Talk:Paraben

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article is unbalanced[edit]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.91.231 (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Source(s) ? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're asking. 173.49.91.231 (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
You wrote "the scientific consensus must be that there is a positive risk/benefit ratio". What source backs that up? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of regulatory agencies is to approve products that have a positive risk/benefit ratio and to proscribe the use of those that don't. The problem I have with the article is that whoever wrote it did not bother to include details about why parabens are approved and why they are used. By focusing essentially only on the risk and not on the benefits, this article is unbalanced. 173.49.91.231 (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Unbalanced indeed, I added a very important reference to the "Paraben and breath cancer" paragraph and someone overwrote it and removed it. This is an NIH article: Shawn P, Chaoshen Y, Abderrahmane T, Environ Health Perspect; DOI:10.1289/ehp.1409200[1]
Someone removed this scientific sourced reference and added a sentence about "spam emails". Is NIH a source for spams? Who ever did this, aren’t you embarrassed of yourself?
This is probably someone with some political power in wikipedia as s/he locked the article from changes just after removing the new reference. Big black point, in my view, to this person and to wikipedia system that allows that. [[[Special:Contributions/79.182.146.8|79.182.146.8]] (talk) 07:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)]
The added article was primary research, so not a reliable source according to our medical sourcing guidelies. The material about spam emails is however well-sourced and relevant. Alexbrn (talk) 07:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
There are review articles, too. I will add at least one of them. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, now I'm getting reverted for a sentence saying that more research was needed, citing the latest review article on the subject. I'll quote the end of the abstract here: "As an enabling characteristic parabens can cause DNA damage at high concentrations in the short term but more work is needed to investigate long-term, low-dose mixtures. The ability of parabens to enable multiple cancer hallmarks in human breast epithelial cells provides grounds for regulatory review of the implications of the presence of parabens in human breast tissue." That says quite explicitly that more research is needed, and goes beyond that by raising the possibility of regulatory review. So what's the problem? Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Very many research papers say "more research is needed" - it's a truism and out-of-context is misleading, which is why MOS:MED says we shouldn't say it. If there are good sources which say something of substance, we can use them ... Alexbrn (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Lots of misleading references to an email[edit]

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.

The anti-perspirant email is already covered in the deodorant article. It doesn't make sense here, so I'm removing it. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of U.C. Berkley Study[edit]

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)
After further research, I'd have to agree these results were not sufficiently studied to be included in this article. --Elephanthunter (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Unbalanced[edit]

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)