Talk:Toxicodendron diversilobum

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mdvaden (talk • contribs) 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC).