From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

New Edits[edit]

I would like to add a section on Zicam's advertising and product lines, to call to attention the more positive aspects of the company. The current entry focuses heavily on the recall, without room for the upstanding way the company dealt with this. Talking about the advertising would also allow room for explaining how Zicam focuses on shortening colds and the true use of its products. IStan5042 (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)IStan5042

That sounds like a potentially good entry. Please write what you'd like to add, including the references, and place them here. I'd love to help you develop it into something that will "stick" and not get deleted. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add "Benefits of Zinc" under "Ingredients & Use", with the following:

A 2011 systematic meta analysis of studies conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration indicates that zinc lozenges definitively shorten the duration and severity of cold symptoms but offers no recommendations as to dosage.[14]Methodological weaknesses are thought to have contributed to the mixed results of previous studies.

The 2011 Cochrane review is widely regarded as the most authoritative assessment to date of the effectiveness of zinc as a treatment for the common cold.[15] The New York Times article “For Cold Virus, Zinc May Edge Out Even Chicken Soup” discusses this review, noting that it found the benefits of zinc were significant. [15] It references a March 2008 report in The Journal of Infectious Diseases, which stated: “…zinc lozenges cut the duration of colds to four days from seven days, and reduced coughing to two days from five.” [15] It is suspected that zinc gluconate lozenges serve to shorten the duration of cold symptoms,[16] by reducing inflammatory cytokines.[17] IStan5042 (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC) IStan5042

Wasn't this content previously in the article? I believe it was removed because of a WP:SYNTH violation because the source doesn't mention Zicam, and this article isn't about zinc. The content could be used in the zinc article. Maybe it already is. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
It was previously, and I believe it should be kept in, as the zinc in Zicam is beneficial and this should be called to attention. It offers more insight to the usefulness of the medicine, rather than solely focusing on the litigation the company has faced due to one product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IStan5042 (talkcontribs) 18:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how we can do this without violating policy. Policy requires that the content be directly about Zicam, but it isn't. Did you read the SYNTH link above? Check it out. It turns out that Zicam is mentioned in the NYTimes article, but in a negative manner, and the research isn't applicable to Zicam at all:
  • "Some cold sufferers have been wary about using zinc since the Food and Drug Administration warned consumers to stop using Zicam nasal sprays and swabs, which contain zinc, after numerous reports that some users lost their sense of smell after using the product. The Cochrane report did not review any studies of nasal zinc products." New York Times

Zicam's products all contain zinc, that's why the study was applicable - there's many other forms of the medicine, the product that was recalled posed a problem because of the way it was administered. As I said, I'm not proposing all negative aspects be removed, rather that the positive effects the products can have be noted.

As far as policy, the same guidelines should be used for the Zinc gluconate article, as the information on Zicam is not directly appropriate. (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC) IStan5042

The content would be suitable at the zinc article, but not here. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
That article simply references several peoples' opinions, and as I've said, the nasal sprays recall has long since been dealt with. The point of this entry is not to focus singularly on the litigation, but on Zicam as a company and a product. The benefits of zinc are grounded in the most trusted study on the subject to date, and are very relevant in that they offer explanation as to why the product proves effective. (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)IStan5042
You're not getting the point(s): (1) The point of the article is to document whatever RS have said, and do say, about Zicam, past and present. More content is certainly welcome, but it must follow policies. (2) The Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material that advances a position policy forbids doing what you are proposing. Now if you had reviews or metaanalyses about Zicam, by name, which met our WP:MEDRS guideline, it would be a totally different matter. Please familiarize yourself with these policies. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I do believe I understand, as in the guidelines, it states: "Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information. Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." The Cochrane collaboration is a relevant, third party source and now it has been removed from this entry. It provided valuable insight to how Zicam can be beneficial, in that it uses zinc to shorten colds.

