Talk:Toxicodendron diversilobum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Toxicodendron diversilobum is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Hyphenated name 2 Link Deletion > See history 3 Deleted poison oak link 4 How do we ascertain what an external site "might" have later? 5 Ascertaining what an external site "might" have later? 6 The other side of the credibility coin 7 Obsolete link 8 The Berries 9 Content quality 10 quote

[edit] Hyphenated name

See Talk:Toxicodendron#Hyphenation for my proposal to remove hyphenation. Elf | Talk 16:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's hypenated to show clearly that it isn't a species of Quercus (Fagaceae), which is otherwise implied by the name 'oak'. Compare e.g. Douglas-fir, Osage-orange, etc. - MPF 10:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See response in Talk:Toxicodendron. Elf | Talk 15:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Link Deletion > See history

[edit] Deleted poison oak link

Why the deletion of the Poison oak page link to the "arborist" website?

The photos are better in quality - McGraw Hill even requested to use one in a medical book.

The deleted link was http://www.mdvaden.com/poison_oak.shtml

One good value in the page, is the added image resource. It would serve as a better image reference, at least until the Wikipedia page gains images that are clear enough for positive ID.

The page should also contain a couple of winter pics within the next two weeks. One at a distance to show form, and another close-up to show buds and branching (alternating versus opposing) pattern.

Wasn't sure how to add a comment in this discussion area, so added this in an edit: still viewable.

Mdvaden 07:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want these images included in Wikipedia, upload higher resolution copies under some sort of public domain license to Wikipedia. Whether or not these images "are better in quality" is moot as long as they are tiny thumbnails. You can't even tell what the trunk is in that image, from anything in the article or caption, as it simply looks like the vegetation-covered vine of any woody plant in the world, the red leaves on the bottom are shot at an odd angle so that you can't see the distinctive mitten thumbs, and we alredy have a small image of the leaves. The site contains what appears to be original research, or is not tied to verifiable scientific resources. All of these reasons together require that the site be deleted from Wikipedia. Please see WP:NOR for starters. We also can't include the link because of what the site might contain in the future. Wikipedia links must be to stable, verifiable, and credible sites. KP Botany 19:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

PS To add a new discussion click on the '+' tab above and it will give you a screen where you can insert a title and text. KP Botany 19:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How do we ascertain what an external site "might" have later?

Duplicated post. But, I found the plus symbol.

Mdvaden 03:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ascertaining what an external site "might" have later?

Looking at the Dematology Acadamy site for example - which is not a school - what factors determine that it won't change?

The second external link after it, is quite interesting - definitely unique.

There are two aspects to the subject of credibility, at least with poison oak. There is a medical side, and a horticultural side. For example, many medical professionals are trained about chemical and health issues. Their plant identification and horticulture training may not be existent or certified.

On the Academy link is "Poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac grow almost everywhere in the United States".

Factually, that's not credible. Poison oak rarely grows above 5000 feet elevation, and also does not grow at many places under 5000 feet elevation. So it does not grow "almost everywhere" in the United States.

The same page states that "Western poison oak needs a great deal of water".

That is incorrect. In Washington, it grows on the rock face of Beacon Rock in the Columbia River Gorge: including the west face exposed to the sunset. There is hardly any soil on that side of the monolith. In southern Oregon, it grows by Medford on the rocky dry slopes of Table Rock. Medford is a dry climate with not much more than 19 inches of rain per year.

When we think about it, if they were right about the "great deal of water", that would eliminate even more of the "everywhere" in the United States, that the site says the plant grows. It has content that undermines other content.

Most information pertaining to the health problems appears right. The difficulty pertains to the non-medical part - the plant related information.

How do you feel about those statements?

The questionable information is associated with subject matter that the sources appear to lack credentials for.

Mdvaden 03:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you are saying here. The AAD is a professional organization whose members deal extensively with the treatment of rashes from this plant. Dermatologists are the primary researchers in rashes from these plants, also. So, what precisely are you disagreeing with, apparently you say that Poison oak is rare, it grows commonly neither above nor below 5000'? What is your source for this? You say poison oak grows on thin soils, then challenge it. I'm just not following you? KP Botany 04:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think what Mdvaden is getting at here is that there are some external links that contain excellent and credible information on one area of a subject, these same links contain misinformation on other areas of the subject. For example, the webpage in question (http://www.aad.org/public/Publications/pamphlets/Poison_IvyOakSumac.htm) has lots of info on dermatology issues related to three taxa, information which is likely reliable considering the site is the American Academy of Dermatology. Some of the botanical and habitat info on this same site, however, is often somewhat inaccurate (or vague) as Mdvaden pointed out. I think the issue here is not whether or not this particular link should be listed, but how best to deal with external links that have high credibility for some info but low credibility for other information. Maybe this could be indicated when the link is made (Ex: Dermatology information from the AAD; Botanical overview page, USDA; etc.).--NoahElhardt 06:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You are getting close! I'm even saying that the dermatologist site compromised it's credibility with the innacurate information about poison oak. Also, the second link, under it, by what appears to be a single physician, seems much more thorough. One idea, may be to delete the association's link, until they correct their page, and place the University of California's poison oak page there instead. That way, there will be one remaining medical resource - which is 10 times more thorough - plus one respected horticulture resource.Mdvaden 07:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You may have been there, but check this other link authored by the professor at PESG page by Assistant Professor. That's the other external link. Look at the range map for WESTERN poison oak. That's right on the money and in agreement with the U. of C.. It leaves me curious about how the dermatologist association came up with a diverse conclusion? There is a difference between the two websites. Anyone else noticed? The more complete page is on a site that's designed for education. It's a CEU and education site. The acadamy site promotes itself, and steers people to it's members. That's part of the reason why the information is written differently.Mdvaden 07:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to review the dermatologists' site. However, if both you and Noah see that the information is inaccurate, please just delete the link, for now. Thanks. I will try to remember to review it later, but doubt I'll have the time. KP Botany 00:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The other side of the credibility coin

After the last post about credibility and innacurate information, consider this written statment: "Poison oak can survive under a wide range of temperatures, elevations, soil types, moisture conditions, and light intensities. However, it is most commonly found on hillsides with shallow soils. The flowers of poison oak are usually pollinated by insects."

Thats from the University of California: AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES - Integrated Pest Management Note the chasm between the cultural conditons it lists, and what the Dematology Academy page lists. The University of California is one of the sources I relied on, because it is credible and accurate - for the horticultural / botanical information. I haven't scrutinized the non-botanical statements. It may be that words like "serum" are figurative rather than literal pertaining to the ooze from skin.

U. of C. also lists its resource list at the bottom.

One thing that presents itself here, is that its okay for someone to expand their page outside their expertise, like a doctor including information about plants and plant ID. Or like a university's agriculture department including information about health and medical information. But if they do that, they are 100% obligated to keep their pages impeccably accurate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mdvaden (talk • contribs) 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Mdvaden 07:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, correct. Try to remember the four tildas, or use the scrawl above--I still forget it on occassion, though. KP Botany 00:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obsolete link

The link to the New England Journal of Medicine article about the interaction between poison-oak and mango now results in an error page rather than an article. Is there a stable source for this article, or will the magazine only provide it to subscribers? Sbeitzel 17:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The whole statement seems rather misleading. I found a correct link to the article and it refers to a single case where a patient who was sensitized to poison oak received a rash after handling a mango. This is probably a result of the mango peel, which contains very small amounts of urushiol, the same substance found in poison oak (see Mango). This doesn't mean that eating the fruit itself is likely to magnify the effects of poison oak. I'm going to go ahead and remove the statement. --203.214.34.254 18:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Berries

They showed us a picture of the berries, but they didn't tell us what would happen if we ate the berries. Or what effect they would have on skin. Ergo: Do the have the berries have the same oils as the plant it's self? This section needs improvement!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonology1 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Content quality

Much of this read like a third-grade paper. I tried to remove big problems and unfounded statements (military use of urushiol). It needs more work.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.248.172.5 (talk • contribs)

[edit] quote

The quotation part appears very unprofessional. I think it should be removed Bigbadbyte (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)