Talk:Triclosan
Chemicals B‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Triclosan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Reply to some Talk page issues, April 2014
Dear all, Thank you for bringing up any issues on the Talk page. The triclosan page has been edited, including additions to policy, resistance concerns, health effects, breakdown, and bioaccumulation and environmental effects. The article now provides some connections to the triclocarban page and explains some similarities and differences between TCC and TCS. A thorough grammatical check has been done as well. Thank you again. Brichr1520 (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Brichr1520
Triclosan Promotes Staphylococcus aureus Nasal Colonization
- "Syed AK, Ghosh S, Love NG, Boles BR. 2014. Triclosan promotes Staphylococcus aureus nasal colonization. mBio 5(2):e01015-13. doi:10.1128/mBio.01015-13." ( Published 8 April 2014 )
- http://mbio.asm.org/content/5/2/e01015-13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5c0:1400:a::159 (talk • contribs)
Health Concerns: Staph
I have three issues with this section.
Firstly, the title "Staph" is an abbreviation.
Secondly, "a relationship between triclosan and staph nasal colonization" could mean anything. Would the author please summarise the article. Does it promote colonisation, initiate it or reduce it?
Thirdly, is there any contradictory evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galerita (talk • contribs) 06:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Edits of Nov 17, 2014
@Arnavchaudhary:, very nice to meet you. I don't believe that we have interacted before. With regard to our current disagreement, my issues are the following:
- I think most of the content I deleted is plausibly true. But high quality sources should be used for broad scientific statements that have policy implications, and not primary sources. The removal was based on the lack of quality sourceing and not on objection to the content per se
- I probably should not have undone your reversion. It's not my usual way of doing things. But you reverted my edits en masse with only the edit summary "large amounts of material deleted without explanation". I actually provided reasonably detailed explanations for my deletions for pretty much all of my edits. So I felt you mischaracterized my behavior, and that the reversion itself was effectively unexplained. That being said I have no desire to edit war, and would like to reach an understanding.
Your thoughts? Formerly 98 (talk) 10:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I found an error.
The phrase "At a higher pH, triclosan is expected to bioaccumulate more significantly, while at a lower pH, methyl-triclosan is much more likely to bioaccumulate" is contradictory. It's either one or the other. Regards