This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Agriculture Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Chemicals High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment Mid‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Stauffer Chemical patented the agent as a chemical chelator - the source listed does not support that claim see also https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6132386/ 156.146.156.168 (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that mistake. I made this edit, to correct it: [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the article contains no reference to parkinson disease? It has been notably linked to the subject, even if it might not be a causal relationship: https://www.euronews.com/health/2023/11/17/france-to-continue-compensating-farmers-with-parkinsons-disease-linked-to-glyphosate-use PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have actual published scientific studies showing such a link? Any sources related to medical effects would need to meet WP:MEDRS standards for inclusion. Silverseren^C 22:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have something, doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2011.07.006: "Our review found no evidence of a consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between any disease and exposure to glyphosate.".

EFSA didn't find anything either. I think this concern comes mostly from Bastiaan Bloem.--Julius Senegal (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty out of date in MEDRS terms (2011), but this was published in 2022: doi:10.1007/s00420-022-01878-0 and found the same: The five high-quality studies showed no association between glyphosate use and risk of depression, Parkinson disease, or peripheral nerve conduction velocity. SmartSE (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify: with 'link' I do not mean that the null hypothesis is false. The association has been made in the media at least, and if there are scientific studies that show there is no relationship, I think the proven lack of such relationship is worthy of inclusion. There is probably no health problems with phones (Wireless device radiation and health), but the studies are notable. PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have been, over the years, a lot of counter-scientific claims about supposed health harms associated with glyphosate. If we were to include this at all, it would be better to treat it as part of such a group. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion into some counter-scientific section seems fine to me, assuming that is indeed the current scientific consensus (I'm surely no expert here). PhotographyEdits (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that there have been some large reinsertions of content lately that were removed for various reasons. On the topic of ghostwriting, many of those same materials were discussed 6 years ago that required significant care, such as at Talk:Glyphosate/Archive_14#Media_manipulation. Part of that has to do with how much ghostwriting is invoked in WP:FRINGE circles in this topic and having to navigate that. Anything that would be added on that subject really would need a close look here.

As I looked through the edits, I was finding some WP:MEDRS issues, but also some WP:SYNTH issues along with a WP:POV tone, especially with primary sources to make statements about people that would have WP:BLP concerns too along. There's potentially a lot to unpack in all of those edits, so it's probably best to address them one at a time if any additional discussion is needed. KoA (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good removal, KoA. If there's any real due weight for any of that, it would really be for the Monsanto article, not this one. Silverseren^C 17:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there—I'm the one behind that edit. I admit I got a little cheeky with the tone, and would happily see the section pared down for that.

As regards WP:BLP concerns: I'd argue that Rowland was a public figure with an impact on global ag policy. All quotes etc. were verifiable, not original research, and as neutral as it's possible to be when the objective facts make one look quite bad. Regardless, I agree that it might be best moved elsewhere; perhaps the controversy around the documents revealed in the cancer litigation deserve their own page.

Regarding the ghostwriting and the problem with WP:FRINGE: Would you have us delete Operation PBSuccess too?

There are fringe theories; there is no such thing as a fringe fact. The deliberate deception around the supposed independence of the safety consensus is a neutral and objective truth with a top-tier, peer-reviewed, secondary source citation. In a page with several thousand words of discussion on the evidence surrounding the safety of this compound, it does not seem undue to have a paragraph or two informing the reader that, while the current scientific consensus is one of safety, an interested party has a clear history of doing unseemly things to manipulate the consensus in that direction.

WhichDoctor (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]