This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Organophosphate article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have removed some rather biased matter which is not in agreement with the majority of scientists. It was about BSE, I suggest that until the editors who added the comments can offer up some evidence to support their I quote
'An organic farmer, Mark Purdy discovered that BSE and type-3 CJD is caused not by a new form of infection called a prion but is caused by poisoning by organo-phosphate fertilisers. {{DiseaseDisorder infobox | '
See [1] for a counterblast aginst this point of view
Cadmium 20:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I find your comments do not adhere to wikipedia's "neutral point of veiw" policy and that both side of an aurgument should be presented for the reader. If you have evidence that "the majority of scientists" agree with your point of view please provide it. Apart from that comments relating to OP's relationship with BSE are irrelevent and inapropriate within the context of this article.
Either both sides should be presented or neither side !
I hate to quote your own reference but . ."the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."( WP:NPOVUW) : If majority scientific views were treated as fact, and it was allright not to bring the point of view of small minorities - the world would still be flat ! I am not disagreeing with policy - only your interpretation of it.
Origional Hypothosis of Mark Purdey [2]; Report of Phillips Enquiry [3] - From Findings & Conclusions of Phillips Enquiry - "It remains possible that environmental factors, including toxic chemicals, may additionally be implicated in susceptibility to prion disease." [4] Dlm4473 ( talk · contribs)
No Problem with that, happy with latest edit - i am not trying to push Purdey's hypothosis but i do believe that alternative theories should be given the light of day - letting the reader evaluate the merits of the case for themselves in absence of 'proof'. Statements along the lines of "The organophosphates are not linked to BSE (AKA Mad cow disease)" do little for education or for Wikipedia's credibility. Thanks for your time on this JFW.
I have removed the absurd suggestion that organophosphate compounds are essential to life. In particular the word is not used in the wikipedia article on DNA. DNA is not an organophosphate compound. I strongly suspect that this was added by a troll. John2o2o2o ( talk) 21:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
It would be good if the use of Organophosphate as raticide were cited.
Leo McAllister 16:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
"British scientists experimented with an anticholinergic organophosphate of their own, called diisopropylfluorophosphate (DFP), during" I changed the word anticholinergic to cholinercic because OP's are definitely not anticholinergics.
Isn'd DNA an organophosphate, based on the definition given in this alarmist article? And solvents like trimethylphosphate? And lots of biosynthetic intermediates?-- Smokefoot 03:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
What this article really needs are good sources to back up the definition. I just did a very quick search and didn't find anything definitive, but from a quick search 1) I could not find any referring to DNA and similar biomolecules as organophosphates. 2) All the organophosphates I found were not esters of phosphoric acid, but had P-C or P-S bonds. I suspect that the definition as OP(OR)3 is wrong; while these would obviously be "organic" and "phosphates", they don't seem to take the label "organophosphates", just as not all compounds containing carbon and metals are called "organometallic", but rather require a bond between a metal and carbon or another "organic-like" element. -- Itub 11:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Organophosphates are no longer used by the pest control industry. In fact the best product on the market for ant control (Termidor) is less toxic in it's mixed form than table salt. 68.7.195.20 ( talk) 05:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Should sugar phosphates be included in this article? Albmont ( talk) 13:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Organophosphates ARE NOT organophosphorus compounds as they do not contain any carbon-phosphorus bond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.45.223 ( talk) 07:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have time to update the article, but here is one story on the results of the study. There are a lot more out there published today. [5] -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 21:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Organophosphate. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
To potentially cite:
-- phoebe / ( talk to me) 14:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Kingofaces43 I'd argue that WP:MEDRS applies more to sources about actual medical information, rather than scientific and forensic detection of different types of nerve gases, as there's no way it'd influence someone who was uninformed about the field to make an uninformed decision about the type of nerve gas they were poisoned with. As for the Kim Jong Nam poisoning, it deserves to be in the wikipedia article as I believe readers benefit from reading that, because it demonstrates the most notable recent applications of organophosphate nerve gases.
Also, pretty sure WP:BRD means you don't edit and discuss - reverting with a reason of WP:BRD is funny.
As for the other section, again, if someone's reading the article they'll probably want to know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 ( talk) 17:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
For instance, unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials. doesn't really apply here, as anyone reading it understands that it's preliminary research about distinguishing between types of organophosphates and/or that atropine (mentioned many times in the article) has a moderate level of effectiveness in eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 ( talk) 18:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The article is completely useless in its present form: If the definition of organophosphates in the first paragraph is right and it includes substances in our bodies like DNA and RNA, a clear distinction between the general class and organophosphate pesticides (dangerous substances) needs to be made. If the definition is wrong and excludes most organic substances with phosphate groups, this needs to be changed in the first paragraph!
This is not meant as an insult for the authors, I appreciate the work and the information in the article. But it should be clear what the actual topic/definition is, otherwise the information is not helpful, and might even be misleading or wrong.
The article states that thiophosphoryl esters with the P=S moiety do not inhibit AChE & are not used as insecticides. But the diazinon article identifies it as a thiophosphoryl ester with the =S & it is used as an insecticide. Can anyone clarify? -- D Anthony Patriarche ( talk) 23:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
The article currently states that these compounds can be made via the direct esterification of phosphoric acid:
Seems straightforward enough - but why can I not find a single reference for this reaction? Frustratingly, I also can't find any which state that it's impossible. At a guess, phosphoric acid dehydrates into anhydrides like pyrophosphoric acid much more readily that carboxylic acids do, which might make the process too difficult to bother with? Project Osprey ( talk) 15:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Organophosphate article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have removed some rather biased matter which is not in agreement with the majority of scientists. It was about BSE, I suggest that until the editors who added the comments can offer up some evidence to support their I quote
'An organic farmer, Mark Purdy discovered that BSE and type-3 CJD is caused not by a new form of infection called a prion but is caused by poisoning by organo-phosphate fertilisers. {{DiseaseDisorder infobox | '
See [1] for a counterblast aginst this point of view
Cadmium 20:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I find your comments do not adhere to wikipedia's "neutral point of veiw" policy and that both side of an aurgument should be presented for the reader. If you have evidence that "the majority of scientists" agree with your point of view please provide it. Apart from that comments relating to OP's relationship with BSE are irrelevent and inapropriate within the context of this article.
Either both sides should be presented or neither side !
I hate to quote your own reference but . ."the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."( WP:NPOVUW) : If majority scientific views were treated as fact, and it was allright not to bring the point of view of small minorities - the world would still be flat ! I am not disagreeing with policy - only your interpretation of it.
Origional Hypothosis of Mark Purdey [2]; Report of Phillips Enquiry [3] - From Findings & Conclusions of Phillips Enquiry - "It remains possible that environmental factors, including toxic chemicals, may additionally be implicated in susceptibility to prion disease." [4] Dlm4473 ( talk · contribs)
No Problem with that, happy with latest edit - i am not trying to push Purdey's hypothosis but i do believe that alternative theories should be given the light of day - letting the reader evaluate the merits of the case for themselves in absence of 'proof'. Statements along the lines of "The organophosphates are not linked to BSE (AKA Mad cow disease)" do little for education or for Wikipedia's credibility. Thanks for your time on this JFW.
I have removed the absurd suggestion that organophosphate compounds are essential to life. In particular the word is not used in the wikipedia article on DNA. DNA is not an organophosphate compound. I strongly suspect that this was added by a troll. John2o2o2o ( talk) 21:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
It would be good if the use of Organophosphate as raticide were cited.
Leo McAllister 16:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
"British scientists experimented with an anticholinergic organophosphate of their own, called diisopropylfluorophosphate (DFP), during" I changed the word anticholinergic to cholinercic because OP's are definitely not anticholinergics.
Isn'd DNA an organophosphate, based on the definition given in this alarmist article? And solvents like trimethylphosphate? And lots of biosynthetic intermediates?-- Smokefoot 03:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
What this article really needs are good sources to back up the definition. I just did a very quick search and didn't find anything definitive, but from a quick search 1) I could not find any referring to DNA and similar biomolecules as organophosphates. 2) All the organophosphates I found were not esters of phosphoric acid, but had P-C or P-S bonds. I suspect that the definition as OP(OR)3 is wrong; while these would obviously be "organic" and "phosphates", they don't seem to take the label "organophosphates", just as not all compounds containing carbon and metals are called "organometallic", but rather require a bond between a metal and carbon or another "organic-like" element. -- Itub 11:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Organophosphates are no longer used by the pest control industry. In fact the best product on the market for ant control (Termidor) is less toxic in it's mixed form than table salt. 68.7.195.20 ( talk) 05:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Should sugar phosphates be included in this article? Albmont ( talk) 13:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Organophosphates ARE NOT organophosphorus compounds as they do not contain any carbon-phosphorus bond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.45.223 ( talk) 07:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have time to update the article, but here is one story on the results of the study. There are a lot more out there published today. [5] -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 21:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Organophosphate. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
To potentially cite:
-- phoebe / ( talk to me) 14:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Kingofaces43 I'd argue that WP:MEDRS applies more to sources about actual medical information, rather than scientific and forensic detection of different types of nerve gases, as there's no way it'd influence someone who was uninformed about the field to make an uninformed decision about the type of nerve gas they were poisoned with. As for the Kim Jong Nam poisoning, it deserves to be in the wikipedia article as I believe readers benefit from reading that, because it demonstrates the most notable recent applications of organophosphate nerve gases.
Also, pretty sure WP:BRD means you don't edit and discuss - reverting with a reason of WP:BRD is funny.
As for the other section, again, if someone's reading the article they'll probably want to know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 ( talk) 17:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
For instance, unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials. doesn't really apply here, as anyone reading it understands that it's preliminary research about distinguishing between types of organophosphates and/or that atropine (mentioned many times in the article) has a moderate level of effectiveness in eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.156.233.252 ( talk) 18:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The article is completely useless in its present form: If the definition of organophosphates in the first paragraph is right and it includes substances in our bodies like DNA and RNA, a clear distinction between the general class and organophosphate pesticides (dangerous substances) needs to be made. If the definition is wrong and excludes most organic substances with phosphate groups, this needs to be changed in the first paragraph!
This is not meant as an insult for the authors, I appreciate the work and the information in the article. But it should be clear what the actual topic/definition is, otherwise the information is not helpful, and might even be misleading or wrong.
The article states that thiophosphoryl esters with the P=S moiety do not inhibit AChE & are not used as insecticides. But the diazinon article identifies it as a thiophosphoryl ester with the =S & it is used as an insecticide. Can anyone clarify? -- D Anthony Patriarche ( talk) 23:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
The article currently states that these compounds can be made via the direct esterification of phosphoric acid:
Seems straightforward enough - but why can I not find a single reference for this reaction? Frustratingly, I also can't find any which state that it's impossible. At a guess, phosphoric acid dehydrates into anhydrides like pyrophosphoric acid much more readily that carboxylic acids do, which might make the process too difficult to bother with? Project Osprey ( talk) 15:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)