Talk:Barrier cream

Not a review

I added Shielding lotions are designed to create a barrier against irritants.[2]" However, the source is not a review. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sporting section

I am removing the sporting section which had two refs. The first was totally unacceptable and the 2nd was one study of 20 athletes. Using 10 of them as placebo group showed that one athlete in the placebo group got athlete's foot...something like that...at any rate not worth a mention for a medical article. Gandydancer (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Marketing section

I removed the marketing section which had a single ref (a press release which doesn't qualify as a reliable source) and implied that the terminology "shielding lotion" resulted from a marketing campaign. A study from 1965 will illustrate the usage long before any marketing campaign Dr. James Schultz (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You deleted two sources and they are reliable enough for the claims. It did not imply the term originated from a marketing campaign. QuackGuru (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Because you don't have access to the entire article, you can only see the synopsis. Within the article, it says "A barrier cream is a topical preparation that is applied to the skin to provide a barrier,

helping to reduce the effect of skin contact with contaminants. Barrier creams are used to protect employees against work-related skin hazards". You can see the excerpt from the search results at: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22a+barrier+cream+is%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C5. I'm reverting your edit. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The PR case study claims that "there had never been a product called a shielding lotion before" their campaign for Skin MD, and "prior to Jan 2006 there was no mention of shielding lotions on the Internet." I think it's likely a coincidence that the 60s study combined the words "shielding" and "lotion". The 2005 review, which I cannot access, is written by Del Williams. Googling that name, Del Williams has also written a press release for the Skin MD product.[1] So the 2005 journal article itself may be part of the campaign. KateWishing (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so. Del Williams MA...I found him at one other marketing site. It's my guess that the "National Skin Care Institute", which sounded pretty fishy to me even before I went to their website, was/is in on it too.[2] Their Dr. Lisa Benest is now advertising the Gloves in a Bottle product, and others, from her website. Gandydancer (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The keyword here is "product". Yes no product existed by the name of shielding lotion. But this isn't about a "product", it's about a classification that clearly predated the marketing pages you listed. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Verification not provided

Where does the source verify the entire sentence? QuackGuru (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Go to http://www.update-software.com/BCP/WileyPDF/EN/CD004414.pdf and look for the sentence that reads: "A barrier cream is a topical preparation". This is the entire article cited in PDF format. In the future, please don't discard citations just because you don't have access to the entire article in the database. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

That does not verify "A barrier cream, also known as shielding lotion, is a topical formulation used in industrial, medical, and sporting environments to place a physical barrier between the skin and contaminants that may irritate (contact dermatitis or occupational dermatitis), or infect the skin.[1]" Please do not remove the tag without fixing the problems. QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't add shielding lotion to that sentence, but I'm going to be completely honest with you, you're really starting to look OCD. There are literally thousands of extremely problematic articles on Wikipedia. Since my shielding lotion article got merged with this article, I will be working on improving it, adding information and citations. Until then, why don't you just follow through on what you previously said and simply back off. This is getting nitpicky and tiresome. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You have confirmed you removed the tag when the sentence failed verification using the source you added. I can tweak the sentence so that ts is sourced.

Please do not restore the text that failed verification from the shielding lotion article. Original research is forbidden. I follow what Larry Sanger said. QuackGuru (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all, the citation I added sufficiently demonstrated what a barrier cream was and how it was used. If you had an issue with the shielding lotion AKA attribution for barrier cream, you should have removed that or taken it up with the person who added it to begin with. I would tend to agree that barrier cream and shielding lotion are not synonymous because not all barrier creams would qualify as a shielding lotion. As for your rewording, it did absolutely nothing for the article except to reintroduce a non MEDRS citation. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add citations at the end of the sentence that FV or add new material that fail verification. Almost all the text from shielding lotion FV. The OR will not be restored here per Larry Sanger. QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Look, no disrespect intended, but you really sound like you're on drugs. What are you even talking about? I haven't added anything after your asinine FV tag. Look at the history, every recent edit made is yours, not mine.Dr. James Schultz (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This source did not verify the whole sentence, but you removed the tag without adjusting the text. I reworded the text and provided a source to verify shielding lotion. There is no reason to add any source that FV. QuackGuru (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Shielding lotion marketing scam?

According to this source the Skin MD Natural Shielding Lotion is only a "daily face lotion with sunscreen." Therefore, there are shielding lotions that do not form a protective layer, and do not provide a protective layer and not not bond with dead skin cells or provide an additional chemical layer to the skin. Using Wikipedia for marketing purposes like this is over. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a PR campaign? QuackGuru (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

A helpful article

I found this paper to be very helpful [3] If you don't have time for a full read, see the intro and the check list at the bottom. Gandydancer (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Are barrier creams removed by standard hand cleansing?

"Recently, barrier creams have been marketed for the prevention of hand hygiene-related irritant contact dermatitis. Such products are absorbed into the superficial layers of the epidermis and are designed to form a protective layer that is not removed by standard hand cleansing. Evidence of the efficacy of such products, however, is equivocal."[4] I think this can be clarfied in the article. Not sure how to word it. QuackGuru (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite Tag

The entire Barrier cream article is one big opinion piece. It is completely lacking in neutrality and espouses negative undertones throughout the entire article. Despite the opinion of a certain editor who has taken expansive liberties with the article, there are legitimate and effective uses for barrier creams in the treatment of various dermatological conditions.

For instance,instead of stating that barrier creams have been proven effective in the treatment of diaper rash, the author argues against the use of barrier creams, saying "disposable nappies are effective in drawing fluid away from the skin and can be changed less frequently in the absence of stools, making regular application of barrier creams unnecessary in most children." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. James Schultz (talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article is neither encyclopedic nor accurate. As a dermatologist, I find the lack of accuracy in the article bothersome, but my attempts to repair it in the past have been met by reverts and challenges every step of the way by the editor responsible for the problems with the article. The truth is, the article needs a complete rewrite by someone without an agenda, someone with actual experience in the industry.

Another example is the assertion that a barrier cream is "also known as a shielding lotion". This is neither accurate nor stated in the cited reference. A shielding lotion does create a barrier against skin irritants, but it is a TYPE of barrier cream and not all barrier creams would qualify as a shielding lotion. A shielding lotion also has a moisturizing effect, but many barrier creams do not. Saying that a barrier cream is "also known as a shielding lotion" is like saying tool is "also known as a cordless drill". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. James Schultz (talk • contribs) 19:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

A discussion has been started here

Dr. James Schultz (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It does not need a rewrite, but there's still lots of information to add from reviews like these:

• Corazza M, Minghetti S, Bianchi A, Virgili A, Borghi A (2014). "Barrier creams: facts and controversies". Dermatitis. 25 (6): 327–33. doi:10.1097/DER.0000000000000078. PMID 25384222.
• Zhai H, Chan HP, Maibach HI (2010). "Skin barrier cream efficacy: evidence based". Textbook of Cosmetic Dermatology (fourth edition ed.). CRC Press. pp. 47–52. ISBN 9781841847641. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
• Schliemann S, Elsner P (2014). "Prevention of Hand Eczema: Barrier Creams and Emollients". Textbook of Hand Eczema. Springer. pp. 273–278. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39546-8_26.

KateWishing (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Another attempt to promote "shielding lotion" as a product. Here are the falsehoods promulgated above by a self-proclaimed dermatologist:

1. Mr Schultz calls the article an "opinion piece" without any base for his assertion. Yet the text in it is verified by 16 references. Which of these does he dispute?
2. He claims it is "completely lacking in neutrality". Yet we still have those 16 sources. What does he offer in place? Only his own unsupported opinion and an appeal to authority by his claim to be a dermatologist.
3. He attributes to an unnamed author the finding that "regular application of barrier creams unnecessary in most children", yet that is actually a finding by the Great Ormond Street Hospital in its Manual of Children's Nursing Practices. Without any reliable source to substantiate his view, Mr Schultz offers his opinion that "barrier creams have been proven effective in the treatment of diaper rash", which may be true for treatment, but doesn't address the point that regular application is unnecessary in most children. So he wants us to substitute his baseless claim for the published findings of Great Ormond Street Hospital, I don't think so.
4. The so-called "shielding lotion" is a marketing term for a barrier cream, coined by a company to try to create a niche in the market. Trip database gives zero hits for "shielding lotion". PubMed gives one hit and that's for "X-ray attenuating lotion: a supplement to shielding". Does Mr Schultz want to build his "shielding lotion" advert on a complete lack of sources? Given the complete ignorance he displays for the requirements of reliable sourcing, I wouldn't be at all surprised.

