Talk:IARC group 2B

Chemistry Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Hematology-oncology Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Hematology-oncology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Um, does oxazepam really belong in this list? Don't think that the benzos caused cancer!

I knew that nickel can harm allergic people, but a carcinogen? Its alloys? Are we all at risk for eating from stainless steel spoons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.189.220.188 (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

broken link

The link to the IARC monographs is broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.145.137.215 (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to work now. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

magenta as a carcinogen

Magenta is currently linked to a Wiki page about the color magenta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.145.137.215 (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is this really necessary?

I question the utility of keeping a distinct list of IARC-classified human carcinogens in Wikipedia when the definitively list already exists on the IARC website: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/crthgr02b.php. At best, the Wiki page will be a duplicate of that list. At worse, it will be outdated, improperly transcribed, and/or inaccurate.

Might it be more appropriate to describe how compounds come to be classified as IARC group 2B and then simply link to the IARC website for details? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.145.137.215 (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Clark42 (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move the article/category to an alternative name

It is my opinion that the current names of the articles and categories

are misleading, since all agents (materials, compounds, environments) could and should be classified by IARC. The classification does not make them "carcinogens". The IARC itself mentions[1]:

In the following lists, the agents are classified as to their carcinogenic hazard to humans in accordance with the Preamble to the IARC Monographs.

According to this text, we should have articles named:

List of agents classified from IARC to Group xxx as to their carcinogenic hazard to humans. Instead, I propose the simpler title:

List of IARC Group xx agents.

Similarly for categories, my proposal is:

Category:IARC Group 4 agents

Any alternative proposals are welcome. The present proposal is duplicated is all articles and categories, but if you have any comment, please use the page:

Talk:International Agency for Research on Cancer#Proposal to move several articles/categories to alternative names

Do not leave a comment in any other page. --FocalPoint (talk) 13:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--FocalPoint (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment re "carcinogens" vs. "agents" doesn't just apply to Group 4. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of IARC Group 1 Agents - Carcinogenic to humans which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]