Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:47, 19 January 2023

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Analysis of sources for lead article (Please maintain and do not archive)

Malhotra is a controversial character. I have analysed all the independent sources (not those written by the subject himself) in the following table so the lead paragraph can give a balanced reflection of what the sources say. As time goes on and there are new sources and new points to be made please add to the table. Viv Hamilton (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand this table, and separating sources between "Positive Notability" and "Critics" is bound to lead to POV violations. --Hipal (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Biographical Bias

Several paragraphs of the biographical and work history section read like they're written by the subject and are heavily biased. They are not neutral at all and I suggest rewriting to remove much of the glorified fluff. 82.8.55.103 (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Please can you be more specific. Other than the quote about his motivation, as far as I can see, the second and third paragraphs are sourced and referenced from third party sites. Viv Hamilton (talk)

I have added some quotes from the Sarah Boseley article "Butter Nonsense". This section is dealing with Malhotra as a person and his career - the article already has a lot of criticism of his statements under the specific issues in the next section of the article. The issue of balance is that overall organisations tend to give positive recognition of people but there are very few that give negative ones (ignoble and Darwin being some exceptions). So on average for a biography it's not unexpected that the balance of what the Reliable Sources say is positive. There is plenty of criticism of Malhotra out there but most of it is in self-published articles so cannot be used here (there is also plenty of praise for him too in self-published material, which is equally not included in the article). Viv Hamilton (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

This article looks like a government propaganda piece

The article goes on and on about NHS guidance, which we all know leads to an obese population, same for many western countries. No matter this article's editors' opinions about the diet, the article should restrict itself to a couple of paragraphs on the book, and a couple of paragraphs and published criticisms. The rest is just extra fluff.--Tallard (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Or a public relations piece. The lede is a mess. --Hipal (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I've posted to WP:FTN, hoping for some help. --Hipal (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, placing counter-arguments in an article, especially a BLP, is a violation of WP:SYN. 108.18.156.124 (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree Tallard. The reference in the first paragraph to Malhotra being an "Anti-vax proponent" is false. Malhotra advocates certain vaccines, but not others. Pontificateus (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

New source

• Gorski DH (3 October 2022). "'I know you are, but what am I?' Dr. Asseem Malhotra rails against COVID-19 'misinformation'". Science-Based Medicine.

Seems like a lot to take in ... Bon courage (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Interesting source. Aseem Malhotra was also recently on the GB News channel and was supportive of the carnivore diet, , he says towards the end that it can "cure" people (he cites Jordan Peterson's daughter). Completely irresponsible. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

New source (2)

• Flynn A (September 2022). "Enquiry into concerns raised by members at ARM 2022" (PDF) ('Lessons learned' review). British Medical Association.

In which the BMA investigate the fallout of Malhotra falsely claiming to have received an award from the BMA chair, and note that he "holds views that are contrary to BMA policy, particularly regarding vaccination for prevention of SARS-CoV-2". Bon courage (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bon courage: I think we need to be careful using a primary source such as this - do you know if this was picked up by any news organisations? From a quick search I couldn't find anything. SmartSE (talk) 09:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Not sure. But I'm also not sure it's a primary source – isn't the author/investigator (Flynn) at a remove from the evidence/people involved in the incident? And in any case a BMA publication is surely reliable for its own view wrt Malhotra. Is there anything here you see as contentious? Bon courage (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it fits WP:PRIMARY pretty closely - Flynn and the BMA were closely involved in the events. WP:BLPPRIMARY says that we should be very cautious about using primary sources in BLPs. A broader issue about this regardless of whether it is primary or not and why I asked whether anyone else covered this, is WP:WEIGHT. It looks to me like there was some controversy within the BMA about the award and tweet but it doesn't seem as if anyone else took much notice. SmartSE (talk) 09:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, okay - I wasn't aware Flynn was involved in the events. Out of caution I've removed this though I feel what the BMA feels about a doctor's COVID views (which we air) is relevant to the article. Let's see what others think. Bon courage (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Excessive detail on controversies

I firmly believe that the article, in its current shape, has way too much detail on the various controversies regarding cholesterol, statins, saturated fat etc. These are of course topics that Mr. Malhotra has opined on, but I don't think it's due to include entire paragraphs on what national health authorities recommend for human consumption in his biography. I do think we ought to describe the pushback Mr. Malhotra has received from various experts in context, but that ought to be more specific regarding the debate he has engaged in, rather than simply repeating what the general health guidelines recommend, which is already duly covered elsewhere in the Misplaced Pages. Nutez (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

My understanding of the policy on biographies is that we should only cite references that actually mention the person, otherwise the content is original research or off topic. I would agree with your removals, I don't think we can include huge chunks of text about what the mainstream guidelines say, only if they specifically mention Malhotra. All that material can be found elsewhere. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, prolly should be slimmed down. Per WP:PSCI/WP:GEVAL any of Malhotra's numerous nonsenses, if aired, should be contextualized with some sane source. But not to excess. Bon courage (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I've asked for help at WP:FTN. Looks like we're all on the same page. It might be helpful to look for more references (or better use what we have) that clearly reference Mallhotra's viewpoints.

This may only tangentially related: At a glance, I'm unclear if all the non-independent references are being used appropriately, especially his own works. --Hipal (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Nutez keeps messing up this talk page, apparently in an attempt to obscure the fact the Malhotra has come out with a load of dubious claptrap in his time. Nutez stop it - it is disruptive and it looks like you're advocating for quackery. Bon courage (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bon courage: Please stop the personal attacks. You are derailing a productive discussion by constantly throwing aspersions about my personal beliefs. That is unacceptable. Hyperbolic language like "nonsense" or "claptrap" is also not helpful to the conversation. Thank you for your understanding. Nutez (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The "Career" section needs to be rewritten from the independent sources. Much of it is a resume, and the quotes are excessive at best. --Hipal (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Any objections to removing his two HuffPost articles and the corresponding content? --Hipal (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

If the HuffPost refs were removed, little of "Reducing the consumption of sugar and junk foods" would remain without a rewrite. --Hipal (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@TheMouseMen: took a stab at cleaning it up , but attempting to do so in huge, single edit makes the edit summary far short of what's needed to move forward in this dispute, while making it impossible to review. Please work in smaller edits, ideally no more than a single section at a time. --Hipal (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Roger, understood. TheMouseMen (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

slander

it is really interesting to see how much this person has changed, according to Misplaced Pages, in a single year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Aseem_Malhotra&diff=1128155984&oldid=996492464

So sad that wikipedia is being abused for politics and slander. How can somebody who advocates taking vaccines be Anti-Vax ?

--Mick2 (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the reference to Malhotra being an "Anti-vax proponent" is blatant disinformation, not misinformation. It needs to be removed forthwith.

Malhotra praises some vaccines, and has only raised objections to specific ones. Pontificateus (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Protection?

This page is now subject to frequent minor changes by recently created accounts - particulalry on the vaccine content. Would it benefit from a reinstatement of some of the previous protections it had? Pocketfullofposies (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

In particular, would value others' views on whether he should be described as controversial. This has been repeatedly removed by one edit accounts. To me, it seems a reasonable and unbiased term to describe someone where there is substantial disagreement about the quality and veracity of his advice, as evidence by the both the number of critical opinion and fact-checking articles in reputable news sources. But keen to be advised by others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pocketfullofposies (talk • contribs) 02:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I would remove it, personally. "Controversial" is an editorial weasel word and could be construed as an unsourced opinion in Misplaced Pages's voice, which we shouldn't do, especially concerning a living person. It follows WP:NPOV better to just describe the controversies in neutral terms and let readers form their own conclusions. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 19:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

For sure - that's no way to WP:BEGIN. I'll remove it. SmartSE (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Source for: “public questioning of the need ever to use statins”

As I read it, the source given does not say this of him. In the meantime, in his recent interview on the BBC, he said something on the lines of: they are useful for some patients and of marginal use for others. So it would be helpful to know what the source is for our statement that he has questioned the need ever to use statins. Springnuts (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

From the Guardian source:

On BBC radio, he went further. “It was actually probably an underestimate,” he said, and questioned the benefits of the drug for any patient, citing the cholesterol sceptic Michel de Lorgeril.

