This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Monsanto article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
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 coverage of the recent Roundup cancer case be expanded? If so, which option do you prefer? petrarchan47คุก 04:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Note The proposed text has changed as a result of the first day of comments. Those who have commented thus far have been alerted. If this action runs afoul of the guidelines, please feel free to revert. petrarchan47คุก 05:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Present text
to
Proposed text
Or
Or
Or
Related discussions:
Sources
|
---|
|
Sources
|
---|
|
Monsanto said the plaintiff’s experts should have been excluded because although they mainly cited respected, peer-reviewed studies, they inappropriately cherry-picked results and used unreliable methods to support the position that glysophate causes cancer in humans.SmartSE (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
"Today's decision does not change the fact that... scientific studies... support the fact that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and did not cause Mr. Johnson's cancer."I feel rather strongly that, on the one hand, if we are to add anything new about this, we should indeed add the quote from the judge (for the reasons I already stated), but we also need to do more than just say that Monsanto plans an appeal. Look: once you take out the dubious number, the statement is scientifically and factually true, and the NPR source I talked about earlier makes it clear that an NPOV treatment of the verdict needs to indicate that what the jury concluded is not what the science has shown (so this isn't OR on my part), and furthermore a page about Monsanto should include something of the reason stated by Monsanto for the appeal. What would be OR would be for editors to decide that we don't like Monsanto so we don't want to quote their stated reasons for the appeal. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The company plans on appealing the verdict, and issued a statement saying in part that "glyphosate does not cause cancer, and did not cause Mr. Johnson's cancer."--Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Alleged successes of crystal healing can be attributed to the placebo effect.. I am fairly sure I can find a MEDRS-compliant source saying that the placebo effect does not cure cancer. Yet if I were to change the sentence to
Alleged successes of crystal healing can be attributed to the placebo effect, although the latter cannot cure cancer., that is technically true but is carefully designed to give the misleading impression that cancer can be cured by crystal healing (or at least sow doubt). The point is that it is very easy to pick RS to put together a stupid narrative, so we shouldn't do SYNTH, end of story. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Monsanto has faced controversy in the United States over claims that its herbicide products might be carcinogens. (...) The consensus among national pesticide regulatory agencies and scientific organizations is that labeled uses of glyphosate have demonstrated no evidence of human carcinogenicity.[211][212] (...). I doubt we should rehash it at every paragraph, any more than we should put disclaimers in film plots about how radiation does not give you superpowers. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
"Its seed patenting model was criticized as biopiracy and a threat to biodiversity as invasive species." What does this mean? Wikifan153 (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)