Talk:Glyphosate-based herbicides

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 2 as Talk:Glyphosate-based herbicides/Archive 1 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Surfactants - today's edit uses a 14 year old review to claim safety

This edit is concerning. We need to use the latest scientific findings, not dig up ones from 2004. What was the purpose in making this edit today?

This is a 2016 review PMC 4947579

  • 'Glyphosate can display endocrine-disrupting activity (80, 82), affect human erythrocytes in vitro (83), and promote carcinogenicity in mouse skin (84). Furthermore, it is considered to cause extreme disruption in shikimate pathway, which is a pathway found in plants and bacteria as well as in human gut bacteria. This disruption may affect the supply of human organism with essential amino acids (85). Commercial glyphosate formulations are considered to be more toxic than the active substance alone (80, 83, 86, 87). Glyphosate-based herbicides, such as the well-known “Roundup,” can cause DNA damages and act as endocrine disruptors in human cell lines (60) and in rat testicular cells (88), cause damages to cultured human cutaneous cells (89), and promote cell death in the testicular cells of experimental animals (88, 90). There is evidence also for their possible ability to affect cytoskeleton and intracellular transport' (91).

And this from The Intercept with new insights gleaned from the Roundup Cancer Trial discovery phase:

  • 'Until recently, the fight over Roundup has mostly focused on its active ingredient, glyphosate. But mounting evidence, including one study published in February, shows it’s not only glyphosate that’s dangerous, but also chemicals listed as “inert ingredients” in some formulations of Roundup and other glyphosate-based weed killers'.

For the encyclopedia it is best to use more recent data. petrarchan47คุก 00:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't dig it up, it was added by KoA (who copied it from the main Glyphosate article). However, the conclusion that acute oral toxicity for mammals is low is repeated in the 2018 review, which I added, so I did not challenge the 2004 Bradberry source because I was able to confirm that it has not been superseded.. The review quoted above, however, seems to be discussing something different: Therefore, the determination of “safe” levels of exposure to single pesticides may underestimate the real health effects, ignoring also the chronic exposure to multiple chemical substances. Seraphim System (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it would be a good idea to replace older sources with newer ones. We need to be thoughtful, however, about the kind of context that I discussed above in #Revert, in terms of animal toxicology relative to human risk: I'm not sure that anything in the scientific consensus has really changed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I'm ok for now at least on focusing on these older sources that newer reviews just tend to cite as (look at this 2000 summary for more details). I've been actively looking for new sources, but most of them aren't really saying anything different as you're saying. It might just be a matter of adding newer references to what we already have without changing content much if at all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've been getting the impression that with all the back-and-forth changes, there might be some cites that have ended up after the wrong sentences, so it would be worth taking a close look at all of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this change made today and the use of updated (WP:MEDRS compliant) sources, have you (or others active on this thread) done a literature search for updated material before continuing to utilize this 14 year old study?

A review of WP:MEDDATE may be in order. petrarchan47คุก 07:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that editors in the discussion above have already indicated a receptiveness to finding and using new sources. There was nothing final about the source choice for the edit in the diff you cite, so I think that providing us with a more recent source would be welcome. It simply needs to be a MEDRS-reliable source that is directly about the material in that sentence, and it has to be cited accurately. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my lack of clarity. I did not mean to ask if editors were receptive to updated material. I am asking whether a search for new material was done or not, prior to these recent edits. petrarchan47คุก 20:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a quick search. I found two recent sources that look to me to be relevant: [1] and [2]. There is also this: [3], but it's by Seralini. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those first two, however, are primary sources. I did some more searching, and when I searched PubMed for "POEA" and set it to "review", I only got the Bradberry and Williams reviews, nothing more recent. But looking for "herbicide surfactants" and "review", I got these, which are I think the best out there for this purpose: [4] and [5], as well as one about aquatic applications: [6]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to Tarazona: "In fact, the UN and EU guidance recommends carcinogenicity and genotoxicity studies to be conducted on individual chemicals, limiting testing of mixtures/formulations to cases where synergistic effects are expected (United Nations 2015)." - I think if we are going to mention synergy, it would have to be in the carcinogenicity section, not acute oral toxicity, and we should follow the most up to date source which seems to be Tarazona (2017).Seraphim System (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mention of synergy for carcinogenicity is not the same for acute toxicity, so I don’t see why you bring up acute toxicity. Someone could mention it for carcinogenicity in addition if they want to craft something obviously. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure SS is referring to the sentence added in the "Acute toxicity#Human" section. I just modified that sentence to make it more specific: [7]. But if surfactants are different with respect to their non-acute effects on carcinogenicity, then the "Carcinogenicity of active ingredient" section should be expanded beyond the active ingredient, and it should be covered there. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please update this page re surfactants

Sera 2011 *:

Many glyphosate formulations include surfactants, and the toxicity of these surfactants is of equal or greater concern to the risk assessment than is the toxicity of technical grade glyphosate ... surfactants appear to be agents of concern

We also have PUBMED 24434723 (2014)

These results confirm that G formulations have adjuvants working together with the active ingredient and causing toxic effects that are not seen with acid glyphosate

And PMC 5756058 (2018)

G being tested alone in chronic regulatory experiments to establish the ADI (RfD in USA) appears inappropriate, in light of these results. As a matter of fact, synergistic toxic effects undoubtedly occur

And PUBMED 24999230 (2014)

In conclusion, our results demonstrated that the addition of adjuvant to glyphosate formulation increase the toxicity of the mixture in cell culture. Furthermore, cell culture exposed to agrochemical mixture showed an increased ROS production and antioxidant defenses

Even after being shown the updated Sera 2011 language, KoA43 has reinserted the following using a source from 2004:

Surfactants generally do not cause synergistic effects that increase the toxicity of glyphosate within a formulation.

I would encourage editors to look at WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOTHERE before continuing to edit in this topic area. petrarchan47คุก 19:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The text in question currently says: "The surfactants in glyphosate formulations can increase the relative acute toxicity of the formulation. Surfactants generally do not cause synergistic effects that increase the acute toxicity of glyphosate within a formulation." Those sources are all supportive of the first of those two sentences, and at least based on what you quoted, they are not about the second sentence (with the exception of the one by Séralini). There is a difference between "additive" and "synergistic". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I linked to and commented on the Séralini paper in the talk section just above. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"But it's by Seralini" - is this supposed to discount the paper that included his name? Here are the facts:
The Seralini smear campaign
Seralini studied the effect of Roundup formulation on rats, using the same design as the one Monsanto uses to claim safety, except that he extended the study to include the rat's full lives, as opposed to the 90 day study Monsanto prefers. Wikipedia took part in the smear campaign that followed the release of his findings. It is time to stop that nonsense. He is widely cited in literature and remains well respected. petrarchan47คุก 19:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just carefully re-read the recent Séralini paper that includes the quote about synergy, and taken in context, the comment about synergy is referring to heavy metals ("As, Cr, and Ni. Pb and Co") rather than to surfactants. It might be worth adding something about metallic cations to this page if there are other independent sources that confirm that, but we should be clear about whether we are talking about surfactants or about metals. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search about heavy metals in glyphosate, and here is what I found. There is one group that has reported a possible human toxicity of glyphosate herbicides interacting with heavy metals that are present in the environment: [8], [9]. There are two other groups who reported, contradicting Séralini, that glyphosate (and in one case, RoundUp) actually reduces the toxicity of heavy metals: [10], [11]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are all non-WP:MEDRS sources aside from SERA, and we more or less already reflect what SERA is saying in other sources. Surfactants can have relative higher toxicity than the active ingredient (that is considered to have very low toxicity in general), but the absolute toxicity of the combined ingredients (i.e., the formulations) is considered low or not a significant risk. That's except for directly spraying POEA=based formulations in water because aquatic organisms tend not to do well when you put things like dish soap in water. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These do seem to be primary, but this 2018 review from Mesnage does seem to pass MEDRS [12] Seraphim System (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mesnage is part of Séralini's group. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seralini does not seem to be involved with the group currently [13] and is not one of the authors about the 2018 review. Regarding Seralini, there is one study that received a lot of attention, and was retracted and republished. It is a primary study, so this is not really a FRINGE argument. It's not MEDRS anyway. The comments about FRINGE should be directed to publications, not persons (this includes language like fringe scientist, which only happened once in earlier discussions on this talk page.) Exclusion of a particular scientist is not the same as asking whether a particular source is reliable for a particular statement. MEDRS is intended to make medical content more reliable, so I appreciate and support any concerns about inclusion of a primary study that has been retracted and has not been included in any of the most recent risk assessments (IARC and EU both excluded)) - but we would need a lot more then the publication of a controversial study for an outright ban of multiple recognized scientists. Seraphim System (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sort of. Anyone who has published multiple times with Séralini can still be expected to have similar preconceptions, and that's what we have with the 2018 review. Where the review talks specifically about glyphosate-based herbicides and their effects, it pretty much only cites papers by Séralini, so I do not consider it a reliable source for that specific question. (There are other lab groups who get opposite results, and the review does not acknowledge them.) But a much larger part of the review is about analyzing and making recommendations about how pesticide toxicity should be measured and how resulting regulation should be determined: that the formulation and not just the active ingredient needs to be examined. I'm fine with citing it for the latter, especially since that's really what most of the review is about. I just want to be careful about the parts that are dubious. And after all, a big part of having this page, separate from the one about glyphosate, is that we should be addressing the aspects that relate to the formulations and not just the active ingredient. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to have a personal aversion to Seralini, but to try and insert it here by arguing that all of his work should be rejected is WP:OR. Don't we look at impact factors anymore? If the editorial board sees fit to publish, a Wikipedia editor cannot override that decision, in my understanding. petrarchan47คุก 21:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you about the editorial board, but this is why we treat independent secondary sources differently than primary sources or non-independent secondary sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have enough to say anything along the lines of "there are synergistic effects" and I think we have to consider the 2012 Long term toxicity primary study was excluded by both the IARC and the EU in the most recent risk assessments. I agree with what Tryptofish is saying here - we can't use a primary study to dispute the conclusions of secondary sources. But I do think the article would benefit from clarifying a few points. For example a separate 2012 source by Mesnage and Seralini [14] includes important content about the composition of the formulations, not only medical content. The conclusion of the study is that formulations should be studies as mixtures for toxic effects. I don't see anything fringe or even controversial about that. Thus, I don't think the author of the article alone is enough to justify removal of sourced content without further explanation.Seraphim System (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The issue that Tryptofish is getting at (I think) is that Mesnange is not WP:INDEPENDENT of Seralini or the controversies around his lab. It's similar to how we are wary of reviews citing their own primary research. The more important thing is that the journal is not reliable though being a Frontiers journal. Typically those get removed pretty quickly by editors on the look out for predatory journals. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link to the RS/N discussion about Frontiers? I found the 2013 study from Elsevier, I don't think there's anything wrong with the journal [15]. It's not just one study, but if there is a problem with this journal I would like to review previous discussions about it.Seraphim System (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Oh, I hadn't realized that it was a predatory journal. That's a very serious problem with using it as a source. It's possible that no editorial board really made a decision to publish, other than making sure that the check cleared (slight hyperbole on my part). Frontiers Media, but cf: [16], [17]. Added after ec: I agree with SS that it would be a good idea to check RSN. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 205#Other predatory journals. Looks like consensus was not-RS. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to repose my question: what ever happened to using impact factors to determine reliability? petrarchan47คุก 22:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that WP:RS says anything about impact factors, although maybe I missed something. WP:PROF does, but that's for determining notability, not reliability. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems in this case we would treat this as SPS since the journal is non-RS. The authors are RS but since this is pay-to-publish this is in practice no different from any other SPS. Attributed use of SPS is allowed for established scholars of this class. Seraphim System (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that SPS is "self-published source". As such, it depends a lot on how we use the source. If we quote it for an opinion, not a statement of fact, I guess it can be used that way, but if we only use an opinion, there are due weight concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS/SPS makes it clear that these kinds of source are of very limited use. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree re due weight it would have to be kept brief in proportion to more authoritative sources, but is a significant viewpoint that should be covered briefly per NPOV. Seraphim System (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a hard time picturing what the content would actually be. We could attribute to them the opinion that most regulatory mechanisms are not rigorous enough, but then we would have to balance it with the majority view, and that would leave us with "almost everyone says X, but a few people say Y". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endocrine disruption

I'm noticing a lot about endocrine disruption in the sources. Maybe that's something that needs to be added to the page, along with carcinogenicity. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seralini

Just a note about rejecting Seralini, not in the above case, but it general. Unfortunately a smear campaign was successful in causing bias against Seralini (see KoA43 comment just above re "controversies around his lab"); this is similar to concerns about Monsanto's ghostwritten science: it isn't always clear what we can trust. About Seralini's retraction:

A publication on the harmful effects that Roundup has on rats has been discredited, perhaps thanks to the relationship between a Monsanto employee and the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology. Monsanto employee David Saltimiras also successfully lobbied in 2012 for various people to write letters to the journal, which were then also published - which accused the study of deficiencies, selective statistics and bias WZ petrarchan47คุก 22:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think that there has been a lot of fishiness around Monsanto, you may perhaps be surprised to know. But two wrongs do not make a right. A key fact about Séralini is that most of what he has published has turned out not to be reproducible when tested by independent labs (academic, not company labs). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you would source your statement. "most of what he has published has turned out not to be reproducible when tested by independent labs" does not appear to be factual.
Here is a bit more detail about the (one and only, AFIK) Seralini study that has come under attack:
One of the victims of their campaign was French toxicologist Gilles-Éric Séralini. He did exactly what Monsanto should have done. For two years, Séralini dripped Roundup into the drinking water of laboratory rats and fed them glyphosate-laden, genetically modified corn. What he found was alarming: Some of the animals developed kidney damage, while the females developed breast cancer at remarkably high rates.
When the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology published the study in September 2012, all hell broke loose in Séralini's life. Hundreds of researchers protested and Séralini was accused of making "false statements" and "using animals for propaganda purposes." The journal withdrew the publication in November 2013. It may have been a coincidence, but the magazine had appointed a former Monsanto employee to its advisory board six months earlier.
The internal memos also confirm how Monsanto exerted pressure. David Saltmiras, a Monsanto expert at the time, boasted that he had "successfully facilitated numerous third party letters to the editor." He described his actions as being "in our own best interest" and as "the last rites for Séralini's few remaining shreds of credibility." Monsanto Faces Blowback Over Cancer Cover-Up petrarchan47คุก 04:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's tricky to use a commentary by a journalist for drawing such conclusions. Here is an independent scientific review that describes Séralini's reputation pretty well: [18]. "The study appeared to sweep aside all known benchmarks of scientific good practice and, more importantly, to ignore the minimal standards of scientific and ethical conduct in particular concerning the humane treatment of experimental animals." It would be pretty odd for one study by an investigator to do that, and then all the subsequent work be just fine. Thus, the paper that we discussed above, from a pay-to-publish journal. Also above, I pointed to recent papers that got results that were opposite to what that paper concluded. I don't know if that response is sufficiently detailed, but I've thought about it carefully, and maybe this is something that could be better dealt with via an RfC or at WP:RSN. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roundup page

Editors here should be aware that Roundup (herbicide) is starting to be recreated in mainspace. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Five years after it was decided it should be. related RfC petrarchan47คุก 21:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Coverage of Roundup Cancer Case

RfC is here. petrarchan47คุก 04:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP edits

I agree with this edit: [19], that reverted some IP edits. However, I would suggest going further, and reverting all of those edits, rather than just some (in other words, revert back to this version: [20]). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I was kind of meh on most of the other edits, but I can see some potential minor issues in them too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New material about lawsuits

I added some updated info about the Roundup lawsuits to Roundup (herbicide), and copied the information to the legal section of this article. I'm not sure if this is the right thing or not and would appreciate gentle guidance. I'm sure that there are plenty of strong opinions here, I just want to be sure that the information about the legal cases is up to date. Roundup contains glyphosate and presumably there are other herbicides that contain glyphosate. Perhaps the Roundup (herbicide) page and this page should be merged? Should I update Monsanto and Bayer Roundup pages? Cxbrx (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for adding the new material, which looks to me to be quite WP:DUE. Yes, I would say the update should be added to every page that mentions the original lawsuits (keeping the length of the addition proportional to what is currently there). As for merging, I think the consensus would be against doing that. The two pages were fairly recently un-merged from each other, and the discussion over it was quite heated. But I think there is a general consensus to have one page about glyphosate herbicides as a whole, and another page specifically about the Roundup product. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note for the record that I moved your opening comment here out of a section above, and created this new section for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the move of my opening comment. I realize that there is lots of controversy here, so I'll be careful. In the near-term, I'm reading the Talk:Monsanto, Talk:Bayer, Talk:Roundup (herbicide) and Talk:Glyphosate-based herbicides pages and will hold off on further edits in the main space for these articles for at least a day. I understand that a move or merge of Roundup (herbicide) and this page might not be easy or preferred. Would it be appropriate to use WP:TRANS for the lawsuit section? If so, which article should be the master article? In the past, IIRC, when I used WP:TRANS, another editor replaced my transclusion with the complete contents of the transclusion. I believe that they stated that their reader did not support WP:TRANS, but this was awhile ago. Mainly, my personal preference is to not have duplicated text when possible because it is difficult keep the duplicates in sync. I understand that using WP:TRANS might perhaps go against your preference to have additions that are proportional to what is currently in the other articles. However, keeping these four articles up to date seems a bit of a daunting task. I don't have a strong feeling either way. Also, do you have any feedback about me included the quotes from Vince Chhabria? In general I prefer not to use quotes, but with a contentious article perhaps it is best to use a quote? Do you have an opinion? Cxbrx (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edit was well. I'm short on time to dig into this until much later this week, but I will comment that between the glyphosate, glphyosate-based herbicides, and the RoundUp page, at least one of those needs to merged back due to the redundancies. Before a merge, I think that needs time though until a bit more editing happens to make it clear just how redundant most of the pages are. In the meantime, glyphosate should at least be the "master" article in the sense that functionally everything flows from there from the topic standpoint. However, I can't say that there's info that should be there that's originated in this article or some other combination as I've lost track of a lot while trying to manage what we've been given. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
About the quotes, I agree that they should be included. About transclusion, I'm not wild about it because it makes editing each page slightly more confusing. Also, the amount of text given to the lawsuits should probably be different from one page to another. As for making any kind of merge, I'd be very reluctant to do that. To some degree, the editors who were most strongly in favor of separate pages have since been topic-banned, but I would still prefer not to poke that hornets nest. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the positive feedback about the quotes. I won't use transclusion here. I will update the various pages with updates of an appropriate length. After reading/scanning the various talk pages, I agree that moving for a merge is probably not a wise decision. Many thanks to both Kingofaces43 and Tryptofish for feedback. Cxbrx (talk) 01:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism in the Acute Toxicity: Humans section

