|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paraben article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Food and drink||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Chemistry||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned student editor(s): Pyager14.|
Lots of misleading references to an email
This article infers there was spam email about parabens. The actual cited spam email is about anti-perspirant's main mechanism of action locking toxins in your body. It makes no mention of parabens at all.
Inclusion of U.C. Berkley Study
Apparently there have been a series of anonymous edits adding and removing a U.C. Berkley study on Paraben introduced in vitro. If this is a controversial study, I suggest that evidence of that be included in the article and contrasted against it (instead of just removing the text.) Does this sound like a reasonable compromise? Edit warring is not getting anywhere. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think the study is controversial per se, but because it is a primary report of in vitro research, it does not meet criteria outlined in WP:MEDRS for sources to support biomedical claims. If this research has been followed up with in clinical study or if there has been scientific review articles covering it (I have looked, but am unable to locate any), then it may be worth considering mentioning in this article. But at this stage, it appears to be too preliminary to be covered in the article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 01:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
This article is currently heavily unbalanced, with nearly its entire focus on negative aspects of parabens. I see from the "This article is unbalanced" section above that this has been a problem at least since 2014. The comment, "This article focuses heavily on the toxicity/controversy related to the use of parabens, but doesn't even contain a section about its uses and benefits. There are only a few little hints about these topics in the introduction. Regulatory agencies worldwide allow the use of parabens in many types of products, so the scientific consensus must be that there is a positive risk/benefit ratio. Whatever benefits there might be, the reader isn't going to learn much about them reading this article. Wikipedia is currently misleading its readers with this article" still applies today. In fact, the problem has simply worsened since it was pointed out years ago. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- The sentence "No effective direct links between parabens and cancer have been established" in the introduction of this article is misplaced. It is a fact in the "Have you stopped beating your wife" genre. --Tannkrem (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The only source from section "Allergic reactions" is a one-time brief case report from 1977. Report doesn't mention rosacea at all, nor does it conclude anything about allergic reactions from parabens in general population. It is outdated and not reliable enough, an update including newer studies is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)