Talk:Sunscreen/Archive 1

Umbelliferone

I am putting up a short article on umbelliferone, and I was curious to know if it deserved a mention here. I have seen multiple references elsewhere to its use in sunscreen, but it isn't mentioned here. Has it fallen out of favour, has it been banned, or should it get a mention here? I know that a lot of people these days are interested in natural sources of things like this (you can get umbelliferone from carrots!), so I thought it was worth asking the question. Walkerma 07:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Dosing

The dosing section contradicts itself.

"...research has shown that the best protection is achieved by application 15–30 minutes before exposure, followed by one reapplication 15–30 minutes after the sun exposure begins ... Sunscreen needs to be reapplied within 2 hours in order to remain effective. "

The idea behind this is as follows. Apply sunscreen first time, it will be a bit patchy. Leave 15-30 minutes, then reapply means that a more even coat is applied. The reapplication after 2 hours of exposure is because the sunscreen wil photodegrade, rub off, or wash off over time Valueaddedwater (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

For something with potentially harmful effects if used improperly, shouldn't there be a clearer consensus, or at least an advisory that it is under debate?

I would disagree and say that section is pretty clear. It offers two paragraphs with different points of view, and each has a reference, and no opinions (original research) on either one, as it should be. There is no "clear consensus" in the article simply because there is no consensus in the medical community. There is new evidence coming out that indicates that people that use lots of sunscreen and avoid UV have a significantly higher incidence of all cancers, possibly due to a vitamin D deficiency and/or a side effect of the chemicals in sunscreen. I haven't added any links to this effect myself as the evidence is still coming in, but the risks of exposure/sunscreen/avoidance are clearly not fully understood. Pharmboy 00:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

uhmmmmmm

I have lived in 5 different regions of the United States and have NEVER EVER EVER heard sun tan lotion refer to the kind that helps you get a tan. maybe you guys mean OUTSIDE of the united states? RoyalAbidi 19:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

nonlinear

I no u didnt the equation to calculate spf which is just (n-1)/n, where n is the number of erythmeal doses. One erythmeal dose being a single flash of UV causing erythmea (reddening) of a skin sample. It doesn't mean you can stay in the sun that much longer, although it might work for some of the SPF's.. coz its nonlinear just look at the graph. Anyway the paragraph I added clarifies this but I havent erased the incorrect comment in the intro which says its the number of times longer you can stay in the sun. apr2005.

UVA vs. UVB

There appears to be some discrepency between the first paragraph that says UVA and UVB both cause sunburn, and the paragraph that states that UVA doesn't cause sunburn, only cell aging, and invisible effects.

Chemical Sunscreen Health Disaster

The page The Chemical Sunscreen Health Disaster, although it is little bit misleading, it is very interesting read. Mykhal 22:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a bogus source and has no place in this discussion.

sunscreen prevents enlargement of the prostate?

There's no mention here of whether sunscreen prevents enlargement of the prostate?! Capybara 14:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Helioplex

Is there any truth to the new Neutrogena products containing "Helioplex" to stabalize the UVA blockers to not break down after two hours (Washington Post).

Does anyone actually know what the wonder ingredient Helioplex is? Depending on how you read it its either a patented blend of Avobenzone and Oxybenzone (AKA Butyl Methoxy Dibenzoyl Methane / Parsol 1789, and Benzophenone 3) or some material not recognised by the FDA as a sunscreen so therefore exempt. Photostable claims in Europe have been available since the mid 90's, with companies like L'Oreal and others using materials such as Octocrylene or 4-Methylbenzylidene Camphor to do the job. Benzophenone 3 is not now commonly used in Europe, except in budget products due to it being considered as a skin irritant, and having to be declared on front of pack warning style

Umbelliferone

I am putting up a short article on umbelliferone, and I was curious to know if it deserved a mention here. I have seen multiple references elsewhere to its use in sunscreen, but it isn't mentioned here. Has it fallen out of favour, has it been banned, or should it get a mention here? I know that a lot of people these days are interested in natural sources of things like this (you can get umbelliferone from carrots!), so I thought it was worth asking the question. Walkerma 07:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Photoprotection

Photoprotection should not redirect here. Photoprotection generally can refer to any number of processes. The one that I was looking for was protection of the photosynthetic apparatus in plants. This disambiguation should be cleared up! lithiumscream 19:18, 12 April 2007

Titanium dioxide

Titanium dioxide is a white powder. When applying sunscreen, skin keeps its color, yet titanium dioxide gives a good protection without "whitening" the skin. How can it work so good on UV spectrum while it's invisible to the visible spectrum? --Abdull 12:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Not only is TiO2 white: it's brilliant white. It's considered one of the best pigments for white paint, toothpaste, etc. So it's hardly "invisible to the visible spectrum". Its usage seems to be limited only by its expense (unprocessed powder costs about $60 per pound).

I think the original sentence meant TiO2 doesn't stain skin any color, including white. EncMstr 21:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

All comes down to the size of the grains of the white powder. Pigmentary TiO2 has a larger particle size compared to the ones used in Sunscreen which are usually referred to as microfine TiO2

UVA protection

Quote from the article: "the higher the SPF, the more protection a sunscreen offers against UVB (the ultraviolet radiation that causes sunburn) and UVA (more associated with longer-term skin damage)". I'm not quite sure I agree with this and I'm not quite sure the article agrees with this either, as it is stated further down that (good) UVA protection doesn't necessarily correlate with (good) UVB protection. Being a bit anal here. emp^2 11:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Being very anal here, SPF is only related to protection against burning by UVB, and is always considered separately from any measure of UVA protection such as the Star rating system used in the UK, and some other EU countries. If you want to split hairs you could say that a (say) SPF 15 with low UVA, will protect the skin from less incident UV radiation, than a SPF15 with a high UVA rating, but from an industry and legal standpoint, SPF rates for burning and only for UVB.

hours sun is most intense

Probably the reason for the discrepacy (10 to 2 vs 10 to 4) is that the 10 AM to 2 PM figure is for the sun time at a given location on a specific date which can be very different from offical time. One instance in France; dispite the prime meridan running thru the middle of the country is on Central European Time and like the rest of the EU also observes "Summer Time" as well; so it's effectely 2 hours ahead of the sun during the summer. (This is similar to much of Russian Siberia; much of Alaska, the UP of Michigan, and others) So to be on the safe side; some experts started calling for 10 AM to 4 PM offical time. Jon 16:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

FDA /Colipa

This particular wiki is very FDA monograph oriented. There are two other systems used outside the USA (Broadly speaking the results are the same, but the methods and the approved sunscreens can vary a little bit) I think we need to update on Australian legislation, and also the standard Colipa methodolgy used in the EU and the rest of the world

Weasel words

I'm removing this paragraph because its in my opinion dubious content has a complete lack of references:

Many people apply sunscreen when participating in outdoor activities during the summer. However, experts suggest wearing sunscreen throughout the year to prevent cumulative damage from UVA rays, which are prevalent throughout the year, and to lower the risk of skin cancer. It is recommended that sunscreen be applied 30 minutes before exposure to the sun. Sunblock and sunscreen should also be used as just one form of protection from the sun. Care should be taken to always avoid the sun between the hours of 10 and 2, when the sun's rays are the strongest; it is also notable that some experts suggest between 10 and 4. Protective clothing, such as wide-brimmed hats, UV 400 sunglasses, and tightly woven clothes with long sleeves and long pants should be worn. Because about 50 percent of the sun's rays can stream through windows, including those in the car, some dermatologists and skin experts have a UV shield applied to their car windows, which can shield as much as 99 percent of the sun's harmful rays. Sunscreen should therefore be considered only one defense against the sun, and used in conjunction with other methods.

Han-Kwang 08:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Smell of sunscreen

Most sunscreens seem to have the same unique smell. I think the ingredient(s) that cause this smell should be mentioned in this article, if anyone knows. dearly 17:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sunscreen Expiration

There should be some mention on what happens to sunscreen's effectiveness past its expiration date. Many people have sunscreens lying around that have passed their expiration date but that have the same appearance and consistency as before. It is unclear whether continued use will provide any less protection than before the sunscreen's expiry date. --Robert 05:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation

"Suntan lotion is used to attract UV rays in order to better tan where sunblock is used to deflect UV radiation."

There's no citation for this claim.

Jawareham 09:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Zinc oxide safest chemical

Almost all sunscreen lotions have health/safety concerns, due to the chemicals in them. So, avoiding direct sun exposure, by hats and clothing etc, esp when the sun is high in the sky, is the best thing to do. If you do need a lotion, zinc oxide (old-fashioned non-nano) seems the safest; it has long been used as a skin cream on babies etc. Any clear-invisible chemical probably has safety concerns -- only something opaque-white that obviously blocks the sun in a direct physical way is likely to be safe. There is no magic! The best source of zinc oxide in the US seems to Burt's Bees (Herbal Defense Ointment etc), but it is not sold as a sun screen, and does not have a SPF rating.-69.87.203.105 11:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice advertisement. BTW that is all rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.27.251 (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Source doesn't seem to back up claim.

The statement "Although one might believe that this effect is due to sunscreens being used more in regions where people are more exposed to UV light, this is not what is claimed by this study: Melanome incidence correlates strongly with the use of chemical sunscreens independently of the actual UV exposure" is sourced to [1] but I can't find where that article makes the claim that is sourced. PenguiN42 01:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes,I've jsut found the same thing. The source goes back to Garland, Cedric F., et al. Could sunscreens increase melanoma risk? American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 82, No. 4, April 1992, pp. 614-15, http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/82/4/614. The bit of their letter relevant to this particular claim says:

"Worldwide, the countries where chemical sunscreens have been recommended and adopted have experienced the greatest rise in cutaneous malignant melanoma, with a contemporaneous rise in death rates. In the United States, Canada, Australia, and the Scandinavian countries, melanoma rates have risen steeply in recent decades, with the greatest increase occurring after the introduction of sunscreens.13-17 Death rates in the United States from melanoma doubled in women and tripled in men between the 1950s and the 1990s.18 The rise in melanoma has been unusually steep in Queensland, Australia, where sunscreens were earliest and most strongly promoted by the medical community.19 Queensland now has the highest incidence rate of melanoma in the world.20 In contrast, the rise in melanoma rates was notably delayed elsewhere in Australia,20 where sunscreens were not promoted until more recently."

Which is fine, but not quite the same thing. This is not strong evidence for sunscreens directly causing cancers. I'm not trying to do original research, but you would, for example, get the same pattern if you use sunscreens that have no effect on cancer, but which do allow you to spend more time comfortably in the sun. This is the point that the Garlands make later in the article. Richard Keatinge 16:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Alien Mutation & Burning Jacob

Where in the world did these two statements come from?!?

“The SPF of a sunscreen is a laboratory measure of the effectiveness of alien goo on human skin; the higher the SPF, the more protection from being mutated into that specific alien species.”

“The SPF can be measured by applying sunscreen to the skin of Jacob and measuring how long it takes before Jacob catches fire.”

Neither is cited, nor does either provide factual non-fiction information. The comments seem to belong in a section titled "little known myths about SPF" not on a page where people are searching for credible information. Niagra19 07:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

History Section Delete - accept or reject?

The history section has been tagged for a while now, and does contradict itself, plus offers no cites. It also appears to offer little real information, and editing won't fix it, as it needs a complete rewrite. Because it seems to offer no verifiable info at this time, I would vote to delete the section until someone can write a proper history section. accept or reject please. Pharmboy 13:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this section needs major cleanup. I've changed the section to reflect historical continuity and removed some items that I couldn't find reasonable citations for. I was concerned that the only references online to some of those items were nearly word-for-word the same as this page, which made me wonder if all those other sources got their information from wikipedia... nicely circular, and none of the correct...? Hence why I removed some of them. I haven't figured out how to add citations for the things I put in yet, so in case I haven't figured it out, here they are:

1. http://www.pizbuin.com/brand_story.jsp 2. Has the sun protection factor had its day? - Education and Debate by Brian Diffey, British Medical Journal, January 15, 2000.

I'm sure there are better citations out there, so please feel free to add them. Meanwhile, in case anyone wants it, I've included the old text below. Mystif17 20:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The section you edited looks better and makes a bit more sense, thanks! Pharmboy 21:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

History

The ancient Greeks used olive oil as a type of sunscreen. However, this was not very effective. Throughout the early twentieth century, H.A. Milton Blake, a South Australian chemist, as well as several other inventors attempted to create an effective sunscreen but failed.

