Talk:Hypoallergenic

message: This article doesn't seem so much an article as an angry invective against advertisers and their "nonsense words". Wikipedia is not a soapbox upon which to rail against a group, no matter how reprehensible, but this article doesn't reflect that at all. I admit that I'm not completely familiar with all the intricacies of reverting to previous versions and all that, but  the August 5th version of this page seems to be the most recent non-crazy one, and I would recommend reverting to that version, as well as (warning? blocking? something?) doing something about 24.21.87.85, as this user seems to have made it a goal to completely screw with this article. DesertFly3 09:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's going on here? 

message: You're right, this is not supposed to look like Diderot's Encyclop%C3%A9die. I reverted back to an earlier version and compressed the rant down to a small paragraph, written in a more approriate tone. Some grammar proof-reading will be weclome
DrYak 17:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to fix 

message: I suggest people who edit this article read the wiktionary passage on "hypoallergenic" and also the CBC article about the word: http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/microscope/micro_2000/hypoallergenic.html.
The restored statements about pets and hypoallergenic are merely arguable opinion, not factual.
The origin of the word, and its questionable legitamacy as a word, particularly a scientific-seeming word, are facts.
It is reasonable to note the fact that the word's origin, neologism as a advertising tactic, clouds its use to this day.
=== Editing ===
Trust me, I did read the article. Yes, I know it's a fact that "hypoallergenic" is not a official medical term and that it lacks any scientific deffinition (I happen to have a medical degree).
I also agree that, whoever wrote the original article made it not very in the usual consciencious "wikipedian" way.
The problem is that you don't fix such problems by over-writing the article, with a big rant about what you think of the bad advertisers and their too much gullible consumer and about the reasons why you personnaly think such situations exists.
This is completly wrong, because your rant is an emotionnal piece, not the usual neutral tone of the encyclopedia. It's also wrong because you only support all your personnal ideas about citing using only a single article (that merely did some research to proove that "hypoallergenic" isn't a medical terme) all your other hypothesis about advertisers and gullible customers are your own un-founded opinion and don't belong here (as it is always said: wikipedia isn't a place to publish original information, it a place where one should compile previous knowledge - without judgement whever it's wrong or not, maybe merly pointing which part of the controversy is proven - while citing every needed source to understand better the subject). PLEASE STAY NEUTRAL AND OBJECTIVE when adding new content to Wikipedia.
Also, your rant was mainly about the general practice of some advertiser, not about the subject of the entry (hypoallergenic). Therefor it doesn't belong to this entry. If you want to speak about this (using facts with their sources, not you personnal opinion about why it works - even if you happen to be correct), go find some article about "advertising jargon", add your information if needed there, don't forget citing your source, and cross-link it with this article.
Lastly by over-writing the article, you destroyed in the process some useful informations (the list of cat breeds that are tought to cause less reactions, the list of genetic engeneerin attemps at acheiving such diminution).
If you wan to do something, please FIRST COOL DOWN. Then think of an organised way to it, that will fit nicely in the existing article and following the wikipedia neutrality guidelines. (You ma try a simple tree : Intro / Benefits reported by advertisers / lack of formal definition / natural species / gentech pets)
DrYak 17:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (notitle) 

message: Trust me, I did read the article. Yes, I know it's a fact that "hypoallergenic" is not a official medical term and that it lacks any scientific deffinition (I happen to have a medical degree).
I also agree that, whoever wrote the original article made it not very in the usual consciencious "wikipedian" way.
The problem is that you don't fix such problems by over-writing the article, with a big rant about what you think of the bad advertisers and their too much gullible consumer and about the reasons why you personnaly think such situations exists.
This is completly wrong, because your rant is an emotionnal piece, not the usual neutral tone of the encyclopedia. It's also wrong because you only support all your personnal ideas about citing using only a single article (that merely did some research to proove that "hypoallergenic" isn't a medical terme) all your other hypothesis about advertisers and gullible customers are your own un-founded opinion and don't belong here (as it is always said: wikipedia isn't a place to publish original information, it a place where one should compile previous knowledge - without judgement whever it's wrong or not, maybe merly pointing which part of the controversy is proven - while citing every needed source to understand better the subject). PLEASE STAY NEUTRAL AND OBJECTIVE when adding new content to Wikipedia.
Also, your rant was mainly about the general practice of some advertiser, not about the subject of the entry (hypoallergenic). Therefor it doesn't belong to this entry. If you want to speak about this (using facts with their sources, not you personnal opinion about why it works - even if you happen to be correct), go find some article about "advertising jargon", add your information if needed there, don't forget citing your source, and cross-link it with this article.
Lastly by over-writing the article, you destroyed in the process some useful informations (the list of cat breeds that are tought to cause less reactions, the list of genetic engeneerin attemps at acheiving such diminution).
If you wan to do something, please FIRST COOL DOWN. Then think of an organised way to it, that will fit nicely in the existing article and following the wikipedia neutrality guidelines. (You ma try a simple tree : Intro / Benefits reported by advertisers / lack of formal definition / natural species / gentech pets)
DrYak 17:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing 

message: I saw your most recent edition. Yeah this is better. Thank you for trying to play by the rules.
You could also try to add a small paragraph about allerca, but still presenting the info as highly suspictious.
DrYak 14:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixing

message: This article says little about its use on cosmetics/lotions labels today... Does the word simply mean that a product isn't prone to causing allergic skin reactions? --Grant M 08:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It means dick. It has no formal definiton (the common usage definitoin in the OED doesn't count), so they can use it indescrimanantly Quantum Burrito 21:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cosmetics? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hypoallergenic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060619171056/http://www.cbc.ca:80/consumers/market/microscope/micro_2000/hypoallergenic.html to http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/microscope/micro_2000/hypoallergenic.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified