Talk:Bisphenol A/Archive 3

Sourcing review
As there's interest in doing a review of the sourcing for this article, below I have included a table I'd use for reviewing this article's sources for a GA review - It's part of the output of a script I developed for doing GA reviews of biomedical articles. Each source cited is listed and for those sources that have PMIDs, the PubMed article type information (if available) is pulled and included. I have labeled sources that are probably primary. This makes it easy to see where the article cites primary vs. secondary sources. I do not plan on actually doing the review of the article sourcing myself but thought this table might be useful for those doing such a review. 14:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks zad! Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There may be a bug in my script that yielded false-positive "probably primary" entries in the table, hold off on looking at those until I can check them out. 04:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I fixed a few bugs in my script and updated the sources table below, it should be accurate. I found one case of a ref with a PMID that does not exist on PubMed.  At this point I do not plan on actually going through the sources one by one and doing the review, but anyone who would like to is welcome to use the table below to do so.    19:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

In this table:
 * Source lists the source as cited in the article
 * Seems WP:RS? means, "Does this source appear to meet WP:RS for reliable sourcing?"
 * Use OK? means, is the source used appropriately in the article? For the review, a few selected sources will be spot-checked to ensure they aren't plagiarized and support the article content.   indicates the source was not spot-checked.
 * Notes will summarize problems found and what needs to be done to fix them

POV Source?
Hi I'm not very knowledgable on the degree of POV you can have with a source but source eighty links to a website called www.nomorebpa.org.uk. Now I think a website with such a name obviously has an agenda and thus may not really be the most reliable of sources. I could be wrong though as I don't know much about POV issues and sources. 82.20.70.162 (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I was about to say don't shoot the messenger, but the bigger issue is that both 80 & 81 (the same as 80)* are not good sources for what the section (Government Positions on BPA Safety - UK) says. It is assuming the reference is accurate. ˥ Ǝ Ʉ H Ɔ I Ɯ (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * for posterity in case it changes - http://www.nomorebpa.org.uk/news/US_Acts_On_BPA_And_Baby%20_Bottles.php

chemistry versus health impact versus regulation
I don't suppose someone could separate this article into sections, such as 1) the chemical, it's history, and how you use it (i.e., things a research chemist would be interested in), 2) health concerns, and 3) how governments regulate it. What is a picture of a fat person doing in a chemical article?  By that logic, when I look up steel, shouldn't I see a grizzly car accident?  Would prefer if "health concerns" were just a link at the top.  This article seems like the work of an advocate.  Mlprater (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * it already is broken up that way. I think you are maybe discussing WP:WEIGHT? It might make sense to split off the very lengthy "health effects" sections and the associated regulation section (your 2 and 3) and put those into a new  article, and leave a stub section here based on the lead of that article.  Not sure how others might feel about that.  It would also be huge pain to manage as people would want to keep dumping new information into that section of this article since they would see it as "the most important" one.Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

What?
With a list of side effects that reads like the back of a pill bottle, why the hell did we ever use this in anything that people could buy off the shelf? Im serious, not conspiracy baiting or anything. Who in their right mind approved this? Why could they have thought it was safe or like other consumer plastics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.144.60 (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Two responses. First, I apologize for the poor quality of this article.  It should not read like a laundry list of horrors, but this has to do with the sources used to generate the content in this article, and the way those sources have been used.  But more importantly, the Talk page is to discuss content for the article, not to vent or discuss the topic in general.  Your questions appear to be rhetorical;  if there is anything you would like to say about improving or changing the content please do let us know, otherwise please do not use the Talk page as a general discussion forum.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

copy editing
I will move section 4 Bisphenol A to the end of the article, because it is very long and interrupts the flow. I've read all talk page entries, and am aware of problems this article has and that a lot more needs to be done. --Wuerzele (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't. That is actually the only MEDRS compliant information on tox in the whole article. it needs to stay near the top. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * first, it would be nice to have known when you revert me, but you didn't ping me. Second, I think your argument for not moving the section is weak. I do not see why the section is more WP:MEDRS compliant than others and why that alone is a reason for it "to stay near the top". One good reason why it shouldnt is because gvt assessment is the end of a toxic monograph. the structure as it was, made no sense. Please discuss before reverting/editing. I did.--Wuerzele (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a long-standing issue with this article, that it has become a train-wreck of primary sources, which contravenes MEDRS. I brought it up at MEDS Talk here and other editors there agreed.  Other editors here, however, don't agree, so I have mostly left it alone. But national regulatory agencies conduct serious reviews before taking action and they are the mainstream view on toxicity.Jytdog (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * preaching to the choir ? i might know more about that than you would think. as i said i've read the talk page. i know the issues of primary sources in medicine. why dont you ping when you reply?--Wuerzele (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see you moved it back down. this article is hopeless. Jytdog (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

no it's not, otherwise i would nt have come in here. it definitely can be cleaned up. chin up.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

addition to lede 12 April
I am sceptical of the usefulness and of the veracity of the wordy addition to the lede from 12 April by user:olderbutwiser. the source to back up the claim that FDA considers BPA safe, is from 2010, not 4-2014.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Levels of intake over EPA limit?
I'm not sure this article is correctly citing reference number 52. The article says "several studies of children, who tend to have the highest levels, have found levels over the EPA's suggested safe limit figure," citing http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3079892/#!po=40.6250. After spending some time in research I cannot find any studies that support this. The study cited does not have any results over 50ug/kg/day. It says that "Median values were below 52 ng/kg-day for all groups analyzed and the 95th percentiles were below 500 ng/kg-day (Table 2). Thus, median and 95th percentile intake estimates were approximately two to three orders of magnitude below the current health-based guidance value" (page 10) The highest BPA level shown in this study was 481 ng/kg/day, well below the 50 ug/kg/day limit. The mistake may have come from confusion between the units ng and ug. 75.129.113.63 (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

BPA alternative disrupts normal brain-cell growth, is tied to hyperactivity, study says

 * BPA alternative disrupts normal brain-cell growth, is tied to hyperactivity, study says — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.243.6.98 (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)