Talk:Bisphenol S
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Boston College/Environmental Disruptors of Development (Spring 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
Health effects
There has been a claim by NGO Greenpeace that this compound is probably "just as unhealthy" as Bisphenol-A: http://www.sigwatch.com/index.php?id=130&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=821&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=26&cHash=7d3f42e9eb
Also, a separate source confirms this view: http://health-med-news.com/health/bisphenol-s-also-toxic/
The only scientific report I could find on the matter claims "BPS poses a lower risk to human health and to the environment than BPA or BPF but it is not amenable to biodegradation and might be persistent and become an ecological burden.": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2681201/ I will attempt to add this issue to the article. PTrend (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Googling will always give you health advice and reams of info on toxicity. Such information is seductively easy to add to an article since little technical expertise is required to insert "health news". And adding such info makes editors feel like they are doing good, but the quality of the information is unclear. What is also unclear is authoritativeness of Greenpeace, their noble reputation notwithstanding. And .com sources are not reliable for health information - seeWP:SECONDARY and WP:MEDRS. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure you're right. That would still leave the paper, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2681201/ Wouldn't want to take over but merely state that such concerns exist and, if any evidence exists, what it is. I will refrain from edits for now. Have removed ref tags as this seemed to make links break. PTrend (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick note. :Well I am not in charge here, just experienced, so do what you want. But I agree that something should be said, but to err toward brevity. Happy editing. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violations
I removed a bunch of them. There may be more. User:Bridget1957, User:Yogi44, User:Tiernesteph, you have been active in adding content here; I did not yet look at which account added the material I noticed, but as a group project, you will want to work together to make sure to avoid repeating this problem. I assume you were given information about how to write content for Wikipedia; please talk to your professor, teaching assistants, or leave a note here if you have any doubts or concerns about this or other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. DMacks (talk) 05:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- I noticed how sloppy this was yesterday and started to go through it. Thanks for detecting the copy vios before I put any more time into it. It's hard to believe that these are college students at work here. Or maybe not so hard, as it seems to be the rule rather than the exception, in my experience in student editing. Gandydancer (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- In a post below the instructor says, "...it would help us a lot if you would give them explicit, non-bitey (WP:BITE) feedback so they can quickly correct their additions." DMacks' note above was not at all bitey and deserved a reply from the students so that editors would realize that it was noted and that the students were working on it. Students need to understand that not infrequently even the addition of one or two words can take a whole page of talk discussion. When no student reply followed DMacks' note and there were no further improvements to the article, it was my impression that the students were being arrogant or had lost interest. The instructors need to explain how important talk pages are to the editing process and why it's important to respond. Gandydancer (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- User:Bridget1957 did it again, so I undid it all again and placed the standard warning on her talkpage about it. A repeat of this behavior will lead to having edit privileges revoked...probably not the way you want to proceed if you want to pass your class rather than getting academic sanctions for academic dishonesty. DMacks (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- In a post below the instructor says, "...it would help us a lot if you would give them explicit, non-bitey (WP:BITE) feedback so they can quickly correct their additions." DMacks' note above was not at all bitey and deserved a reply from the students so that editors would realize that it was noted and that the students were working on it. Students need to understand that not infrequently even the addition of one or two words can take a whole page of talk discussion. When no student reply followed DMacks' note and there were no further improvements to the article, it was my impression that the students were being arrogant or had lost interest. The instructors need to explain how important talk pages are to the editing process and why it's important to respond. Gandydancer (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Peer Review
Hi!
I think your page is off to a great start but just needs more information. I think the toxicity section can be expanded to include more and its effects on being a toxic chemical. For the history section, you have stated that there are everyday products that contain bisphenol S--I think that more information on these products and specific examples would be beneficial to add. Under the regulation section, I think that specific examples of cases where it has been prohibited or allowed in certain quantities would be a great addition. I thought the synthesis section with the organic chemistry was a great addition to the page.Kieradkeller27 (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)kieradkeller27
- Hi Kieradkeller27, are you a student instructor? Gandydancer (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Gandydancer. Kieradkeller is a student in my Environmental Disruptors of Development class. The final task of the course is for students to provide reviews of their class colleague's additions to a WP page. You are welcome to check out our course timeline on the course page Environmental Disruptors of Development. In this case, Kieradkeller27 has been tasked with reviewing the work that several other students have attempted to perform on the BPS page. We appreciate so much attention from Wikipedians, and we realize that their first additions to the page were based too heavily on references from popular science articles (this was essentially because there isn't much yet in the secondary literature (scientific reviews, etc) on BPS because its use in products as a substitute for BPA is relatively recent). They have been reworking their material to add in primary literature references because this is the richest and obviously the most valid source of information. I am helping them interpret these primary literatures articles, and have scientific expertise in this area. They should be posting this material soon, and communicating on the talk page about their efforts. Given the steep learning curve of editing on Wikipedia, it would help us a lot if you would give them explicit, non-bitey (WP:BITE) feedback so they can quickly correct their additions. The format of this course, and the entire outline with various deadlines has been developed through close work with the Wiki Education foundation. This includes the peer review of the pages by other students in the class. These are 'peers' of the students that have done the work, obviously, and not scientists that work in the field (which has been the case when I submit my research for publication in a scientific journal). Hakeleh (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- It is very good to find an instructor that I can talk with as I would very much like to turn this into a good article as well. As I said yesterday at the Psychological resilience article which is also being worked on by several students, I really have to wonder if the instructors realize what a difficult task they are expecting of their green students. I find it hard and I've been here since 2006. I started going through this article on April 4 and found the usual sloppiness and repetitiveness that I almost always find when students do work. See here: [1] how it jerks back and forth using BPA, Bisphenol A, and bisphenol A rather than sticking to one, and its uses mentioned in all five paras rather than group uses into one para. I planned to do more work but another editor came along and deleted almost the entire student work. Since in my experience the students that I've come across sometimes do terrible editing and do not respond at all well to established editors who attempt to help them, I assumed that the revert was justified. That said, it did bother me and yesterday I did begin to try to take another look at the student's work and why it was all deleted. The first thing I came across was this rather suspicious wording, " Even at very low levels, BPS triggered an enzyme cascade normally activated by an estrogen called estradiol, an effect also seen with BPA. The results were typical of those expected of an estrogen mimic: inappropriate activation of estrogen responses, disruption of normal estrogen-response pathways, and eventual cell death.[12]", and sure enough it's a total copy vio. But I'd sure like to see you get together with your students and put something together here. IMO the instructors may need to learn more about editing, not just the students. I look forward to more discussion. As for sourcing, I'm not at all surprised that you are running into problems as it is possibly one of the most diffiult problems that environmental editors run into, myself included. I'm going to ping WhatamIdoing who has a great deal of sourcing experience to offer advise to you. Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- To be candid, I'm feeling a bit pessimistic about the chances for success here. High-traffic articles on contentious subjects are never going to provide a friendly introduction to editing. But if you still want to try this, then your best bet would be to use a review article (or three) from a top-tier medical journal. The material presented should be close enough to the original that even the most die-hard WP:POV pusher cannot claim that the material is not supported by the source, but far enough away from WP:COPYVIO and WP:Close paraphrasing that s/he also can't revert it on grounds of plagiarism or copyright. For bonus points, the citation should include a direct link to PMID (it's a magic word: use the
