userspace. Please see User:Canoe1967/Roundup. The first version was from April 2009 and the second version was from July 2012. The diff of those two versions is here—it shows that a lot of material was removed, bringing the second version down to about half the size of the first. You are free to edit this material in your userspace as you choose, and when you are done you can request that the page be deleted entirely. Note that categories are commented out which is how all work should be performed in user sandboxes such as this one. Binksternet (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
That would cause a history split so I moved the entire page to User:Canoe1967/Roundup (herbicide) (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

List primary sources, or at least count them

Correct. I removed my vote above and requested that the editor that didn't like the primary sources to list the ones he has issues with.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I started the list at the top. User talk:Canoe1967/Roundup (herbicide) has a dedicated section if those that claim there are too many primary sources wish to finish it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Unmerge to a different article with a broader scope

In the case that there is not enough information on Roundup specifically, it would be better to collect similar products together. When enough information is accumulated thereafter, relevant articles specific to one particular product could then be split off. In this case, as well as providing a useful method of comparison, the collective article acts as a depository for prospective stub product-articles.

I suggest that the collective article should be named Phosphonic herbicide. Other names are welcome, although, at this time, the choice of a name is a different matter. This subsurvey is primarily concerned with the unmerging to a collective article as described above. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You are free to create List of herbicides. If some of those are large and notable enough they may need to have their own articles to avoid spamming the list. Disney has is own article to avoid spamming animation articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
A mere list hardly satisfies the proposal, the article is meant to record, discuss, and contrast (in that order). Plasmic Physics (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
That is an interesting and creative proposal! But it appears that there is only one other member of that class - at least according to [http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC37655#Related_Chems this]. Are you aware of others? Jytdog (talk) 11:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
We don't have to settle on that name, for the sake of argument, how about EPSPS inhibiting herbicide, or some variant thereof? That is more general and would still qualify under the above proposal. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
This should actually be discussed elsewhere. If someone wishes to create a new article and then merge this on into it then that should be a different merge discussion. This discussion should be about splitting it back into the original article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
As I see it, the result of this discussion directly affects the main unmerge discussion. If I were to move it elsewhere, and discuss it in parallel, then the outcome would become a moot point if the main discussion is closed first - it will just be another motion lost in bureaucracy. Plasmic Physics (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
This discussion is about unmerging to a stand alone article first. Others have brought up the fact that the article needs work. Once those two are complete then we can discuss merger again to other articles if there is too little material left to stand on its own.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page history restored

In 2013, Roundup (herbicide) was moved to userspace (User:Canoe1967/Roundup (herbicide)) and then eventually deleted as a stale draft. I have now moved those revisions back here and restored the page history. If there are any outstanding issues related to this, please let me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Non-MEDRS compliant source cited today during clean up of non-MEDRS content...?

Why is an outdated source being used when editors know this has been updated, and why has no one said anything about this? petrarchan47คุก 04:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it as the Bradberry source says exactly the same thing. However, it is worth noting that what constitutes a RS is dependent on what is being sourced to it. If an old review was being used to say roundup was not harmful and was contradicted by later sources, that would be a problem, but is the statement The surfactants in glyphosate formulations can increase the relative acute toxicity of the formulation really going to have changed? SmartSE (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
SmartSE, thanks for that fix. The opening comment by Petrarchan47 repeats a comment she made above, asking about that diff of my edit, and framing it as me supposedly citing a non-MEDRS source: [6]. I want to clarify what actually happened, and I want to make it clear that accusing me of bad sourcing is not something that one should do lightly. First of all, the source actually is a MEDRS-compliant secondary source, but it's just a review from 2003 when we also have some more recent reviews that actually say the same thing. But here is the edit history. As I said above on this talk page, the content about toxicity at Glyphosate-based herbicides has been undergoing a careful discussion on the talk page, unlike the old material that was simply brought back from years ago when the page here was first recreated. So I tried to fix it by merging content from that page to this one: [7]. As I was trying to remove the parts that were not about Roundup, I came to this step in an ongoing series of edits, where there was an error message about one of the citations: [8]; see cite number 15. In the edit I made subsequently, I was simply correcting that edit, as I clearly indicated in the edit summary: [9], not bringing a new source to this page. I still, of course, take responsibility for my edits. There was indeed discussion at the page from which I merged the content about the need for updating some of the old references, including that one. And I am on the record as being in favor of that updating: [10], [11], [12]. Before I merged that content, there had been an "under construction" template on this page, and I would hope that everyone would understand that this meant that not everything on this page was perfect, or even close. My merging of content was primarily for the purpose of eliminating contradictions between the two pages, but there was nothing final about that either. So it's not like I'm going around making bad sourcing, and I should not have had to explain all of that. On the other hand, it does look to me like Petrarchan47 is repeatedly asking about old sources at both talk pages, in a way that implies that other editors are deliberately citing outdated sources: [13], [14]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
@Tryptofish: Yes I should have pointed out that it is indeed MEDRS-compliant and that it came from the existing article. I was just trying to resolve it with as little drama as possible. SmartSE (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
No worries, that's fine, not your fault. I, too, dislike drama, but I feel that I had to set the record straight. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Marketing

This article should mention that Scotts Miracle-Gro has an agreement to be the exclusive marketer of Roundup in the United States. I have this Billings Gazette republication of a Motley Fool piece, but a better source may be needed: https://billingsgazette.com/business/investment/markets-and-stocks/should-scotts-miracle-gro-stop-selling-monsanto-s-roundup/article_bc3d20ed-43ff-5221-b126-8e64e609d755.htm.Dialectric (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Also of interest but lacking good sourcing, a few products have been released in the last few years under the Roundup brand that do not contain glyphosate: 1,2.Dialectric (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Working source for those of us in the EU (for now). No issue with this being added, apart from that that is only for domestic use, not agricultural. It's not a brilliant source, but I think it is fine for uncontroversial info like this. The Ecologist source is also fine. The lawncare product came up before at Talk:Glyphosate/Archive_12#Roundup but I couldn't find anything in secondary sources. SmartSE (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Buzzkill

I've reinstated an edit providing a link to the article "Glyphosate perturbs the gut microbiota of honey bees", which has been cited by 133 news outlets ([15]). It is unclear to me why anyone would think this study should be blocked from en.wp. SashiRolls t · c 08:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: See Talk:Glyphosate#Glyphosate_/_Honeybees. How many news articles reported it is completely irrelevant. Further, that article is about glyphosate, not Roundup, so definitely shouldn't be included in this article. SmartSE (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I am unconvinced so far by your summary of the argument. The appropriate weight to attribute to a bit of news is usually proportional to the amount of press coverage it receives. As for the glyphosate vs. Roundup question, I believe that I had read something about Roundup Pro 360 being banned in France because of its glyphosate content somewhere in the lede. Maybe I misread the Reuters article. ([16]) Look forward to being persuaded by more convincing arguments! SashiRolls t · c 20:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:SCIRS is the relevant guideline and this section deals with why we should not judge the merits of scientific research on news articles. Looking into this more, there has been some limited commentary on the paper in this review:

Acute oral and contact LD50values greater than 77 μg/bee (formulated glyphosate) and 100 μg/bee (glyphosate acid) indi-cate a low toxicity towards bees in laboratory tests. Further-more, a field study determined low potential for toxicity of the glyphosate IPA salt to developing bee larvae and pupae at the colony level with an overall NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effect Level) for brood development of 245 mg/kg glypho-sate acid equivalent (see EFSA, 2015 and references therein). A recent study by Motta et al. (2018) has linked glyphosate exposure to the alteration of bee gut communities, potentially increasing susceptibility to infection by opportunistic patho-gens. The study was conducted on a small number of bees in a laboratory environment and with higher concentrations of glyphosate than would be expected under field conditions; therefore, field studies at typical glyphosate application rates would be beneficial to determine if these effects are apparent at the colony level.

