Talk:Toxicodendron radicans/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Some mistakes on this page

I don't know where the idea poison ivy isn't in North Dakota came from - It most defitately exists there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.16.106 (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are a few of the mistakes on this page:

1. Toxicodendron is no longer considered synonymous with Rhus. I took this out. 2. Poison ivy is never correctly spelled poison-ivy, and Hedera ("English" ivy) is no more the "true" ivy than is Toxicodendron. If anything is "true" ivy, it is the genus Cissus. 3. The photograph that claims to distinguish box-elder from poison ivy actually has a picture of an ash, not a box-elder. Gadelson (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Identification

Wiki has the resources to do a really good "How to identify poison ivy" section, better than any commercial field guide dead-tree book.

Isn't it a shame that this hasn't been done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.29.54 (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I organized the mnemonic rhymes better, and someone helped (thanks!) by fixing the formatting on my arrangement (making them a numbered list). The help is much appreciated. One remaining problem in the last paragraph about "appearance": it is actually about how the plant is spread by birds, so I suggest that if someone has the time/interest/agreement it should be moved. T456 (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I re-wrote this section in an attempt to make the description flow better. The mnemonic rhymes were separated into a section titled "aids to identification". Pinethicket (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Altitude

Poison Ivy grows at altitudes in excess of 9,000ft very well and in abundance. Go to any place in Taylor Park Colorado which is well above 9,000ft and you will see the entire 800,000 acres is covered in poison ivy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.49.21.161 (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is T. radicans. In Colorado, you're probably seeing T. rydbergii (while these could be treated as a single species, Wikipedia currently has them as seperate species.) 192.104.39.2 (talk)

Title Picture

This picture doesn't exclusively show poison ivy, so it will confuse people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.134.98 (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I will see if I can produce one of only poison-ivy this week. Hardyplants (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Anaphylactoid semiology?

Could we please have at least an appropriate wikilink there? A lot of laypeople are going to be looking up poison ivy, and a lot of those will not recognise the phrase, which is not explained elsewhere in the article either. 86.132.140.207 (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, although it would be nice to translate it to English as well.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed that, too.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is the history?

There must be years of talk-page history on this basic subject -- where is it?-69.87.200.106 (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

preventing, managing, suppressing, and killing

There should be a section about preventing, managing, suppressing, and killing poison ivy. Cutting it is hard to do safely. Pulling it out would be good, but is hard to do safely. Commercial herbicides can be used. It can be covered with an opaque tarp or cardboard etc until it dies. Boiling water might kill it. The most common "natural" Internet recipe is one gallon vinegar, one cup salt, and 8 drops liquid detergent; spray onto leaves.-69.87.200.106 (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Commercial herbicides can be effective especially when used in late summer- early fall as the vine is storing foods for winter dormancy; remember to treat only the foliage or vine stump because materials that kill this vine can kill or hurt most trees, shrubs and broadleaves.

Note from Charlie: I can say from my own experience that glyphosphate / roundup type weed killers will kill well established poison ivy, but only after many, many, repeated applications. My property had maybe an acre in total of very well established large clumps of various sizes of poison ivy - perhaps thousands of plants - when I bought it. Some clumps were as large as 75 feet across. By working my way around the outside edges of large drifts of poison ivy with a sprayer filled with roundup mixed to the highest concentration mfr recommended, spraying from the colsest plants to as far in as I could spray, I would begin killing off the first ten feet or so of the edge of the clump of poison ivy. The package recommended a low concentration for most weeds, and a higher concentration for difficult plants like poison ivy. If you want any real effect at all use the strong mix.

The effects of any single spraying are not immediately visible. Two or three weeks after the previous spraying, I would come back, once the effects of the spraying became clearly evident and work my way carefully further in, taking good care not to contact any parts of the plants, alive or dying. The most clearly affected plants leaved shrivel up and lay down, making it safer to pick one's way into the mass of plants.

The plants are very hardy and the first few visits merely killed off some leaves. The roots, which establish at numerous points along the vine, remained viable in most places, and will send up shoots the following year regardless of the spraying. But, the second year there were less poison ivy plants than before I started, and in the third year fewer yet. Now, eight or nine years of eradication have finally made my yard safe to walk in. This year I found just one tiny plant and did it in as fast as I could.

I quickly discovered that it was most economical to purchase the largest size container of the strongest concentration available of glyphosphate weed killer. For poison ivy, the ready mixed packages are so weak and so expensive per unit of glyphosphate as to be a waste of money. The ultra concentrate in gallon jugs was the best buy for sizable infestations.

The previous owners seemed to have no concept of how nasty poison ivy is and did nothing to control it. Weirdly, it seems to be used as a ground cover in England.

I have no idea how to put this experience into a form that is suitable for the actual article. Maybe someone else, a better writer, could distill my experience into a workable addition to the article. --1p2o3i (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

evolutionary significance

"The evolutionary significance of poison oak resin containing urushiol is difficult to explain. The resinous sap probably helps to seal wounds and may retard the growth of infectious fungal and bacterial spores. A chemical defense strategy against "predatory pressure" seems unlikely since the foliage and fruits are eaten by deer, goats, horses, cattle and a variety of birds. In fact, wood rats even use the branches to construct their nests. Only humans appear to have painful encounters with the plant, although laboratory studies indicate sensitivity on exposed skin of guinea pigs, rabbits, mice, sheep, dogs and rhesus monkeys.

In the case of humans, our well-developed immune system may be overreacting to a relatively innocuous plant resin on the skin. But there is a positive side to all of this--research on poison oak may lead to a better understanding of the human immune system and the treatment of renegade viruses and tumor cells. In the final analysis, poison oak may be a blessing in disguise."^{Herbalgram (American Botanical Council)
Volume 34: 36-42, 1995 by W.P. Armstrong and W.L. Epstein, M.D. cited in waynesword.palomar.edu/ww0802.htm} -69.87.199.228 (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Box Elder?

There is a picture with a caption saying the plant on the left is box elder, but it looks more like a type of Ash tree. Box elder leaves are more serrated and have a less round shape. They also have a yellower hue and often have a tinge of reddish in the stem. Based on this I think we can be pretty confident that the plant pictured is not a box elder. I can go out and take a picture of a Box-elder as there are numerous ones near where I live, I bet if I try I can find it growing next to poison-ivy. Unless someone already has a picture? Cazort (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I suspect that "DISSOWED TUDDOES" is not a valid remedy for poison ivy. Themathkid (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Image Thumbnail

Is it just my browser the infobox image is failing to render in? It's got the red 'X' in the corner, but it still appropriately links to the image file (where it renders just fine). I've previewed a couple tweaks in an effort to fix it, but nothing seems to be working. Might the size of the original image have some bearing on this (it's about twice the size of most other infobox images I checked for comparison)?
--K10wnsta (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It renders fine in Firefox but not in Internet Explorer. Let me poke at it....--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not rendering for me in Firefox now Asbruckman (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Vegetarian Cure?

Since finding out most medicine is derived from glycerin and stearic acid, i have been researching alternative ways to cure common symptons like cold and cough. A way to cure poison ivy naturally is steam a boiling pot of water with salt. Its that simple. When the pot is hot enough, it literally kills the skin cell tissue for it to regrow. This dries the poison ivy almost immediately and is as effective as taking steroids. --69.255.42.105 (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Effects on the Body

There should be more pictures for the "Effects on the Body" section. The blisters portrayed do show the severe effects of the blistering, but the blisters are rare except in severe cases, and even in those, there is much more widespread bumping (similar to mosquito bites). If anyone could find more pictures, that would help.

Socko555 (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional Photos

One of the problems with poison ivy, is the level of variety in leaf shape. For those of us who may;

1) Read this.

2) Are "Out-and-About" where this stuff grows.

It would be useful to collect a number of photos of poison ivy both close-ups (leaf shape) as well as structure (ground cover, bush, vine). This is one of the primary issues with avoiding it, simply the diversity in what it looks like.

Gpronger (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC) gpronger

Treatment section missing

No treatment/potential cures? reallY? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.13.218.9 (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

This article focuses on the plant. Links are provided to under the section 'Effects on the body' to the article Urushiol-induced contact dermatitis, where treatments are described. Pinethicket (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

mometasone furoate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hola! I'm highly susceptible to poison ivy! Here are some do's and don'ts when you come into contact with it. Do not take hot showers, it will feel soothing when you run hot water on the rash but it thrives in the warm. Luke warm/cold showers (watch for washing your hands with hot water if it's on your hands). With bad cases a shot of steroids can be received from a doctor that will drastically heal your rashes. Doctors can also prescribe a low dose steroid pills that counter act the poison ivy. I've recently got some poison ivy on my leg. It spread to my hand and neck. I've been using tecnu "extreme" Poison ivy scrub ($15.99) Eliminates poison oils cures itching speeds healing it works like a charm with the small batches of the rash that i've been spreading around my body but its not getting rid of all of it and it keeps spreading. I'm going to try another day w/o scratching with this scrub and see if i can nip it in the bud. If not im heading to a doctors office The pills that %100 cure the rash are very cheap (less than $10) and are very common. Happy itching :) by F0ll0wMe - xboxlive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.20.64 (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Poison ivy or Toxicodendron radicans for category Allergology

Poison ivy or Toxicodendron radicans for category Allergology, 99.99% of people will be looking for Poison ivy, and maybe 1 in 10K people will see Toxicodendron radicans, and say "yes, that is what I am looking for, thank you Wikipedia". My vote is for the tag attached to PI so it appears in the category. Who agrees and who disagrees?

Actually, anyone who types Poison Ivy will automatically be redirected to Toxicodendron radicans. That is the place where they will see the category Allergology. I doubt most users can figure out how to open up the Redirect Poison Ivy. Redirects are not normally used for anything except redirecting. DGERobertson (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly misidentified poison ivy image

IP user 99.236.142.212 and I are in a conflict regarding the identification of a plant. They added the image to the poison ivy page; I deleted the image as being misidentified. I seek input from other editors to resolve the issue. I contend that the image is either a species misidentified as poison ivy or a terribly unrepresentative example of poison ivy. In either case, I feel the image causes confusion and is counter productive. The poison ivy page already has sufficient representative examples of the plant.

The reasons why I suspect that it is a species misidentified as poison ivy follow. The specimen does not appear to be trifoliate as another pair of leaflets appear at the lower border of the image; in other words, the leaf appears to be pinnately compound rather than the typical trifolate leaf of poison ivy. The margins of the leaflets are finely serrate rather than the irregular and larger serrations of poison ivy. The leaflets of the specimen appear to be sessile rather than having the distinctive petiole of poison ivy.

Please comment regarding this issue. Appropriate action can be taken once consensus is reached. Pinethicket (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't look like poison ivy. I was puzzled when it first went up (the reddening pattern also seems odd), and on inspection it does indeed look to have at least five leaflets. --Curtis Clark (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Plant Description -- article introduction

