| Revision as of 00:57, 13 March 2007 editAntelan (talk | contribs)4,688 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:23, 18 March 2007 edit undoI'clast (talk | contribs)1,511 edits restore conumer relevant information, remove misplaced, redundant corp criticismNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| I have substantially changed the content of this article to better fit demonstrable scientific fact surrounding the topic. I have further removed non-relevant sections tangential to the term (such as all of the "probiotic" ] that was in the first subsection). I have added references to the American Cancer Society and UC Berkeley Public School of Health that describe the true biology rather than the inferences that were previously the mainstay of the scientific portion of the article. I have made it more clear that the term is the origination of Mannatech and that modern science and medicine only adopt the term when dealing with these sugars in reference to Mannatech's products. The term ''glyconutrient'' is not a mainstream scientific term and a search of the relevant literature proves that. Furthermore, there was no discussion of the fact that the outlandish claims of alternative therapy/nutritional supplement made by sales websites were not supported by any fact and had even gotten Mannatech sued. That is now added as well. ] 21:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | I have substantially changed the content of this article to better fit demonstrable scientific fact surrounding the topic. I have further removed non-relevant sections tangential to the term (such as all of the "probiotic" ] that was in the first subsection). I have added references to the American Cancer Society and UC Berkeley Public School of Health that describe the true biology rather than the inferences that were previously the mainstay of the scientific portion of the article. I have made it more clear that the term is the origination of Mannatech and that modern science and medicine only adopt the term when dealing with these sugars in reference to Mannatech's products. The term ''glyconutrient'' is not a mainstream scientific term and a search of the relevant literature proves that. Furthermore, there was no discussion of the fact that the outlandish claims of alternative therapy/nutritional supplement made by sales websites were not supported by any fact and had even gotten Mannatech sued. That is now added as well. ] 21:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :Thank you for cleaning up and adding references. --<font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 00:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | :Thank you for cleaning up and adding references. --<font color="red">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> <sup><font color="darkred">]</font></sup> 00:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::The previous consensus glyconutrient article was developed in conjunction with a glycobiologist and a neurologist to better *inform* an ignorant public with a better *description*. Although the "old" article certainly had its limitations and that while I agree that the largest marketer wages a rather blatant marketing campaign, this new article mutated from a useful neutral, generic discussion about commerical products to a diatribe against a particular company and its rather blatant marketing claims. The original article attempted to identify various materials utilized, some idea of their historical background, their economics, and to identify unscientific and highly questionable claims. When relevant physiology references were introduced by a specialized medical reader, no one else was too eager to sort through them, discuss pertinent mechanisms that *are* reported in reliable sources, and connect them phrase by phrase to the article's text. Ultimately the reference slug was criticized for insufficient context to specific text and removed until someone was willing to do the legwork (those on top of a medical school library would find it much easier). Other editors' contributions for such an improved technical presentation would be welcome. | |||
| ::It is a priority to describe what kinds of ingredients are and have been used in such products, and what background history and mechanisms are associated with them in a coherent article. Consumers are mostly indifferent about scientific nomenclature, they need and want *locatable* encyclopedic information about a relevant subject. This question has already been addressed at length. Although I felt the previous article wound up being significantly "dumbed down", some outside reviews warned that it might be more technical than many readers prefer. As far as a scientific nomenclature requirement at Misplaced Pages, many commercially originated and trivial terms are used at Misplaced Pages, '''a'''spirin probably not being the first. | |||
| ::The article as of focuses on criticism about advertising by a marketing company, not the topic itself. I would suggest that the corporate criticism be addressed at ]. Restoring previous structure and adding most relevant, recent portion to the criticism section.--] 05:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:23, 18 March 2007
 Archives |
Archival of old discussion & Newest revisions
I have substantially changed the content of this article to better fit demonstrable scientific fact surrounding the topic. I have further removed non-relevant sections tangential to the term (such as all of the "probiotic" original research that was in the first subsection). I have added references to the American Cancer Society and UC Berkeley Public School of Health that describe the true biology rather than the inferences that were previously the mainstay of the scientific portion of the article. I have made it more clear that the term is the origination of Mannatech and that modern science and medicine only adopt the term when dealing with these sugars in reference to Mannatech's products. The term glyconutrient is not a mainstream scientific term and a search of the relevant literature proves that. Furthermore, there was no discussion of the fact that the outlandish claims of alternative therapy/nutritional supplement made by sales websites were not supported by any fact and had even gotten Mannatech sued. That is now added as well. ju66l3r 21:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for cleaning up and adding references. --Antelan 00:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- The previous consensus glyconutrient article was developed in conjunction with a glycobiologist and a neurologist to better *inform* an ignorant public with a better *description*. Although the "old" article certainly had its limitations and that while I agree that the largest marketer wages a rather blatant marketing campaign, this new article mutated from a useful neutral, generic discussion about commerical products to a diatribe against a particular company and its rather blatant marketing claims. The original article attempted to identify various materials utilized, some idea of their historical background, their economics, and to identify unscientific and highly questionable claims. When relevant physiology references were introduced by a specialized medical reader, no one else was too eager to sort through them, discuss pertinent mechanisms that *are* reported in reliable sources, and connect them phrase by phrase to the article's text. Ultimately the reference slug was criticized for insufficient context to specific text and removed until someone was willing to do the legwork (those on top of a medical school library would find it much easier). Other editors' contributions for such an improved technical presentation would be welcome.
- It is a priority to describe what kinds of ingredients are and have been used in such products, and what background history and mechanisms are associated with them in a coherent article. Consumers are mostly indifferent about scientific nomenclature, they need and want *locatable* encyclopedic information about a relevant subject. This question has already been addressed at length. Although I felt the previous article wound up being significantly "dumbed down", some outside reviews warned that it might be more technical than many readers prefer. As far as a scientific nomenclature requirement at Misplaced Pages, many commercially originated and trivial terms are used at Misplaced Pages, aspirin probably not being the first.
- The article as of 12 Mar 07 focuses on criticism about advertising by a marketing company, not the topic itself. I would suggest that the corporate criticism be addressed at Mannatech. Restoring previous structure and adding most relevant, recent portion to the criticism section.--I'clast 05:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)