He really needs to stop wasting everybody's time with his unfounded complaints. --RexxS (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The article does indeed need a rewrite. Every single assertion is biased against the use of barrier creams by someone who has little if any direct experience in the industry. There are literally thousands of valid studies, reviews and journal entries that indisputably illustrate the efficacy of barrier creams to treat certain dermatological conditions. There is content that has little if any relevancy to the article and sources being cited that do not verify what they are supposed to be validating. As it stands, there might be one or two lines in the entire article that could be considered accurate. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually RexxS I'm advocating the removal of the term shielding lotion all together from the article. It is not synonymous with barrier cream and has no business in the article. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't need a re-write. Every single assertion is based on reliable sources. Your touching faith in industry expertise reveals a real naivety about the problem of bias. But you see, you don't need to have worked in the industry to read sources. I'd recommend it to you, but it seems you've closed your mind and prefer your own opinion to that of published sources like Great Ormond Street Hospital.

I'm well aware that your agenda here is to remove the term "shielding lotion" from the article, so that you can re-create your advert for the cream. I've seen far too many SPAs over the years to not spot that. But I'll tell you now, you're not fooling anybody by making false claims. It is just a marketing term for a barrier cream and this article is the only place on Wikipedia that it deserves even a brief mention. --RexxS (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The source cited to verify the statement that a barrier cream is "also known as a shielding lotion" (https://books.google.com/books?id=mdUJAQAAMAAJ&q=shielding+lotion&dq=shielding+lotion&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFEQ6AEwB2oVChMIk6-xlYGgyAIVATaICh0NDw90) says no such thing.

The assertion that "the efficacy of barrier creams remains disputed" comes from a 2002 study conducted by the Dept of Dermatology at the University of California. Yet a later article published by Evidence-Based Nursing and recorded in the British Medical Journal says that "some barrier creams and moisturizers are effective for irritant contact dermatitis" (http://ebn.bmj.com/content/9/3/74.extract)

The paragraph that reads "As early as 1965 the term shielding lotion was used. In 2005, the Internet marketing agency Expansion Plus began promoting the term shielding lotion in a highly successful campaign that relied on planting information in social media so that it would be picked up and spread virally." has nothing to do with the article and cites a press release and marketing pamphlet. (two of the 16 "reliable sources" you mention - You do realize press releases and promotional pamphlets don't qualify as "reliable sources")

The biggest problem with the article is its complete and utter lack of neutrality. Show me one positive assertion in the entire article, just one that discusses effective treatment of a skin condition with a barrier cream. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The "efficacy of barrier creams remains disputed" line could easily be supported by a more recent review. This one (2014) says: "The effectiveness of BCs remains controversial and is an important issue for further studies and evaluation. [...] In an international survey of expert dermatologists, 98% of those interviewed considered BCs to be no more effective than bland emollients in the prevention of CD." There are cautiously positive aspects of the reviews I cited that should be incorporated into the article, though. KateWishing (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is it's a blanket statement. Barrier creams have not been proven effective at treating some conditions, but to say the "efficacy of barrier creams remains disputed" contradicts the many reviews that say certain conditions can effectively be treated with barrier creams. Consider the following:

"Correctly matched barrier preparations protect against harmful factors and irritants, facilitating at the same time hand washing at the end of the working day, and together with the use of suitable non-irritating detergents and skin care products are important elements contributing to the prevention of occupational skin diseases." Barrier creams in prevention of hand dermatoses - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25090859

"The barrier cream was shown to be more effective in treating and managing patients with IAD than the previous product that patients had been using." Br J Community Nurs. 2014 Dec;Suppl Wound Care:S32-8. doi: 10.12968/bjcn.2014.19.Sup12.S32.

"Some barrier creams and moisturisers are effective for irritant contact dermatitis; steroids are effective for allergic contact dermatitis." Evid Based Nurs. 2006 Jul;9(3):74.

There are literally thousands of reputable studies and reviews that demonstrate the effectiveness of barrier creams to treat certain skin conditions. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

