This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I note with interest that the majority, if not all, of the sources used to illustrate how dangerous the Cambridge Diet is date from 1982-1983 (the 2009 dates cited are misleading as this is clearly the date the articles were archived and made available online, not when they were actually composed). There doesn't appear to be a single source cited that isn't at least 25 years old. This leads me to question how unbiased the article is, not least because a much more favourable - and importantly a much more recent - article from The Times (London) dated May 18th 2009 has been removed from Wikipedia. At present the article reads as if it is determined to scare the living daylights out of people by deliberately using sources at least a quarter of a century old and potentially out of date.
As the composition of low calorie diets, including the Cambridge diet, have changed over the years (as the Times article states, and even this article admits) from 1984 onwards when problems were first identified, then citing articles from so long ago seems highly questionable, not least when a much more recent (and favourable) source has been deleted. Grev02 ( talk) 19:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I recently rewrote the article completely based on what I could find in reliable secondary sources. The previous version was basically promotional material with no references.
Although the diet is clearly dangerous for health, and a poor way of losing weight (like any crash diet), the new version is a little bit too critical and doesn't mention enough about the nuts and bolts of the diets and type of products sold today. So if anyone can find some reliable sources that discuss the diet (that aren't merely PR releases, or from a company selling the products), they could be used to improve the article. Phil153 ( talk) 19:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Mel Coleman lost 4 stone and kept it off for 1 yr so far. When you say 'clearly damgerous for health' where do you base your assumptions? If you are fit and healthy you do not even have to ask permission from yr Dr. Its been going 25 yrs so if it was dangerous I dont think it could have done that? Yes, I am a convert - because it has changed my life for the better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.37.72 ( talk) 15:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
These changes and this change removed MEDRS-sourced content and added unsourced content. this reversion restored the deletion of sourced content and the addition of unsourced content. None of that is OK in Wikipedia per the basic content policies WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, as well as WP:BURDEN. Jytdog ( talk) 01:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
So there is (at least) a UK group and a US group making money off this. I am looking for independent, reliable, secondary sources that discuss the business aspect. There is some stuff here from the UK group and other stuff here from a US group (which I got to from here) which led me here, but the company websites are poor refs (not independent) What would be ideal would be newspaper articles that just report on what has happened with the businesses. Am still looking. Jytdog ( talk) 15:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Alexbrn, I have recently discovered articles in relation to The Cambridge Diet. I located this article here:
In 2016, 2,300 people with pre-diabetes did The Cambridge Diet for eight weeks alongside regular exercise. The findings were obese people reduced their diabetes risk. Experts claimed the risk could fall by 90% with a 10% loss in body weight. [1]
You have stated this article is unreliable. Please can your provide your rationale?
There is a similar article referenced from 1980s that continues to be referenced on the page that I would deem as unreliable also.
What articles are you going to allow on this page? I have attempted to reference a couple of what appear to be well-balanced articles but you keep editing them?
Is it possible we can perhaps find a way forward to end what appears to be close to an edit war on some well balanced content from reliable sources?
References
Hi everyone, I noticed that the lede still states that the minimum calorific intake is 600 kcal which is now out of date. The body of the piece now states 800 kcal as the minimum amount of calories prescribed by the diet. Would it be possible to change the number in the lede from 600 to 800 please? Essayist1 ( talk) 10:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I would like to ask another question if I may; you say the page takes a historical view of the subject, how come it is written in the present tense? Essayist1 ( talk) 17:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I should probably also state that Wikipedia's policy on original research places the burden of proving your assertions on the editor WP:proveit. WP:Vefifiablility also states, "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people[6] or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups."
Bearing this in mind, perhaps you might want to rewrite the lede so that it directly reflects what your source says, ie "Hypocaloric diet". Also as that source refers to a version of the diet which no longer exists, perhaps you might want to rewrite the lede using a medical journal about the diet in its current form. This source is much more up to date and is free to access https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.22407
Thanks Essayist1 ( talk) 08:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Good afternoon Wikipedians. As I have disclosed on my talk page, I am being paid by the Lucre Group to represent their client The Cambridge 1:1 diet on Wikipedia.