Since it has been so pared down, the entry now reads as a warning against using a product that has since been taken off shelves. This is a disservice to anyone who may come across Wikipedia looking for information on the company. The references currently used within the entry are not meta-analyses themselves. If these can be included, articles such as this one which are based upon research done in studies like the Cochrane collaboration, should also be allowed.

Furthermore, the Zinc gluconate entry now includes a whole paragraph dedicated to the safety concerns of Zicam, which seems to be an extremely leading generalization. I am not proposing that the product recall information be removed, but that it should be fairly juxtaposed with other information that is more recent and pertinent to a full understanding of the company and its products. (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC) IStan5042

I have been at a loss about what to do here. I keep telling you, but you keep ignoring what I've said. You must not violate WP:SYNTH. The sources must mention Zicam. I really get tired of repeating that. I expect that you will now cease to push that idea. If you don't believe me, then take the matter to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. That's where the experts lurk.
Also, on another note, I have left messages at User talk:IStan5042 and User talk: about logging in. Remember to do it. This is not negotiable. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

There are things you could do. You say the product is no longer sold. Then document that fact with RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Latest series of edits by IP[edit]

Copied from IP's talk page.

I did not realize I was not logged in. Please stop erasing my edits without giving reason. That is what the Zicam talk page is for. IStan5042 (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't you look at the edit history or the signatures before and after you make each edit? You should. That would tell you that you were editing as an IP, and also the consequences of each edit.
My edit summary did tell you the reason for why I deleted what you did, and also that I would help you get it right. I checked each edit in the editing history and saw that you were having lots of problems getting it right. That's understandable. I've been a newbie too and it does take time to learn how things are done. Not only does one have to deal with formatting and wikimarkup codes, but also with our manual of style rules, which you don't know yet. Your edits were removing references, botching up the references by using nonstandard formats, then manually restoring refs, messing with the references section (it normally only has the "reflist" code), adding content which we had already discussed on the talk page as synth violations, changed wording of an exact quote so that the lead contained content not in the body (a violation of WP:LEAD), etc..
It was just a lot easier to make a mass revert than try to fix each problem. We can discuss what you were trying to do on the talk page. Explain yourself there. You were obviously trying to do something, but took a painful route to get there.
Now that I have gone back and used a different view which compares a previous version with your last edit, it's easier to see the net result. I'm going to restore to that point and then systematically delete or fix what you did, using edit summaries to explain each change. I'm going to copy this to the article's talk page so we can continue there. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Done for now. Will check back later because of some uncertainties. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

First "Citation Needed"[edit]

There was a discussion of the tag within the text of the article. I'm moving that discussion here and deleting it from the article. Swsail (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

"The citation is needed (preferably from Matrixx) to document the derivation of the portmanteau, not for the meaning of ICAM-1. The wikilink serves that purpose. Without that link, we have OR."

"Other sources list the zinc content as 33 mM"[edit]

I was unable to access the citation(number 6) for this claim because the source blocked my IP address for some reason, and if I did the math correctly, this claim seems rather implausible. If I'm correct in assuming mM stand for millimoles, then .033 mols * 65.38 g/mol (grams per mol of a zinc atom) = 2.158 grams. This seems like a highly improbable amount of zinc, especially considering that multiple lozenges of zicam are meant to be taken each day. Am i missing anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zope50 (talkcontribs) 01:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Why would a ref be blocked because of your IP? I've never heard of that. Has your IP offended the internet? Here it is.[1] -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I was able to view it by using a proxy, but I have no idea why my IP is blocked. Anyway, in the source, it appears that zinc concentration is 33 mM / liter of solution, as opposed to 33 mM of zinc in one lozenge or one nasal spray.Zope50 (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I tried to improve that content. Take a look. Is that good enough? -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zicam. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 19:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


Zicam now contains Oxymetazoline HCl, which is not a homepathic, but rather a recognized drug for relieving congestion (see )

Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? (I got a little flustered with myself when I bought some to try, thought it worked, came here to read it was hokum, then read the label and found it actually contained real medicine). (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)