Talk:Natural skin care

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived (no consensus) an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Doc (?) 10:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Natural?

This article links to nature, but the concept of nature is a broad sense of the material universe including artificial human-made ingrediants. This practise requires a name more specific, such as non-artificial skin care or spontaneous skin care. Who named this concoction so badly? Tyciol (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aesthetics#The_second_sentence_of_this_article_needs_serious_work

September 2007 talk page?

This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (September 2007)

This article has the above tag at the top, yet there was no topic started on this talk page for Sept 07 to discuss original research, unverified claims, and doing further research. This topic can be for that I guess. There was previously an 'unreferenced' tag for 2006 but that seems to have been removed at some point. I have found that the 'original research' tag was actually added prior to september, it was dated that way because that is when a bot found it. See here. Whoever originally tagged it, please state your objections and let's try to get this article fixed up. Properly sourcing and referencing it will make it deserve to stick around and avoid deletion debates as it seems to have been the target of previously. Tyciol (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

I removed the skin types listing which seems to have been directly lifted from the page that was ref'ed. If the copyright violation was in the other direction, revert, but it seems unlikely. BillMcGonigle (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Article remediation

The article is at AfD. This has prompted it being restructured. It's "early days" but I think this is an article we can keep. I won't get this all done in one go. It's going to take several days (or longer) of intermittent work. Clean up, add in, clean up, do it again. The proposed upgrade path is:

• 1: the text is a visual mess as it gets restructured

• 2: clearer summary (with references) of regulatory aspects -- this better than it was, but is still not optimally worded or referenced;
• 3: a broadened handling of consumer perceptions and preferences -- there's a slew of additional references out there about this
• 4: tightening up the alternative medicine aspect -- needs to stay brief
• 5: expand cautions section -- underway
• 6: collect the science research into a new section -- again keep brief -- underway.
• 7: at some point, the references need to start being trimmed selectively

FeatherPluma (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Script render error

I am about to revert JzG's edit, but the purpose is not (repeat NOT) to revert the edit. The edit has produced an inexplicable misscripting error. Here is the problem: .

As soon as I have undone JzG's edit, I will immediately reintroduce the essence of the edit but see whether an edit field that does not cleave the ref tags avoids the misscripting. (It's a wild guess that that is the issue). FeatherPluma (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, that worked. Makes me sort of happy. No, I do not really understand what is going on. But my hunch is cleaving two ref tags and melding one tag's head with another tag's tail is visually neutral, but produces a code misfusion product. Maybe something to do with invisible checksum in the tags at a deeper level in the tags. From the subtheme of the message I'm guessing there's a tag dictionary that tables the wiki tag cross talk. If anyone knows, I'd be interested. Or maybe I'll fire up a sandbox and experiment. Or look it up somewhere. Anyway, the edit essence is faithfully redone. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Article / subsection name and position in organizational tree

Hi, Deli nk / courtesy flag also to Bondegezou who has commented: (this reply was initially placed on the AfD page, but has been moved here to avoid clutter on the AfD page, and to further edit and add to my reply).
Deli nk, Thanks for your opinion and for presenting an option that you'd prefer if the article were kept.

Brief summary: I have no immediate objection philosophically to your suggestion as one way forward but I do think another organizational approaches, stimulated by your idea, are better yet. I explain in detail and offer 4 other options.
Longer answer: Although skin care does redirect to cosmetics, it is not a synonym redirect, but is more precisely a subsection redirect to cosmetics#skin care products. Emphasis: products. Which is precisely the wrong place for the contents of natural skin care. The relevant literature and sources I have been working with speak in a somewhat limited way about products, which is consistent with the FDA absence of a legal definition as to what factors, elements, or considerations would delimit a "natural" product category. (It is worth noting that even the FDA in its safety advisory to consumers does use the term natural - see the quote in the article. And note also that the official International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients (INCI) conventions mandate Latin for natural ingredients and technical names for synthetic ingredients.) Instead of products the thematic focus is on several things: natural "ingredients , customer preferences and perceptions, on the expanded notion of botanicals in "actual" skin health rather than "appearance" cosmesis, the desirability of dermatologists to engage in meaningful communication with consumers and patients about their use of and questions about natural botanical ingredient activities, as well as concerns about efficacy and safety. These are the themes now showing within the article, and these themes use a vocabulary and idiom that lacks significant congruence with cosmetics.
Saying this a different way, and apologies for stating my understanding of your position; I hope I am doing so accurately: I think I understand your position as pointing as a matter of linguistic logic to "natural" as a simple adjectival modifier of "skin care". You thus see natural skin care as a subset of skin care. I think this is mistaken. What I see in the literature (this is not my doing, and it's not my fault) the adjectival modifier not as a subset designator but, instead, in one of the other ways that language can use adjectival phrases: as a terminological placeholder. The term functionally is widely used as a denominator node which wafts over the fuzzy boundaries of skin care into discussing the bigger concepts I enumerated previously. This is precisely what we usually say encyclopedias are about.
Based on the cited literature, it would be very peculiar to attempt forcibly shoehorning a broader concept into a subset of an already narrower concept. At this point it's become quite clear (to me) that conflation of natural skin care to skin care is unwieldy from several perspectives. Wikipedia article size considerations most certainly will apply.
I see several different ways options to address yor concern, listed in my descending order of preference:

• 1. defer renaming the related articles. Focus on getting this article into better shape as the first priority. Rename articles in the thematic space when several of them have been cleaned up (this one, and those which are tagged as having unreferenced subsections / citations neeeded content in the related articles; OR/AND
  
• 2. rename cosmetics as skin care, and invert the functional direction of the redirect. Modify the organization of the existing subsection which has the {{Main}} pointing to natural skin care and clean up the adjacent content. This would have several advantages: we end up with a broader name and topic content for the skin care article; avoid bringing dubious energy to the "other" thoroughly blurry definitional boundary between general personal skin care and cosmetics (which I would not know how to set about defending, and which is why there is presently a redirect); avoid any pointless escalation or intense focus on "natural" versus synthetic ingredients (and "natural" versus "commercial" medicine); keep two rather than ultimately ending up with three articles; and attain a practical spinoff of a vastly simpler micro-editing workload. OR/AND
  
• 3. rename [[natural skin care]] to [[natural ingredients in skin care]] or to [[natural ingredients of cosmetics]] (there is a ingredients of cosmetics article. I do not like this lengthier title but it is more precise; OR/AND
  
• 4. rename [[natural skin care]] to [[natural cosmetics]]. This addresses your objection of an (apparent) subtopic without a similarly named master page. Although this term has been used in the literature, it is not used frequently, so I do not favor this.

Thanks for stimulating ideas and discussion.
FeatherPluma (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)