Hi. I was going through this page looking for things that I could add and I was reading through the Bradberry article, which is cited repeatedly in the Acute Toxicity section. The Human portion of this section contains numerous direct quotations from Bradberry's article. Although cited, direct quotations without quotation marks is plagiarism. Someone should delete or reword this section, seeing as it is heavily plagiarized. Skezmoh (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out (and welcome to Wikipedia!). I've tagged the content and notified an administrator who deals with these things. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bradberry (https://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00139709-200423030-00003) was first cited by Seraphim System in 2018. Diff of Glyphosate-based herbicides. However some subsequent content was cited to Bradberry in subsequent edits. I have listed the article at WP:CP. Interested editors will have a week or so to undertake a rewrite of the section, or it will likely be removed in its entirety. If you wish to undertake the rewrite you may do so at this temporary page. — Diannaa (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Seraphim System has long since been indeffed. It would be best if the rewrite would be based on access to the entire Bradberry article, rather than just to the online abstract. I'll ping KoA, who probably has access to the article. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This link: [21] (takes a bit of time to load), which I found from the template on the page, looks like a good place to start in finding what was copied. (And yes, there are verbatim copyvios, although it looks like fortunately they are fairly confined.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It also occurs to me that SS might have copied from other sources cited on the page, which should probably also be checked for. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've started the temp page, where the corrections should first be made: Talk:Glyphosate-based herbicides/Temp. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the temp page, and I'm reasonably confident that I deleted everything that was copied from the Bradberry abstract. I deleted it, and left everything else. In my opinion, that probably is enough for the present problem. @Skezmoh and KoA: please check if you agree with me. If we feel that the temp version is clean, I can notify the admins that they can move the new version back onto the page. If something else needs to be done to the temp version, only for the purpose of removing copied material and not for adding new stuff, please feel free to edit it directly. Once the admins approve it, then, afterwards, Skezmoh should feel free to make new edits based on the Bradberry source. (PS: See [22]. ) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tryptofish, I'll have to check on this mid-week when I'm back from holiday. I do seem to recall this was a difficult subject at the time opposed by many now indeffed editors, which in part resulted in the many quotes. I do remember it being worth a paraphrase, but that just wasn't doable in the atmosphere at the time. KoA (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added a little bit back in with appropriate language changes to include inhalation and eye exposure, though I don't feel strongly about it aside from some additional completeness. I was remembering Bradberry was a focus of previous disputes, but the text in question isn't at issue at all, so it should be good to go. KoA (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I tweaked it a bit more, and it looks good to me. @Diannaa: Editors here agree that the repaired version on the temp page is good to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I will load it into the article now. Thanks to all who participated.— Diannaa (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Toxicology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 August 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thisisaaronfox (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Chazzidy Harper (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Glyphosate-based_herbicides"