Jump to content

Talk:Roundup (herbicide)

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


Clarification on unproven allegations

[edit]

Hey @Tryptofish could you clarify what you mean by "remove unproven allegations" in this edit summary? You seem to just be removing the number of overall claims (165.000) but I can't see how that is an "unproven allegation". Thanks {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 23:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question; thanks for asking me. When I made the edit, it was clear to me what I meant by the edit summary, but after I had saved the edit, it occurred to me that it was unlikely to be clear to anyone else. So I appreciate the request for me to clear it up.
When I made that edit, I had just said this at another talk page: [1]. There, I said in part, "I would also want us to focus on what is already settled under the law, and not focus on allegations made in cases that have yet to reach a verdict." That's what was on my mind at the time of the edit here. In other words, the overall number of claims includes many claims that have yet to be resolved in court. Just filed, but no trial to evaluate and possibly rebut the allegations, and have a formal decision in the form of a verdict. Of course, that was unclear in my edit summary, for the reason that you said. But my view was, and still is, that we shouldn't include a number for cases that have not been resolved, just because it is sensational, because for all we know, some unknown proportion of that number might be withdrawn or might be thrown out of court. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I think your point makes sense. However you seem to have made an edit that goes in the opposite direction from that.
According to the source:
  • As of today 165.000 claims have been made in total.
  • Of those 50.000 still remain to be decided
  • 165.000-50.000 = 115.000 have already been closed. Mostly with the out of court settlement in question (only a handful went to trial).
So you seem to have specifically only left the 50.000 that have not been decided yet. Which does not seem to be your goal here. I would keep both numbers or readers might not get the full picture here. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 23:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you point that out, I think I agree with you in part, that it's illogical to continue to include the 50,000 that are yet to be decided. My preference would be to delete that sentence, the one starting, "As of 2023,... ", as well. We would just include the claims where the sources tell us that Bayer settled. Also, when I looked at the sources when making that edit, I noticed that they don't explicitly do that subtraction that you just did, here in talk. I wondered why, particularly with regard to out-of-court settlements or dismissals or withdrawals of complaints. Unless we have a source that does the subtraction calculation for us and gives an explanation for what it means, we would be violating WP:SYNTH to say that the 115,000 have been closed in any particular way(s). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sheer scale of the litigation is extremely significant. The number of claims is not "variable". It cannot change based on the result. Even if Bayer wins all of them the 165.000 claims data point will still stand as well as the 50.000. So I am not sure what you are worried about with using those data points.
And yes: the 165.000-50.000 calculation is mine but there are also sources that exactly detail the 115.000 number of settled cases. For example this source at page 42 reports 125.000 cases as of 2020 with 95.000 being part of the 2020 settlements. So wholly consistent with my calculation. (Consider many cases are settled out of the public eye)
This is one of the most extraordinary cases in legal history and 50.000 claims are still pending. So not informing the readers on this substantial issue would not be very informative. Bayer will have to deal with that litigation for a long time and it's merger with Monsanto is considered "the worst in history" due to this issue [2]. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 00:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Above, I described the 165,000 number as sensational, and it unquestionably is. But we're not here to WP:RGW. The fact that secondary sources characterize the merger as the worst in history is encyclopedic for the pages about the two companies, and I have no problem with including such information there. I'm not arguing that the number is "variable", but that there's a world of difference between Bayer winning all of them, and Bayer losing all of them. If, hypothetically, Bayer wins all of them (probably unlikely), this becomes a big "so what?", because it was just a lot of people making frivolous claims. If, hypothetically, Bayer loses all of them, that's a very significant fact that we should be able to source. But we don't have sourcing to say what % were wins and what % were losses. And without sourcing, it's just a sensational number that we cannot interpret, so it becomes an assertion in Wikipedia's voice that there's probably something here, and that's not encyclopedic. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. Bayer has already "lost" (as in settled and paid over 10B$ to the claimants) 95.000 of those claims in one of the largest settlement in history in 2020. It is a done deal. There is no going back. It will never change. It can't ever be a big "so what". It can only get much worse or not get any worse than what it already is.
They have also lost and keep loosing several other cases with additional billion dollar damages such as this one from 20 days ago with 1.65B$ in damages [3].
This debacle has led to one of the greatest corporate disasters in history. The additional lawsuits are a huge outstanding liability for Bayer according to all sources. What readers will think of this is up to them. We are not here to WP:RGW as you say. Just write an encyclopaedia with accurate information. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 00:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So report the losses per sources. Report all of them, that are adequately sourced. But don't report the ones where the sources haven't told us whether there was a loss or not. If a reliable, independent, secondary source says that it was one of the greatest debacles in history, then report that, with a direct quote and attribution. But don't report numbers in such a way as to imply it in Wikipedia's voice. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I added to the article: 165.000 cases overall against Monsanto is factual and based on reliable sources. The fact that 50.000 remain is factual and based on reliable sources. I didn't add that precisely 95.000 were settled for 10B$ but it is factual and based on reliable sources (we can add it to the article). Nothing is implied by those numbers. They are cold-hard numbers and established facts widely reported by sources. We agree we should keep them in the article then? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 13:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern here is the same as the raised at the Glyphosate article. With regard to these legal claims/cases (not the same thing), we should be basing Wikipedia's content on what WP:SECONDARY sources are providing as knowledge - analysis and synthesis - and not just spewing out a load of primary news reporting and letting it sit there dumbly providing who-knows-what implication to the unwary reader. Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source summarizing accepted knowledge on topics. So let's do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bon courage (talk • contribs) 14:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, as I've already said. Also, we have the whole set of numbers in the main text, so there's no need to duplicate all of it in the lead. The lead should summarize the main text, of course, but it should contain the main points, not every number. I still favor removing the last sentence of the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated and misleading

[edit]

In the UK at least, for consumers (i.e. most of our readers) Roundup does not necessarily contain glyphosate. It is the brand name for a whole range of different herbicidal products. This one contains pelargonic acid, this one contains mecoprop and dicamba, this one contains acetic acid. It is difficult to find a secondary source stating this however, with this from the RHS being the best I have found so far. This is from the US in 2021 and although very brief, says that US versions also said that glyphosate was being phased out of consumer products from January 2023. We evidently need to try and track down some better sources, but it does irk me that the current article is misleading to many readers. As I stated over at Talk:Glyphosate I think one solution is to merge this current article into GBH and create a separate article which deals with the history of Roundup as a brand. SmartSE (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The RHS is authoritative for what goes on in UK gardens. Bon courage (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep although that does seem outdated as from what I can tell some of the Weedol products has now been rebranded to Roundup. SmartSE (talk) 12:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a better source for the 2021 announcement in the US. SmartSE (talk) 12:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And another which goes into more detail on the alternative AIs. SmartSE (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's encyclopedic to indicate that the Roundup trademark is not limited to glyphosate-based products. I think the best way to handle it would be to have a section added to the page here. The alternative, to have a page about the history of Roundup-branded products would depend on having enough source material to treat that as a separate topic. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the other brand use of Roundup could be considered notable? I think that would help answer whether a separate brand history page would be worthwhile. Roundup's notability is mostly tied to glyphosate at the moment. Otherwise (and this is where I'm sitting right now), it seems simplest on the logistical side to avoid misleading readers is to note early on that the Roundup brand is sometimes used for other active ingredients on this page (or GBH) and see where it goes in the future. In the US for example, you can still get glyphosate Roundup, but there's starting to be Roundup for lawns that uses dicamba, etc. in stores. If those formulations standout compared to say other dicamba trade names, then maybe there's a case to be made for a full brand page. It might be too early for that though to tell.
When it comes to pesticide trade names, there are a lot out there. If they get mentioned on Wikipedia at all (I often prune trade names), it's either at the active ingredient article or at the company page. Maybe the latter is the better long-term route here? Start out a brand history over at Bayer#Agricultural and see what really stands out there? I'm picturing a bare minimum of saying something like The Roundup trade name has been used by Bayer (and companies it has bought) for glyphosate containing herbicides. Other non-glyphosate herbicides have also been marketed under the brand that other active ingredients such as, vinegar, dicamba. . . It would have the same use as a separate page where redirects from Roundup searches could point there, and it could act as a hub to link people to either glyphosate and maybe glyphosate-based herbicides if the content on this page is moved to the latter. It could be split out into a daughter article if it reaches that point too. If a merge to GBH happens, that would free up this article's title for a redirect and would seem like a decent next step to help with ambiguity issues. KoA (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a side note, but the irony here with the brand mentioned in the original post using vinegar instead of glyphosate is that glyphosate was technically less toxic than even vinegar.[4][5] The topic of safety may come up more related to this when extension sources like that (which often deal in pesticide safety) generally favor glyphosate from the safety perspective, Glyphosate has lower acute toxicity to humans than 94% of all herbicides and many common household chemicals, including vinegar and table salt. Glyphosate also has lower chronic toxicity to humans than 90% of all herbicides. KoA (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's really thought-provoking! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartse, at least for the time being, just I added a short mention of this at the end of the first lead paragraph. Probably more work to be done, but it's at least a start in avoiding misleading readers. KoA (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure this is really necessary but it doesn't hurt. Other uses of the Roundup brand outside of Glyphosate related products are not notable. They actually exist because of glyphosate: they were created to limit litigation: The move “is exclusively geared at managing litigation risk and not because of any safety concerns,” Bayer CEO Werner Baumann stressed during the call.[6] {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 17:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like this is getting into WP:RGW. Roundup is what it is, not what it needs to be to make a juicy Wikipedia article. Bon courage (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why we are trying to pretend like Roundup isn't the original brand name of glyphosate. It's an extremely weak argument. It's like saying Aspirin and acetylsalicylic acid are different things. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 10:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"pretend" ← sounds suspiciously like an accusation of bad faith. It's probably time this WP:STICK was dropped before this thread sails in sanctionable seas. Bon courage (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, literally no one here has even remotely suggested what Gtoffoletto just claimed. KoA (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 July 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roundup (herbicide) → Roundup – The herbicide is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, also in the non-English speaking world. The disambiguation page should be moved to Roundup (disambiguation). PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roundup_(herbicide)&oldid=1234348990"