Talk:Gillian McKeith/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Gillian McKeith. 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.

→

Birth Place

Gillian McKeith was born and brought up in Perth, Scotland. Later in her life, she moved to America for an extended period. Grayum 09:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC) She decided to be a nutrionist when she was dying in hospital, someone brought her health foods and she pulled through. 84.9.49.60 20:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Well, she clearly wasn't dying then, was she?

NPOV

"See Quackery." Yeah...real neutral. Welcome to Wikipedia.

I don't see the problem at all (though I hasten to mention, I didn't add "See Quackery"). I think it's pretty widely accepted amongst scientists that while some of the basic ideas that McKeith expounds are sound, a lot of what she says/writes is pure rubbish (e.g. that analysing your bodily waste can say a lot about your diet; eating fatty food makes you grow spots; that 'sugar turns to fat in the body' (misleading at best); that drinking coffee is 'bad for you', despite not giving any evidence why; her fundamental misunderstanding of plant and human biology, etc). If anything, I think the article could be a little less hagiographic and mention more of McKeith's critics.

Photo

Would it be fair to replace the photo with a less airbrushed one? I'm not doing this to be denigrating, but I do feel it's false pretence for a health expert to use such a photo when, in real life, she is slightly more haggard (to put it mildly).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/jowhiley/images/gillian_mckeith/420.jpg

P. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulmoloney (talk • contribs) 17:06, 16 January, 2006.

Hi, Paul. Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this ~~~~. They will automatically expand into your signature plus the date and the time. Regarding the photo, the most important thing is that we don't violate copyright laws. After that, it's a matter of getting consensus on which photo should be used. AnnH ^(talk) 17:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ann, sorry, forgot the signature there. How does one go about verifying a photo found on the web doesn't violate copyright? Any idea if the BBC holds copyright on all pics on their site? If so, would the web master of the BBC site be the person to contact?

--Paul Moloney 09:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not well up on the image copyright issue, but I can tell you that Wikipedia is getting stricter and stricter about it. So I'd tread carefully if I were you. You might be interested in reading a discussion (or fight) that has been going on at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. It's just been archived, so the juicy bits are in Archive 4. I think we're supposed to assume that a photo on the web does have a copyright unless it specifically says that it's in the public domain. And even if the webmaster gave you personal permission to use the photo, how would you prove that? Not that anyone would necessarily doubt your word, but just for legal security, Wikipedia has to be absolutely sure that it's not using any copyrighted images just because the uploader falsely claimed that he had permission or that they were in the public domain. My advice would be to forget it, but I admit I'm not very well up on image tagging. Someone else might be able to give you more precise advice. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 01:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"Paying" for Degree

"She gained her PhD and Master's degrees by paying for them."

More details and a reference here would be good, since one normally does have to pay for a degree (while still studying for it).--Paul Moloney 23:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Saying the college she got of PhD from (Clayton College) is non-acreddited is inaccurate, as it is accredited - the problem is the bodies that acreddit it are not reconized. The end result is the same - the PhD is worthless, but I felt that point needed correcting. Drkirkby 03:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the difference between an unaccredited degree and a degree accredited from an unrecognised body. Neither has any legitimacy. It's a bit like saying that a bank note is genuine, but the bank that issues it isn't a proper bank, either way it's mickey mouse money.

Unrecognized accreditations count as no accreditation at all - this woman is 100% quackjob 12.226.103.140 14:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

McKeith on molecules

If this quotation stays (I'm not saying it shouldn't -- it does seem to illustrate McKeith's pseudo-scientific approach) then I think it needs to be pointed out below that it's at best scientifically dubious, and certainly misleading.

Firstly, many molecules don't have overall charge. While it could be argued that she's referring to subatomic charges distributed through molecules, the statement as it stands gives a false impression, because usually references to "charged molecules" imply ions, which many molecules (and food components) are not.

Secondly, colours are not generally a function of molecular vibrations: these usually lie in the infra red region. It's probably the case that she uses "vibrational" in some generic sense, divorced from chemists' normal usage, deriving from some misplaced vague understanding of quantum mechanics. But if she's going to make what sounds like a scientific statement then she should use the terminology correctly.