Essentially it is contrary to previous findings and therefore we should treat it with caution. As for which article, this one is only about the formulated product - glyphosate plus additives whereas this study only examined the effect of glyphosate. SmartSE (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I notice that article has an "altmetric" PNAS score of 1 (1/2613th of the study you and Kingofaces have deleted from the page). I have added a "this entry may be updated from the French entry" tag since the English-speaking gatekeepers seem to be lagging behind their French counterparts. In any case, it would be foolish for anyone to trust either .wp entry, as the five six disclaimers at the bottom of the page suggest. ~ 🐝 ~ SashiRolls t · c 19:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Did you read SCIRS? If you have then you should understand. If you haven't then this conversation isn't going anywhere. SmartSE (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

How long was this page deleted? (was called: templating the regulars)

I would just like to thank @Tryptofish: for templating me (cf. Don't template the regulars) with the ARBGMO alert he is so fond of for daring to make an edit to this page, which he is the primary author of (evidence: [17]): as of today, this article is 57% written by the templater, and no other editor has (been able to add / done the research to add) more than 5% to the page.. I'm not sure what exactly the problem is with noting that one of the premier European financial newspapers had noticed that Bayer's stock value had dropped by >40%, but perhaps he'll give me more information here. Perhaps it's just an ordinary run-of-the-mill intimidation attempt? Perhaps it was mentioning the IARC that was your cause for concern [18], Trypto? I'm mystified. Please clear this up here if it pertains to the article. So many things must not be said on en.wp regarding GMO, after all, it would be good to know what triggered you to leave me an ARBGMO alert on my freshly-shoveled TP... it would be good if others not involved in the first GMO ArbCom case from 2015 could contribute to this entry. Who knows how many people wouldn't be suing Monsanto had there been a friendly google knowledge engine snippet drawn from a wikipedia entry? Hélas, it seems the product page was mysteriously deleted despite Roundup's notability all through the beginning of the century. There just has to be a story behind that. How long was this page deleted exactly? SashiRolls t · c 21:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Page coordination

Given that we also have Glyphosate-based herbicides, I think that effort should be made to not have contradictions between what the two pages say. In particular, I see a lot of material on the present version of this page that is WP:MEDRS-noncompliant. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

In this regard, I put an "unbalanced" template on the page. My reasoning is that there is potentially misleading health-related content presently on the page, pending further improvement, and I think readers need to be warned about that, now that it has been moved back into mainspace. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
The article is under construction, tagged so with a huge banner. Why don't you wait until the construction is finished? Binksternet (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I have now finished the first step in the basic reorganization. I think it has probably removed most of the unbalanced material referred to above. I'm going to keep the under construction note on the page for another day or so, to facilitate minor revisions and harmonization. The next steps, which I will probably leave to others, will involve incorporating other material dealing with the specific commercial, social, and legal aspects of this particular brand, and making appropriate adjustments in the material which I split out as Roundup Ready. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, DGG. petrarchan47คุก 03:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree. This article has an irregular history because a lot of non-MEDRS was added in userspace that contradict the very rough status quo way back here. I'm not sure why this was re-created since we already have the formulations page and a functional consensus of just having this as a redirect compared to the older 5-year old RfC. However, we can talk about restoring the redirect to give sufficient time to show it can be done without redundancy and while establishing an exception to the trend that we don't create separate brand name articles for active ingredients to this degree.
That all being said, I see significant trimming that needs to be done if this is going to be a brand/trade name article. Active ingredient stuff belongs at glyphosate, and formulation specific stuff belongs at glyphosate-based herbicides. Things truly specific to a brand would have to go here (I'm not convinced such content wouldn't be better houses at glyphosate or the formulation page, but I can obviously be proven wrong). DGG, I'm not sure since you have a typo in the comment, but are you saying above that you will not leave filling in commercial, social, etc. stuff to others? Either way, I'd like to see what you have in mind for that somehow since the construction tag is still up before I start some edits. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I fixed my comment. I don't really want to work on this further, now that I've got this re-started. This sort of help seems to be what I can do most effectively. But as far as my own interest are concerned, the really important aspect of Roundup is the role of Roundup Ready seeds in the industrial-agricultural complex, especially its role in overthrowing the possibilities of traditional agriculture
I have removed the underconstruction tag . DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Removal of material