It was not until 1944 that the first effective sunscreen was invented. At that time, World War II was in full swing and many soldiers were getting serious sunburn. A pharmacist named Benjamin Greene decided to create something that would save the soldiers from the sun’s harmful rays. In his wife’s oven, he created a sticky, red substance which he called "red vet pet" (red veterinary petrolatum), which worked primarily by physically blocking the sun's rays with a thick petroleum-based product similar to Vaseline. Greene tested it on his own bald head. It did not work nearly as well as modern sunscreens.

Sunscreen has come a long way since its initial days. Modern products have much higher protection factors than Greene's sunscreen, and modern products can also be water- and sweat-resistant. But there are also negative effects. Some people rely too much on the product and do not understand the limitations of the sun protection factor (SPF); they assume that buying anything over SPF 30 will automatically prevent them getting burnt no matter how long they can stay in the sun. Too much sunbathing is one of the major causes of skin cancer across the world.

An effective sunscreen had already been developed in 1938 by the Swiss chemistry student Franz Greiter, after he had severely burnt himself during an ascent of the Piz Buin on the border between Switzerland and Austria. He named his product, which he had developed in a small laboratory in his parents' home, Gletscher Creme or in English: Glacier Cream. Still existing examples of the 'Glacier Cream' have shown to have a SPF of 2 and thus could be classed as an effective sunscreen.

Link / reference number 8 is now a dead link

Sorry I don't know how to edit very well and I'd probably make a mess.

If this is a redundant post, please delete it too, just trying to help

- 31/10/2007 Scott

Scottylans 21:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Appreciate the help. Actually, when you are not sure what to do, doing what you just did is exactly the right thing: tell someone. I fixed it by leaving the fact, removing the citation, and putting in a tag for citation. The fact is surely true, but it make a broad enough claim that it needs a citation, thus the tag. Thanks for the help. Pharmboy 01:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

--Reference number 1 & 17--

Hi please edit reference 17 as it is similar to reference 1.

Sun tan lotion

Sun tan lotion is NOT sun screen in the US. Sunscreen is a product that BLOCKS the tanning/buring rays. Sun tan lotion is a product that INCREASES the tanning effect of the suns rays. No sunscreen in the US will be sold or marketed using terminology sun tan lotion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No one is asserting that the product is marketed as "suntan lotion." It just happens to be commonly referred to as such (because it's used to achieve a suntan instead of a sunburn). In my experience, the product that you describe usually is referred to as "tanning oil."

I provided a link to a Google News search (and included a U.S.-specific version in my edit summary) because this displays a list of numerous reliable sources that use the term in this context. (Did you even bother to examine any of the articles?) If I were to link to only one article, how would that establish that such use is common? —David Levy 02:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

and if you actually read the listings of the 200 sources, not until page 6 do you actually get an american reference that calls sunscreen "suntan lotion") -- edit summary by The Red Pen of Doom 02:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I see two relevant U.S. hits on the first page (along with one from Canada and one from the UK). Though I don't know why you evidently believe that only the American usage matters, nor do I know why you believe that "suntan lotion" requires a reference citation and "sunblock" doesn't. (Is your personal knowledge somehow the determining factor?) —David Levy 02:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

V and WP:RS are clearly about having SPECIFIC sources that make the claims we cite in Wikipedia, and link to a google search is not providing specific sources. Some of the "sources" that you provided in the google search, if you actually read them, verified useful items like :

• "I stupidly left some suntan lotion in my hand luggage, and the fact that most modern bombs are made from suntan lotion" - ok this one says that suntan lotion is a bomb - but does not say suntan lotion is sunscreen. lets try again
• "A Tilehurst man stole bottles of suntan lotion and Champagne because he had “cravings to steal”," - OK suntan lotion is a target of thieves - does not really support suntan lotion= sunscreen
• "Imagine a beach-scented breeze wafting by with hints of suntan lotion, coastal citrus, and salty air." - maybe closer - but still not.
• AHHHH on page 6 we have an American source that calls a sunscreen product suntan lotion. And I did add it for you. There were several British English sources that made the same nomenclature relation and a couple from Canada and India, but American sources equating sunscreen = suntan lotion are few and far between. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I certainly didn't claim that all of the articles contained relevant mentions.

2. Again, I see two relevant U.S. mentions on the first page (which you've conveniently omitted from the above list):

• "Two weekends ago, I made sure my young daughters put on suntan lotion before they went swimming, but somehow, neglected to use any myself. My back is still peeling apart -- no, make that falling apart. So when a spokesperson for a major suntan lotion company sent me these tips for protecting oneself from harmful ultraviolet rays, I decided that that I couldn't keep these to myself, even though, really, protecting oneself from the sun doesn't have much to do with personal finance." — WalletPop, a website of AOL (Virginia, USA)
• "'If you can't avoid being outdoors, you should try staying in the shade, wearing protective clothing, and of course, wearing suntan lotion,' [Sarah Stein, a pediatric dermatologist at University of Chicago Medical Center] said." — Medill Reports, a publication of Northwestern University (Illinois, USA) —David Levy 03:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not challenging the use of sunblock= sunscreen. (It would be good to provide a source and if challenged by another editor, you will need to do more than provide a link to a google search.) My challenge was to the use of the term suntan lotion=sunscreen in American terminology - someone had claimed that it was common use in British English, and I assumed they knwe what they were talking about and so I was challenging you to find an American source that would support the use of the terms as you kept reverting the article. The use in American English has been verified by a specific source and I assume that a county health board is WP:Reliable and so I have no further challenge. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

1. The previous wording implied that the use of the term "suntan lotion" to mean "sunscreen" was limited to the UK. This is a more specific claim than the simple statement that the term is used for this purpose (without specifying where). Even if this were not common in the United States, it would be extremely unlikely to be confined strictly to the UK (and not to at least one other country). You noted sources from Canada and India, and you implied that these were irrelevant because they weren't American.

2. If you assumed that the UK claim was accurate, why did you twice remove it entirely? —David Levy 03:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Cookies for everyone.

We have achieved verification through a reliable source. Situation concluded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk • contribs) 08:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, David went to some trouble to address your concerns, and you responded to his with cookies. Kinda rude and dismissive, no? CapitalQ (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wiki drahmahz.

An issue was raised based on Wikipedia policies and the issue has been addressed based on Wikipedia policies. Issue closed. If you are unwilling to take a cookie break to celebrate and are instead looking for more drama, you will need to go elsewhere. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Your concerns have been addressed. Most of my concerns have not been. In unilaterally deeming the discussion "concluded" and "closed," you've ignored my questions and comments (which pertain to issues that transcend the initial dispute). No one seeks "drama," but I would sincerely appreciate some thoughtful replies. —David Levy 15:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are your concerns about the article that have not been addressed? I see a concern about former wording that no longer exists ("The previous wording implied") and a question about actions I had taken in the past ("if you ... why did you twice remove" ) - my initial response was to leave the use of the term 'suntan lotion' = sunscreen when such use was identified as a linguistic use of the UK. When that specification was reverted, then I applied WP:V to require a source that backed up what was stated in the article. I "twice removed " items that did not satisfy WP:V - a list of google search responses are not "soources". A specific source now exists within the article.

If you have concerns about the current article, please outline them, otherwise share in a cookie that we have reached a point of WP:CONSENSUS. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Okay, now you've answered one of my questions. Could you please address the remainder of my concerns? For your convenience, I'll reiterate them below:

• Why did you object to a less specific claim than one that you accepted? (My re-wording eliminated the unverified assertion that the term "suntan lotion" was used to refer to sunscreen strictly in the UK and nowhere else).
• Why have you continually claimed that the Google News search provided no relevant results until the sixth page (even after I noted that there were two on the first page). You've indirectly implied that I was either lying or badly mistaken, and you've yet to retract this claim (even after I quoted the texts in question).
• Why do you believe that the American usage has special importance (and disregard information pertaining to Canada and India)?

2. Again, I wasn't citing Google News as a source; I was providing a link to a regularly updated list of sources. As I noted, my goal was to establish that the terminology in question is common, and citing a single instance of its use doesn't accomplish that. —David Levy 17:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I will have my cookie, if you dont want yours, so be it.

Still seeing no specific concerns identified about the current article; there is really nothing to discuss here. If you wish to discuss reliable sources and verification, we can go to those talk pages. Until such time, -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

My concerns pertain directly to the manner in which you've edited the article (and potentially others), interacted with fellow editors of the article (and potentially others), and presumably intend to do so in the future. Standing behind false claims about others and insisting that only American information be considered are detrimental behaviors (the latter of which directly affects the article's quality). —David Levy 18:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, nothing about what your concerns about the current article may be.

If you wish to move the conversation about me to my talk page, please do, and please provide specific quotes and diffs to verify your statements, generic accusations are not helpful. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Your continual claim that certain valid sources don't exist and insistence upon disregarding non-U.S. information (as anyone can read above) absolutely affects the article. —David Levy 18:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Two statements which are untrue. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't denied that there were any relevant Google News hits until the sixth page? You haven't deemed sources irrelevant because they originated in Canada and India? —David Levy 19:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources originating in Canada and India are irrelevant for showing the use of the term suntan lotion = sunscreen in the US (unless those sources specifically state "the term suntan lotion is used for sunscreen in the US" which they didn't). -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the "use of the term suntan lotion = sunscreen in the US" matter is entirely of your creation. At no recent point has article contained such a claim. The only relevant issue was whether said usage was limited to the United Kingdom, and a source pertaining to Canada or India establishes that it isn't just as well as a source from the United States does. But for some reason, you evidently believe that the U.S. holds some special position of importance. —David Levy 20:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the use of suntan lotion=sunscreen in the US is an issue that I contested, per WP:V. The article now contains a source that satisfies my WP:PROVEIT. The current status of the article satisfies me and as far as I can tell, your concerns have been met as well. Therefore as I have said many times, this issue is closed - your persistance in re-re-re-visiting it absolutly confounds me.-- The Red Pen of Doom 20:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, "the use of suntan lotion=sunscreen in the US" is an issue that you invented. You demanded evidence of something not stated in the article. The statement that the terminology existed in the UK was changed to the less specific statement that it existed (with no geographic claim of any kind), and rather than requesting evidence of the term's use outside of the United Kingdom, you demanded evidence of its use specifically in the United States (something not mentioned in the article). You then deemed Canadian and Indian sources unsuitable as evidence of the term's use outside of the UK (because you evidently believe that only American usage justifies an unqualified statement). —David Levy 22:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You aparently still have not read WP:V, so I will quote it here: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." I challenged the statement in the article that "sunscreen is also known as suntan lotion" - based on the fact that in the US sunscreen products are not labeled or marketed as suntan lotions. However we have a reliable US source that shows that a county health agency does indeed use the term suntan lotion for a sunscreen product. Again, quoting WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". A verifiable source trumps my truth.-- The Red Pen of Doom 02:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, you challenged a nonexistent claim. Nowhere in the article was it indicated that the product was known as "suntan lotion" in the United States. If, for the sake of discussion, it weren't, that would have absolutely no bearing on the statement's validity; sources establishing this terminology in any country or countries other than the United Kingdom are equally suitable as justification for the "UK" qualifier's removal. —David Levy 03:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And I'm still waiting for you to explain why you continually denied the existence of the two relevant U.S. sources that appeared on the first page. —David Levy 20:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

WalletPop @ AOL is not something that I would appraise as a WP:RS and the medill.northwestern.edu site requires a whole lot of interpretation and analysis to get to the point that you can say it verifies the use of suntan lotion= sunscreen. Had someone presented that as the source to verify the cliam I would likely have challenged the application. I stand by my statement that it was not until page 6 that I found a US source that comes close enough the verifying the claim that suntan lotion=sunscreen. And regardless, the source had been presented and your return to this issue when you are not showing any concern with the current state of the article appears more than pointless. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of the WalletPop article, given the fact that only evidence of the term's use (not its correctness) was needed. Your assessment of the Medill Reports article, meanwhile, is ridiculous; it contains a direct quotation from a pediatric dermatologist at the University of Chicago Medical Center (clearly a reliable source on the subject) in which she unambiguously recommends "wearing suntan lotion" as a means of protection against sun exposure.

And of course, you quoted several first-page articles with nothing remotely resembling relevant text (while conveniently neglecting to even acknowledge the above articles' existence).

My concern regarding the article's current state is that the introduction is now biased (in the respect that it intentionally assigns special weight to a term's usage within the United States). —David Levy 22:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are so concerned that there is no verification in the article for the use of the term "suntan lotion" for "sunscreen" in other parts of the English speaking world, feel free to find and include actual sources (actual sources not a link to a google search result) that will support that claim or remove the claim until someone else provides a source that makes a more global claim on the usage of the term 'suntan lotion = sunscreen'. I really dont care. I am satisfied with the current status of the lead sentance, and you appear to keep wanting to revisit a dead issue.-- The Red Pen of Doom 02:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm attempting to address the underlying issue before wasting my time on citations that you'll simply remove (due to your apparent belief that non-American sources are irrelevant). It isn't the use of an American source that bothers me (as I see no need to cite "global" evidence); it's the fact that you've dictated that an American source be cited. (In other words, it isn't the link that's problematic; it's the rationale behind its inclusion.) I expect you to spin this to mean that I have no objections regarding the article's current state, but that isn't so; this includes the state of editing (which is hampered when someone unreasonably controls an article's content). There's no valid reason why a non-American source can't be cited instead. Will you allow that? —David Levy 03:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent)

