Talk:DDT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kmcolgan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reduction in penis size[edit]

I had included the following in the article. Another editor, citing a WP essay, not WP policy, decided to erase that. I am not going to waste time with that, thank you very much, I'm rather tired of that kind of attitude. Y'all see if you want to keep this in the article, or not. Four references, our friend didn't feel that was enough. Go figure.

Reduction in penis size[edit]

Lower plasma testosterone concentrations and smaller phalli were measured in juvenile alligators living in the contaminated environment of Lake Apopka, in Florida. The dimensions of the male reproductive organ were on average 24% smaller than those from a non-contaminated lake. [1][2] A study by Kelse in 1995 indicates that that a persistent metabolite of DDT, p,p'-DDE, is a relatively potent antiandrogen. Subsequent studies would point to other deleterious effects in Florida wildlife[3][4]. YamaPlos talk 21:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It was removed because it's policy that we prefer secondary sources (even moreso on scientific topics) and are extremely cautious about primary studies lacking secondary sources (WP:SCIRS was linked because it explains what secondary sources are in science topics). That means reviews, meta-analyses, or major agencies citing the study in proper context, etc. This isn't a subject lacking in such secondary sources either. WP:PSTS lays out the cautions with focusing too much on primary sources, which doesn't say we must use primary sources. In practice, that means a certain onus needs to be met to use them.
Your first link is to the primary source that's 25 years old, and the second is just a random blog. The third is to a newspaper, and the last is just WP:NOTCATALOGUE-type info from the funding agency. There isn't anything suggesting this particular study stands out amongst all the other DDT studies out there to warrant mention here. At the end of the day, if this was something WP:DUE, we'd have a lot more discussion in scientific sources by now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Yamaplos is correct that WP:SCIRS, cited in User:Kingofaces43's edit summary when reverting, is just an essay and not policy. Having said that, I agree with both him and User:JzG that the sources provided are poor and there's nothing to distinguish this particular study from the hundreds of the others on DDT. This material should stay out of the article unless and until it receives a lot more attention. Yilloslime (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Donald Roberts opinion[edit]