The introductory description is somewhat misleading. For clarification I recommend reading The Poison Ivy, Oak and Sumac Book: A Short Natural History and Cautionary Account by Thomas E. Anderson, first published in 1995. This is a well researched scientific approach that covers many aspects in great detail and provides information that would be useful in this article. A summary of some key points discussed in this book: 1) The plant causes an allergic reaction -- it is not technically a poison any more than peanut butter -- though it can also be fatal. 2) There are many varieties and in areas where poison oak exists they can cross pollinate creating a large number of hybrid varieties. Some disagreements about identification of the plant results from this diversity, however I agree with the argument on this page that the misleading photo is not likely to be poison ivy. On the other hand, I have seen many similar plants that are closer in appearance to poison ivy than any of the examples given in this article (but cannot identify them -sorry). Virginia creeper is a stretch, though it often grows in the same location as poison ivy. For someone just learning about poison ivy it is helpful to know that Virginia Creeper is not poison ivy -- but I would like to see photos of the many things that actually look similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.11.5.131 (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Toxicodendron radicans → Poison ivy – Per WP:COMMONNAME, we should name articles what readers are most likely to expect them to be named. This also has the benefit of making sure that this article is recognizable to readers browsing through categories like Category:Allergology and Category:Poisonous plants. The proposed name already redirects here, and there are no other plants known as "poison ivy". Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Powers ^T 22:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: "poison ivy" also refers to the dermatitis, even if it results from other Toxicodendron species. One might argue to fork the dermatitis—there's duplicated information in Toxicodendron diversilobum—but there's ambiguity to use it for both the dermatitis and the plant species. WRT the categories, it would seem that redirects should work just fine for that; the power of redirects is not fully appreciated by many editors.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Just tried changing the sort for Category:Allergology to Poison ivy; turns out that italictitle "poisons", so to speak, the appearance of the redirect in the category. Hmmm....--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well if that's the case, why isn't Urushiol-induced contact dermatitis listed on the Poison ivy (disambiguation) page? Regardless, I can't imagine anyone searching for "poison ivy" on Wikipedia, ending up on the plant article, and saying "Dammit! Stupid Wikipedia; I was looking for the inflammation, not the plant that caused it!" A hatnote or other prominent link will be sufficient. (And note, as Medeis says below, that "poison ivy" is a redirect now, so opposing this move changes nothing about how people get to Urushiol-induced contact dermatitis.) Powers ^T 14:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Support This is a no brainer given the target is a redirect. μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per Curtis Clark. The vernacular name is ambiguous. The redirect poison ivy, however, could be turned into a set index article or disambiguation page. Because it has erroneously been pointing to this article all along is not a reason to make a bad article move now. Rkitko ^(talk) 12:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Support, per WP:COMMONNAME, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, and Oxford. Kauffner (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Support, per WP:COMMONNAME, who the heck even enjoys such an "elaborately titled" article? Besides, Poison sumac is not a redirect (though poison oak refers to two plants so who cares about that). I do have to agree with the oppose statements by others, but I can restructure the pages accordingly... Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 01:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not "elaborately titled" - it's precise, as is encouraged in one of the WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. And as an aside, you do realize Wikipedia is laughed at among academics for many things, including the odd article titles? Personal opinion: If the article is on the species, it should be titled at the scientific name; redirects take care of the rest, which is why we have them, yes? Rkitko ^(talk) 02:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. The term "poison ivy" seems to be used indiscriminately, in my experience, for Toxicodendron radicans and Toxicodendron rydbergii, and perhaps to some extent for the poison oak Toxicodendrons as well. T. rydbergii has, in the past, been treated as a variety of T. radicans, which probably explains some of the citations above, from sources which can't be expected to be well-informed about the current state of botanical science. Rtkitko's suggestion is good—I'd expect that a fair bit of the material on identification applies to both species, and could be moved to a "poison ivy" article, allowing the articles on the two species to be a bit more tightly focused. Choess (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I started off as a Wikipedia editor with reservations about WP:PLANT's policy of preferring scientific names as article titles. Experience has changed my mind. The issue is not what kind of name is used, but that of one topic = one article. Almost all English names for plants are not sufficiently precise to define one topic and hence one article. It seems clear that "poison ivy" does not unambiguously refer to one species of plant, so it should not be the article title. There's no inconvenience to readers, since redirects can deal with searches for "poison ivy". Peter coxhead (talk) 09:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment. The fact that a title does not make or break an article is not a reason to use an unrecognizable title. The purpose of language is to communicate, to tell readers things they will understand. Recognizability is given as the first naming criteria in WP:TITLE. Does anyone doubt that the proposed title will be recognized as the name of this subject by vastly more readers than the current title? If there is anyone with such a doubt, please check Insights. Britannica`s article on this subject uses the title "poison ivy". Those academic referred to above must be laughing quite a lot. Kauffner (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Recognizability is not more important than other naming criteria. In this case, I believe the ambiguity, particularly with the contact dermatitis, to be confusing enough that recognizability is not easily assumed. Here the title is precise and consistent, two other naming criteria that you've overlooked. The current title will be recognized for what it is: a species name. Perhaps unfamiliar to many who search for poison ivy, but they will instantly recognize by context that the species is what they were looking for. Article titles do not exist in a vacuum surrounded by no other information or guides. Readers are smart enough to understand why an encyclopedia would want to title an article on a species at the scientific name. Rkitko ^(talk) 18:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  - Any reasonably common term will more than one meaning. If there are only two meanings that are at all likely, one should be primary with a hatnote to the other, per WP:TWODABS. For "poison ivy", I would question whether there are really even two separate meanings. People might call the rash "poison ivy", but this is understood as an abbreviated form of, "a rash caused by contact with the plant poison ivy". This topic would be covered in the article even if there was no idiom for it. Kauffner (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

See the recent discussion at Pinta Island tortoise which had briefly been named Chelonoidis nigra abingdonii. The fact that we know laymen sometimes call other plants (which have their own names(!)) poison ivy in no way means we should use an obscure title due to their ignorance. Next we'll have to change Groundhog to Marmota monax so people don't confuse it with a pig, or Starfish to Asteroidea because they are neither fish nor stars. μηδείς (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, per above oppose rationales. Sasata (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
oppose, since there are two ambiguous species to which poison ivy refers. I'd be fine with poison ivy being a dab page of some sort; you may want to bring this up at the DAB message board.--KarlB (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment: This is why I think ALL Wikipedia articles on living organisms should use the scientific name as their title instead of their common names, even if the common name is the most popular. Admins should begin to impose new rules on WP:NAME. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 14:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose [Toxicodendron rydbergii]] is also called poison ivy.Plantdrew (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose exactness trumps accessibility, and per MOS for plants, poison ivy ain't cultivated, hence doesn't qualify....Casliber (talk · contribs)
- I'm doubtful that the MOS for plants is the major factor preventing its cultivation. :-) --Curtis Clark (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2012 (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.

No, this is why people make fun of Wikipedia, because you let consensus override not only the rules but what all the other sources call the plant in question. If every other general purpose encyclopedia calls it one thing, we don't have the right to call it anything else.

And I say "consensus" even though that didn't happen--what happened was the number of people voting. There were more arguments for the name, but the fact that a bunch of people just !voted overrode that. It's kinda disgraceful.

And then I had to be the one to take the tag off--you guys cared so much you couldn't even come back and check. If it weren't for WP:AGF... — trlkly 19:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite entire article to scientific name?

For technical purposes, I would like to see all forms of poison ivy in the article be changed to it's scientific name due to titling. Can I do that? (see Drosera anglica) Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 15:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"as the immune system has been trained to act with greater degree"

I find the phrasing (in first paragraph of the section "Effects on the body") ununderstandable.Svato (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Removed. Thank you for the suggestion, but note that you are a Wikipedia editor and are welcome to be bold when you see something amiss. I realize that in this case you may have been unsure, and this page is the right place to discuss. -- Scray (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Poison ivy (disambiguation)/Poison ivy

Poison ivy directs to this article. Poison ivy (disambiguation) includes other uses (in music, film, comics, etc.). Toxicodendron rydbergii and Toxicodendron orientale are also plants referred to as "poison ivy". While many incoming links to Poison ivy clearly intend T. radicans, this usage is ambiguous. I'd like to make Poison ivy a disambiguation page (copying the content and redirecting from Poison ivy (disambiguation and with T. rydbergii and T. orientale added), and redirecting. This will ambiguate a bunch of incoming links to Poison ivy which clearly intend T. radicans, but ultimately will make thing clearer. Is this course of action objectionable? As far as I can tell, the best way to accomplish this is simply to edit the Poison ivy and Poison ivy (disambiguation) article rather than making any move requests. Will editing the content of the poison ivy articles lead to problems with the talk pages for those articles?05:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantdrew (talk • contribs)

Title of this page should include the English, e.g.,

"Toxicodendron radicans (poison ivy)" so that English speakers will know we are on the right page when we land here.

Control section, perhaps?

