Talk:Paula Begoun

Bias?
In my opinion, this entry has a favorable rather than objective tone. With all due respect to the subject whose work I personally admire, a more unbiased approach is to be expected from a wikipedia entry than a promotional blurb. --Anniika 02:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with this, and may take a shot at getting the article more neutral-sounding, unless there are objections.... MinervaK (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Finlay-Jones et al.?
Regarding the "controversial claims" section: I think the article by Finlay-Jones et al. in Internet Photochemistry and Photobiology IS relevant for the discussion about avobenzone stability; the term "avobenzone" isn't mentioned in the article but its INCI name is (i.e. Butyl Methoxydibenzoylmethane - see avobenzone article). The article actually reviews a number of sunscreens containing this and similar ingredients, concluding "All sunscreen applications protected against the acute effects of UV exposure, but varied in the protection offered against systemic immunosuppression.". I therefore think this research is a valid support for Begoun's claim and suggest that the sentence "In support ... avobenzone stability" is removed.

217.122.171.194 (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If I'm reading the source correctly, it doesn't review the photostability of Avobenzone and therefore doesn't support Begoun's claim that avobenzone is photostable.Pondle (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Somebody needs to rewrite this article objectively. The "controversial claims" section is clearly a hatchet piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.199.9 (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The prior debates likely no longer apply here. The page has been revised now to address bias statements, and any statements made are cited with valid sources. Paula&#39;s Choice (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest expanding the citation information per WP:CITE so it's meets the guideline better and is easier for others to review the article. --Ronz (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am not sure why the page still received a bias warning, after it has had plenty of revisions and edits from Wikipedia Editors, and the prior warning was removed. The revisions from editors were applied and even more citations were used.  I am uncertain what more can be done? NathaninSeattle (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Nathan