| Revision as of 05:22, 20 August 2013 editJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits →merge: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:40, 20 August 2013 edit undoBinksternet (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers496,733 edits →merge: three thingsNext edit → | ||
| Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
| :::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 ] to make for very toxic side effects, . 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. ] (]) 02:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC) | :::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 ] to make for very toxic side effects, . 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. ] (]) 02:58, 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 ]. 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. ] (]) 05:22, 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 ]. 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. ] (]) 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 (]) and of course all the controversy related to Monsanto's Roundup product. A small subsection can cover the generic or clone products. ] (]) 05:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:40, 20 August 2013
 | The contents of the Roundup (herbicide) page were merged into Glyphosate on 26 August, 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
 | Agriculture C‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Medicine: Toxicology C‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 Archives | ||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
RfC: Is toxicity and other sections neutral?
This article appears to be slightly biased because, reading this article, there is absolutely no reason why anyone would use round-up. Yet it is used world-wide. Why is there not anything in this article that states the advantages of using round-up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.24.118 (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
A number of good faith edits have been reverted on this page by a single user over a long period of time. Additions have been made throughout the article, particularly its Toxicity section, about this widely used product that argues only a single side of the issue. MikeMan67 (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- For this RFC to be of any use, there should be at least some simple breakdown of disputed claims. This is so broad it will likely be useless without something to go on. — Scientizzle 19:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I've made at least three edits to the toxicity sections dating back to April 14. Here's the first: . I added some information from well sourced scientific journals. I think I've followed WP guidelines carefully. Each time, they have been reverted by two editors who constantly edit this page for years. In general, I think the toxicity section sounds very biased, along with several other parts, and I tried improving it. Perhaps you could make the necessary changes, as well as take a look at what I've added and see if it improves this page: . MikeMan67 (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- A quick look at this page shows that you have made only a couple of posts. How can you expect someone to come in and do your work for you? For instance, rather than ask for outside help why don't you argue why you feel that your edit re GM crops should be included in this article? Gandydancer (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not asking for anyone to do any work. I did argue actually. If u looked in this section you'd see the argument. Regardless of what I said, it was deleted. I added the same information three times, and each time it was deleted. I think it's pretty clear the section is really biased. Can you please just read the changes I made and tell me if what I added deserves to be included on this page? --MikeMan67 (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- No you did not, and you seem to be confused about your own edits/"arguments". Please argue the GM issue or quit wasteing my time. Gandydancer (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- It seems the discussion has ended. I shall remove the tag. Gandydancer (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The Toxicity section is far from neutral. We need an expert with access to the cited article to sort this out. I have never seen such a partisan, one-sided article on Misplaced Pages before. The hysteria is quite palpable. -J. Snyder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.8.226 (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. The toxicity section is not neutral. For example, the statement "Roundup commercial formulations were never submitted to test by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);" suggests that they should have been. There are thousands of agencies to whom Roundup was not submitted. If Monsanto (or anyone) broke the law, so state. Otherwise this is biased. Likewise, while a number of studies suggesting health risks are referenced, there is little context. At what doses? If Roundup is indeed so toxic, why has it not been banned or heavily restricted, as so many other pesticides have been? There is also a whiff of original research, in the repeated implications that combinations of ingredients are somehow far more toxic than the simple sum of their toxicity. OliverHeaviside (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Oliver Heaviside, 14 June 2012
glyphosate runoff citation
The last citation in the following sentence seems wrong:
"While the use of Roundup Ready crops has increased the usage of herbicides measured in pounds applied per acre, the use of Roundup Ready crops has changed the herbicide use profile away from atrazine, metribuzin, and alachlor which are more likely to be present in run off water."
goes to "Jones RM, Fletcher DR, MacLellan DG, Lowe AW, Hardy KJ (April 1991). "Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: initial experience". Aust N Z J Surg 61 (4): 261–6. PMID 1826830." which has nothing to do with herbicide runoff (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1826830).
I have no idea what reference this is actually supposed to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R343L (talk • contribs) 14:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
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/ 14:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
merge
 | This article was nominated for merging with Glyphosate on 26 July 2012. The result of the discussion was to proceed with the 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages should deal with them separately. (They are most assuredly not identical.) petrarchan47tc 02:21, 20 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 Misplaced Pages will benefit from having two articles, one on Roundup and one on glyphosate. Binksternet (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's in the Glyphosate archives, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:07, 20 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)
- Ah, okay. I see the following discussions:
- February–April 2007 – Talk:Glyphosate/Archive_1#Roundup_Article. Casual suggestion to redirect Roundup to glyphosate. No action taken.
- June 2008 – Talk:Glyphosate/Archive_1#Merge. Official discussion of merge, with seven editors arguing for a merge and five editors arguing against. (Rifleman 82 first said 'merge' but then discussed the benefits of separate articles.) No action taken. Here's what the Roundup article looked like at the end of June 2008.
- July–August 2012 – Talk:Glyphosate/Archive_2#Proposal_to_merge_this_article_with_Roundup_article. Jytdog proposes a merge, and three other editors point to previous successful discussions in favor of a merge. Here's what the Roundup article looked like in July 2012.
- August 26, 2012 – Jytdog performs the merge, redirecting Roundup to glyphosate.
- June 2013 – Talk:Glyphosate#Glyphosate_v._Roundup. All four editors who commented agreed upon an un-merge, including Jytdog (!).
- June 2013 – Talk:Glyphosate#Please disable Roundup redirect. Two editors argue for a separate article but Jytdog argued that it was okay with both combined.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Ah, okay. I see the following discussions: