I’ve made major edits to this page. The article was long for the meager facts it communicated. It read more like an arts and crafts magazine article than encyclopedia entry. I have removed almost all of the sentences that are about the hobby of using polymer clay rather than the topic, the clay itself. I also expanded upon what the chemical composition and physical properties of the clay really are. And, I’ve added references to support those facts. It still needs work, but I think it is in much better shape than ever.Dan Bollinger (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
There is a problem with users claiming to be "the editor" of Polymer Clay. Links to useful resources are being removed, while other sites that have heavier commercial advertising, such as Polymer Clay Central, and Polymer Clay Web, are retained. Further, users that are claiming to be editors of this section are posting threatening messages to users that are trying to make positive contributions to the content. The editors should remove ALL links that are related to commercial advertising, or include more links that are of interest to the Polymer Clay community. Editors or users that are masquerading as editors should not abuse their privileges in this regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpbear (talk • contribs) 02:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
- This looks to be a smoke screen by an editor spamming the article with a link to their shop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.70.207 (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Reply
- User(s) that are hiding behind an anonymous IP address, and/or the user Theriac, are vigorously controlling the link content on this page. This goes against the community based philosophy of Wikipedia. These users claim that useful content is commercial or self-promotion, but at the same time they are militant about keeping two links that are heavy in commercial advertising (Polymer Clay Central and Polymer Clay Web). Any links to competing discussion forums are quickly removed by these users, even if the site does not sell any polymer clay products. Therefore this page is owned by a few individuals who are protecting select commercial pages, it is not really a Wiki page.
- This is quite wrong. A number of authors have removed links to commercial sites. A quick look at the history shows these authors include myself, Theriac and Teapotgeorge. This is called consensus; which is entirely consistent with the "community based philosophy of Wikipedia." The author making objections is the owner of a shop. They have continually inserted external links to this - clearly in breach of the policy on commercial sites AND of a conflict of interest. This is why another author started this discussion, some time ago, with the dual title of "Commercial sites & self promotion." The above message is yet another example of Fpbear's unconstructive reaction when authors remove these link spam. Wikipedia does not exist to advertise their business. Claims of "hiding behind an anonymous IP address" is yet another smoke screen - Wikipedia allows editing both with and without registeration. Even those who do register use non de plumes: edits to Wikipedia are therefore anonymous. Individuals' identities are guaranteed, and deep routed in its philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.70.207 (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Reply
- The whole problem though, is that the links that are being vigorously protected on the Polymer Clay article are more commercial in nature than the link in question. If you take a look at the link I tried to contribute at the Polymer Clay Forum notice that there is no advertising of commercial products anywhere on the discussion forum pages. In order for a user to discover that the website is hosted by a retail shop, the user would have to figure out how to leave the discussion area which is not obvious, the rest of the site is almost hidden from the forum. Statuary Place does not sell any items related to polymer clay and does not have any online ordering basket and does not have any online advertising whatsoever. On the other hand if you take a look at one of the links you are protecting, Polymer Clay Central has commercial content all over the place very prominently displayed on the page. This includes Puffalina "Home of the Miracle Mold," affiliate programs on Amazon and eBay, and the PCC Store that takes online orders, and polymer clay sellers such as the Prairie Craft Company. The traffic from Wikipedia that you drive to this page directly benefits these commercial merchants. The other link you are protecting, Polymer Clay Web is full of Google Adwords advertising of polymer clay commercial products as well as polymer clay items for sale on eBay. It is amazing that you can call the Statuary Place Polymer Clay Discussion Forum a commercial website when in reality, it is much less commercial in nature than those two links I mention above. And what makes your behavior particularly troublesome is that when I attempted to contribute this forum link for the benefit of the polymer clay community, you resorted to posting threatening messages on the external forum, vandalizing my talk page, and writing messages intended to bully and intimidate. Instead it should have been handled as a civilized content dispute "difference of opinion." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpbear (talk • contribs) 20:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Reply
- It is impossible to argue that your website, www.statuaryplace.com, is not a commercial site. That you claim not to sell polymer clay products is irrelevant.
- Anyway this particular line of your argument would carry more substance if you had not also spammed other articles, such as statue. Does your company sell statues?
- You commercial website does include the facility for a discussion. But this does not change the fact the site is a commercial organisation. It raison d'etre is selling. Also how can it "benefit of the polymer clay community" if, as you claim, you sell nothing for them AND the last relevant post was in November. It would seem the polymer clay community has spoken: they are not interested.
- I have no affiliations with the sites which you have tried to remove. I returned these simply as they have existed on the article for a long time, with consensus of authors. I returned them after you removed them in a fit of pique when your link was challenged: hardly the "civilized content dispute" you call for.
- Please stop removing sections of the debate, from at least two authors, from the discussion page. None have been vandalism. This looks as if you are either trying to censor debate or desort its history.
- As previously requested please stop making allegations about "messages intended bully and intimidate.' These are false, groundless and appear to be nothing more than tactics to divert from your spamming.
Hello 24.8.111.219. I have just deleted the lik you placed in the ploymer clay article as it would appear to be in contrvention of two of Wikipedia's policies on external links
- "Links mainly intended to promote a website"
- "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services."
I would also ask that you consider if the books you have listed could be considered as self-promotion. Wikipedia's policy being:
- "A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia" and
- Self-promotion
- Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links in articles, personal or semi-personal photos, or any other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor adding the material, or of his associates.
- Examples of these types of material include:
- Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links).
- Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages
- Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.
ThanxTheriac 16:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hello Theriac I'm sorry you choose to delete links to my 180 page website. Although I DO sell the three books I have in print on the subject of polymer clay, I also give away 20 years worth of accumulated information that I have accrued as a professional artist and author on the subject. My work is in many magazines and books and I instruct across the USA and have founded three Guilds, as well as worked for the National Guild. What do YOU in the world of polymer clay, Theriac? I dont believe I've seen your work yet. Sarajane Helm Sarajane www.polyclay.com 16:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Hello Sarajane. Thank you for the reply. With your experience in Polmer clay I am sure the the article would benefit from you. However Wikipedia has policies and guidelines on both what external links are included and what is termed as self-promotion. Your polyclay link appears to be in contravention these, as does listing your own books. ThanxTheriac 16:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Hello Sarajane. I see you have re-inserted the link to your site. Please could you reconsider this, as it appears to be in contravention of Wikipedia's policies which were previously highlighted. Similarly is the listing of your own books. In an article that already contains details of many books are these are necessary, or more helpful to you than to readers. ThanxTheriac 09:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hello Sarajane. Wikipedia is collaboratively written by volunteers. Not only does it have policies about content, it also has policies about dealing with editors, and one of them is "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia. Equally, accusing someone of making a personal attack is not something that should be done lightly, especially if you are involved in a dispute. It is best for an uninvolved observer to politely point out that someone has made a personal attack, and for the discussion to return to considering the content, not the person." Please note Comment on content, not on the contributor. ThanxTheriac 16:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Theriac, I have now read more in the Wikipedia guidelines and information and I understand what you are saying. I have removed my website link and also my books from the listings. Nor will I re-enter them myself or ask others to do so. I apologise for asking about your credentials in the field under discussion; it was not meant as a personal attack but as reference information. Sarajane www.polyclay.com 20:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hi Sarajane. No problem. I hope you will use your knowledge and expereince to expand the Polymer clay article. ThanxTheriac 12:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hi Theriac, you deleted the link to the Polymer Clay Discussion Forum which is a useful resource. There are not many forums for discussing this topic on the web so I believe it would be in the best interest of the public to keep this link. You may have felt that this is a commercial link, however it is not. There are no commercial advertisements or references anywhere on this page, or linked to this web page. The only association is that it shares the domain name with a Statue store, but note that this store does not sell anything related to Polymer Clay. The discussion forum is separate, other than sharing the root domain name. Please don't delete this, and if so, please explain why you feel this is commercial.
Hello TFpbear. Wikipedia is collaboratively written by volunteers, it is not for anyone person (me included) to decide what links are included. But Wikipedia does have policies, and these include those governing links to commercial sites. www.statuaryplace.com is a commercial site. The association with "The Polymer Clay Discussion Forum" is not that it shares the domain name, it is part of the same site. This can be cleary seen at http://www.statuaryplace.com/dicussion_frame.html. ThanxTheriac 19:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hi Theriac, actually the link is http://www.statuaryplace.com/forum/ and not the one with the frame that you wrote. Note that the users cannot navigate to the commercial site from the forum. The way it is linked on wikipedia there is nothing commercial about this web page, it is only in the interest of those who want to discuss polymer clay. How many polymer clay discussion forums can you find on the web? There are not many. I would appreciate if you could reconsider and add this resource back to the page. I agree that wikipedia is not to be decided by just one person but by a group of collaborators, so if you don't agree maybe we can see what the community thinks.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I'm deleting the quote from a polymer clay artist about the dangers of phthalate exposured. I doubt she is also an expert in the health effects of phthalates, particularly those found in plastic medical equipment. The quote is speculative and even grandstanding. I don't know anything about this topic myself but the flimsiness of her logic is immediately evident: she carelessly, but with a certain forecfulness and exaggeration, compares the exposure via two different substances containing differing levels of phthalates, involving different forms of contact with them (and likely, different time periods - she fails to distinguish between scenarios where artists would have constant exposure and most medical patients who would have one-off or occasional exposure). There's also the logical problem of saying there'd be "obvious toxicity", assuming the symptoms would be acute and that any research into harmful effects would be well-known, neither of which is a likely case.
Not only does the quote lack a citation, I don't think a non-expert quote - particularly with strong and misleadingly assured-sounding claims like "astonishingly high levels" - should be included without some citation of her source material.
I found this in the Phthalates entry references, and it contradicts her statement that phthalates are not harmful in medical equipment: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2F1097-0274%28200101%2939%3A1%3C100%3A%3AAID-AJIM10%3E3.0.CO%3B2-Q
It suggests that people who have regular fluid transfers "may have long-term exposures to clinically important doses" of phthalates, and that research links phthalates to "to a range of adverse effects in the liver, reproductive tract, kidneys, lungs, and heart. Developing animals are particularly susceptible to effects on the reproductive system. Some adverse effects in animal studies occur at levels of exposure experienced by patients in certain clinical settings." Orangeblossomspecial (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
- I clarified the section on phthalates. I own a business that uses plastisol and I am well-informed on the risks involved using them including the CPSCA requirements. For instance, the plasticizer we use is FDA approved for medical equipment. In fact, it is the same one used in blood-bags and IV-bags, so not all phthlates are unhealthy as some may think. I think the changes I made improve that section including removing the California law and replacing it with the Federal law. I also removed the irrelevant sentence concerning whether or not commercial products were or have been reformulated; that's an issue for a consumer safety website, not an encyclopedia. I think it is very important to mention that polymer clays contain plasticizers, some of which are hazardous, but to let the entries for phthlates and plasticers deal with the details.16:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Bollinger (talk • contribs)
User 180.194.29.38 Added: "It should not contain more than 0.1% of any of the six phthalates restricted or banned by the safety regulatory boards. These six phthalates are: DEHP (Di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate) DBP (Dibutyl phthalate) BBP (Benzyl butyl phthalate) DINP (Di-isononyl phthalate) DIDP (Di-isodecyl phthalate) DnOP (Di-n-octyl phthalate <http://www.polymerclaycentral.com/cyclopedia/pc_safety_th.html>"
- That is true only if the product is sold as a children's toy. If the clay is used by adults the restrictions do not apply. The chemistry is important, but, to me, should be on the Poly-Vinyl Chloride page. Citations please. Dan Bollinger (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
User 180.194.29.38 Added: "If the instructions on the package are followed - (low temperatures and brief baking times) - you will not burn the clay."
- WP is not a how-to resource. Dan Bollinger (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
User 180.194.29.38 Added: If the clay does burn because of a mistake or if the oven malfunctions, a small amount of hydrogen chloride gas could be released, which may cause odor and some eye or nose irritation. The amount of hydrogen chloride gas released from the clay would cause a health problem."
- Citation, please. I think this general health risk is important to add, but this needs a lot of rewriting. For instance, the polymer doesn't burn, it decomposes. And, while hydrogen chloride is a HEALTH RISK, we have no idea if it WOULD CAUSE A HEALTH PROBLEM or not since this varies with the person and exposure. Dan Bollinger (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
User 180.194.29.38 Added: "Due to the testing requirements and regulations, clay products that would be used to hold or serve food or beverages are not recommended or intended for these applications.
- Citation, please. Dan Bollinger (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
All polymer clay products are NOT labeled as “food safe”.""
- Citation, please. Dan Bollinger (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kayprender (article contribs).