This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 400 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances:
|
On 24 May 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to PFAS. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 400 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Echoing the previous comment, the page provides a Table titled "Probable links to health issues as identified by the C8 Science Panel." The Table lists position papers that did not meet the quality standards for publication in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, and thus were self-published by C8SciencePanel.org. C8SciencePanel.org is registered anonymously, but appears to be owned by a plaintiff's law firm with a financial interest in PFAS litigation. Wikipedia's editorial standards say that content "must be verifiable." The C8SciencePanel.org position papers are not verifiable. That Table should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.212.40 ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the necessity of hanging a "vague" tag on the sentence: Hypothyroidism is the most common thyroid abnormality associated with[vague] PFAS exposure. ...especially, as a citation reference is given for that sentence. The entire point of the article is that there are undetermined correlations without established causality or mechanism; connections have been documented without the exact nature of them being known. This, necessarily, falls into the territory of "vagueness". Therefore, there is no reason to cast doubt upon a simple, self-evident statement (one which has a reference) by hanging a "vague" tag on it. Discussion? rowley ( talk) 04:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
One thing that struck me in this article, nowhere does it say that:
or
and without that... It is just empty words, just saying PFAS are bad. Come on, give the quantities! (or did i miss that in the article?) 45.94.119.246 ( talk) 09:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 March 2023 and 25 July 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CapstoneEditor1 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by JMgeorgetown ( talk) 21:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
The diagram under Health and Environmental Concerns, which appears to be an original creation for this article (based on information from the five citations in the caption), has "low sperm count and mobility" pointing towards the pregnant woman. Mistake, or just an odd choice (pointing to the fetus because it relates to reproductive health)? Or is it saying that children exposed in the womb grow up to have low sperm counts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.120.15.219 ( talk) 20:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. ( closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 18:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances → PFAS – Per WP:COMMONNAME, the full length chemical name is unknown by virtually everyone. PhotographyEdits ( talk) 10:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 14:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title.As a chemist, I know that PFAS relates to polyfluorinated substances, but honestly was not aware the full formal name relating to the acronym was "Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance". So, the naming convention guideline seems to weight in support of using the acronym as the title, since that is what most people recognize as the title of the subject. That said, these are taken on a case by case basis and consensus can explicitly reject use of the acronym (e.g. Central Intelligence Agency instead of CIA, the example given at WP:NCA). I agree with Leyo that similar classes of chemical contaminants have traditionally not used acronyms/initialisms for article titles, suggesting we should not here, per WP:TITLECON. I am currently on the fence about which consideration should carry more weight. And as Mike Turnbull points out, regardless of outcome here, the general issue of how we handle the titles of our various articles on classes of organofluorine compounds needs some consideration in the linked discussion, given the overlapping content and potentially ambiguous terminology. Mdewman6 ( talk) 19:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 19:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The content in articles in Wikipedia should be written as far as possible for the widest possible general audience.
Indeed, we should strive for the content to become more understandable for a general audience (suggestions are welcome). However, this does not involve the title. --
Leyo 19:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm far from an experienced editor, but I have a concern that there are parts of this article that read like a polemic. Just one particularly egregious (and not particularly well-written) example - "Chemical corporations that produce PFAS pocket approximately an annual $4 billion in profits from the production of this chemical but they impose monumental costs on tax payers and the health of the planet's population."
Is this appropriate? Hank Stamper ( talk) 08:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Any claim that PFAS "costs" the world economy 17.5 trillion dollars annually is patently absurd. Such an estimate might be fit for the worst-case scenarios associated with unmitigated climate change. I believe this section should be deleted, or at least the source of this figure should be removed. Rsfadia ( talk) 20:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Bon courage: Would you be happy with the reference used in Gestational hypertension#cite_ref-Lo2013_4-0? Leyo 19:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that you have now removed the remaining parts of the section Pregnancy-induced hypertension and pre-eclampsia. The following review articles might be helpful to draft a short section on that matter:
-- Leyo 22:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
This section was removed with the inappropriate comment "rmv. garbage". There are two 2023 review articles that cover at least major parts of the content:
Leyo 19:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
I have reintroduced a paragraph in this section [2] improving some content that had been removed in the past [3]. @ Bon courage I see you reverted it simply stating "Primary sourcing". What do you mean exactly? The source is a high quality source as far as I can tell https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10237242/ and the sourcing should be appropriate per WP:MEDRS for that kind of information. {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 19:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Drawing on the work of Bero and White [37], we deduced six codes from the cross-industry strategies of manipulation that researchers previously established to see whether the same practices emerge among the PFAS industry.. The codes were for example:
“manipulation of the research question to obtain predetermined results; funding and publishing research that supports industry interests; suppressing unfavorable research; distorting the public discourse about research; changing or setting scientific standards to serve corporate interests;"etc. They then used those codes to simply tag the documents they were reviewing to categorise them:
We then analyzed the documents, coding for each of these strategies. This falls well within the scope of WP:SECONDARY. If you don't have further concerns would you self-revert? {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 20:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
A new documentary that was released a few days ago may be considered to be mentioned in the article: The Forever Chemical Scandal | Bloomberg Investigates 77.58.7.44 ( talk) 21:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
In my view, this addition would need to be condensed considerably. The text includes general information on bioaccumulation and biomagnification. -- Leyo 22:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GregRR1 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Lindseybean28 ( talk) 21:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
The sections "Economic role" and "Estimated contemporary costs" partly cover the same topic. What about merging the contents in a section called "Socio-economic role"? 195.176.112.14 ( talk) 20:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Which section does this go under? ‘This is Chernobyl’: Texas ranchers say ‘forever chemicals’ in waste-based fertilizers ruined their land Hcobb ( talk) 18:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Other than Teflon, that list isn't particularly meaningful to a non-chemist. Maybe list common products that contain these chemicals? 57.135.233.22 ( talk) 13:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 400 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances:
|
On 24 May 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to PFAS. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 400 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Echoing the previous comment, the page provides a Table titled "Probable links to health issues as identified by the C8 Science Panel." The Table lists position papers that did not meet the quality standards for publication in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, and thus were self-published by C8SciencePanel.org. C8SciencePanel.org is registered anonymously, but appears to be owned by a plaintiff's law firm with a financial interest in PFAS litigation. Wikipedia's editorial standards say that content "must be verifiable." The C8SciencePanel.org position papers are not verifiable. That Table should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.212.40 ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the necessity of hanging a "vague" tag on the sentence: Hypothyroidism is the most common thyroid abnormality associated with[vague] PFAS exposure. ...especially, as a citation reference is given for that sentence. The entire point of the article is that there are undetermined correlations without established causality or mechanism; connections have been documented without the exact nature of them being known. This, necessarily, falls into the territory of "vagueness". Therefore, there is no reason to cast doubt upon a simple, self-evident statement (one which has a reference) by hanging a "vague" tag on it. Discussion? rowley ( talk) 04:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
One thing that struck me in this article, nowhere does it say that:
or
and without that... It is just empty words, just saying PFAS are bad. Come on, give the quantities! (or did i miss that in the article?) 45.94.119.246 ( talk) 09:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 March 2023 and 25 July 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CapstoneEditor1 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by JMgeorgetown ( talk) 21:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
The diagram under Health and Environmental Concerns, which appears to be an original creation for this article (based on information from the five citations in the caption), has "low sperm count and mobility" pointing towards the pregnant woman. Mistake, or just an odd choice (pointing to the fetus because it relates to reproductive health)? Or is it saying that children exposed in the womb grow up to have low sperm counts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.120.15.219 ( talk) 20:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. ( closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/ STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 18:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances → PFAS – Per WP:COMMONNAME, the full length chemical name is unknown by virtually everyone. PhotographyEdits ( talk) 10:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 14:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title.As a chemist, I know that PFAS relates to polyfluorinated substances, but honestly was not aware the full formal name relating to the acronym was "Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance". So, the naming convention guideline seems to weight in support of using the acronym as the title, since that is what most people recognize as the title of the subject. That said, these are taken on a case by case basis and consensus can explicitly reject use of the acronym (e.g. Central Intelligence Agency instead of CIA, the example given at WP:NCA). I agree with Leyo that similar classes of chemical contaminants have traditionally not used acronyms/initialisms for article titles, suggesting we should not here, per WP:TITLECON. I am currently on the fence about which consideration should carry more weight. And as Mike Turnbull points out, regardless of outcome here, the general issue of how we handle the titles of our various articles on classes of organofluorine compounds needs some consideration in the linked discussion, given the overlapping content and potentially ambiguous terminology. Mdewman6 ( talk) 19:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 19:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The content in articles in Wikipedia should be written as far as possible for the widest possible general audience.