A section on control of poison ivy might be helpful (and I'll do this when I get a little time if someone doesn't do it first). I removed this addition to "Distribution and Habitat" because it did not seem to fit there, and it lacks a source: It is difficult to destroy especially when it is on plants or in plant beds. Sprays are effective, but will also damage even kill the existing shrubs. A good source for this sort of material might be: FEIS, the link to which I've repaired in the article. -- Scray (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

In this sentence: "Identification by experienced people is often made difficult by leaf damage, the plant's leafless condition during winter, and unusual growth forms" the word "experienced" seems to me inappropriate. Probably should be "unexperienced" instead.94.69.226.18 (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Wording - identification

In this sentence: "Identification by experienced people is often made difficult by leaf damage, the plant's leafless condition during winter, and unusual growth forms" the word "experienced" seems to me inappropriate. Probably should be "unexperienced" instead.94.69.226.18 (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Further Work on the "Identification" Section Would Be Appreciated

Undoubtedly, a great many people find themselves reading this article because they want to learn how to reliably identify poison ivy. To that end, the following would be very helpful:

A diagram or clear photograph depicting the "cluster of three leaflets" on a "single stem attached to the main vine" (I'd recommend taking a photo into an image editor, and indicating these characteristics with a stroked outline)
A photograph showing what is meant by a "hairy vine"
A photograph or diagram showing what is meant by "alternate leaf distribution" (even after following the given link, I still have no idea what this means)

99.251.154.40 (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

False Identifitation

A photo linked in the article does not appear to be of poison ivy - poison ivy has semi-serrate leaves and it is a vine. The photo in question seems to be of a type of tree with 3 ovate leaves per stem.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rw63phi (talk • contribs) 19:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

False information about cleanup

The recommendation not to use hot water is based on the myth that hot water or steam opens pores. http://www.besthealthmag.ca/best-looks/skin/myths-and-truths-about-your-pores/ http://health.howstuffworks.com/skin-care/cleansing/myths/pores-in-hotter-water.htm http://www.everydayhealth.com/columns/ava-shamban-your-skin-and-your-health/in-hot-water/

In addition, the link given is to a page on the Tecnu website, which markets Tecnu Extreme, a homeopathic product.

From the Homeopathy page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy "Homeopathy is a pseudoscience – a belief that is incorrectly presented as scientific. Homeopathic preparations are not effective for treating any condition..."

The Tecnu site promotes its homeopathic remedy in the FAQ section, stating that it is a homeopathic plant, and that they recommend pregnant or nursing women to consult their doctor before using the product, as if it were a legitimate drug with possible side effects.

173.76.247.81 (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Toxicodendron radicans. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 05:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Toxicodendron radicans. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090605182107/http://www.aad.org/public/publications/pamphlets/skin_poison.html to http://www.aad.org/public/publications/pamphlets/skin_poison.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 14:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Further work on Treatment section would be appreciated

Presently, the Treatment section consists of only six sentences. In summary, it advises 1) washing before a person knows if they have developed a rash, and 2) trying to soothe the symptom of itchiness while the rash proceeds to spread and attack the body over a 1 to 4 week period. In other words, by the time an afflicted person knows that they have it, then it is apparently too late to do anything to fight the spread, duration, or intensity of the outbreak. Is that true? There is nothing that addresses this. From my perspective, this might be one of the most important aspects of the entire article. I do not have answers for this; I assume that there must be protocols that have been employed to reduce the course and severity of the affliction, once it has commenced.

This is my first post. I hope it is appropriate. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1400:C2C3:8539:5582:FC0C:710D (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have now learned considerably more about treatment possibilities to reduce the duration and severity of an outbreak. I went ahead and actually added it to the Wiki page. I learned this via going for treatment myself. (It made an amazing difference. I had an outbreak the prior year which lasted 3 1/2 weeks.) I am not sure how to provide appropriate documentation references. I am also not sure if it is appropriate to include actual drug names. In my view, this could, at least for many people, be the most important part of the article. I hope it is not watered-down in any needed editing, to the point that it is considerably less useful. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1400:C2C3:D4B8:C231:38A1:394D (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)