As you'll notice I have removed a fair bit of content that was improperly sourced. Happy to discuss any disagreements. On a more general point, the reason this article was merged into glyphosate in the first place was because there are so few sources which discuss roundup as being distinct from glyphosate. I agree that it would be good to have more information on the history and branding etc. but do good sources exist? We are now at risk of having duplicated and or contradictory content in (at least) 3 articles. It is hard enough for us to reach consensus on a single article, so I struggle to see the advantage of having this separate article. If there is roundup specific content, then it could be included in the formulations article. SmartSE (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Smartse, I have reverted your removal of massive amounts of content, I really think it's best to discuss each item separately here on the talk page before doing major deletions like that. It's not possible to review so many details the way you are doing it. Please open a new section for your proposed changes and let us discuss them individually, ok? petrarchan47คุก 17:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Petrarchan47: There's no need to have a separate section to discuss each sentence. If I remove something that you disagree with, raise the specific point here, but please don't blanket revert me just because I have removed content. It was extremely obvious to me that the content was not MEDRS compliant and so had to be removed. I'm frankly amazed that you replaced a reference to an "in vitro study on human placental JEG3 cells" which shouldn't be used as a reference anywhere on Wikipedia. We use reviews for a reason. SmartSE (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
But it's OK when Tryptofish cites non-MEDRS compliant sources? I asked for each item, not sentence, to be listed here in a way that makes it easy to discuss. petrarchan47คุก 04:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
That frames what happened in a way that is not quite accurate. I'll explain it below. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
As far as your argument that we don't need a separate article for Roundup, this has been hashed out in more formal settings, and I'm not sure I see the utility in trying to rehash it here in your comments. I also don't think it's correct to say the merge was done because Roundup lacked mention separate from glyphosate in RS. Could you point to the source for this claim? You could consider an AfD or another RfC about this issue, but to reignite the argument here is not helpful. Also, since there other manufacturers making glyphosate based herbicides, it does make sense to have a catch-all article for GBH, but that is certainly not an argument that a Roundup page is useless. Please consider a more formal procedure for dealing with this question if you feel it's valid. Let's leave this talk page for dealing with many deletions you are proposing instead. I hope that makes sense. petrarchan47คุก 17:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
And I've reverted the revert. At the very top of this talk section, I indicated why it was a problem. SmartSE did exactly the right thing by removing it, thank you. And the "unbalanced" tag was prematurely removed, given that this happened. If we are going to have content about "this might make you sick", then WP:MEDRS is necessary. I believe that this page was moved into mainspace prematurely, and I fear that I will be proven right when I predicted that it was going to become a WP:POVFORK. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Not prematurely... It's been five years since the RfC determined it should exist as a legitimate fork. I actually had this article near to the top of my "to do" list, following the discussion at DGG's talk page. If DGG had not brought it into mainspace, I would have in short order.
As far as it being a POVFORK, that was decided in the negative five years ago. The difference between the plain chemical glyphosate and the more complex product Roundup was determined to be substantial. All we have to do here is to tell the reader about Roundup's product history, brand value, chemical differences from plain glyphosate, and unique toxicity. Binksternet (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Rest assured that I am going to make damn sure that it won't become a POV-fork. Five years is an eternity in Wiki-time. But I agree with you entirely about "product history, brand value, chemical differences from plain glyphosate". As for "toxicity", indeed we should cover that too, but we need to get the facts right. "Unique"[citation needed] toxicity? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