Hi @Yilloslime: As the NYT page says at the bottom, this is one of the world's top experts on the use and effectiveness of DDT and other insecticides. Invasive Spices (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn't matter. An opinion piece should be used as source for anything other than the author's opinion. See WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. A ton has been written about DDT in reliable, non-opinion sources in the mainstream, medical, and scientific literature. If you want to include that content, simply find a better source. Yilloslime (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Well... WP:RS says:
When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.
As for WP:MEDRS, that doesn't apply to this edit. However if WP:MEDRS did apply it would require this type of source:
For this reason, all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge.
This is one of the most experienced people on DDT and insecticides in the world. The fact that it's in the NYT does not detract from that. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In this case, this would definitely be an expert that could be used if a case of WP:PARITY was needed in response to some fringe material. That's about the only exception to WP:MEDRS that could come up with this source, but we don't have anything like that need here.
Being a leading expert means that WP:MEDRS should be even easier to follow since there should be plenty of secondary sources available from them. Now if there were a technical source from Roberts that was MEDRS, and their writeup in the NYT gave some supplementary explanation (e.g. lay audience summary) that could possibly be usable. However, a piece like this generally should not be a standalone source. Expert commentary outside academic sources does have narrow uses even within MEDRS, but nothing like that has come up yet so far. KoA (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one is denying that Don Roberts has published a lot on the topic (though whether he is a "top expert" is debatable). As discussed above in an earlier thread, The Excellent Powder was published by a vanity press, so cannot be considered a reliable source. Your other sources are all pretty old--which doesn't mean they are automatically bad, but I'm not sure what the point of adding them would be. Finally, regardless of the quality of the sources, your initial edit was not needed: that fact "DDT is the best-known of several chlorine-containing pesticides used in the 1940s" is already covered by the citation at the end of that paragraph, and the repellency of DDT is also mentioned elsewhere in the article with better referencing. Yilloslime (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Unless they've published something recently that really adds to content here, I don't see a reason to focus on Roberts here.
Invasive Spices, if you're interested in Roberts and some of the more historical aspect, maybe it would be worth considering creating a WP:BLP in terms of WP:PROF? That would require independent sources commenting on Roberts rather than just pulling from his research articles, but that's the only potential place I see a home for such older sources right now if they were deemed important by others. I haven't dug enough to know of the latter is really the case or not though. KoA (talk)
  • So I finally found the paper this all started from and put this all together: It's already here, it's Grieco et al 2007. (I went off trying to find a secondary for this because someone (actually KoA) complained about my use of primaries at all, and Grieco is experimental. I have not agreed to such an extreme position but, if I can find something secondary that is the more defensible position. So I forgot about the original paper itself.) Another thing that threw me off was that I read the page here and nothing was phrased as strongly as that result. So that means we're not presenting the story as strongly as the results actually are: I suggest we change the DDT can still be effective against resistant mosquitoes text it cites to something like DDT still repels even resistant mosquitoes because it has a repellency action that is separate from its killing action. Invasive Spices (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think your proposed edit is supported by Grieco 2007, which was one small study. It only supports the idea, stated in the article, that DDT "can" (or perhaps "may" would be better) be effective against resistant mosquitos. A small, initial study could never support the idea that DDT is always repellent against resistant mosquitos, which is what your revision implies. Now, I haven't been paying any attention to literature on DDT in the last 10 years, so maybe since the Grieco study, other studies and reviews have come along which would support stronger language along the lines of what you suggest--I just don't know. But I do know that I don't support stronger language if Grieco is the only supporting citation. Yilloslime (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • smallUSEPA's arthropod efficacy requirements are: 5x15, 7x10, 35x1.[1] The smallest replication is Grieco is 6x60 (for DDT and dieldrin), and there was a gradation of those (showing the increasing repulsion effect) so really several of those. (Also this method is the one endorsed by the WHO - they cite Grieco's 2005 delineation of this method.[2]) In this, p9 they require 50x1 per a.i..) further support So I looked and here, p6, "Spatial..." the WHO and Lynch & Boots 2016 endorse Grieco 2007 as demonstrating multiple MoAs. Invasive Spices (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's beside the point. The Grieco methodology may or may not be the best thing since sliced bread, but that one paper doesn't suggest that DDT can always remain effective with resistant mosquitos. As I recall they only tested one species in one place at one point in time, so the results cannot be generalized to all mosquitos generally. Yilloslime (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Given the history of results in cross-arthropod receptor genetics, it does suggest that. (Not prove obv.) Anyway you didn't read the second part, the WHO and eLife part. I think they settle the question. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then find some review articles or official guidelines by authoritative bodies (e.g. WHO) that specifically say that DDT always/typically/usually remains an effective anti-malaria measure even when mosquitos are resistant. Yilloslime (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The goalposts are up and dancing by themselves by this point. That's not necessary. I think we both know the value of a citation. What do you think [3]'s citation of Grieco 2007 is for then? We've gone past RS after RS by this point, all of which are worth more than our opinions. Invasive Spices (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That reference doesn't even mention DDT, so I don't see how it supports the edits that you are proposing. Yilloslime (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The value of a citation is that you don't have to repeat whatever you're citing. The committee cites Grieco for "here's our example of multi-MOA". You need to explain which ai(s) you're contending they're citing Grieco for. Grieco is unambiguous: DDT yes, dieldrin and cypermethrin no. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What exactly is the edit you are proposing? Your your initial edit was to add some citations to a Roberts editorial, then you were proposing mentioning his self-published book and some older articles by him, then you wanted to reword the bit about repellency to make it stronger (citing Grieco 2007, which Roberts in a coauthor on), and now you are talking about a WHO report which cites Grieco but doesn't mention anything about DDT. What is it exactly that you want changed in the article? Yilloslime (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The same edit + cite the WHO committee. "DDT, no decline of repellent function, even when decline of killing action" etc. Your insinuation that I am shifting my goalposts is incorrect. This conversation:
  • Me: Edit.
  • You: Revert, opinions are never RS.
  • Me: This is an expert source.
  • You: RS says no expert opinions.
  • Me: Actual quote of RS.
  • You: Silence. (Never mention RS again.)
  • Me: (Hopefully silence means I've made the point, but I would like to really make sure not bulldoze.) Ask if you've actually withdrawn. (Use better phrasing than just "Your doubts about the author are crap, here, look at all this". Also because I really do think they should be contributed to the article text, separately, later.) So here are other works, same author, same subject, I'd like to use.
  • You: Cast baseless aspersions on the author. Point out vanity press. Misdescribe initial edit.
  • Me: (Vanity press. I didn't even notice that... oh well.) I found it, Grieco, it's already here. Even stronger than I remembered.
  • You: Small study.
  • Me: Actually huge. Also WHO advisory group citation.
  • You: Shift goalposts again, good methodology still isn't good.
  • Me: You still haven't even looked at the WHO document...
  • You: Only if WHO actually says "DDT".
  • Me: Not necessary. We both know what a citation is. What is your alternate interpretation? You're dismissing RS after RS.
  • You: Repeat same thing.
  • Me: Repeat same thing.
I'm still planning to cite the opinion piece. The opinions of top experts in the world are endorsed by RS over either of us, and for good reason. (However, turns out he's one of the coauthors on Grieco, so further backing would be nice...) WHO: You're actually attempting to parse what a citation is for. I've never seen this before, but I'm attempting to finish up this very meandering debate, so let's parse: What is the advisory group's citation there for? Dieldrin? Cypermethrin? Invasive Spices (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there is something to cite with the WHO, it's better to stick with just that than worrying about lesser sources in general. That said, can you post here specifically what the change is you want to make so others can review it? If you quote exactly what you're pulling from in the specific source, that would especially help. KoA (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think we should have a refs section but here it is[edit]

Military effects on DDT Production[edit]

I recently added in the history section how the US Military promoted the production and usage of DDT due to its effectiveness and availability compared to pyrethrum (which mainly came from Japan during this time). It was both a way to protect the US and Allied soldiers during the war and for American influence to spread through spraying campaigns abroad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankers123 (talkcontribs) 13:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]