upon viewing the references I would agree with RexxS (it eludes me ,that any changes are needed)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. James Schultz: Have you any idea of the difference between prevention and treatment? You're using sources that indicate some efficacy of barrier creams in the treatment of conditions such as dermatitis and nappy rash in order to dispute sources that question the value of barrier creams as prophylactics in preventing such conditions. Apples and pears. If you want to write and source some text that explains the use of barrier cream in treatment, and perhaps contrast it with the sources that examine its routine use in prevention, I'm sure everyone here would happily contribute to such an expansion of the article. --RexxS (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@RexxS: I most certainly do and the assertion in the article pertains to treatment ("The efficacy of barrier creams remains disputed. They have not been demonstrated to be useful in treating hand eczema.")Dr. James Schultz (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I see the source of your last question now. Yeah the first citation in my list discussed "prevention". It was an oversight on my part. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see the basis for the rewrite tag. Have looked at sources, and I have some familiarity with the topic in my professional life, and the article seems to reflect reliable sources. — soupvector (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Soupvector: You're right. The article does have issues and really needs to be expanded, but I shouldn't have tagged it for a complete rewrite. I've removed the tag. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Have a look at how our article defines a barrier cream: first as a topical medication (i.e. for treatment) and then as a barrier against contaminants (for prevention), then to protect hands against irritants (prevention again). Is it possible we could craft a better definition that makes clear the dual functions of a barrier cream? or do you think that a barrier cream doesn't have those two functions?

• The Medical uses sections seem to me to display the same lack of clarity. The subsection discussing hand care and irritant contact dermatitis only quotes the 2009 WHO position paper which questions the cost/benefit of barrier cream in prevention, and the 2002 CDC review that fails to find efficacy. Do you know of any equally good, preferably recent, secondary sources that would provide some counter-balance to those?
• The Diaper rash subsection is only concerned with prevention and is sourced to Great Ormond Street Hospital Manual of Children's Nursing Practices 2012. Do you have any equivalent sources that recommend regular use for prevention? And what about using a barrier cream to treat nappy rash - I used Sudocrem on my kids' nappy rashes many years ago and seem to remember being impressed with it, but we could do with a good source, rather than my anecdotes.
• The Effectiveness subsection is definitely confused, veering from a 2002 review, PMID 17134447, which surveys prevention, to a 2008 book on contact dermatitis discussing treatment. I would agree that a re-write of this sub-section is likely to improve it, so what sources would you recommend we use to base that re-write on?

So, there's some of the detail that we ought to be discussing here. On Wikipedia we define an expert not as someone who knows everything about a topic, but as someone who knows where to find the best sources on that topic. Would you like to help us by suggesting the best sources to make the improvements that the article needs? --RexxS (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@RexxS:I'll do some digging and see what I can come up with. Since you seem to have a lot more knowledge as to what is and isn't good for citations, I'll probably just create a rough draft, save it in my draft section and let you critique it. I can't promise it'll be quick cause I don't often get a lot of free time, but I'll do what I can. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

That's no problem, Dr Schultz, Wikipedia has no deadline and taking time and care over what we write is never going to be a bad plan. I really am no expert, but I look forward to doing what I can to help you with whatever re-write you can put together. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Shielding Lotion

The majority consensus here is that the term "shielding lotion" does not belong in this article and any connection is tenuous at best. QuackGuru has continued to add shielding lotion throughout the article despite the previous discussions that conclude the term does not belong in an article about barrier creams. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "shielding lotion" is purely a marketing term coined by an advertising company and is not encyclopedic (possibly with the exception of being used as an example in the context of an article about viral marketing). As the product marketed was clear a type of barrier cream, you could make a case for mentioning it briefly in this article, but there are far more important topics than need to be expanded and properly sourced here and we shouldn't be wasting our time on trivia. I've nominated the orphaned redirect (Shielding lotion) for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 26 #Shielding lotion. --RexxS (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It is a name for barrier cream. Agree not notable enough to be in the lead. But notable enough for the society and culture section IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Quote: (Nursery Management & Production - Volume 22 - Page 76, 2006)

"Skin MD Natural from 21st Century Formulations is being called a "shielding lotion" by its manufacturer for its protective qualities. It's perfect for people who work with their hands. It enhances the skin's natural protective abilities ..."

AT the same time there are google books cites for the term dated 1966. So I guess it is a generic marketing term which may mean whatever advertizer wants to. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, the language Skin MD Natural is a new shielding lotion designed to create an invisible, protective barrier that helps keep harmful chemicals out and keeps natural moisture in. Manufactured by 21st Century Formulations. (my bolface) also seems to indicate it is a generic term. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Still older, 1964 ref indicates that "shielding lotion" use to be a short for "sun-shielding lotion": Shielding the skin with light clothing, or in some instances the application of shielding lotions or creams, will prevent painful or even serious burns. . Staszek Lem (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, pardon my French: "Certaines sont qualifiées de « shielding lotions » ou lotions protectrices ; elles ont un double rôle d'hydratation et de maintien du bouclier protecteur de la peau par la présence de substances hydratantes efficaces, de polymères filmogènes et ..." Staszek Lem (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to notice the paucity of hits in google books for the term, suggesting that the term is rather non-distinguished. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Just the same, one may find plenty of market babble with a slightly different term, "shield lotion". Staszek Lem (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

SYN violation?