|pmid=parameter in a citation template, or type PMID 123456789 in plain old text to get the link) so that nobody will hassle the student about making other editors look up the source themselves. - But seriously, I wouldn't recommend this article, just like I wouldn't recommend trying to edit Israeli–Palestinian conflict to students. If the subject causes fights in the real world, it usually causes fights here, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you both for your advice and input here Gandydancer WhatamIdoing! I'm sorry I didn't catch the copyvio. Too much going on (a lame excuse, I know). Will be including much more explicit instruction on this next time around. For BPS, we'd love to find review articles, but haven't- BPS is too new on the scene. I thought that maybe BPS wasn't yet at the same level as the BPA editing fray. Silly me. Have already chatted with Wiki Education foundation about emphasizing coaching of students to interact with editor comments directly from the beginning - they've changed their training for students to reflect this, and I'll be doing much more of this early on in the course, too. Thanks again for your input! Hakeleh (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note Hakeleh. BTW, I looked at your instructional page for students and IMO you really did a great job, though perhaps as you say more info re talk pages would help...perhaps more on copy vio too... As far as the actual information, it goes with out saying that you know more about endocrine/chemical problems than any of us, but editing difficulties is something else. As WhatamIdoing said, this is a contentious area and a hard one for you to take on. This is what you will find at all of the WP articles that deal with chemicals and the environment. I'm in the middle of another big battle about the use of primary sources at the atrazine article right now. Good luck with your class, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you both for your advice and input here Gandydancer WhatamIdoing! I'm sorry I didn't catch the copyvio. Too much going on (a lame excuse, I know). Will be including much more explicit instruction on this next time around. For BPS, we'd love to find review articles, but haven't- BPS is too new on the scene. I thought that maybe BPS wasn't yet at the same level as the BPA editing fray. Silly me. Have already chatted with Wiki Education foundation about emphasizing coaching of students to interact with editor comments directly from the beginning - they've changed their training for students to reflect this, and I'll be doing much more of this early on in the course, too. Thanks again for your input! Hakeleh (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- To be candid, I'm feeling a bit pessimistic about the chances for success here. High-traffic articles on contentious subjects are never going to provide a friendly introduction to editing. But if you still want to try this, then your best bet would be to use a review article (or three) from a top-tier medical journal. The material presented should be close enough to the original that even the most die-hard WP:POV pusher cannot claim that the material is not supported by the source, but far enough away from WP:COPYVIO and WP:Close paraphrasing that s/he also can't revert it on grounds of plagiarism or copyright. For bonus points, the citation should include a direct link to PMID (it's a magic word: use the
- It is very good to find an instructor that I can talk with as I would very much like to turn this into a good article as well. As I said yesterday at the Psychological resilience article which is also being worked on by several students, I really have to wonder if the instructors realize what a difficult task they are expecting of their green students. I find it hard and I've been here since 2006. I started going through this article on April 4 and found the usual sloppiness and repetitiveness that I almost always find when students do work. See here: [1] how it jerks back and forth using BPA, Bisphenol A, and bisphenol A rather than sticking to one, and its uses mentioned in all five paras rather than group uses into one para. I planned to do more work but another editor came along and deleted almost the entire student work. Since in my experience the students that I've come across sometimes do terrible editing and do not respond at all well to established editors who attempt to help them, I assumed that the revert was justified. That said, it did bother me and yesterday I did begin to try to take another look at the student's work and why it was all deleted. The first thing I came across was this rather suspicious wording, " Even at very low levels, BPS triggered an enzyme cascade normally activated by an estrogen called estradiol, an effect also seen with BPA. The results were typical of those expected of an estrogen mimic: inappropriate activation of estrogen responses, disruption of normal estrogen-response pathways, and eventual cell death.[12]", and sure enough it's a total copy vio. But I'd sure like to see you get together with your students and put something together here. IMO the instructors may need to learn more about editing, not just the students. I look forward to more discussion. As for sourcing, I'm not at all surprised that you are running into problems as it is possibly one of the most diffiult problems that environmental editors run into, myself included. I'm going to ping WhatamIdoing who has a great deal of sourcing experience to offer advise to you. Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's really concerning to me that your students here cannot distinguish between facts and opinions or personal perspectives, and their implications for writing a neutral encyclopedia vs an essay that takes a stand. I have for the N'th time removed content along the lines of "the public thinks this because that and therefore something" when only "something" is supported by refs. DMacks (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
For the now N+1th time, I'm clearing out seealso links that are against that guideline: items discussed in the article, and items that are cherry-picked examples of larger groups that are also linked there. I have been told students received instructions on content/style guidelines and how to collaborate. I advise that they read and follow them, lest they be blocked for inability to follow basic rules. DMacks (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- User:Yogi44, you were already specifically warned about non-discussion/edit-warring late last month, and previous discussions on this talk-page should have gotten a response from various members of your group. DMacks (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Comparative Developmental Biology
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 21 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shermanmccarthy (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by 21muabf (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)