Talk:Wright's Coal Tar Soap

Um... Needs Improvement?

This article is really hard to navigate, there's no headings or anything. It's very tedious, it just seems to be a history of the soap and company, rather than actually about the soap and its uses.

It hasn't been categorised, and has no links to other Wikipedia articles.

I'm not very good at all this stuff, hopefully someone'll help?

O2mcgovem 01:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done a little work...

I've added a picture, and a little bit at the top. I just put the original article in a section called history. It probably still needs work. It's all written in the passive voice, and still has no links, and is still tediously long.

He he... So long for now.

O2mcgovem 01:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Coal Tar Soap?

A Quick question.. Is the current "traditional soap" still actually coal tar soap? It seems to be similar to ordinary soap, but with a coal tar "fragrance" added. Perhaps someone is worried that coal tar may actually be bad for you... Paul-b4 12:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The use of Coal tar in personal care products has been banned by the European Union, as Coal Tar is classed as a carcinogen. The soap now contains Tea Tree Oil as the antibacterial ingredient, and the odour of coal tar is given by a fragrance instead.

Valueaddedwater 21:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the bit about the soap being "a shadow of its former self" as this isn't exactly NPOV. Instead I included the info about the inclusion of Tea tree Oil. Paul-b4 (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not about NPOV, coal tar soap without coal tar isn't just the real thing anymore. I rephrased the thing again keeping the tea tree reference, but sticking to some more objective talk. LHOON (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

To suggest that Wrights Traditional Soap is a "shadow of its former self" implies that it is inferior, which is an opinion. It is fair to point out, however, that Wrights Traditional Soap isn't the same as Wright's Coal Tar soap - the former is merely a facsimile of the latter.Paul-b4 (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have amended the end text to make it sound less like a sleight. Wright's Traditional soap isn't Wright's coal tar soap - I can't comment on whether the latter is better than the former, and anything that even infers a preference shouldn't be included. It is fair to say that the two soaps are very different, and that one has merely been made to look and smell like the other (as well as exhibiting anti-bacterial properties.) If there is any verifiable data out there to show that people preferred Coal Tar soap to traditional soap then it could be included. Paul-b4 (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In Australia it is Wright's Traditional Soap with Coal Tar Fragrance. The package gives no indication of place of manufacture and carries the name Accantia Health & Beauty Ltd with an address in the state of Victoria. The Australian version is definitely different from the UK version. It does not contain Tea Tree Oil. Bebofpenge (talk) 05:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be good if someone can find out, and put in the article, just when the coal tar was removed. I was in England from 1976 to 1979, and it was in; I went back to England in 1989, and it wasn't, so it was removed some time during this ten-year period. 115.64.142.162 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)