Talk:Toxicology

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2014 Q4. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Mahidol University International College/ICCH444 (2014-15 T1)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Medicine: Toxicology Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Toxicology task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Chemistry Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biology High‑importance

	Biology portal Toxicology is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment Mid‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Replacing animals

User:Tsailand this dif and this dif are not supported by the NRC report; and the press release from Harvard is not an RS for the major claim you want to make. I added content here using the NRC ref, which is good and interesting. IF you read it, it makes it clear that technologies for replacing animal studies were not here yet, as of the date of that report. Thanks for bringing that. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Jytdog not accepting that the replaced statement is inherently flawed. Living organism...animal organism...or human organism? What is the point of that section? You have removed an essential key message that even the partial human system test is better than the whole living animal test. That revertion twice is totally uncalled for. I would say that you are the one who started the edit war not me. Please STOP reverting. Tsailand (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

In WIkipdia, content has to be supported by reliable sources. The content you added was not supported by reliable sources, as I mentioned above. You have to follow the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia if you want to work here. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Jytdog not accepting that the replaced statement is inherently flawed. Living organism...animal organism...or human organism? What is the point of that section? You have removed an essential key message that even the partial human system test is better than the whole living animal test. That revertion twice is totally uncalled for. I would say that you are the one who started the edit war not me. Please STOP reverting.

Furthermore, what does "not there yet" mean? The getting there part is still already better that the whole animal test and torture, and is something. I am sick to the stomach of the smug dismisiveness in the face of smug acceptance of cruelty, not to mention promotion of it. Tsailand (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you follow it? You haven't answered the above question. What do you mean "not there yet" and what is the point of that section? What is it saying? That the whole living animal test should be done for the sake of itself? What is the purpose of getting the data. What for...animal or human? Which living organism? Where is YOUR proof? Tsailand (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the sources in the article make clear, technologies (like those described in the Harvard press release) are not yet validated and widely used as replacements for animal studies... yet. Animal studies are still the best thing we have. This is what the sources in the article say. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have now added the same content a third time. Content must actually be supported by the source you provide. What page of the NRC report supports the content you have added? Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You must note that the "article" you mention has a conflict of interest. Notice the word "best thing." How can comparing apples and oranges be better than comparing oranges with oranges? You need to be careful about who posts what and what their sources are. Was it an elementary school project? You need to read the whole report before revering people's postings. Seriously you are breaking the rules yourself, and several of them, too. Tsailand (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you have not engaged at all here on Talk. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the material again, and another editor has also removed it. The original version should remain in place until (and if) a consensus is reached to change it. I don't see a problem with the original version. The subsection is discussing animal testing and the current state of affairs. Alternate test methods are discussed in the following subsection, which would seem to be a better place for the new material if it is to be included.

I can't access either source right now, but the original is much more recent than the proposed new ref. Is the new ref (the 2007 NRC report) available online? Meters (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes it is - everything the NAP puts out, they make free as a pdf online and as a physical book you can buy - here is the ref in the article to make it easy -- National Research Council (2007). Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. National Academies Press. ISBN 9780309151733. Lay summary -- Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not going to read all 200 plus pages. Unless Tsailand wishes to provide specific page numbers to back up the edits I'm going to have to go with with my impressions from a brief scan and searching for certain phrases. The document is almost 10 years old, and it was not discussing the current state of testing as much as the desired new toxicity-testing paradigm. Table 2-1 on pg 44 is particularly germane. Option III, the goal for 10 to 20 years after the report, is only mostly human testing (in vitro and in vivo). Option IV, the desired final goal of in vitro human testing does not even have a targeted timeline, and even it does not envision the complete elimination of animal testing. I don't see how this document can be used to support the claims made. Meters (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yep. the society for tox site referenced in the article is the most recent thing (from 2014) that we have. toxicologists would love to stop doing animal studies but there is nothing as good ....yet. nobody loves doing that. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Toxicology. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 01:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed addition to: Toxicology-Incidents

Can an educated individual please add a short but informative section covering the very recent US Baby Formula Shortage spurred by the bacteria Cronobacter sakazakii? If this isn't the correct talk section to mention this, can somebody please direct me to the proper area? JimBob128 (talk) 06:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)JB[reply]

Request for Comment: Has the article been updated since the issues were first noted?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No Action Qutlooker (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issues that have been listed on the article for the last ten years. Has these been resolved yet or are the notices still needed to be listed.? Qutlooker (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qutlook: Per WP:RFCBEFORE, please show where this has been discussed recently, and that a deadlock has been reached. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there has since been no discussion on the subject matter at hand. It seems also that no one patrols this page often to offer a discussion that would seemingly go nowhere. Qutlooker (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are four WikiProject banners at the top, some have additional taskforces named. How abour dropping notes at the talk pages for those WikiProjects and taskforces? Templates such as {{fyi}} and {{subst:please see}} are available for this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.