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

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 24 January 2018[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Summing up the plain support, opposition and rebuttals of opposition camp's points; there's consensus for this move. (non-admin closure)Ammarpad (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

DichlorodiphenyltrichloroethaneDDTWP:COMMONNAME (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC) There seems to have been some controversy about this before though I am unclear why. Just like the TNT article, DDT is by far the commonly used name for this topic. Therefore, it is appropriate to rename the article.

-- MC (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support per TNT precedent. -- Netoholic @ 00:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The logic behind renaming DDT to Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane never made any sense to me. Yilloslime TC 00:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here with respect to the TNT example, but for a much more properly discussed failed move than that, see Talk:Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#Requested_move_11_August_2017 for why the community has found this type of move problematic. For chemistry articles, the full chemical name often gets the title, and abbreviations, acronyms, etc. are defined and used in the article. In this case dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane is a formal name. In terms of WP:COMMONNAME, that generally supports the full name, and generally only go to the common name for chemicals if you have something like the caffeine example with a distinct common name. WP:CHEMNAME also has a preference for formal names or even IUPAC barring a caffeine-like example. It's also a happy medium in that it's being more formal than an acronym, but we don't go so far as to use the IUPAC name either, not to mention that a search of DDT redirects here appropriately. I'm not seeing any reason for using DDT as the title here, nor has any support vote above or below actually demonstrated a legitimate issue that isn't already solved by the current redirect of DDT to this page (which is needed to satisfy WP:CONSENSUS here). Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Just adding on that TNT in addition to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is only a very recent change within the last year, and that move discussion only had a handful of participants that were fairly meh either way. I don't think we can argue that sets a precedent. Even if we did, we're not approaching the level of abbreviation notoriety as TNT, especially when we try to weight DDT against all the other pesticides that have abbreviations as well. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Just for a final note, we also need to be wary of WP:CONSENSUS in the sense that essential WP:ILIKEIT support votes are popping up here a lot. Wikipedia does take a bias towards scientific naming as part of WP:NPOV whether that is liked or not. We do get into WP:OR territory of simple statements like, "I think the acronym is more recognizable." or miundestanding that because scientists use the acronym in body text that it somehow supports having the title as such here too. Not to mention we also get into WP:WEIGHT issues considering how often other chemical names are abbreviated only as a shortener yet still described with similar full names. If editors really do want to make this type of change to be supported by Wikipedia guidelines like WP:CHEMNAME and WP:COMMONNAME in the context of chemicals, they should be doing that first at those guidelines where the wider community can comment. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose DDT redirects to the chemical name, no reason to shorten it. TNT is somewhat different, this is nearer LSD which also goes to the full name. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
    There are just some chemicals whose common names are so common that they should transcend the typical naming standard so that the reader is directed quickly and doesn't experience surprise when they see an unrecognizable long name. In most cases, non-science journal sources refer to them by these names almost exclusively, often not even mentioning the longer name. In effect, the abbreviation is just as common and distinct as the name for water - we wouldn't put that under Hydrogen hydroxide just to fit with other chemical compounds. Like TNT, DNA is similarly named for the abbreviation, and I'd argue that THC and LSD should be also. I think its important to remember that most readers for these topics are casual and probably are coming to us after reading non-journal sources that don't explicitly give the long name. This is why we should accommodate this short selection of well-known abbreviations. WP:COMMONNAME is policy, which supercedes WP:CHEMNAME which is a guideline -- and indeeed CHEMNAME's primary statement suggest this rename per "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." -- Netoholic @ 11:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
The prime guideline under WP:CHEMNAME says
Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
That's pretty straight-forward, and for this topic, pretty unambiguous. WP's standards for naming are always biased toward the general public, not the experts on the subject. I understand that many chemists and other scientists may disdain the abbreviation as a standard name but that is really beside the point.
-- MC (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
That isn't any justification for an abbreviation title. This is an encyclopedia, not a magazine subject to the whims of the general public. Even then, both COMMONNAME and CHEMNAME are pretty clear that the common name should be the main title, which we currently do with dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane as that is what the abbreviation stands for. If we are going to continue making OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, then we already have plenty of other insecticide articles such as organophosphates (i.e., OPs) that are also commonly used as acronyms in sources. Bacillus thuringiensis is arguably even more well known than DDT as an insecticide, but that one isn't changing to Bt as a title either. Neonicotinoids are often called neonics in newspapers, etc. and even extension material by university professors, but the encyclopedic term is still neonicotinoids. Not to mention that the scientists may disdain idea would violate WP:NPOV. We usually stick to how experts describe things in the sciences, especially in chemistry, to a reasonable degree. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Most of that is reasoning why we redirect here currently rather than DDT. DDT doesn't have a common name like water, caffiene, etc. as I mentioned above. The acronym is commonly used, but that should be confused as a true COMMONNAME when it's simply an abbreviation of the dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane common name (as oppposed to IUPAC naming). That does not reach the high bar of things like are discussed in COMMMONNAME like NASA or something as ubiquitous as TNT. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Though I understand what you are trying to say, from a certain perspective (which is applicable here) it is false. That is, for most readers, DDT is not really an abbreviation of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane; though they probably realize it is an abbreviation for something they do not know what that is. Most people do not recognize that name at all. The only name most people know is DDT. The fact that it originated as an abbreviation really does not matter in a practical sense, and in the sense of WP:COMMONNAME. -- MC (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, per nom, primary guideline language quoted above, and common and most familiar name (affirmed in the first sentence of the article). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
That cannot be used as justification for the change. When abbreviations are used within an article, they are defined usually in the first sentence.
As it stands, the redirect of DDT here (such as for those who only recall the acronym) is placed under an encyclopedic entry rather than an abbreviation. Normally what happens in encyclopedias is that the formal name is the entry title, and other names, abbreviations, etc. are placed in an index leading to that entry. There really hasn't been any justification for DDT being the title instead, and any issues in terms of findability of either are already taken care of by the redirect of the DDT acronym here. There really needs to be some serious justification for using the acronym as the title, and nothing has really come up yet in that regard. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand why it can't be justification for a change. The WP:CHEMNAME guideline says Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. That's pretty clear language, and seems to me justification enough for using the common name DDT as the page title. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
It's a misattribution of importance. Any time you have an acronym, it is defined often in the first sentence. If we were going to apply that logic to all other articles, any article that has an acronym for the title would then need to be redirected to its acronym instead.
Also, give the rest of CHEMNAME a read. In addition to redirecting to what most English readers would recognize (i.e., the name used in the acronym, which is why its currently redirected here), it gives examples for moving away from a formal chemical name only when you have a unique common name like water, caffeine, etc. This isn't a case like those. Instead, we mostly have arguments that aren't giving strong reasoning for moving to DDT over what the acronym stands for while already having a redirect if someone searches DDT directly. There doesn't seem to be any problem being addressed with this proposed move, and it's arguably less encyclopedic to use an acronym as a title unless it reaches an extremely high bar, especially for a chemical. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I think you're also missing a key part of CHEMNAME also "while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." I don't think you can claim that linking to Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane is remotely as easy as linking to DDT. Cmon... think of the readers and the editors. -- Netoholic @ 05:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
It's a few letters difference and doesn't offer any problems with linking, nor do I think can anyone realistically say it's going to detract from readers, especially since we're using a completely unambiguous title rather than an acronym. If you're coming into chemical articles, you're going to learn what the formal chemical names are or what the common name is if it has one (this chemical currently doesn't). That's part of what being an encyclopedia is. The reading experience like even scientific publications do is simplified by using the shortened acronym once you get past the title for the main body to save space as we currently do.
Another thing to keep in mind is that we are also talking about the field of plant and animal health, so WP:NCMED can apply, which prefers the INN. In that case we would redirect this to clofenotane[1] and avoid informal names as well per NCMED. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and numerous precedents from various fields, including FIFA, SCSI, NATO, NASA and now TNT. To counter some of Kingofaces43's arguments, I think that DDT is indeed a unique common name like water, caffeine, etc., and that it does reach the high bar of things [...] as ubiquitous as TNT – it's pretty much on par with TNT with instant recognizability as an early insecticide and notoriety for its severe effects on environment. And further, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an appropriate argument in article naming discussions – we prefer to follow the five principles outlined in WP:CRITERIA, consistency being an important one. (For the record, I would also support a move of LSD should anyone propose it). No such user (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
No, DDT the acronym is not the same as water, caffeine, etc. because it doesn't have it's own separate common name like that. The rest of your argument (and other votes) are more or less personal preference comments getting into WP:OR territory that cannot be used as a WP:!VOTE for weighing consensus. Instead, if someone is really going to make the claim the acronym reaches the point of NASA, that should be justified in comparison to at least other pesticides if someone is really going to make a case for a move amongst all the cases of shortened terms being used for chemical names out there. That has not been done one bit yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Just a note that I'm asking for more eyes from Wikiproject Chemistry at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose because the chemical name is more specific, given we have so many other meanings of DDT (DDT (disambiguation)). The current name is WP:NATURALDIS. Using the recent weakly-discussed not-strongly-supported TNT as precedent is poor given those three attributes of the discussion--would need a wider (not article-centric) discusion if we want to send WP naming convention in this new direction generally. DMacks (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
    DDT is currently the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to this article, i.e. there's no other topic of major interest to disambiguate from, so WP:NATURALDIS does not even apply. And why would naming principles of chemical topics be any different than those of NATO and NASA? The current title, Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, fails WP:RECOGNIZABILITY by a lightyear. Heck, as a layman I even know that TNT is Trinitrotoluol without looking it up, but I can hardly parse this title, let alone remember how it's spelled. No such user (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
    • That position takes for granted that DDT being a redirect to this article is correct, rather than to the DAB page (i.e., that it is the primarytopic). However, I actually looked at the other DAB entries and agree that none of them seem nearly as significant. Therefore I agree that this chemical is the primary meaning of DDT, and therefore I now support moving the article there. DMacks (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I think "dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane" is completely unrecognizable to anyone but a chemist. Even chemists might have to think for a minute before realizing, "oh, that's the insecticde DDT". "DDT" is much more common and recognizable. WP:COMMONNAME applies and is consistent with WP:MOSCHEM. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support DDT is by far the most common name used. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Yeah, even chemists use common terms/abbreviations like DDT not dichlor..whatever. By far common name. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Even for chemists, DDT is immediately recognizable where as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane is not. Boghog (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – DDT is the commonname and agrees with all our normal naming conventions, primarytopic, conciseness, recognizability, etc. better than the current long full-name title does. Dicklyon (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Statement about Bald Eagles & DDT[edit]

