Talk:DDT#Major split into seperate articles
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Chemicals|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Mid|toxicology=yes|toxicology-imp=high}}
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health |importance = Mid}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 7
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(120d)
|archive = Talk:DDT/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archive box | auto=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=120}}
I don't think we should have a refs section but here it is
{{reflist}}
In popular culture
Hello {{ping|Yilloslime}} You removed[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DDT&diff=1107406091&oldid=1107286794] the Popular culture section with the edit summary {{tq|"population culture" section have been deprecated for years...}}. What makes you think this is deprecated? I agree with WP:POPCULT. — Invasive Spices (talk) 18 September 2022 (UTC)
:When I first started editing back in like 2007, there were "in popular culture" sections in all kinds of articles. These have largely been removed per, I believe, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. At any rate, there's a lot we could say on the topic of DDT, and this article is already very big; in my opinion the last thing we should be devoting space to is a limerick, when there's so much more we could say about it's history, controversy, health effects, etc. Yilloslime (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
::I don't think this is correct. Popular culture sections are common and someone wrote the WP:POPCULT essay about them. Invasive Spices (talk) 19 September 2022 (UTC)
:::The WP:IPCV section of that essay seems against inclusion of these two specific popculture entries, each for multiple reasons. WP:ESSAYs do not necessarily have widespread support, but this one has an associated WP:RFC noted: " "The consensus is very clear that a secondary source is required in almost all cases. A tertiary source is even better, if available. In the rare case that a primary source is judged to be sufficient, it should be properly cited. The source(s) cited should not only establish the verifiability of the pop culture reference, but also its significance." The debugger has no references (though "it's obvious" that DDT is an acronym for the target) and the limerick only has a primary ref. The debugger is especially problematic uncited WP:OR: it's only even conceivable include it here rather than simply an entry at DDT (disambiguation) because it's noted as a "pun" on the chemical.
:::In addition to that RFC consensus, there is MOS:POPCULT...a WP:GUIDELINE being stronger than an ESSAY. "Note that this sourcing requirement is a minimum threshold for inclusion of cultural references." so the debugger is excluded right away. And it likewise emphasizes secondary references. Some person collecting a bunch of limericks seems merely to document that that author heard it from somewhere--not exactly WP:RS actual impact (maybe even a PRIMARY that "I heard this"?). DMacks (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
::::There's also this RFC which found that the specific phrase "In Popular Culture" should not be used as a section heading. Yilloslime (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
::::WP:ESSAYs do not necessarily have widespread support Of course. Its existence does mean no one thinks this is so ridiculous that they are all deprecated however. secondary source I didn't so much as look at them. Since they lack necessary sources I agree with removing these. "In Popular Culture" should not be used as a section heading That is a very strange RFC outcome. I don't think it's a bad section title but the suggested alternatives are also good. Invasive Spices (talk) 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- This is a different subject that falls under popular culture, but maybe a different track to take is to focus on the advertising in popular culture. [https://digital.sciencehistory.org/works/1831ck18w This image] is pretty well known in ag. circles. Awhile back I do remember seeing secondary sources we could use describing the popular culture side of things like that advertising and how pervasive it was in some areas, but afraid I can't recall it now. Could be worth a more in-depth search if it interests someone. KoA (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
:DDT is good for me-e-e! That may be the best thing would could ever have in this section. I imagine the Science History Institute is a sufficient source and so you could add it right away. Invasive Spices (talk) 20 September 2022 (UTC)
::In this case, the SHI is just a repository rather than a secondary source of any sort we could use. Sources that that describe the ads in context though would be really good here. KoA (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::::popular culture ?!
::No interest - 18 years old! (In French language . Ancor , un bloque . Pour sate question .)
:Why - why? The subject does not arouse interest. Women lose their Prematurely. Femininity, charm, attractiveness. Puffy faces in the morning. Sharp facial features. Deep and premature wrinkles. Men - homosexual behavior, psychosis, depression.
: Chlorine-phosphorus made a Prophet out of John the Baptist? GPZ Anonmous (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Comparative Developmental Biology
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Alabama_at_Birmingham/Comparative_Developmental_Biology_(Spring_2023) | assignments = Emaddox2 | reviewers = Thunderbear65, OJackson2 | start_date = 2023-01-09 | end_date = 2023-04-21 }}
— Assignment last updated by Arbiddy (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)