Incidentally, for up-to-date coverage of this guy's antics. The Guardian ran a story a few days ago. Bon courage (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Then we should say that, rather than adding our own gloss. Springnuts (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

We should summarize the whole source. What we have is fine. Or do you see some edge-case difference? Did he mean people should take statins if they wanted to harm themselves do you think? Bon courage (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian are clearly not seeking to represent his views fairly: they take a view, and that’s their right to do so. So they quote him in an BBC interview – they don’t give the date – as questioning the value of statins. It’s possible to question the value of something without saying it has no or negative value. From other things, he says it’s clear that thinks they are overvalued. But he does see them as having value in the right place for the right people. In his recent interview on the BBC he said that he has prescribed statins and that he sees the greatest benefit for those at the highest risk; especially those who have had a heart attack. So that does not sound like our summary of his position. Springnuts (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure you heard or read that correctly? Here is an interview with Aseem Malhotra with a naturopathic organization just 3 months ago commenting on statin effectiveness (he doesn't believe they are statistically beneficial for those at highest risk, he gives some figures), he also authored the book A Statin-Free Life . Here he says "be aware that their effects are marginal at best" . On his website the general gist is telling people to not take statins . He's also lectured claiming statins are a "con" . I have not seen him anywhere recommend statins. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

“I have prescribed statins, particularly to high-risk, people…“; “People who have had a heart attack or a high risk; that’s where we see the greatest benefit from statins“. He goes on to say that it is amongst lower risk patients that he does not think the blanket prescription of statins is the whole answer. I accessed it here ] but I assume it’s also still available on the BBC website. Springnuts (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• There's also quote a lot about fallacious reasoning and antivax in this recent article from WP:SBM. We should be using this (and the Guardian) to expand the article, not picking random stuff out of Youtube videos. Bon courage (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

BBC interview and hardly random. And the reference you give has only two substantive reference to him and statins: one that says that he considers them equal, or perhaps superior as a way of dealing with heart issues, and the other is his own tweet that he is critical of the overprescribing of statins. So it doesn’t support the statement in the article that he takes a blanket view opposing them. It’s difficult to judge the perennial Guardian as entirely a RS on this point, but nor would I want to use self-source to balance it. So my point is that we need better sources to make the encyclopaedia accurate, which it self-evidently is not at the moment (unless we are claiming that his words in the BBC interview and in the tweet in the source you mention are untrue, but we’d need some exceptionally RS for that).Springnuts (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we trust that RS know how to interpret these things (including strategic disclaimers); Misplaced Pages editors don't. Bon courage (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

So I think for me the issue is trifold: (1) whether the Guardian - notwithstanding that it is a perennial source - is a RS for the specific statement that he "has questioned the worth of statins, saying they may not be of benefit to anybody", (bearing in mind clear POV in the article and that we have to use the WP:BLP standard of sourcing here) and (2) if not, whether there are any RS which do support it to the required standard, and (3) if so, how we deal with that statement given that we know it is at the very least an incomplete statement of his position on statins.

Does this seem a resonable summary of the issue? Springnuts (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

We follow RS. Every antivaxxer (for example) says they're pro-vaccine; doesn't mean Misplaced Pages gives that weight. From the replies above you can see how the world at large (i.e. reliable sources) understands the statin "message" being put out. Basically, you're being fooled by rhetorical tricks while reliable sources are not. Bon courage (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like WP:SYNTH. There is no doubt that he "has questioned the worth of statins" - the precise point at issue is whether we can RS the specific statement that he believes statins "may not be of benefit to anybody"? The Guardian doesn't meet the standard for this, and nothing else you have offered does either. Springnuts (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not synth, but a fair summary of the source. However since there are other sources on this I have added one (BHF) and adjusted accordingly. See what you think. Bon courage (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - so I have tweaked the wording to reflect the sources accurately. Springnuts (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• Low-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles