Talk:Microbead
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2020 and 12 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bannock.burn8.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Untitled
[edit]I would like to comply with Verifiability and use in-line citations, but the policy is for 1) quotations and 2) material likely to be challenged, neither of which seem to apply here. Or do they?Cenksumen (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Add Citation
[edit]Can someone please add citation to "Controversy"?
http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i37/Microplastic-Beads-Pollute-Great-Lakes.html
Kschang77 (talk) 06:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
This one also. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X13006097 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geothermal (talk • contribs) 10:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Can someone add that Minnesota has been added as yet another banned state? Also, provide sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.16.54 (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Proposed Merge
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was to merge. MartinZ02 (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with merging this article with polyethylene microspheres, as long as proper differentiation is made.
MidnightAurora (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- So this is a bit of a mess, and their doesn't seem to be anyone around to discuss things with, so I am going to propose the following and per WP:BOLD start making these changes.
- Add this template to the top of this page:
- Move the current content of this page to Microbeads (research)
- Move the content from Polyethylene microspheres here since those are usually called microbeads and I believe are what people are most commonly looking for when they look up "microbeads".
- Make Polyethylene microspheres a redirect to this article
- Make changes to Microsphere (disambiguation) to reflect the above changes
The problem I have with a merge is that these are sufficiently different in purpose to warrant their own articles, and if written fully they would be too large for one article. My solution is not the most graceful, so if you do not like it feel free to revert me and we will discuss.AioftheStorm (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Biodegradable microbeads
[edit]This and several other articles point to the technology for biodegradable microbeads: [1] Can someone who understands this better please add it to this article? Kortoso (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
References
External links modified (January 2018)
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Microbead. 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/20120304184713/http://www.cosmeticsandtoiletries.com/formulating/ingredient/pigment/89521652.html to http://www.cosmeticsandtoiletries.com/formulating/ingredient/pigment/89521652.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Uppsala University study
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was to alter reference to a retracted study. Copied from User_talk:Wtmichell --37.191.132.138 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Wtmitchell. You reverted my edit on Microbeads because I didn't provide a source. Apologies if my edit was unclear, but I was relying upon the Science retraction, which is in fact cited. Thanks. --193.157.251.132 (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- I took a look at the cited source at [1], and did not see any support for an assertion of research fraud. It does give "lack of ethical approval for the experiments" and "absence of original data for the experiments reported in the paper" as reasons, but I don't take that or anything else I saw there as supporting an accusation of fraud. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Alright, fair enough. I think the phrase "absence of original data" is a somewhat oblique reference by Science to this, but I appreciate it could be clearer. How about these more definitive sources from Science (which uses the word "fraud") and the University of Uppsala? Basically, I'm a little concerned that the microbeads article relies upon this study for several assertions and claims it was retracted for methodological reasons, when in fact this is a pretty serious case of research fraud.--193.157.251.132 (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not an academic, and probably don't view this from the same perspective as academics or researchers. I see that the other source you offer uses the word fraud in a headline which seems to be sensationalizing the article it heads. See WP:BLP. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree that Science is sensationalising. As per the Science article and second source linked above, the University of Uppsala (the researchers' home university) specifically found Lönnstedt "fabricated research results". If that is not research fraud, then what is? Further,Science (even the news side) is a reputable source, and is not the only reputable source to use the word "fraud".--193.157.251.132 (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Considering that Science (journal) is the source, perhaps my characterization as sensationalizing wasn't called for (or perhaps it was; sensationalizing in headlines is a bit of a hot-button with me). Strictly speaking, WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply here as the term fraud doesn't refer refer here to fraud as a criminal offense. I took a second look at the I’m very disappointed article and see that, though the term fraud appears only in the headline, the body of the article reports an allegation that data was fabricated. My revert removed an assertion that the authors of the study retracted it because of research fraud and, as far as I can see, that assertion of fraud as a reason for the retraction is not supported. That article would support assertions that an investigation found that data for the paper was fabricated and, as a separate issue, that the researchers were "found guilty of misconduct" for not obtaining a permit from an ethics review panel before conducting the experiments. Coming at this from another angle, it doesn't seem to me that the point we're discussing has much topical weight in the Microbeads article. How about just saying that the study was subsequently retracted for methodological reasons, citing the Editorial Retraction article, and leaving it at that? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think your proposed solution is ideal, because saying the article was merely retracted "for methodological reasons", as it presently does, seems to qualify the retraction in an inaccurate way. That is, it suggests the flaw with the paper was a minor, or even technical point, and the paper was fundamentally valid. I believe that this is inaccurate, because the researchers' own University (link; see also official report here) has found that the data from the article was fabricated by one of the authors. This is a really serious finding which completely destroys the paper's credibility. If you still object to the use of the phrase "research fraud", then I have an alternative solution: remove the bracketed phrase "for methodological reasons", leaving only the statement it was retracted, and add a citation to the Uppsala statement which provides some very important context to the interpretation of that study (ie, that the researchers fabricated data). (Regarding the significance of this in the wider article, while I agree this does not need to be explained at great length, I believe it was still a very significant development in the field's scientific literature. Science doesn't retract articles every day.) (Also, this will be diff ip, same person) 37.191.132.138 (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable to me. Again, I'm not an Academic ,and I have little grasp on the sensitivities of the Academic community. Perhaps a mention of this in the Uppsala University article is warranted. Also, perhaps it is a good idea to copy this discussion to the talk page(s) the impacted article(s). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think your proposed solution is ideal, because saying the article was merely retracted "for methodological reasons", as it presently does, seems to qualify the retraction in an inaccurate way. That is, it suggests the flaw with the paper was a minor, or even technical point, and the paper was fundamentally valid. I believe that this is inaccurate, because the researchers' own University (link; see also official report here) has found that the data from the article was fabricated by one of the authors. This is a really serious finding which completely destroys the paper's credibility. If you still object to the use of the phrase "research fraud", then I have an alternative solution: remove the bracketed phrase "for methodological reasons", leaving only the statement it was retracted, and add a citation to the Uppsala statement which provides some very important context to the interpretation of that study (ie, that the researchers fabricated data). (Regarding the significance of this in the wider article, while I agree this does not need to be explained at great length, I believe it was still a very significant development in the field's scientific literature. Science doesn't retract articles every day.) (Also, this will be diff ip, same person) 37.191.132.138 (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Considering that Science (journal) is the source, perhaps my characterization as sensationalizing wasn't called for (or perhaps it was; sensationalizing in headlines is a bit of a hot-button with me). Strictly speaking, WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply here as the term fraud doesn't refer refer here to fraud as a criminal offense. I took a second look at the I’m very disappointed article and see that, though the term fraud appears only in the headline, the body of the article reports an allegation that data was fabricated. My revert removed an assertion that the authors of the study retracted it because of research fraud and, as far as I can see, that assertion of fraud as a reason for the retraction is not supported. That article would support assertions that an investigation found that data for the paper was fabricated and, as a separate issue, that the researchers were "found guilty of misconduct" for not obtaining a permit from an ethics review panel before conducting the experiments. Coming at this from another angle, it doesn't seem to me that the point we're discussing has much topical weight in the Microbeads article. How about just saying that the study was subsequently retracted for methodological reasons, citing the Editorial Retraction article, and leaving it at that? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree that Science is sensationalising. As per the Science article and second source linked above, the University of Uppsala (the researchers' home university) specifically found Lönnstedt "fabricated research results". If that is not research fraud, then what is? Further,Science (even the news side) is a reputable source, and is not the only reputable source to use the word "fraud".--193.157.251.132 (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not an academic, and probably don't view this from the same perspective as academics or researchers. I see that the other source you offer uses the word fraud in a headline which seems to be sensationalizing the article it heads. See WP:BLP. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Alright, fair enough. I think the phrase "absence of original data" is a somewhat oblique reference by Science to this, but I appreciate it could be clearer. How about these more definitive sources from Science (which uses the word "fraud") and the University of Uppsala? Basically, I'm a little concerned that the microbeads article relies upon this study for several assertions and claims it was retracted for methodological reasons, when in fact this is a pretty serious case of research fraud.--193.157.251.132 (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The map is outdated
[edit]It doesn't align with the table properly, and I'm not even sure that the table itself is full. 81.2.103.240 (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)