One could equally argue that Glyphosate-based herbicides was the POV fork, and that it goes against the old consensus found in the RfC. Both articles rely too heavily on old studies and need to be updated with more recent studies. To delete old MEDRS from this article that calls safety into question whilst maintaining equally outdated material that overstates safety in Glyphosate-based herbicides makes no sense to me. We need to focus on recent MEDRS complaint studies. The way to move forward is to discuss these sources individually and try to find recent/updated sources. Mass deletions make it impossible to discuss the material. Let's work together, there is no rush. Tryptofish, please restore the information until there is a consensus formed here for each item in question. petrarchan47คุก 19:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't have removed it if I didn't feel that it needed to be removed. It's pretty much universal that editors can see POV issues on both "sides" of a POV debate – but frequently, one of those "sides" is wrong. There has been a careful discussion of sourcing going on at that other talk page, so that is where the most recent consensus comes from. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
For me, what matters especially is that there is no reason to present the information one way here, and a different way at Glyphosate-based herbicides, other than that the other page should not be limited to Roundup. Whatever editors decide, we must not say one thing about toxicity at one page, and the opposite at the other. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
If anything, I would say even toxicity information shouldn't be included here to any large degree since it's not significantly different from the other articles. We already have glyphosate and formulations page dealing with that, but that also gets to the redundancy issues with even having this article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
It might be better to focus this article on non-MEDRS content instead of repeating information from the other article. There is a lot of non-MEDRS history that is specific to Roundup that can go in this article and it would not be redundant with the other articles. Seraphim System (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find in the guideline or Wikipedia policy anything to support this aversion to repeat of information ("redundancy issues"). I worked on the BP and Deepwater Horizon oil spill articles, and we absolutely repeated information. This idea that it can't be done is new to me, from where does it stem? petrarchan47คุก 04:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, it's OK to have repeated material on more than one page, and when we have this page, about a particular glyphosate herbicide, and another page about those herbicides as a group, it seems like a very reasonable thing to do. My big concern, instead, is that the information should not go one way on one page, and the opposite way on the other. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Folks, why is it OK to reference the EPA's guidance that glyphosate has low toxicity for humans without any mention of the possibility that Roundup is more toxic than other glyphosate herbicide formulations (see link below). The research found one “inactive” Roundup ingredient, POEA, was toxic to living cells and up to 2,000 times more toxic than glyphosate alone. Thus, the link between Roundup and cancer is not just about glyphosate. Roundup is made up of other ingredients – including POEA - that is alleged to be toxic in and of themselves, and that they also work synergistically to increase the toxicity of glyphosate. The plaintiffs in the glyphosate litigation are specifically targeting Monsanto for its formulations, the ones that have used POEA and have been known to have the inactive ingredient; other manufacturers would likely be using different formulations from Monsanto’s proprietary mixtures. One internal Monsanto email from 2003 echos this conclusion: a Monsanto toxicologist writes, “you cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement. The testing on the formulations is not anywhere near the level of the active ingredient. We can make that statement about glyphosate and can infer that there is no reason to believe that Roundup would cause cancer.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/08/weedkiller-tests-monsanto-health-dangers-active-ingredient

This isn't meant to be a Monsanto rant but I am wondering why folks are letting this page remain without any mention of this issue. Seems a bit weird to me. I'm planning some edits to insert this aspect of the Roundup story, properly cited, and hope they survive the edits of some of the more aggressive herbicide industry supporters. Irishkevin3 (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The study cited below work clearly confirms that the adjuvants in Roundup formulations (such as AMPA and POEA) are not inert. Moreover, the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death around residual levels to be expected, especially in food and feed derived from R formulation-treated crops. The study also mentions that AMPA and POEA separately and synergistically damage cell membranes like R but at different concentrations. http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/france.pdf Irishkevin3 (talk) 09:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE sources like Seralini definitely do not get used here, especially old primary research like that. That would also contradict other actual MEDRS sources that say formulations do not pose a significant risk. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts please

  • Regarding sales Roundup has been the number one selling herbicide worldwide since at least 1980. is sourced to the documentary The World According to Monsanto so obviously needs replacing. I have looked briefly but I couldn't find anything that was clearly distinguishing between sales of glyphosate and roundup. Can anyone find a better source? SmartSE (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Roundup_(herbicide)#Falsification_of_test_results is very reliant on primary sources and the secondary sources are of dubious reliability - one was published by the National Resources Defense Council, the other was published by the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides. Are there better sources available that show that the problems with the test results are worthy of the weight that they are currently given in the article? The quote about rabbit uteruses is linked in the NCAP source to an EPA from 1978 - are we sure that that that quote has got anything to do with Roundup? SmartSE (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Along the way I found this NYT article from 2001, which has substantial information about specifically about the business history of roundup. SmartSE (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
On #1, I'm fine removing that unless a good source is found. Most sources deal with active ingredient and aren't interested in brand. I've gone ahead and done that, but I'm fine if a good source does come up with talking about restoring it.
On #2, that case is odd because independent sources basically do say exactly what Monsanto was apparently criticized for based on other discussions we already had at glyphosate and the formulations page. I'd have to follow up on sources a bit more since I have only seen that case mentioned recently, but for now I agree there's some significant work to be done on that topic.
On #3, some of that information actually is brand specific. I wonder if that's better dealt with at Monsanto rather than having a separate article, but right now I'm envisioning somewhat stubifying this article at best with information like that source, but more likely having that information at the company page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
@Kingofaces43: Re 2 - I can't see this anywhere in the other articles. There's a section at Monsanto_legal_cases#Industrial_Bio-Test_Laboratories_scandal, but nothing about roundup and the Industrial_Bio-Test_Laboratories and Craven Laboratories make no mention of roundup or glyphosate. Can you remember when or where the discussion might have taken place? So far, the only mainstream coverage I've found is this in the NYT, but it only mentions Monsanto and glyphosate briefly. SmartSE (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC) re-sign to fix ping SmartSE (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
What I'm referring to is the practically non-toxic, lower toxicity than salt, etc. comments. It looks like some old content may have fallen out where that was covered on-wiki, but here are some of the sources that use practically non-toxic,[19][20] as well as an older one[21] around the time of the court case. Andrew Kniss is fairly well known for their comparison of glyphosate to salt, etc. on their extension website (original link there is dead).[22] with secondary source mention of that[23] (p. 86).
What I haven't found were these sources giving the older court case any mention. It doesn't seem like the court finding is considered WP:DUE in the scientific community with respect to the toxicity comments at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah ok so you're talking about Roundup_(herbicide)#False_advertising not the fraudulent lab results. I've been looking at the test result sources more and checking the history. According to wikiblame, the content was first added to the article here followed by refs [24] way back in 2007, concerningly (and ironically!) by Benjiwolf a user who was blocked 7 weeks later for offering to add content on behalf of organisations we have a team of 30 editors willing to work lobbying for your company, product, or political cause. It looks as if this entire section was in fact written by them: [25]. In light of this and of the difficulty I'm having verifying the content, the poor-quality secondary sources and demonstrating weight, I am going to remove a fair chunk of it. I am also trying to track down the primary source where the rabbit information apparently originally came from. If we can verify that the claim is specific to glyphosate then it can be reinstated. SmartSE (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I've rewritten it, but I'm still not really sure it merits including here. If these were important events, then I would expect that some of the many reviews will mention the cases, but I'm not sure if they do. SmartSE (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

"Roundup® (herbicide)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Roundup® (herbicide) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Roundup® (herbicide) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 05:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

"Roundup®" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Roundup® and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Roundup® until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 05:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

"Roundup® (herbicide)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Roundup® (herbicide) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 3#Roundup® (herbicide) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 00:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Billions

As of this moment, the article LEDE/LEAD lacks mention of the $Billions contained within the article. Nuts240 (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

If you are referring to the court cases, that is in part because any such content has to carefully not contradict scientific sources in that glyphosate is not a significant carcinogen. That is is one is a common WP:FRINGE talking-point. It's a difficult subject to write about, and it's also in flux, which makes picking out what is actually lead worthy even more difficult, usually needing talk page discussion. KoA (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not look to either edit-war or WP:Fringe. Law firms and those working for them are doing robocalls that begin "If you or a loved one" and are claiming to be seeking to distribute large sums of money (yes, it's understood that some of that largess will go to the caller's side). To not mention this, in some form, is not serving the wiki reading public. To go WP:FRINGE would also be a dis-service. I looked at WP:ONUS, per your suggestion, and perhaps the suggestion made there (Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article) might be better. Zantac settlements was built on that idea. Do you recommend that I attempt this approach for Roundup? Nuts240 (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
They key thing is that content needs to start in the body per WP:LEAD. Not everything is going to make it into the lead either. As for the sentence comparing patents and jury awards, that violates WP:SYNTH. In addition you're trying to claim harm was caused in that statement about juries, which I already cautioned about before you initially added it in relation to contradicting MEDRS sources. If you have something you want to add, work in the body of the article first, and keep in mind this is not the only article dealing with the subject. At this point, trying to create another page would just be a WP:POVFORK. In short, this is not a topic to just plow ahead on. KoA (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Actually, taking a second look, even the first sentence was full on SYNTH too. You were trying to claim the source said something about patents when the 2001 source was only talking about total gross sales in 2000 of Roundup, not net profit, patent-based earnings, etc. and tried to compare that incorrectly other figures. That was not an appropriate use of sources at all. KoA (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

back for a moment to the Roundup article, it seems that an improvements on the Roundup (herbicide) citation of

(#59) "Monsanto pulls Roundup advertising in New York", Wichita Eagle, Nov. 27, 1996.


would permit enhancing it to add a wikilink to Wichita Eagle, and better attribution to the authors. Nuts240 (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not really related to the topic at hand, but since the source isn't online and the other one is, probably easier to just rely on the verifiable source. KoA (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree with your key point, that pulling ads in response to a state's legal actions is not the main focus of the topic at hand.

Perhaps you can look at the more recent/June 2022 item APnews, Mathew Daly, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/court-rejects-trump-era-epa-finding-that-roundup-weed-killer-is-safe Court rejects Trump-era EPA finding that weed killer safe <be>For completeness I added the author names Nuts240 (talk) 03:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Carcinogenicity

No mention of AMES and similar mutagenicity tests. Typically, positive results in the AMES test predicates to around 75% certainty (but not necessarily determine) carcinogenicity. To say, around 75% of chemicals that cause cancer come out positive in the AMES test. Also, not all chemicals that are positive in the AMES test cause cancer. For example, some mutagenic chemicals are broken down in the digestive tract, so they never get where they would do damage to an organism's cellular DNA. Anyway, I did a very quick Google search, and first thing that came up was a summary of 1996 studies from OSU (in Oregon), "Mutagenic effects:Glyphosate mutagenicity and genotoxicity assays have been negative. These included the Ames test, other bacterial assays, and the Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO) cell culture, rat bone marrow cell culture, and mouse dominant lethal. It appears that glyphosate is not mutagenic." [26]Glyphosate: Mutagenic effects Glyphosate mutagenicity and genotoxicity. Where we discuss controversies about carcinogenicity, results from mutagenicity tests should probably be included for consideration. Catrachos (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

We've got numerous sources in the Carcinogenicity section that are a lot more recent than 1996, and nothing from that mutagenicity source contradicts what we already say on the page. This material is at least partially subject to WP:MEDRS, because we are talking about cancer risk in people, and so I would want to see that secondary sources about Roundup carcinogenicity refer to the mutagenicity data as significant enough to mention separately. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roundup_(herbicide)/Archive_2&oldid=1233135486"