Talk:Stachybotrys chartarum

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cyril.li.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 4 May 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure)  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there 12:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Stachybotrys chartarum → Black mold – S. chartarum is the species of mold to which the news media are referring to when they talk about "black mold", such as here, here, and here. While there is some evidence that all molds of the Stachybotrys genus may be considered black molds, only one of these molds currently has an article written on it, and that is S. chartarum because no other species has been identified as being the cause of any health problems (I am certain they could be, but whenever a sample of Stachybotrys genus mold is sampled and specified, it looks like it almost always turns out to be S. chartarum). When people are looking for information on black mold, they need to land on an article about the black mold they are almost certainly looking for, and that mold is S. chartarum, not the genus Stachybotrys generally and not on an article with the namespace S. chartarum but on the namespace "Black mold". I will be glad to handle the various clean-up steps once the move has been made (fixing hatnotes, redirects, disambig entries, etc.). KDS4444 (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there 15:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. A difficult one, as most of the English-speaking world calls it mould, not mold! So we will be moving from a generic term to an American-specific term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Popular usage is notoriously inaccurate. Scientific names give precision, as per WP:AT. I doubt very much that "black moulds" are regularly identified to species level. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Redirecting Black mould and Black mold to Stachybotrys chartarum is fine, but not the other way round. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * oppose per Peter Southwood--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as compromises accuracy, Pbsouthwood sums it up well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There are likely many other fungi which are black or nearly. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

We also see that redirects to Aspergillus niger Black mold.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  12:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

See Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 15.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  13:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Need to remove misinformation
The CDC has not found any evidence that Stachybotrys chartarum can be characterized as "toxic mold". I deleted the reference to "toxic mold" but it was restored by @Esculenta because there is a redirect. I see the citation is based on a fringe conspiracy theorist book (Black mold: Your health and your home). It needs to be made abundantly clear that any characterization of toxic mold is a misnomer. I then started to look at some of the other sources used in the article. Many of the sources are problematic and not from recognized experts in human health. ScienceFlyer (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The CDC's website isn't the best source in this case for a number of reasons, not the least of which is how cutting-edge some of the research into S. chartarum is right now. You might find this review paper by Dyląg et al. (2022) useful -- they were rather thorough in their perusal of the literature and dissection of which case studies were well-thought vs. half-baked.
 * Thank you all for being so diligent about ensuring the accuracy of these pages! It's really appreciated. 69.41.94.249 (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)