Talk:Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants

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): Tanyizzzle. Peer reviewers: Tanyizzzle.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment
The article is not clear on what SHOULD be its main point: Was DDT (or any other "POP") banned by this convention - or by a related treaty? --Uncle Ed 14:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The edits made by 'Ltilbu' to the controversies section don't look very impartial at all. Someone familiar with the tone of Wikipedia articles should take a look at them. --69.196.72.50 (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC). An opinion piece, largely w/o citations, by someone very supportive of DDT for monetary or humanitarian reasons161.80.16.221 (talk) 12:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC). Does not seem to be useful here.

Signatory Countries
I think some descriptive text to support the map of signatory countries is needed, including why it was not ratified by some countries. Also, on the article about PCBs, it says that the U.S. is a signatory to the treaty, whereas the map says it is not. Ohnoezitasploded (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Dirty Dozen?
That would be very-very interesting! ( hehehe ) ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the article got it wrong, or presents it wrong. The Dirty Dozen are listed here. The names of the offenders are: PCBs, Dioxins, Furans, Aldrin, Dieldrin, DDT, Endrin, Chlordane, Hexa Chlorobenzene (HCB), Mirex, Toxaphene and Heptachlor. Those chemicals have no inhabitants, no responsible governments that can be blamed, and are completely unable to feel any shame for being hazardrous. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought
It's kinda interesting that once again the USA have not signed a convention like this. AIKÄRBÄST (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe that the article should definitely provide more information regarding this topic and make their own sub-heading discussing the matter since it is underrepresented in the article. The USA is an important contributor to these POPs and there must be a good reason for them not joining. Tanyizzzle (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Lukily you like in that country and will thus probably be able to find out more information regarding this fact. --Leyo 09:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Introducing a bias?
It seemed as though the article was picking a side when discussion the issue of malaria in the "Controversy" section. Not only did it seem to take a position, there was not much elaboration on the subject. Tanyizzzle (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Grammar and Punctuation
The beginning of this article was not very appealing to read. There seemed to be many run on sentences and sentences that could use more breaks. It was not easy to follow along with the style of writing and could be improved by the creation of new sentences and more punctuation. Tanyizzzle (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010052026/http://192.129.24.144/licensed_materials/0698/bibs/3003o/3003o0297.htm to http://192.129.24.144/licensed_materials/0698/bibs/3003o/3003o0297.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304102119/http://www.chem.unep.ch/DDT/documents/WHO_10thingsonDDT.pdf to http://www.chem.unep.ch/DDT/documents/WHO_10thingsonDDT.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Controversies
I suggest to delete the part on PFOS in "Controversies", as I consider it not a controversy anymore. During COP-9 in 2019 the acceptable purposes and specific exemptions for PFOS were amended and the list of acceptable purposes was cut down. http://www.pops.int/TheConvention/ConferenceoftheParties/Meetings/COP9/tabid/7521/Default.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeant Pinback (talk • contribs) 05:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the following acceptable purpose is still there:
 * This use yields high emission of PFOS in the regions that use sulfluramid. --Leyo 14:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This use yields high emission of PFOS in the regions that use sulfluramid. --Leyo 14:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)