Talk:Glyconutrient

message: Glycobiology, the scientific journal that represents the Society for Glycobiology, has recently published a mini-forum on this subject grouped around a main article entitled 'A Glyconutrient Sham'. The journal has also published a response from Mannatech. Makes for interesting reading. Reference is,
Glycobiology, vol 18(9)september 2008. 
http://glycob.oxfordjournals.org/content/vol18/issue9/
Carba (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Glycobiology Article

message: After reading through everything presented, it seems that multiple editors (including uninvolved editors willing to respond to the RfC so far) believe the current article should be, at the very least, the current starting point for further development of this article.  I believe it is therefore incumbent upon anyone who disagrees with statements in the article to quote the disagreeable portion and provide a viable replacement/enhanced version here for discussion so that the RfC can be closed satisfactorily.  What specifically of the current version can we all agree upon and what of the current version proves too disputed to remain in its current state?  It would be beneficial that this discussion remain focused on the details of specific text in the article and not on tertiary/heavily-branched discussion that will not be relevant for inclusion to the actual article text (and will likely drive uninvolved editors away).  Thanks.  ju66l3r 22:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in agreement. If someone with Wikipedia facility would like to archive the conversation between l'clast and me, it would probably be a step forward in re-focusing this talk page on the actual subject at hand. Thanks for pointing out the tangents that we were running along. This page should provide a good forum for vetting references and proposed changes to the article. Antelan talk 23:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not yet done by a long shot. The structure of the article is unacceptable, with misleading, runaway brand criticism that  ignores a technical description; legal innuendo for a generic technically based presentation on an altmed topic. It ignores the usual format in this kind of area: mild neutral description, background, uses, facts, claims etc, *then*, Criticism.   I have asked for help on getting the references and acknowledged the previous shortcomings about references where ({cn}} is more appropriate, but am getting nowhere if not the bum's rush instead. The current article might be more acceptable over at SkepticWiki. Also as I said before, the RfC was way premature. So far the RfC has had the effect of a vehicle to carry disparaging views against specific companies or pet marketing schemes for an unencyclopedic presentation and leave readers uninformed.--I'clast 04:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has said that we're done with the article. I'm glad we've found a point of mutual agreement. If you will find valid references to support changes to the article, the article should come along nicely. Antelan talk 05:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. As for us outsiders, one fewer for the watchlist. DGG 05:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Agreements?

message: I reverted to the last agreed-upon edit of this page. The recent edits were unsourced and bringing us towards WP:NPOV issues. Antelan talk 03:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good edit, ending gradual slippage. I really think we should stay with this.Those who want to read the marketing literature will find it through the company's web site. DGG 07:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I have made an additional edit. Please revert if you find it unnecessary. In looking over the SEC filing, I discovered that we made an inaccurate claim about the contents of Ambrotose. Although there were uncited claims that the product contained polysaccharides from exotic sources, the SEC filing demonstrates that the product actually consists of monosaccharides (simple sugars, in their words). I felt that was an important addition to clear-up the error in the previous edit. Antelan talk 20:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy

message: Abihider: You replaced the entire contents of the page with a POV-pushing substitute, which is why I reverted your edits. In addition:
*You removed the entirety of the text and replaced it with the very claims that we have found to be unsubstantiated in discussions on this talk page. 
*None of the statements were referenced.
*The further reading list was over-broad and neither it nor any other source was used to support any specific claim.
*Your edits and further reading lists conflate glycobiology with glyconutrients, which are vastly different. However, your further reading list, or a smaller subsection of it, might make a valuable addition to the glycobiology article.
Since this article already has statements that have been sourced and verified, please consider making incremental changes rather than replacing the entire contents wholesale.
--Antelan talk 22:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  Now if anyone's looking for an example of a loss of neutrality combined with original research combined with a total lack of verifiability, we'll have one at the ready.  ju66l3r 23:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a privilege to be witness to such an historic moment, isn't it? WP:NPOV | WP:NOR | WP:Verifiability --Antelan talk 23:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does NPOV no credit at all - but that is why there are people around who are dedicated to Wikipedia principles. docboat 00:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have reverted the last drastic change.  That does not mean I think the immediately preceding version was the best.  We can't expect to change this by fiat. it's being overbold. Suggestion: lets write the article without mentioning Mannatech except as an external link. What would be left.? DGG 05:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It never got reverted, so I did it for you. I'm creating a new section to discuss this. Antelan talk 14:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement of entire page 

message: Ombudsman, if you take a closer look at the history if this article, I am confident that you will find that the unsourced versions appear less POV at first blush, but closer scrutiny supports the facts as stated in this version of the article. Antelan talk 14:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What belongs?

message: There is no ned to name any company in the definition of a Glyconutrient. This is a field of science and not about any company or what they report to do or not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.224.233.80 (talk • contribs) 
:There is as much reason to mention Mannatech in this article as there is to name Pfizer and Sudafed in the Pseudoephedrine article.  That article is about a chemical compound, but its patent, original producer, and name branding are all relevant to the chemical's background.  Mannatech brought the term and concept for glyconutrients to life and therefore have every relevance in the article especially since their claims for its importance are unfounded and thus the only qualification those claims have is who is making them (the company trying to make money on the claims).  ju66l3r 15:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misplaced comment

message: I've removed information on a Mannatech-sponsored study I could not locate anywhere including Mannatech's website. Perhaps this study was meant? No mention of candida etc. in the abstract. Avb 18:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Studies

message: What is Talk:Glyconutrient/chemicallyliterate/? Its sole link is from User talk:I'clast. Unless being collectively used to develop Glyconutrient, it smells of POV fork. One for WP:MFD? 86.140.181.76 (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've nominated it for MFD. Muzzamo (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Orphaned page