Talk:International Agency for Research on Cancer
|WikiProject Medicine||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Organizations||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
Proposal to move several articles/categories to alternative names
- Oppose automatic moving of list articles to match the CfD result: lists and categories serves separate purposes. Physchim62 (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- In which case, let's talk about the list articles alone. We might need to talk about classification of carcinogens in general as well, the problems that it causes but the necessity of doing it. I'm currently trying to get the necessary (general) articles up to standard so that they can support a GHS classification – I'm not there yet, because it's a big job! For me, the problem is that someone will always say that "compound X is a carcinogen" and someone else will always say that "compound X has never been shown to cause cancer". Compound X is this example can go far beyond the list of substances evaluated by the IARC, believe me! A simple renaming of the pages is not a solution to the fundamental problem: how do we decide if a substance, agent, mixture or exposure circumstance is to be labeled as "carcinogenic" or not? Physchim62 (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
This is exactly my point. I believe that it is not a decision for wikipedians to take. We report only IARC Group 2B. Whoever is interested, he can form his own opinion from the description in Group 2B. We are thus detaching ourselves from the problem as much as possible.....but giving information as we should.--FocalPoint (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Proposal posted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 27.--FocalPoint (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Rebooting the renaming discussion
- Reviewing the prior discussions on this, it appears that the substantive question and process issues were to some extent mired together, leading to no consensus, hence to keep. My sense is also that this is a result no one really wanted, so I'd like to re-examine the question. I would suggest we do that right here, form a proposal, then advance that proposal through whatever process is deemed necessary once we come to agreement.
- At issue is the inaccurate implication from the existing names "List of IARC Group xx carcinogens" (Groups 1 2A 2B 3) and the corresponding categories Category:IARC Group 1 carcinogens (2A, 2B, 3) that the listed agents are all established as carcinogens.
- Possible alternative names:
- 1. "List of IARC Group xx carcinogens" and "Category:IARC Group xx carcinogens" (status quo)
- 2. "List of IARC Group xx agents" and "Category:IARC Group xx agents"
- 3. "List of agents in IARC Group xx" and "Category:Agents in IARC Group xx"
- 4. "List of agents with IARC Group xx evidence of carcinogenicity" and "Category:Agents with IARC Group xx evidence of carcinogenicity"
- 5. "IARC Group xx" and "Category:IARC Group xx" (list class articles don't have to be called "List of")
- Category pages can and should show the criteria for inclusion on the category page. For these categories this is simple: "Articles in this category are about agents that are listed in the IARC's corresponding group, according to the IARC's current published list."
- The articles in a given cateory should also contain a statement explaining that inclusion is in accordance with (a referenced) IARC monograph. This should be uncontroversial and helpful in reducing confusion. A common template for this purpose might be useful.
- The category pages should also link to the related categories and the main article on the topic. In this case each of the Group xx categories would link to each of the others and to the particular monographs.
- Each of the Group categories should be subcategories of a larger Category:IARC listed agents.
- Explanation of each group:
- Should the definition of and the distinction between the groups be stated on each list and category page, or only on one linked page?
Thank you for notifying me. Too many questions together, but let us take the easiest thing first:
- I find best your proposal for renaming to "IARC Group xx". The articles contain a list of agents, however, they are about each IARC Group classification and not only a list.
- I find obviously correct the need for showing the criteria for inclusion on the category page. I will proceed now.
- I prefer proposal number 2. Proposal numbers 5 & 3 are also acceptable. Number 1 is the worst. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Hoping this discussion is not dead...I also agree with proposal #2; just because the carcinogenicity of any agent has been assessed does not make the agent a carcinogen. The title of this "IARC Group 2B..." page is misleading. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has gone nowhere in three years, so I'm going to edit the titles in accordance with proposal #2 above. I'm also involved with writing to Electrosensitivity UK; if you look at the third paragraph of this page of theirs: http://www.es-uk.info/about/index.asp you can see that they're classifying electromagnetic fields as "a Class 2B carcinogen", no ifs or buts about it. I'll be complaining to them that they're likely to encourage hypochondria; I don't want them writing back "but even Wikipedia agrees that EM fields are carcinogenic". This matters; a friend of mine has recently convinced herself that cellphones, stereos and monitor screens are making her ill. Clark42 (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, go ahead with the edit. Please though, be cautious about mingling on- and off-wiki activities. It can be problematic for some people. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Update: the system won't let me change the title (ie. move the page), because it was done once and then undone, so it leads to a double-redirect. Could someone with more experience do it, or tell me how? It's highly misleading as it is. Clark42 (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)