• The article made a claim that was unsupported (sunscreen is also known as suntan lotion).
• I removed the unsupported general claim , because as stated above, in the US sunscreen products are not labeled or marketed as suntan lotions, but I was willing to leave the term identified as a usage of the UK [2]. There are language usages that vary across the pond, (elevator/lift, lorry/truck, petrol/gas ...suntan lotion/sunblock??? OK, if someone claims such a usage I have no reason to doubt it) and I was willing to have such a difference indicated in the article.
• You removed the specification [3] claiming that "suntan lotion" was used as a term for "sunscreen" in the US.
• I then challenged the entire incusion under WP:V [4] - if you want to make a claim in the article that suntan lotion is used as a term for sunscreen, you would need to back it up with a source.
• At which point, you included a link to a google search results page, but did not cite any particular source which backed your claims [5]
• I removed the link to google search results page " google news search summary is not a WP:RS - find an actual source that calls sunscreen "suntan lotion"" [6]
• another editor returned the search results link [7] under the misguided notion that such a link was somehow a source.
• I replaced the irrelevant google search page result with an actual link to a reliable source that unambiguously identified an american usage of the "suntan lotion" with a "sunscreen product" - this verifiable source trumped my challenge that "suntan lotion is not a term used for sunscreen products in the US" [8]

Big breath .... so I am not sure where your belief that I "believe that non-American sources are irrelevant" came from - it is not a statement that I have ever made (see below). What I "dictacted" was that an _actual_ _specific_ source be found that supported the claim that the term "suntan lotion" is used for "sunscreen" and specifically that such usage was applicable in the US. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC) I did claim and still will claim that showing that a source from someplace other than the US uses a term in a certain way is irrelevant to providing proof to the specific challenge that US english uses a term in a specific way. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The article made a claim that was unsupported (sunscreen is also known as suntan lotion).

That's true, and this was rectifiable by citing sources that back this claim.

I removed the unsupported general claim , because as stated above, in the US sunscreen products are not labeled or marketed as suntan lotions, but I was willing to leave the term identified as a usage of the UK [9].

You've omitted a portion of the chronology.

I edited the article to insert a hatnote (after replacing a two-article disambiguation page with a redirect) and to remove the claim that "sun tan lotion" was a UK-specific term for this product. (I noted that "common use of the term 'sun tan lotion' is not restricted to the United Kingdom," but I made no mention of the United States.) Kmarkey inexplicably reverted both changes as "vandalism." Later than day, Darius Sinclair removed the national references, and you reverted with the explanation "suntan lotion is NOT sunblock in US" (referring to something not stated in the article). When I didn't receive a response to the inquiry that I left at Kmarkey's talk page (presumably because he/she is an infrequent editor), I restored my changes. Having noticed your reversion of Darius Sinclair's edit, I responded by noting that "'suntan lotion' *is* a common term for this product in the United States." This was merely a personal reply to you; it had nothing to do with any claim contained in the article. The United States has no special relevance, so the edit would have equally valid if the residents of any country in addition to the United Kingdom (be it Australia, Canada, India, Ireland, New Zealand, et cetera) commonly referred to sunscreen as "suntan lotion."

At which point, you included a link to a google search results page, but did not cite any particular source which backed your claims [10]

Again, the contested claim was that the term "suntan lotion" did not commonly refer to sunscreen outside of the UK. I don't see how a single instance of the term in this context proves otherwise, but a link to numerous sources does.

another editor returned the search results link [11] under the misguided notion that such a link was somehow a source.

No, CapitalQ's edit summary clearly states that this was a link to sources.

so I am not sure where your belief that I "believe that non-American sources are irrelevant" came from - it is not a statement that I have ever made (see below).

And yet, you reject Canadian and Indian sources as evidence of the term's contextual use outside on the United Kingdom.

What I "dictacted" was that an _actual_ _specific_ source be found that supported the claim that the term "suntan lotion" is used for "sunscreen" and specifically that such usage was applicable in the US.

...something not stated in the article.

I did claim and still will claim that showing that a source from someplace other than the US uses a term in a certain way is irrelevant to providing proof to the specific challenge that US english uses a term in a specific way.

...something not stated in the article. —David Levy 05:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

So we have an article that multiple editors have had multiple concerns with and a complex interwoven edit history regarding those concerns. My immediate concerns have been addressed. Please identify what your current concerns for the article are (and if other editors who have voiced concerns in the past still have concerns about the current article they can state them as well.) Once we know what the current concerns are, we can work towards WP:CONSENSUS in addressing those concerns. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I've explained my concerns. —David Levy 14:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Which things that are not stated in the article do you wish to state in the article? -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I reject your continual assertion that only such a concern is relevant. —David Levy 14:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have as clearly as I could stated my former concerns with the article and what my objections were to the proposed "fixes" to my concerns. All of my concerns have been addressed in a manner within Wikipedia's policies. You seem to have the notion that I only accept US sources. I do not know how to satisfy your concern other than what I have already stated: I DO NOT CONSIDER THAT THE NATION OF ORIGIN OF THE SOURCE HAS ANY AFFECT ON WHETHER OR NOT THAT SOURCE IS CONSIDERED A RELIABLE SOURCE. PERIOD.

• The content of the source must address the actual thing that the source supposedly verifies.
• The 'source' must be an actual, specific source.
• The source must meet Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines, i.e. have some sort of editorial board oversite/peer review process.

What other concerns do you have about the article?-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you certainly haven't questioned the reliability of non-U.S. sources. You've correctly noted that they're irrelevant to the issue of whether sunscreen is commonly known as "suntan lotion" in the United States, but this is something not stated in the article, and you refuse to explain why it was necessary to cite a source for something not stated in the article. —David Levy 17:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There were 3 positions that editors held (as far as I can see).

• My position that suntan lotion is not used as a term for sunscreen in the US
• The position of another editor that specified that suntan lotion is used as a term for sunscreen in the UK

These two positions are not contradictory and I was able to support the specification that suntan lotion is used for sunscreen in the UK

• Your position that makes no distiction thereby making the implication that suntan lotion is a term that is used for sunscreen globally in the English speaking world.

This position is in contradiction to my position that the terms are not interchangable in the US.

I challenged the unsupported assertion within the article because without making any distinction, the article implied that the term suntan lotion was used in the US. We now have a source that verifies the use of suntan lotion for sunscreen within US and so I will not challenge wording that implies such. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There has been no "implication that suntan lotion is a term that is used for sunscreen globally in the English speaking world." There was an implication that this was true strictly in the UK, and I replaced this with the simple statement that sunscreen is also known as "suntan lotion" (with no claim that this applied to a particular geographic location or locations). For this edit to be reasonable, sunscreen need only be commonly referred to as "suntan lotion" in any country other than the United Kingdom. A Canadian or Indian source is every bit as relevant (and renders the statement every bit as valid), and this would be so even if "suntan lotion" weren't a common name for sunscreen in the United States.

If, as you assert, the wording in question is an "implication that suntan lotion is a term that is used for sunscreen globally in the English speaking world" (which I obviously dispute), how is a U.S. source sufficient? You're literally arguing that the article presently "[implies] that suntan lotion is a term that is used for sunscreen globally in the English speaking world," and that evidence of said use in the United States is an appropriate citation. —David Levy 18:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If you refuse to understand how the unspecified statement "also known as suntan lotion" implies usage in the US, fine. Keep your view that it doesn't - I don't care. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No, please enlighten me. How does such a statement imply usage in the United States (as opposed to other nations in which the English language is widely spoken)? Is it your position that in the absence of a qualifier to the contrary, the natural assumption is that an English Wikipedia article's text applies to the United States (as though that country is the automatic default)? —David Levy 20:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be beyond my ability to enlighten you and it is beyond my ability to care whether or not you are enlightened. 21:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk • contribs)

Damn, and I just made a fresh bag. -CapitalQ (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so you care enough to reply evasively, but not enough to simply answer my questions. I see.

Well, I suppose that I'll enjoy some popcorn with CapitalQ. —David Levy 21:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)