Indeed, we should strive for the content to become more understandable for a general audience (suggestions are welcome). However, this does not involve the title. --
Leyo 19:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm far from an experienced editor, but I have a concern that there are parts of this article that read like a polemic. Just one particularly egregious (and not particularly well-written) example - "Chemical corporations that produce PFAS pocket approximately an annual $4 billion in profits from the production of this chemical but they impose monumental costs on tax payers and the health of the planet's population."
Is this appropriate? Hank Stamper ( talk) 08:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Any claim that PFAS "costs" the world economy 17.5 trillion dollars annually is patently absurd. Such an estimate might be fit for the worst-case scenarios associated with unmitigated climate change. I believe this section should be deleted, or at least the source of this figure should be removed. Rsfadia ( talk) 20:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Bon courage: Would you be happy with the reference used in Gestational hypertension#cite_ref-Lo2013_4-0? Leyo 19:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that you have now removed the remaining parts of the section Pregnancy-induced hypertension and pre-eclampsia. The following review articles might be helpful to draft a short section on that matter:
-- Leyo 22:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
This section was removed with the inappropriate comment "rmv. garbage". There are two 2023 review articles that cover at least major parts of the content:
Leyo 19:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
I have reintroduced a paragraph in this section [2] improving some content that had been removed in the past [3]. @ Bon courage I see you reverted it simply stating "Primary sourcing". What do you mean exactly? The source is a high quality source as far as I can tell https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10237242/ and the sourcing should be appropriate per WP:MEDRS for that kind of information. {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 19:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Drawing on the work of Bero and White [37], we deduced six codes from the cross-industry strategies of manipulation that researchers previously established to see whether the same practices emerge among the PFAS industry.. The codes were for example:
“manipulation of the research question to obtain predetermined results; funding and publishing research that supports industry interests; suppressing unfavorable research; distorting the public discourse about research; changing or setting scientific standards to serve corporate interests;"etc. They then used those codes to simply tag the documents they were reviewing to categorise them:
We then analyzed the documents, coding for each of these strategies. This falls well within the scope of WP:SECONDARY. If you don't have further concerns would you self-revert? {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 20:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
A new documentary that was released a few days ago may be considered to be mentioned in the article: The Forever Chemical Scandal | Bloomberg Investigates 77.58.7.44 ( talk) 21:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
In my view, this addition would need to be condensed considerably. The text includes general information on bioaccumulation and biomagnification. -- Leyo 22:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GregRR1 ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Lindseybean28 ( talk) 21:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
The sections "Economic role" and "Estimated contemporary costs" partly cover the same topic. What about merging the contents in a section called "Socio-economic role"? 195.176.112.14 ( talk) 20:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Which section does this go under? ‘This is Chernobyl’: Texas ranchers say ‘forever chemicals’ in waste-based fertilizers ruined their land Hcobb ( talk) 18:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Other than Teflon, that list isn't particularly meaningful to a non-chemist. Maybe list common products that contain these chemicals? 57.135.233.22 ( talk) 13:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)