The statement "[A]long with the passage of the Endangered Species Act, the United States ban on DDT is a major factor in the comeback of the bald eagle (the national bird of the United States) and the peregrine falcon from near-extinction in the contiguous United States" has no sources or references to back it up. There are two citations listed after the sentence, but they are both about endangered species and say nothing of DDT, so I have removed it from the main article.

If someone really thinks this should go back in, perhaps they can use references instead of conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Restored. Sentence is supported directly by "Fact Sheet: Natural History, Ecology, and History of Recovery" source, which states that "Habitat protection afforded by the Endangered Species Act, the federal government’s banning of DDT, and conservation actions taken by the American public have helped bald eagles make a remarkable recovery." Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Someone is lying[edit]

The US Department of Transportation and Transport Canada in the Emergency Response Guidebook that it is mentioned in the references [[2]] does not contain any reference to DDT or Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane. Who wrote that the DDT is "highly toxic, may be fatal if inhaled, swallowed or absorbed through skin. Avoid any skin contact. Effects of contact or inhalation may be delayed." is dispersing propaganda and fake news. -- (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Good catch. I can't find that quote or any reference to DDT in that source either, so I've removed the paragraph. So thanks for the heads up. (Maybe next time you find something amiss on Wikipedia you could alert others to it without all the hyperbole (i.e. words like "lying", "propaganda", etc.), or better yet: simply make the fix yourself.) Yilloslime (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)