Third, it's entirely false to suggest on the strength of any of this that similarly coloured foods contain similar "nutrient makeup". All it shows is that their distribution of electron energy levels (not vibrational levels) leads to a similar retinal response.

If Ben Goldacre or someone else has already explained this then a link is needed to that explanation, in my view.

Stuarta 17:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As a by-the-way,

"Chlorophyll cannot function to produce oxygen in one's bowel (not least because it's dark), and even if it could, the body cannot absorb significant oxygen through its digestive tract."

Nor, for that matter, would you want free oxygen in these parts of the body. It's dangerous stuff.

TRiG 15:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone

I have read, or a least skimmed, several thousand biographical articles on Wikipedia, and I must say that this particular article is quite unusual in the barely-concealed aggressive hostility with which it deals with its subject (I am tempted to write victim).

Please try to write in a more neutral fashion, unless you really can prove that she is the true spawn of the devil, in which case source it. See WP:NPOV and WP:OR. --Mais oui! 02:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Another thought: it may be a good idea if we balance the (very comprehensive/too comprehensive) ridiculing of her academic credentials with a presentation of her positive contributions. The article as it currently exists barely even touches on why she is notable in the first place. What has been her impact on her chosen field of work? It must be significant, or else nobody would go to the bother of attacking her. N'est ce pas? --Mais oui! 02:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Her impact is that she has made a lot of money selling highly dubious information using the title "Dr" when she isn't one.--Man with two legs 12:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the tone, then alter the tone, but don't suggest that she's being portrayed as "the true spawn of the devil" when you haven't actually disputed any of the facts presented here. On the positive side, you could, if you wanted, point out that she's apparently helped some fat people lose weight via obvious dietary advice and judicious nagging. I'm not aware, beyond that, of any "positive contributions".

Her "field" is faux reality TV as a medium for promotion of herself and sales of her branded health foods. In that "field" she has indeed had an impact, although its effects are largely seen in her bank balance -- according to last night's Room 101 she cleared £5m last year. Outside of it, for instance in fields where having a real rather than fake PhD matters, she has had no impact at all.

I'm astonished you've labelled the analysis of her "coloured food" quotation as "original research". It is not "original research" to quote precepts of undergraduate chemistry; it's simple bald fact. For this reason I've removed this categorisation. No relevantly qualified scientist would dispute the analysis given of her quotation.

Stuarta 14:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the "citation needed" claim with regard to the "it could be argued" section appears to me to be nonsensical.

That phrase is there because there are only two possible constructions that can be put on McKeith's pronouncement regarding charged molecules: a) it's misleading and true (she doesn't mean what a scientist would interpret her as meaning) or b) it's straightforward and false (molecules quite often do not have overall charge). "It could be argued" is examining that first, more charitable line.

How you could demand a citation for an entirely uncontroversial, logical exposition of such a claim baffles me. I have therefore removed that demand, pending an adequate explanation of it.

Stuarta 14:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"What has been her impact on her chosen field of work? It must be significant, or else nobody would go to the bother of attacking her. N'est ce pas?" No, not if she's a con artist. No one in her field (nutrition) takes her at all seriously, and if she confined herself to that field she wouldn't have a wikipedia article because she wouldn't be at all notable. The entire reason she is famous is because she peddles her unfounded claims on a prime time television programme, so her only real impact is deceiving millions of people every week into believing things that just aren't true. Because of these circumstances, this article sums up her "impact" very well, huge in the media but non-existent in the scientific world.

Not surprising as she doesn't know what science is. Wikipediatastic 16:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Basic example of style

Folks: OK, so there is some controversy about this person. Fine. At the start of each section, please state the known facts. After establishing the facts as well as they are understood, then you can follow up with other incidents and controversies that might suggest uncertainty about the facts. If she exaggerated about her credentials or something, please mention this after you get the basic facts out. It is just courteous and respectful of the reader's time, in case the mature reader does not want to slog through all the muck and want to just skip on to the next section, once they have the basic facts. -- 71.141.34.132 01:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You say that "[a]fter establishing the facts as well as they are understood, then you can follow up with other incidents and controversies that might suggest uncertainty about the facts". As far as I can see the quotes section was doing exactly this, but you nonetheless removed the "follow up".

I can agree that the fundamental science pertaining to her food colours claim might belong in a separate section, if you wish to reserve the "quotes" section purely for her words. But I do not accept that it should be removed completely.

Nor do I think it irrelevant that she "uses the letters 'Dr' in front of her name" -- she is well known for this, in spite of having no legitimate claim on that title. A key fact about McKeith is that she isn't a doctor.

It is utterly misleading to suggest, as you do, that "[m]ost consider Clayton College to be an unaccredited institution". There is a well-defined meaning for "accredited", and Clayton doesn't come close to meeting it. That Clayton is unaccredited, by any reasonable standard, is a "basic fact", so why did you resort to weasel-wording on this? It is not "respectful of a reader's time" to equivocate about bald facts. This is supposed to be a fact-based encyclopedia, not a piece of post-modern textual criticism.

More generally, you should at least bother to justify your wholesale alterations and deletions on this page, rather than invoking some nebulous notion of a "mature reader".

Stuarta 13:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would further add that, after your attentions, the "Education" section is now incoherent. The reader, whether "mature" or not, must not wade through facts and boilerplate equivocation that contradict each other. I'll see if I can edit it back to something remotely readable.

Stuarta 13:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Can we have some evidence of these before they become part of the article please:

- It is rumoured that using some sort of ancient magic she actually sucks the fat out of people and draws nourishment from this.

- She was seen doing triple backflips after "helping" Michelle McManus. (?)

Also, isn't a 'trivia' section irrelivant? --82.28.226.210 09:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of quotes section

Removed because it is not actually quotes. Anything it states, it does not cite (only stating what she apparently states). Then, after stating these unsourced statements, it begind to go n all about original research. All based on someone's interpretations. Thus, removed. K ilo-Lima|^(talk) 21:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Presumably you'd be happy for the article to feature properly sourced and attributed quotes? -- Karada 21:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, sources would be ideal. They can be obtained. But I'm afraid these are "actually quotes" -- they are what she said in her work. (I note, along the way, that you appear less exercised about sources for other factual claims made in the article.)

Citing undergraduate science is not "original research" because it's "someone's interpretation"; it's simple fact.

Several "interpretations" were not mine, but quoted from experts. For instance, regarding "floating stools" (a quote cited in the Observer article if you'd bothered to look), there was the response of an expert with real qualifications (Catherine Collins, chief dietician at St George's hospital). Why did you remove this? Why do you think Ben Goldacre's analysis of her views on chlorophyll is of no relevance?

I also note that you removed critical links. Why? Why do you think readers don't want to know the background on the AANC, for example?

Stuarta 11:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added a selection of quotations, with references. You will note that every single quotation previously added was indeed said by her, confirming that they were "actually quotes". (While I haven't included it, the lengthy claim regarding blue-green algae was cited by New Scientist as coming from her book, Miracle Superfood: Wild blue-green algae. I have the New Scientist reference.) None of the references would have been difficult for you to track down, as they are all available in the linked articles (including the one you removed).

As I have stated, I do not see the problem with quoting orthodox scientific views regarding some of her claims, although at present there is not much of that. Certainly I do regard other people's "interpretations" as valid and relevant, particularly when unlike her they are qualified scientists, and I have included some of them.

Stuarta 18:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that is has been cited, it looks much better. Also, if you wish to criticize what she has said, you must also cite those sources. Iolakana|^(talk) 21:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

clarifying quotes

Sprouts are also packed with vitamins, minerals, protein, enzymes and fibre as well as two anti-ageing constituents — RNA and DNA (nucleic acids) — that are only found in growing cells. [26] You Are What You Eat (2004), page 211

In my copy it says living cells, not growing cells. Are there different versions? Can anyone with a different hard copy verify this quote?

DNA is only found in living cells? DNA is an 'anti-aging constituent'? What is the evidence that "Dr" McKeith has had any scientific education at all, let alone acquired a PhD? Does anybody know? Jamrifis 21:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Clayton College

I had updated an associated Wiki page for the college she attended, and it's been deleted after having a Deletion request added by an anonymous IP address. Any idea how I complain about this?

