Talk:Aseem Malhotra/Archive 1

Comments
This article is obviously written by the person himself, and reads like his manifesto not his biography.


 * I wrote most of it. I have no connection with him.  It's his views which are noteworthy, not his biography. He's a very public figure. Rathfelder (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Even if it's not written by Malhotra, it still reads like his manifesto. Some talk of how most of his views go against mainstream scientific understanding would make the article more balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.235.54 (talk) 07:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Aseem has updated the contents of the wikipedia page as previous edits were not according to facts. Please check www.doctoraseem.com before another edit is done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.1.146.57 (talk • contribs)  16:30, March 6, 2018 (UTC)

The introduction is quite derogatory. Defining his diet as “ fad” seems predictive since it goes against even wiki’s definition. It hasn’t been around long enough to have faded. Also “celebrity” doctor has a taint of “quack” about it, whuch is also disparaging. Indeed he is a doctor and a celebrity in his field but the expression “celebrity doctor” has negative connotations, even by wiki’s article. The introduction is quite negatively biased. DivineSorcerer (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://doctoraseem.com/biography. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Murder?
- do you really think it is helpful to include a quote describing the marketing of high-sugar content products as "murder", from a non-WP:MEDRS source? Alexbrn (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a biography, not a medical article. It's describing people's views, and its relationship to scientific fact is pretty loose.Rathfelder (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not everything in the article is biographical and per WP:NOPAGE there are multiple topics in play. BLP applies only to biographical content - whether a diet is a fad diet or not, is not a biographical question. On the other hand, WP:MEDRS applies to any biomedical information. Alexbrn (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is the marketing of high-sugar content products  biomedical information?Rathfelder (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, but the claim they are lethal is. Alexbrn (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there is plenty of reputable evidence to support it.Rathfelder (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

FT/N
FYI, I have raised a query about this article at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I still don't think it is proper to put an unsupported assertion that he is promoting a fad diet in the lede. Nor do I think the Pioppi diet really fits the picture of a fad diet - "relies on pseudoscience rather than science to make many of its claims. In many cases, the diet is characterized by highly restrictive or unusual food choices."Rathfelder (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is supported by a cited source. Alexbrn (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Rathfelder the Pioppi diet was described as a fad diet by Nick Harris-Fry, Caroline Apovian , British Dietetic Association and Duane Mellor . Skeptic from Britain (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they haven't read the definition? To claim it is unsound is not quite the same.  Rathfelder (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, is the argument here that the BDA don't know what a fad diet is, whereas is an auhority? Alexbrn (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not claiming to be an authority. I'm relying on the article. It doesnt seem to be suggested that this diet involves highly restrictive or unusual food choices, or that it is based on pseudoscience.Rathfelder (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't rely on articles, we rely on sources. If a reliable source like the BDA calls it a fad diet, regardless of what you read the definition of fad diet is online, the fact that the BDA called it that should be included in the article. Nanophosis (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to that. My objection is to putting it in the lede without saying whose opinion it is, as there are clearly differing opinions. And if the BDA's view of what constitutes a fad diet differs from the general view then we should mention that.  The Fad diet article gives the impression that the term is reasonably precise and not just a term of abuse, and we link to that.Rathfelder (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mike Kirby, doctor and professor (specializing in diabetes, cardiometabolic diseases, sexual problems and andrology), wrote "Notably, many of these principles are included in the NHS Choices weight loss plan." (Kirby M (2018) What our patients are reading: The PioppiDiet. Diabetes & Primary Care 20:42–45); Claire Gerada, GP and former chairperson of the Council of the Royal College of General Practitioners, wrote "Professor Dame Sue Bailey, the Chair of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, has described the book as a ‘must have for every household and a must read for every medical student and doctor’ — I couldn’t agree more." (Gerada C (2017) Books: The Pioppi Diet: A 21-Day Lifestyle Plan. British Journal of General Practice);and Pawan Randev, GP of the Measham Medical Unit, wrote "I read the book on the basis of this review and agree with Professor Gerada that the content is remarkable." (letter to British Journal of General Practice, 17 September 2017).

Benjamindavidsteele (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring
This is an article about Aseem Malhotra and his views. Citing an outlier review about the US dietary guidelines and certain foodstuffs, that makes no mention of Malhotra, is off topic. Alexbrn (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding Missing biography and (re)structuring the rest
I came across this article when I tried to look up who this guy is and found the article was only stub class. Overall the article doesn't give the impression of being consistent with WP:N. Looking at the edit history, it appears that it started out as a stub with information derived from the subject's own web page and then others have tried to balance that up but it still doesn't look like that has resulted in a neutral POV. I thought I would have a go at fixing it rather than just reporting it.

I've added in missing background biographical information based on what sources I could find. I've slightly restructured by adding a new heading to split the biographical material from all the health campaign controversies. I plan to work on the controversies part next. I plan to put more sub-headings to split out the campaign/controversial topics. I will need to move some paragraphs so it ends up in a logical/chronological order, so I will need to do some cutting and pasting. Note I am not planning to delete chunks. For each sub-topic what I think it needs is to identify the campaign/controversy, then start by reference or summary of the consensus established position, then Malhotra's position and identify if he is a lone voice or pioneer in this or part of a group and if there is other support, then the criticisms. At the moment some of the article switches several times from pro to con and pro to con again on the same topic Viv Hamilton (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC).


 * I have started work on the controversies section. Currently working on Pioppi Diet.  I have more work to do.  In particular the statement with the citation to ref 27 appears to constitute original research.  However, I think there are secondary sources that should address the point of comparing Pioppi with the reference values.  Viv Hamilton (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I have finished work on the Pioppi diet section for the foreseeable future. I have restructured it as I described above: what is the consensus; what does Malhotra (in the book) say instead; are there others with the same view; what are the criticisms.  I am now going to work on the next section on saturated fat, chlorestrol and statins and restructure in a similar way.Viv Hamilton (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Founder Member on Action on Sugar
Hi - not sure of proper protocol for this, but thanks Viv and others for all your work on this and to keep it science based and neutral. I made a change earlier, as the point about Dr Malhotra being a founding member of action on sugar is disputed. Although he was briefly a director of science, the organization itself has never said he was a founding director. In addition, in correspondence with government released under freedom of information legislation, they have stated that he was never a founding member. This blog, admitted written by a critic, is available here: https://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2017/09/completely-mad-action-on-sugar-on-aseem.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pocketfullofposies (talk • contribs) 19:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for raising this. The source you found is interesting.  It doesn't count as a reliable source for a Biography of Living persons, because it's a personal blog without a separate editorial process so we can't use it.  It's interesting because even though the critic quotes the correspondence from Action on Sugar where they say it's untrue that Malhotra was a founding member, the citic then says that he was a member when Action on Sugar was founded.  The actual correspondence that appears in the blog is a primary source so also not suitable as a source for Wikipedia.


 * It could be that Action on Sugar have their own definition of who were the founding members - perhaps there was an initial clique, who then invited a few more members to join them or perhaps Action on Sugar just want to rewrite history! I have changed it the statement to refer to him being the first Science Director. Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested support on the BLP Noticeboard
I have requested support regarding the reference to Duncan Selbie in the Dirty Tricks secton Viv Hamilton (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Removed it as per discussion on BLP noticeboard, on grounds of undue weight to a single source, at least until additional material added.




 * Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Noticeboard template removed - no further comments Viv Hamilton (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive331 --Hipal (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm unclear why this reference has been removed completely, but I cannot easily access. --Hipal (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)