I would like to discuss the use of the word "Fad" in the page's lede and in this context. A fad, by its very nature, is ephemeral; as the Cambridge Diet has existed in different forms for over thirty years I don't believe the word Fad is the right word to use. If I may, I would like to calmly discuss swapping the word "Fad" for a more accurate description ie "Meal replacement diet". My main reason for this is that the sources used to support the term "fad" are out of date by over thirty years and refer to an older version of the diet. While I agree that it is important to discuss the history of the diet and would have no problem with these sources being used in a historical context it is clear that the word "Fad" is being used as a derogatory term and thusly, violates WP:NPOV. I would be grateful if someone could contact me here or via my talk page to discuss these issues further. Essayist1 ( talk) 15:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
"A fad, by its very nature, is ephemeral"<- Actually, no. Read Fad diet. The whole basis of your request is thus based on a misconception. Alexbrn ( talk) 15:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Looking for sources, the seems to be a concentration in the 80s when there were some deaths associated with the diet (by the FDA). From what I can gather it was public interest from these which prompted the FDA to get the calorie ceiling raised in the USA, while in other locales this didn't happen. I'm yet to find a source which gives a good overview of all this ... will keep digging. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Information to be added or removed: Please change minimum calorie intake from 330 to 800. The 330 minimum is factually incorrect please see more recent academic study into the diet. Explanation of issue: The false information based on an antiquated version of the diet is encouraging teenagers to develop dangerous eating disorders such as Anorexia_nervosa References supporting change: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.22407
Essayist1 ( talk) 16:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I found something from the local paper on the "1:1" name change. I've added it. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
"Your step-by-step programme can move both up and down the chart, such as from Step 1A up to Step 6 or from Step 5 down to Step 1A and then back up to Step 6. The order should match your unique body needs."I can't see any restriction on the time spent on step 1A, nor any evidence that the " consultants" are medically qualified to supervise Very-low-calorie diets. YMMV. -- RexxS ( talk) 16:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I am a fully disclosed paid editor representing The Cambridge 1:1 Diet on behalf of Lucre PR. My client requests that the following sources be added to the article.
I have explained WP:RS but they still want to ask anyway. Essayist1 ( talk) 14:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I note with interest that the majority, if not all, of the sources used to illustrate how dangerous the Cambridge Diet is date from 1982-1983 (the 2009 dates cited are misleading as this is clearly the date the articles were archived and made available online, not when they were actually composed). There doesn't appear to be a single source cited that isn't at least 25 years old. This leads me to question how unbiased the article is, not least because a much more favourable - and importantly a much more recent - article from The Times (London) dated May 18th 2009 has been removed from Wikipedia. At present the article reads as if it is determined to scare the living daylights out of people by deliberately using sources at least a quarter of a century old and potentially out of date.
As the composition of low calorie diets, including the Cambridge diet, have changed over the years (as the Times article states, and even this article admits) from 1984 onwards when problems were first identified, then citing articles from so long ago seems highly questionable, not least when a much more recent (and favourable) source has been deleted. Grev02 ( talk) 19:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I recently rewrote the article completely based on what I could find in reliable secondary sources. The previous version was basically promotional material with no references.
Although the diet is clearly dangerous for health, and a poor way of losing weight (like any crash diet), the new version is a little bit too critical and doesn't mention enough about the nuts and bolts of the diets and type of products sold today. So if anyone can find some reliable sources that discuss the diet (that aren't merely PR releases, or from a company selling the products), they could be used to improve the article. Phil153 ( talk) 19:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Mel Coleman lost 4 stone and kept it off for 1 yr so far. When you say 'clearly damgerous for health' where do you base your assumptions? If you are fit and healthy you do not even have to ask permission from yr Dr. Its been going 25 yrs so if it was dangerous I dont think it could have done that? Yes, I am a convert - because it has changed my life for the better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.37.72 ( talk) 15:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
These changes and this change removed MEDRS-sourced content and added unsourced content. this reversion restored the deletion of sourced content and the addition of unsourced content. None of that is OK in Wikipedia per the basic content policies WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, as well as WP:BURDEN. Jytdog ( talk) 01:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
So there is (at least) a UK group and a US group making money off this. I am looking for independent, reliable, secondary sources that discuss the business aspect. There is some stuff here from the UK group and other stuff here from a US group (which I got to from here) which led me here, but the company websites are poor refs (not independent) What would be ideal would be newspaper articles that just report on what has happened with the businesses. Am still looking. Jytdog ( talk) 15:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Alexbrn, I have recently discovered articles in relation to The Cambridge Diet. I located this article here:
In 2016, 2,300 people with pre-diabetes did The Cambridge Diet for eight weeks alongside regular exercise. The findings were obese people reduced their diabetes risk. Experts claimed the risk could fall by 90% with a 10% loss in body weight. [1]
You have stated this article is unreliable. Please can your provide your rationale?
There is a similar article referenced from 1980s that continues to be referenced on the page that I would deem as unreliable also.
What articles are you going to allow on this page? I have attempted to reference a couple of what appear to be well-balanced articles but you keep editing them?
Is it possible we can perhaps find a way forward to end what appears to be close to an edit war on some well balanced content from reliable sources?
References
Hi everyone, I noticed that the lede still states that the minimum calorific intake is 600 kcal which is now out of date. The body of the piece now states 800 kcal as the minimum amount of calories prescribed by the diet. Would it be possible to change the number in the lede from 600 to 800 please? Essayist1 ( talk) 10:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I would like to ask another question if I may; you say the page takes a historical view of the subject, how come it is written in the present tense? Essayist1 ( talk) 17:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I should probably also state that Wikipedia's policy on original research places the burden of proving your assertions on the editor WP:proveit. WP:Vefifiablility also states, "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people[6] or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups."
Bearing this in mind, perhaps you might want to rewrite the lede so that it directly reflects what your source says, ie "Hypocaloric diet". Also as that source refers to a version of the diet which no longer exists, perhaps you might want to rewrite the lede using a medical journal about the diet in its current form. This source is much more up to date and is free to access https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.22407
Thanks Essayist1 ( talk) 08:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Good afternoon Wikipedians. As I have disclosed on my talk page, I am being paid by the Lucre Group to represent their client The Cambridge 1:1 diet on Wikipedia.
I would like to discuss the use of the word "Fad" in the page's lede and in this context. A fad, by its very nature, is ephemeral; as the Cambridge Diet has existed in different forms for over thirty years I don't believe the word Fad is the right word to use. If I may, I would like to calmly discuss swapping the word "Fad" for a more accurate description ie "Meal replacement diet". My main reason for this is that the sources used to support the term "fad" are out of date by over thirty years and refer to an older version of the diet. While I agree that it is important to discuss the history of the diet and would have no problem with these sources being used in a historical context it is clear that the word "Fad" is being used as a derogatory term and thusly, violates WP:NPOV. I would be grateful if someone could contact me here or via my talk page to discuss these issues further. Essayist1 ( talk) 15:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
"A fad, by its very nature, is ephemeral"<- Actually, no. Read Fad diet. The whole basis of your request is thus based on a misconception. Alexbrn ( talk) 15:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Looking for sources, the seems to be a concentration in the 80s when there were some deaths associated with the diet (by the FDA). From what I can gather it was public interest from these which prompted the FDA to get the calorie ceiling raised in the USA, while in other locales this didn't happen. I'm yet to find a source which gives a good overview of all this ... will keep digging. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Information to be added or removed: Please change minimum calorie intake from 330 to 800. The 330 minimum is factually incorrect please see more recent academic study into the diet. Explanation of issue: The false information based on an antiquated version of the diet is encouraging teenagers to develop dangerous eating disorders such as Anorexia_nervosa References supporting change: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.22407
Essayist1 ( talk) 16:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I found something from the local paper on the "1:1" name change. I've added it. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
"Your step-by-step programme can move both up and down the chart, such as from Step 1A up to Step 6 or from Step 5 down to Step 1A and then back up to Step 6. The order should match your unique body needs."I can't see any restriction on the time spent on step 1A, nor any evidence that the " consultants" are medically qualified to supervise Very-low-calorie diets. YMMV. -- RexxS ( talk) 16:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I am a fully disclosed paid editor representing The Cambridge 1:1 Diet on behalf of Lucre PR. My client requests that the following sources be added to the article.
I have explained WP:RS but they still want to ask anyway. Essayist1 ( talk) 14:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)