P.--Paul Moloney 13:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If the article is up for deletion, discuss at the AfD page; if it has been deleted, take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Iola k ana|^T 13:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Small Change Explanation(s)

I have changed the description of Dr Ben Goldacre from describing him as a GP to a (physician) doctor and journalist as I am not certain he is a GP. Please feel free to change it back if I am wrong (I thought he was in hospital medicine of some sort but am not sure)--Doctormonkey 15:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Chinese influence

With regard to the Diagnosis section, has anybody noticed that many of her views are lifted from (an obfuscated version of) Chinese traditional medicine? Possibly a way to give her credibility via non-obvious association? I wouldn't know how to phrase this for the entry though. Antgel 20:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Try to find a couple of examples where you can cite something she claimed and something in Chinese medicine which is similar.

Removal of taxi driver anecdote

Why was this removed? While a taxi driver is obviously not a public critic, the anecdote illustrates well McKeith's attitude to her qualifications -- particularly her view that her background puts her above any non-specialist doctor. Possibly the heading should be changed from "Critics", but the anecdote, which she chose to include in her book, conveys useful information about the claims she makes to readers about her training. Unless Sideshow Bob Roberts or someone else can supply a reason for omitting this information I shall reinstate it.

Stuarta 13:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the anecdote a couple of weeks ago, and I notice that someone else (not me) removed it again today. Apologies for not giving an explanation when I deleted it the first time.

Maybe I'm being obtuse but I just don't see why this particular anecdote is more notable than the hundreds of others she has chosen to include in her books and articles. Like a lot of other quotes in this article, I think this one adds to the clutter without serving any clear purpose.

I would agree that the conversation contains some useful information (in particular, I think her claim to have “spent a lifetime studying food and biochemistry” is notable) but I don't think the anecdote as a whole is worth including in the "response to critics" section.

Perhaps we could note that McKeith frequently responds to critics by quoting her qualifications and "scientific authority," with a footnote pointing people to this conversation?

Sideshow Bob Roberts 19:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

For me, the point of the taxi driver anecdote is that it shows McKeith's attitude to her qualifications. As you say, it could be better if we simply extracted the more pertinent sections. I can believe that would make things clearer, as long as her tone when responding to criticism is conveyed.

I note the article has also now been gutted of various other quotes, most particularly on her theories of excrement-based diagnosis. I don't believe anyone can form an informed impression about her without seeing those. It is a crucial part of her TV show and her book. Fear of clutter generally seems exaggerated here: it's hardly a long article, and removing these simply makes it less informative.

Finally, I see that basic science (e.g. on oxygen and pH) has been moved to the "criticism" section, with McKeith's claims instead accompanied by unsourced assertions about their acceptance within alternative medicine. It is surely not "criticism" that's found in a standard Physical Chemistry textbook; it's the plain truth. I also worry that detaching the basic science from her claims will reduces the coherency of the article. Right now we have a disjointed assertion about pH equilibria, unlikely to be connected to the McKeith claim. That is surely worse than what we had before.

Stuarta 00:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think a long anecdotal section like that looked a bit funny stuck in the middle of the encyclopaedia article. If we're going to mention it, we should just extract the most relevant sections, and rewrite them in our own words, so that the style matches. Short quotations are all right, of course. ElinorD 23:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

“Poo Lady”

The introduction to this article currently reads:

Gillian McKeith (aka the poo lady^[1]^[2]) (also passes herself off as Dr Gillian McKeith but does not have an accredited doctorate^[3]) (born September 28 1959, Perth, Scotland) is a controversial Scottish television presenter and author. She fronts Channel 4's You Are What You Eat, Granada Television's Dr Gillian McKeith's Feel Fab Forever and has had a number of slots on shows such as ITV's This Morning and BBC1's Good Morning.

Biographies of living persons should not include derogatory or malicious material.

Even if it were not derogatory or malicious, I don't think the "poo lady" nickname is notable enough to be mentioned in this article. Apart from Ben Goldacre and a couple of websites, no-one seems to use it.[1]

I'm deleting the mention. If there's a consensus that it's worth restoring, it should not go in the first sentence (which, according to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section, should “give the shortest possible relevant characterization of the subject”). Sideshow Bob Roberts 19:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the poo lady because it is not derogatory or malicious (mearly explanatory) and as she has been refered to such in at least one newspaper and on BBC Radio 1, and lots of other places which I don't have links to hand for. Her "act" involves forcing people to look at their "poo" on TV!!! ••Briantist•• talk 19:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Under the Wikipedia rules, you need to provide a reference to show that something isn't true, rather than just your own opinion. Thanks. ••Briantist•• talk 19:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Google search for "Gillian McKeith" "poo lady" gives me 347 hits, which undermines your 'couple of websites' claim. ••Briantist•• talk 19:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed "poo lady" again, and also the "passes herself off as a doctor" bit. The rather iffy claim of having a doctorate appears later in the article. I haven't examined the references, and depending on how good the sources are, some of that might be okay later in the article, but definitely not in the lead. (I'll look at them later.) Please read WP:NPOV. ElinorD 19:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added "poo lady" as a comment in the "Excrement" section, together with reference. I humbly submit that this is a legitimate place for this point to be mentioned. 82.33.156.75 23:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If there's a proper, reliable reference, and if the "poo lady" title is reasonably widespread, I wouldn't object to having it reported in the article in an appropriate place. It seemed completely inappropriate to have it in the lead section. However, I have some doubts about that reference. It looks like some kind of blog, inviting comments. Can you find a better reference? ElinorD 23:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the citation of Goldacre's blog to his latest Guardian piece. --Dannyno 09:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that reference seems better. Thanks. I think we have to be careful not to make the article seem as if we're making fun of her, although we still need to report the facts. But having "aka as the Poo Lady" and "passes herself off as a doctor" in the lead section makes it very clear what the editor thinks of her. See also WP:BLP. ElinorD 10:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Briantist is still adding that stuff, and seems to have broken the three-revert rule. I've left a message at his talk page. ElinorD 10:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested to know that the rule doesn't apply if you are restoring items that have references which are being replaced by opinion. ••Briantist•• talk 10:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Exceptions include Reverting unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons) ••Briantist•• talk 10:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's not me who appears on TV every week at about 830pm forcing people to smell and look at poo! ••Briantist•• talk 10:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that if unreferenced, poorly-source material, potentially damaging to a living person, is being added to an article, one may remove it repeatedly, without worrying about the three-revert rule. I don't see anything that indicates that you can repeatedly re-add material, whether referenced or not, that other editors are taking out, except in such obvious cases as a vandal blanking massive sections of an article. This seems to be a content dispute, where some people think that putting in the introductory paragraph that she's "also known as the poo lady", and that she "passes herself off as a doctor" is a violation of the Wikipedia [WP:NPOV]] policy and possibly also of the WP:BLP policy. The passage from 3RR that you quote does not at all give you a licence to re-add that material repeatedly. And it's not "being replaced by opinion"; it's simply being removed. ElinorD 11:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yawn! That is your OPINION and is not backed up by facts. Either find some fact that links that name poo lady to another person OR find a denial by Ms McKeith that she is the poo lady. You have to find PROOF for your POV, not just keep restating your OPINION. OK??? ••Briantist•• talk 11:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

McKeith's title

I see that reference to McKeith's title has been removed altogether from the introductory paragraph. I agree that "passes herself off as a doctor" is not neutral, and should not be in the article. However, previously the framing paragraph simply stated that, although she styles herself "Dr Gillian McKeith", she does not have an accredited doctorate. It is a basic fact about McKeith that the title she uses so prominently to promote her work as a celebrity nutritionist does not signify the expertise that it would imply to many. That surely deserves to be made known where the title is introduced. I shall therefore reinstate the neutral wording.

