Talk:Metamucil

message: I've removed a few sentences from this article because they appear to be unsubstantiated advertising copy. Specifically:
* It is clinically proven to reduce cholesterol when used as part of a low-fat, low-cholesterol diet. — this statement requires sourcing, and clinically proven is vague and unencylopedic
* Metamucil is the number one doctor and pharmacist recommended fiber supplement/bulk fiber laxative — again this needs sourcing and reads like an ad. Besides, what does "number one" mean? Number one where? Number one by what measure?
* capsules plus calcium — this is poor grammar and since capsules are already listed, the existence of capsules that have calcium in them as well is not particularly notable.
Ben Arnold 09:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP that added this content (IP 63.236.225.130) appears to belong to a marketing company in the United States called Delve LLC. Ben Arnold 09:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of advertising copy 

message: I am a different person than the one below above, but today I removed uncited sentences that were pure advertising copy, and edited the few cited ones to have a more encyclopedic tone.  Also changed a few weasel and advertisement-like words around to sound more encyclopedic.  The article was also quite redundant, listing unnecessary "potential benefits" listed in the psyllium husk page to sound like an advertisement, like a commercial will list benefits, whereas an encyclopedia lists cited features.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.111.191 (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More removal of advertising copy 

message: Under Potential Side Effects it says "...the intake of dietary fiber could hinder the absorption of vitamins, minerals, and proteins". However when I went to the cited reference, it had no mention to a hindrance to vitamins, minerals, nor proteins. In the wiki entry of "Dietary Fiber" under Effects of fiber intake it says "Fiber does not bind to minerals and vitamins and therefore does not restrict their absorption...", the complete opposite. The "Dietary Fiber" entry cites 3 references which I checked out and they do say minerals absorption is not affected by fiber. The "Dietary Fiber" entry does go on to say "Some plant foods can reduce the absorption of minerals and vitamins like calcium, zinc, vitamin C, and magnesium, but this is caused by the presence of phytate (which is also thought to have important health benefits), not by fiber." with one cited reference to that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlitzWing00 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hindrance on absorption of vitamins & minerals" doesn't seem correct 

message: Metamucil is currently advertising "We're Back". Was the product taken off the market and if so, why?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.136.32 (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  We're Back? 

message: * Please submit your request through articles for creation.
Regards,  Spintendo  17:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 02-MAY-2020

message: :User:KrzysztofC, User:Spintendo, User:Spencer, User:Klbrain, User:Doc James, User:Tom Reding -
:Draft:Metamucil was submitted via Articles for Creation.  I see that there has previously been an article, and the article has periodically been stubbed down to a redirect.  The previous article has history, so that, if there is to be a separate article, the previous article and not a new page should be restored.  There must be a community decision to establish rough consensus on whether a separate article for Metamucil is in order in addition to Psyllium.  At this point, with the redirect currently in place, the least disruptive approach seems to be a Redirect for Discussion against the current redirect, requesting that the article be restored.  If there is no objection to an RFD within 36 hours, I will make a procedural RFD nomination in order to start the process, reserving the right to !vote during the 7 days.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: For now, I have declined the draft, because accepting the draft would lose history.  A rough consensus discussion is needed on whether to have a redirect or a separate article.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd recommend retaining the redirect, but developing a section for the brand on the Psyllium page, which is small enough to accommodate it, yet large enough that it wouldn't be swamped with tightly-written incoming content. The reason for this is that that product makes a medical claim (laxative) and in general drug brand names have one page under the name of the generic drug. In this case, we have a generic name for a medicine (rather than a drug), and I think that its reasonable that a similar pattern be applied. The style guide on the Pharmacology project (WP:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide#Medications) has a specific section for notable brand names. As per WP:PRODUCT, products don't usually have a separate page, although I accept that this is a relatively important and long-lived brand; the alternative target of the article on the company isn't appropriate, as it is too big. Klbrain (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I see two questions, a substantive question and a procedural question.  The substantive question is at what level Metamucil should be documented: in a stand-alone article, in the ingredient, Psyllium, or with the company.  The procedural question is what means should be used to decide the substantive question.  I think that User:Klbrain has made a substantive argument, redirect to a possibly expanded section in Psyllium.  The possible answers to the procedural question are: by discussion with consensus; by edit-warring; by a formal process.  I think that we can see that there isn't a consensus, so that trying to resolve it by discussion will just mean going on and on.  We all know that edit-warring is a malum in se, that is, something bad that is forbidden because it is bad.  I think that the appropriate formal process for redirect disputes is normally a deletion discussion, and in this case, with the redirect already in place, that is Redirects for Discussion.  So I will make a procedural nomination for RFD, unless someone can persuade me that there is a better way to resolve the issue.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A very reasonable procedural decision. Klbrain (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Stand-Alone Page Discussion

message: For the record, I just happened to look up this topic and stumbled upon this page. Amazingly, someone had just converted it from a redirect to a full article an hour prior. Do people think that the same argument Doc James mentioned above still applies? 98.170.164.88 (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  2022 update