Talk:Astringent

Apparent contradiction
Apparent contradiction within this page and page on Witch hazel (astringent); this page states that "Acne sufferers are often advised to avoid astringents, which are believed to worsen the clogging of pores" while the witch hazel (which is listed as a common astringent) page states that "It is a strong anti-oxidant and astringent, which makes it very useful in fighting acne."

The ambiguity is probably because neither statement is a scientific or medical fact. These are opinions of aromatherapists etc, and should perhaps both be avoided unless they can be substantiated and referenced. Cjsunbird (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Split this article?
It seems to me that astrigent, the type of substance, and astringency, the mouthfeel, a two different topics that have been sort of forced together in this article. Of course they are related topics, but they are also distinct. Certain examples from the article make this very confusing; oatmeal is listed as a topical astringent, but oatmeal is really not a very good example for a food that gives an astringent mouthfeel. The article could to lengths to make this distiction, but maybe it should just be two separate articles. Comment? ike9898 13:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - They don't seem to be all that related to me... Ged3000 (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Completely agreed. It's a bit confusing too; one paragraph might refer to either topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.202.1.218 (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - My thoughts exactly. Granito diaz  4 october 2015Granito diaz (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Note there's a section on astringency on the Taste page. Auvon (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is confusing as written, with essentially two different ledes. A split would be sensible. Magic1million (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Dead Links
I'm getting 404's on both reference links. Have these pages moved somewhere, or are they just gone? --Major_Small (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Mechanism of astringency
It would be good if someone who knows about these things could add a few sentences on *why* certain substances cause tissues to contract. Do they all do it by the same mechanism, or do different astringent substances work in different ways? And why does tissue have this contracting property in the first place? Macboff (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of pseudo-scientific trivia
Is mentioning what taste is represented in Ayurveda really that important and relative to the article? It's misleading to include such random trivia right next to the objective, scientific understanding of its chemistry and pharmacological properties and I suggest its prompt removal. FileComplaintHere (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * In a perfect world this would be as much an article on cuisine and the cultural implications thereof as it is on the chemical background of the effect, the main problem with the text in question was the WP:PRIMARYSOURCES but if the info was confirmed elsewhere I don't think there would be any reason not to include it. Orchastrattor (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I get your point but Ayurveda's cuisine is only one aspect of a larger alternative medicine system and the flavor information was an irrelevant detail from that folklore. I would support its inclusion if the text were part of a relevant section and labeled appropriately as a cultural influence alongside other aspects of its cultural impact. But if pseudo-medicine is casually intermixed with factual pharmacological information without specifics or context--especially in the summary section--it's misleading and goes against the very spirit of an encyclopedia. FileComplaintHere (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A "History" section about how the taste was identified and categorized across different cultures would probably be the best way to go about that; There's an interesting claim about white wine under "Examples" so if that can be verified it could be a good place to start. The article also didn't have any real structure until very recently, its something of an accepted practice for the lead sections of articles as small as this to function more as miscillanies of info not fitting under any other section rather than a conventionally MOS-compliant lead section. Orchastrattor (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)