Stuarta 12:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a neutral reporting of the fact that she uses the title "doctor" although her doctorate is not from an accredited university. I would probably not put it in the opening, since the opening already states that she's controversial, and that she has been heavily criticised by members of the scientific community. However, I don't have strong feelings as to where it should go, as long as it's reported in neutral language. ElinorD 12:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think "Dr Gillian McKeith" is a name that she goes by commonly enough to warrant a mention in the introduction (it's house style to list the common aliases of the subject there), and I also think it would be a violation of neutrality to mention the "Dr" title without pointing out that it it is unaccredited (i.e., misleading). So I am for both these things being in the introduction. Robin Johnson (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. What I was really objecting to was the stuff about "the poo lady passing herself off as doctor". She does indeed use the title all the time, and I have no reason to doubt that the doctorate is unaccredited. I wonder would "although her doctorate is not accredited", or "although her doctorate is not from an accredited institution" be better than "although she does not have an accredited doctorate"? ElinorD 13:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. The assumption that the latter phrasing implies is "an unaccredited doctorate is not a doctorate", so the question is, is that assumption a NPOV violation? Personally I don't think it is, because of the undue weight rule and a dose of hunch. Robin Johnson (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I prefer my suggestion because it suggests that she has something which is useless rather than that she doesn't have anything. In the same way, I'd prefer "his marriage isn't valid" to "he isn't in a valid marriage". (Nothing to do with this article, just an example.) However, it's not a strong preference, and I don't have a problem with "does not have an accredited doctorate". ElinorD 10:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that assumption doesn't violate NPOV. Some degrees are from accredited institutions, those that aren't, might as well be awarded by your best mate. This article is a whole is very anti-McKeith at the moment though.Merkinsmum 03:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Only because the facts are very anti-McKeith. If we don't use deliberately insulting language, it's not a problem, in my opinion. Robin Johnson (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I am NOT anti-McKeith ffs! It is a simple matter of FACT supported by EVIDENCE as required by this Wikipedia and is required to counter the use of the "Dr" in the introduction. OPINION does not count here, FACTS DO!! ••Briantist•• talk 11:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Calm down! I can't quite follow your point. I didn't call you anti-McKeith. I'm "anti-McKeith", I suppose, in that I understand she is selling ineffectual 'medicines' based on pseudoscience. McKeith's not having an accredited doctorate is an important fact that speaks for itself and should be in the introduction. Calling her an infamous poo lady, etc., is just an insult and will only help her by making her detractors look like bullies. Robin Johnson (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well put. And on reflection, I can accept both the false doctorate and the "poo lady" name being reported in the lead (though not in the lead sentence!) as long as the language remains neutral and we're just reporting facts. Stuff like "passes herself off as" and "scatalogically [sic.] infamous" is not acceptable. ElinorD 19:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Age

Born September 1959, so 47 as of today. Where does this come from? Jooler 12:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No idea. I just accepted it because it was there, but of course, you're right. If we don't have a valid source for that, it should come out. ElinorD 12:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The person who added 1959 in this edit [2] got it from http://observer.guardian.co.uk/foodmonthly/story/0,9950,1501833,00.html and the date was added with this edit [3] - no source Jooler 03:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The Observer article has some much needed biog that could flesh out the non-critical part of this Wikipedia article. Quickly skimming the Observer piece, I'm struck by her vagueness on dates. Jooler 03:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that article gives 1959, but says nothing about 28 September, or even just September. Unless we have a source, I'd feel inclined to take out the day and month, and just leave the year. And could someone who understands how footnotes and refernces work link the 1959 in first sentence to a footnote with the Observer article? ElinorD 23:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I think I've figured it out. At least, I don't understand it, but I copied and pasted it from elsewhere in the article, and it seemed to work. Please modify if I've done anything wrong. Also, I've taken out day and month of birth, as I don't think we have a source for that. ElinorD 23:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Trevor McDonald's expose in Dec 2004

No direct mention of the 'Tonight With Trevor McDonald' programme from 2004. Jooler 13:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Where's the NPOV

I agree with every criticism of McKeith. However I don't think anyone can say this article is NPOV at the mo:) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merkinsmum (talk • contribs) 15:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Good point, I'll tag the article as such. ••Briantist•• talk 15:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try and rewrite, for NPOV, tonight. Also there are too many quotes etc which is not an encyclopedic styleMerkinsmum 15:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Make sure you check out the latest article about her Phd in the Guardian --Wikipediatastic 16:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"I don't think anyone can say this article is NPOV at the mo:)"

Can you please be more specific? Which aspects do you think need to be improved? The article paints McKeith in a very negative light, but that's not necessarily POV. Sideshow Bob Roberts 19:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Improvements

As much as I can't stand this charlatan, it is odd that the article barely covers her career in the media. Surely there should be a major paragraph at the beginning which should state, which programmes on Channel 4 she has appeared on, when these were etc. As a media figure she has been very successful. After we have written that section it would then make sense to include all of the (fully warranted) criticism. Wikipediatastic 16:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Separate criticism section

I am "anti-McKeith" but having the criticism spread throughout the article looked like the article was there solely to debunk her. It now has its own section. Hope no-one hates this too much:)Merkinsmum 19:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There were too many lists of quotes too, it made the article long and it didn't look like an encyclopedia entry.Merkinsmum 19:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Each criticism belongs in its respective section. It is totally irresponsible to quote her views about, say, chlorophyll or "vibrational charges" without immediately noting that this is nonsense. The fact that Ben Goldacre's cat is a member of the AANC should be noted in the "professional affiliations" section, not buried in a "what Ben Goldacre thinks about Gillian McKeith" section.

The way you've formatted the article, it's very difficult for the reader to decide about the merits of her education, her professional affiliations, or her views about nutrition and diagnosis, without reading the entire article and putting all the pieces together for him or herself. As more information is added to the article, it will just get more and more difficult for the reader to form a balanced opinion.

Bear in mind that many readers will only skim the article, or read the sections that they are interested in, and will not read the entire "criticisms" section, so they will come away with an entirely misleading view of McKeith and her advice.

If it "looked like the article was there solely to debunk her", that is simply because much of what she says, both about herself and about nutrition, is quite simply untrue.

Also, I think the fact that the British Dietetic Association claims "she hasn't a clue about nutrition" and "her advice, if followed to the limit, could be dangerous" belongs in the lead section, as this pretty much sums up what the real "experts" think about her.

I'm very happy, however, that you've cut some of the quotes that were cluttering the article!

Sideshow Bob Roberts 20:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have done my bit for now but looking at articles about similar figures, Phil McGraw might be one that we could model this one on. Criticism makes up a lot of the article, but it still manages to seem encyclopedic in tone and NPOV. The criticism comes after a 'biography' section, as User:Wikipediatastic suggested earlier. Anyway feel free to tinker and undo stuff:):) glad you like the quote shrinking:)Merkinsmum 21:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Dr Phil article is not an appropriate one on which to model this article: in McKeith's case, the criticisms relate to a wide variety of subjects that have been discussed earlier in the article. Divorcing the criticism from the subject makes it more difficult for the reader to decide the truth.

The old format might seem POV, but I don't see how it seems unencyclopedic: most other encyclopedia articles I've read deal with criticisms in this way. No decent encyclopedia would include her statement about red foods being “high in iron, and thus useful for building blood” without immediately pointing out that this is not true. The reader should not have to read all the way down to the “other scientists” section to discover this. If “seeming encyclopedic in tone and NPOV” means allowing the reader to be confused or misled, then to hell with the encyclopedic tone.

Sideshow Bob Roberts 00:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism should be in context and not in a separate section. Her claims have to be countered directly. If she makes stupid statements then she should stand by then and her quotes shown. Jooler 21:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I just posted about this above. I didn't notice this down here.

I agree with Sideshow Bob Roberts and Jooler. The criticism, or basic science, should appear alongside the claim. The Goldacre cat fact must surely accompany the initial mention of the qualification. And so on.

As also said above, I believe the faeces claims should go back into the article. See above.

Oh, and yet again, McKeith must surely be introduced as Dr Gillian McKeith in the introductory paragraph (because that's what she calls herself, and a reader may not know if she is the same person). That in turn implies, in my mind, that the nature of her PhD must also come up in that paragraph.

Finally, the tone. I agree, the article does not paint a flattering portrait of McKeith, but what can you expect? If there were glowing testimonials from formerly fat people out there we could quote them, but what beyond this could counterbalance the content we have? It may be negative to counterpose a claim about chlorophyll with the fundamentals of photosynthesis, but a responsibility to the facts demands it.

I may be addressing an unexpressed opinion here, but as far as I'm concerned, the entire concept of an encyclopedia evaporates once scientifically determined facts are no longer privileged over the claims of alternative health practitioners, etc. There's just no equivalence, and we're involved in an enterprise here that to have any point at all must assume objective truth exists. Inevitably McKeith runs up against that.

Stuarta 00:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. The criticism must be in context. It makes much more sense (and reads a hell of a lot better) to have the criticism organized by claim rather than "by scientist". Also the information about her thesis should be restored (it being 50(?) pages long and containing recipes). When someone openly makes entirely false statements (e.g. DNA is only found in living cells and is a powerful anti-aging agent) it would be a violation of NPOV to NOT point out that these claims are simply false. Keithmahoney 00:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Photo

I've found a fuller version of that air-brushed 20-year old photo that appears on her products. I always wondered why her hand was in that positiuon - http://www.zam.it/1.php?id_autore=1460 Jooler 22:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Truth vs. NPOV

Sorry I mangled the article lol, I still think a Phil Mcgraw - style one would be good though, several criticisms about him are answered there. A fellow sceptic I chat to once made exactly User:Stuarta's point about wikipedia, that NPOV conflicts with scientific analysis of whether something is true or false. My view would be that we are dealing with a belief system, almost a religion, you will rarely convince 'believers' that they are wrong. And if that's what readers are after they would be viewing quackwatch, skeptic's dictionary etc.Merkinsmum 01:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're driving at here. As things stand, there are still scientific facts cited in the article in contradiction to McKeith's claims. Are you suggesting they be entirely removed? (The issue of where they go is another matter.)

I don't view this article's purpose as being to convince believers, or to stand in for Quackwatch. I just hold that there's a well-verified scientific reality out there, and if one doesn't allow it to intrude on the grounds of NPOV then Wikipedia becomes essentially worthless; it dissolves into a mass of conflicting claims with no clue as to what the world is actually like.

I don't agree that NPOV conflicts with scientific analysis. The scientific view is the only neutral view. You can criticise the philosophy underlying that stance, but in the end I believe that must also be a criticism of the idea of having an encyclopedia that presents reality as best it can be determined.

Stuarta 12:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Happy now?:)

Are people a bit happier with it? I put all the criticisms back, etc, but there's a bit more about the prog and books. I got rid of some quotes that were written out in full but kept the refs.Merkinsmum 20:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is not NPOV because

It still criticises a lot more than it does anything else. I'm not knowledgeable enough to say more, I need to find an 'expert' in McKeith's work, or in 'nutrition' a la mcKeith, to explain more their POV.Merkinsmum 00:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can find and cite reliable sources, go for it! The refs that I struck were tangential... criticising not McKeith, but rather the university which McKeith attended. I've been down this road before where I was adding criticism of a person's university trying to show how that reflects on the person; I learned that this is considered a violation of WP:OR. The other crit I removed was a criticism about an organization which McKeith is a part of... American Association of Nutritional Consultants. Again, criticizing that here is out of place. Criticisms for the university and the association should be made on those articles and then those articles should be wikilinked from here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. McKeith portrays herself as a nutritional expert and medically qualified. The fact that she has bought qualifications from controversial business, rather than established educational or medical institutions, should be stated clearly. There isn't a lot to say about her programmes: she insults some fat people until they shed tears, force feeds them horrendous "detox" concoctions (fennel twig tea, goji berries and horseradish smoothies), makes them defecate on national television and insults them about the smell and texture of the faeces and then bullies them until they submit to her diktat. For all her Blairite hectoring in that annoying squeaky accent about how the nation is going to the dogs because people are too lazy, it is edifying and instructive for her victims to know the professional basis for her food fascism - which appears to as substantial as the number of calories in the mung bean stew she is trying to get us to eat. I think we should know the facts.--Conjoiner 01:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know a thing about McKeith's methods. I don't have an opinion on McKeith either way. But Wikipedia policy is pretty clear here. You can't associate criticism (or anything) with a subject by way of another subject. This is considered original research. However, I do agree with both of you that this article can be expanded to deal with the subject in greater detail. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I believe the fact that she bought most of her qualifications from businesses, rather than earned them through reputable institutions, is of great importance as she is portraying herself as the nation's leading nutritionist. It is not up to us to judge whether she is a quack (I think she is, but that is bias), but it is up to us to outline the controversies surrounding her qualification to advise people on nutrition. If there were no public controversies about McKeith, then perhaps it would classify as "original research". But press has talked about her qualifications and this should be mentioned in the article.--Conjoiner 01:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that states that McKeith bought most of her qualifactions and then cite it in the article. We can't extrapolate or synthesize that statement. We need it stated outright by a reliable, verifiable source. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)