Talk:The Shangri-La Diet

67.189.175.13 -> This user clearly has an axe to grind with this diet. First he tried to get the page deleted, then he tried to describe it as a "fad" diet. There is POV here, and he should not be editing this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alight (talk • contribs)

Given that you have a blog focused on the SLD yourself, Alight, this is a rather weak accusation. The IP in question actually questions the notability of, and the neutrality of the articles on, a large number of what he/she would undoubtedly term "fad diets". I've agreed with some nominations, declined several others. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't thing the fact that I have an SLD blog weakens my accusation at all. First of all, any edits I've made to the SLD article are neutral POV and factual. I save the POV stuff for my blog and keep it off Wikipedia. Also, I don't this we should be deleting articles based on requests from anonymous users with only an ip address identifier. For all we know this guy has his own competing diet, etc.

Alight (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The article's nomination for deletion should be judged solely on the article's content, not on the identity of the nominator (nor of the editors who have contributed, subject to COI rules). IPs are allowed to contribute to this project in many ways; making nominations for deletion is one of those. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the main page's author is using the appropriate tone for discussion concerning this diet. The claims made within the book are far from commonly accepted medical theory and are highly controversial; indeed the author himself (see his official blog) has admitted to not understanding why this diet works, and there is little objective research on the diet itself with which to support or dispute the claims made in the book. Rather than having an axe to grind, it appears the author is writing in a manner that reflects that the book, without supporting evidence, is indeed a collection of claims. After research either proving or disproving Dr. Robert's hypotheses has been carried out, the main page may need to be revised. Until that time, it should remain as written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr whickers (talk • contribs) 03:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

70.114.180.201 --> User does not have NPOV. Section added by this user on limitations was inaccurate and misleading. It was inaccurate because it said Roberts said the benefit of the diet was "time-limited". Roberts did not say that. What he said was: If you keep doing the diet, your weight will continue to be lower than it would be if you were not doing the diet. Roberts said nothing about a time limit on this effect. The limitation section was misleading because it implied that other diets were different. It is like saying that a "limitation" of a certain model car is that it does not go 200 mph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.74.78 (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

I suggest the neutrality banner is removed. Language is appropriately encyclopaedic. Any comments? Hyper3 (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks OK to me. TRS-80 (talk) 02:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree mikemdoc 11:11, 17 October 2009 (BST)

Why does this exist? Can we put this up for deletion?

This diet is getting listed in the 'List of Diets pages', and is clearly just one person that got on TV a few times.

There is nothing scientific or mention of a following(no active presence). Serves to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TangleUSB (talk • contribs) 01:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

You don't seem to have read the article, or (more important) the references therein. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)