Talk:Aseem Malhotra

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography Stub‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

Murder?

Rathfelder - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
Is the marketing of high-sugar content products biomedical information?Rathfelder (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but the claim they are lethal is. Alexbrn (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is plenty of reputable evidence to support it.Rathfelder (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FT/N

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

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)[reply]
- It is supported by a cited source. Alexbrn (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rathfelder the Pioppi diet was described as a fad diet by Nick Harris-Fry [1], Caroline Apovian [2], British Dietetic Association [3] and Duane Mellor [4]. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wait, is the argument here that the BDA don't know what a fad diet is, whereas Rathfelder is an auhority? Alexbrn (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]