The word "also"[5] can be interpreted as a WP:SYN violation. QuackGuru (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You are right. I would like also to bring your attention to the fact that there are virtually zero reasonably scholarly sources which define what the heck "shielding lotion" is. Most of books I see basically repeat what the adverts say, often a direct rip-off (or written by the same people). I genuinely tried to find something usable (until now I had no idea of the subject; I am neither carpenter nor woman (oops; coming out:-), but failed. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The books say what the adverts say because that is part of their covert advertising. Wikipedia was once part of their covert advertising. QuackGuru (talk) 07:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I practice dermatology in So. Cal and I (and most of my colleagues here) have been using the term shielding lotion to define a class of lotions that both moisturize and protect the skin against irritants. I'm honestly not sure where the term originated except maybe that we work in the same region the term was first promoted on a major level and somehow incorporated it into our vocabulary. In my opinion, the term has been in use for quite awhile, but was never popularized in the industry. Which may explain why anyone would want to tie their product to the term and then push for its popularity. Either way, no one ever really considered shielding lotion and barrier cream as synonymous that I know of. Don't misunderstand what I'm saying; this isn't an attempt to have shielding lotion promoted here (I still feel it doesn't belong in this article); I'm just clarifying what I feel are the origins of the term's usage. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

In other words, all you say is that it is a professional slang in So Cal and you don't really why how and when defined it in this way. And why "shielding" means moisturizing and "barrier" is not. There is even no logic to make an educated guess, because logically "shielding" implies block of external things, while "barrier" blocks things both directions. That's exactly why wikipedia has a policy: no reliable references - no text. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Shielding Lotion^TM with a capital L is a trademark. That's where it originated from. QuackGuru (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: Oh I agree with you, which is why I don't believe the terminology should be used in this article.

@QuackGuru: It's not quite that simple, but does illustrate why it shouldn't be included in this article. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• re:"shielding lotion to define a class of lotions that both moisturize and protect" -- it looks like not all draw this bright line. Quoting:

• "Another prescription option is a barrier cream, which contains humectants that hold on to moisture longer, Fusco says. Barrier creams penetrate a little deeper than standard moisturizers, she adds. " Staszek Lem (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• "Wonder-Glove skin barrier lotion has a moisturizing, and softening effect on the skin."

- Google is your best enemy :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a moot point, Staszek Lem. I was speaking solely about local usage in my area. It was not an attempt to promote the idea here. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of anything; I am merely providing a reference of the opposite word usage, for completeness. And by the way, there is nothing wrong with "promoting an idea" in talk pages, if you believe it may clarify something, unless this becomes an illogical obsession. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Change to lede

I'm fine with this recent change to the lead to include shielding lotion as one of the other names. "Barrier creams are known by many other names, including skin protective creams, pre-work creams, antisolvent gels.[2] and shielding lotion.[3]" QuackGuru (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

OR?

The text should be in the body first. QuackGuru (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Common word versus technical word

I thought emollients was correct. It has been changed to occlusives. User:Wwallacee, I do not understand why it was changed. The article should be written for the general reader. QuackGuru (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the change is an improvement (and "occlusive" is pretty intuitive for a lay reader), given the adjacent context in the sentence (where it's clearly referring to occlusive rather than emollient effects). This review article notes the triad of moisturizing properties, i.e. occlusive, humectant, and emollient. Things that trap moisture are occlusive, and barrier would be another term; emollient is commonly used in a more generic way for moisturizers, and in more rigorous use it's a filling agent. — soupvector (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Soupvector, the review says "Moisturizers contain three main properties, which are the occlusive, humectant, and emollient effects."[6] The source could be used for another article. Maybe this could be mentioned at WT:MED for another article to be improved. QuackGuru (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for quoting that article I cited, which does support the change about which you were concerned. I don't really understand your point about some other article, so perhaps you can go to WT:MED and make your case about that. — soupvector (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Soupvector, is there an article on Wikipedia this review can be used? QuackGuru (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you persist in asking a question unrelated to this page - are you unfamiliar with WP:Talk? I brought up that review article here because it supports an edit you questioned. As far as I am concerned, that discussion seems complete. — soupvector (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)