Talk:Gillian McKeith/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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 [1] got it from http://observer.guardian.co.uk/foodmonthly/story/0,9950,1501833,00.html and the date was added with this edit [2] - 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)

AANC

I'm making a separate page for the AANC where criticisms of it can go:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merkinsmum (talk • contribs)

Sounds good! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

American Association of Nutritional Consultants Do your worst, boys:)Merkinsmum 03:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

This article has deteriorated dramatically over the last couple of days. There is a clear consensus that the criticisms belong in their respective sections, not lumped together in a "criticisms" section. It is completely unacceptable to have a "Research and professional affilations [sic]" section that doesn't note that she has conducted no scientific research and has no proper professional affiliations. The article is now a joke, and anyone who reads it risks being completely misled. Only Merkinsmum seems to think that we need a "criticism" section, and this user has repeatedly ignored the consensus.

Merkinsmum also seems to be alone in thinking that the huge amount of criticism in the article violates NPOV. As I and others have explained, this criticism is essential to the article, and to not include it in the appropriate places would be a violation of NPOV. I welcome any additions that flatter McKeith, so long as they are notable and NPOV.

Regarding the AANC, the recent changes are unacceptable. You cannot mention the AANC qualification without immediately noting that it's worthless. You cannot expect the reader to do the research for him or herself. The McKeith article must contain all essential information: this includes the fact that dead cats can join the AANC. Not mentioning this is a violation of NPOV, as most readers will come away with the (incorrect) impression that McKeith has some sort of meaningful professional affiliation.

We should either:

1. Remove all mention of the AANC qualification, or
2. Clearly note that it's rubbish

McKeith's qualifications and "scientific credentials" are an essential part of this article because she constantly refers to them. If this section appears POV, that's because her credentials are, by any measure, worthless.

I suggest we:

1. Revert the recent changes by Merkinsmum (while preserving any unrelated changes that have been made in the meantime)
2. Add some positive information about McKeith, if we can think of any
3. Remove the NPOV tag, which was added by Briantist just before he was blocked.

What think ye?

Sideshow Bob Roberts 09:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with someone who appears to be a fraud - even if it on some level - but is a 'guru' to others - is that a neutral POV is that the person is a fraud, because ommission of the facts misrepresents the person, but the inclusion of any single fact about the person's fraud is regarded by those who champion the person as an outrage.

I added the NPOV tag as it was requested on the talk page. ••Briantist•• talk 10:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the recent changes by Merkinsmum, I don't know. I certainly don't think they should all be reverted. I had a look, but when a lot of changes are made, the diffs become almost incomprehensible. I saw some changes that I thought were good, but I do think there should be something in the article about the AANC, since readers might not click on the link. (Incidentally, do we have to say that she says she's a member? There's certainly doubt as to what membership is worth, but is there any doubt that she has membership. How about "McKeith is a member of the American Association of Nutritional Consultants (AANC), which has been criticised for granting membership to unqualified individuals", or something like that?

I think it will be hard to find positive things in any reliable source. If you go to Amazon books, for example, you'll find people who have given her books five star and claim that she changed their lives, but obviously that's no good to us here.

Yes, I agree that the NPOV tag should be removed, since I don't see any proper discussion on this talk page about what way it fails — just a lot of squabbling between people who want to vilify her and people who think the article shouldn't be deliberately insulting.

And to Briantist, I absolutely disagree that "the neutral POV is that the person is a fraud." We're meant to report facts and let the reader decide. That she's a fraud may be true, but it's not a "fact" in the Wikipedia sense, as far as I can see. A Wikipedia "fact" would be that Professor X says she's a fraud, or that her doctorate is not recognised by the government. Something being "true", does not mean that it meets the criteria for statement in Wikipedia. We have to go by verifiability, not truth. ElinorD 10:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course McKeith's haughty lectures will improve the health of some people. Much of what she says is common sense: exercise and stop eating saturated fats. Some people only respond to a school ma'amish approach, although if they are mordibly obese they should consider taking their doctor's qualified advice rather than a minor celebrity. But McKeith's novelty is that she is supposedly a qualified nutritionist with a specialisation in alternative/complimentary treatments and "superfoods". Much of her non-conventional ideas are not based on any formal education or research she has conducted. The benefits people receive from her advice are probably related to the common sense formula of exercise and a balanced diet. She is not a witchdoctor and she is not harming anyone by her methods, but she is promoting unscientific diagnoses and treatments as well as nutritional suppliments and fad foods on the basis of her dubious qualifications. Omitting any reference to the doubts about her qualifications and treatments should be clearly stated in this article.--Conjoiner 11:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your last sentence. Could you reword it? Thanks. ElinorD 11:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Claims to be" a nutritionist

I added to the lead that Gillian is a nutritionist. I wiki-linked to the nutritionist article, which makes it clear that being a nutritionist does not require any formal training or accredited qualifications. If we leave it just as "controversial television presenter and author", it's not clear what her books are about, or indeed why she's controversial. (For example, Melanie Phillips is a controversial author.)

I cannot see any need for Briantist to change it to "claims to be a nutritionist", and there's good reason not to. First of all, the article on nutritionists makes it clear that it's not a regulated profession, and that being a nutritionist does not imply any expertise or training (though neither does it rule them out). So there is absolutely no reason to say "she claims to be a nutritionist". It's not like the difference between "she is an expert" and "she claims to be an expert". She practices as a nutritionist; she gets her money as a nutritionist. I have a (recognised) degree in French and English. If I had bought it from a diploma mill, and got a job teaching as a result, I could still say that I was a teacher.

Additionally, "claim" is explicitly mentioned at Wikipedia:Words to avoid. It reads too much as if we're trying to convince the reader how terrible this woman is. We are not to report that she's a charlatan: we are to report which notable people said she was a charlatan (with references), and let the reader decide. A calm, neutral article, free of hostility, but simply reporting as facts that he doctorate is not accredited, that she has never had any research published in a peer-reviewed journal, and that many qualified members of the scientific and medical community dispute her claims, is all that we are required to produce. The reader will then decide for himself. ElinorD 12:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. McKeith is a Nutritionist. Lets leave it at that. Keithmahoney 12:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Aye. Robin Johnson (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No no. The word "nutitionist" implies expert (as 'Doctor' implies qualfied), and when Amanda Wynne, the Senior Dietician of the British Dietetic Association, said "We are appalled. I think it is obvious she hasn't a clue about nutrition" - then it's clear that she has no right to be viewed as an expert. Jooler 13:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

But the word "nutritionist" does not imply expert. Read the article. She is a nutritionist; it's her profession. If it's just "controversial television presenter and author", then people might start by thinking that maybe she's controversial because she makes jokes about black people, or because she wants people to be allowed to carry guns, or something like that, and would have to keep reading, and then reprocess the information in their minds when they got to the relevant bit. I'd be very much against calling her an expert, because the word "expert" does mean that you're an expert. But a nutritionist is just a profession, regardless of whether or not you're qualified, regardless of whether or not you're any good. ElinorD 13:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Heaven forfend that they would have to keep reading the article to understand what she is about. I'm sorry, but if someone says they are a nutritionist and then gives you advice about what you should eat one would generally assume it to be expert advice, whatever our article says. You say its her profession but a profession is an occupation that requires extensive training and the study and mastery of specialized knowledge, and usually has a professional association, ethical code and process of certification or licensing." - Perhaps you would prefer the term "unqualified nutritionist" ? Jooler 13:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I do expect people to keep reading to find out more, but I still feel that "what she does" should be the opening paragraph. Generally a "controversial author" or a "controversial TV presenter" would suggest something like racism, pornography, violence, or extreme religious or political views. If I read that someone is a "controversial author", nutrition is not going to come into my mind as a likely subject of her books. As regards pofession requiring extensive training, etc., we're wikilinking to "nutritionist", not to "profession", and anyway, it says "usually has a professional association . . ." I'm not sure I completely agree with the profession article. (It's generally considered appropriate to put "housewife", "schoolboy", or "student" when filling in the box for "profession" on a form.) If you get a dentistry degree from a diploma mill, and set up practice, people would generally assume you to be an expert, but they wouldn't take it as unconditionally true that you are. However, even though you'd be a charlatan, you'd still be a dentist; that would be your profession. You wouldn't be a lawyer pretending to be a dentist; you'd be an unqualified dentist. Same goes for teacher. You can pretend to be a teacher if you're a dentist, but if you have a fake degree and teach in a school, you are a teacher. Gillian's status as an expert may be in doubt; her status as a nutritionist is not. ElinorD 14:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The point is that she makes money by offering people advice on diet and nutrition. Hence she is a nutritionist. In the same way as someone who gets paid to produce utter crap that ends up being exhibited in art galleries is an artist despite the quality or otherwise of the work. (I can't believe I am actually defending McKeith. I feel so.....dirty). Keithmahoney 14:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

By that defintion a snake oil merchant is a doctor! Art is subjective and not scientific whereas the food you eat can be dealt with scientifically ••Briantist•• talk 15:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No. The point is that nutritionist has a loose meaning, like artist, and not a strict meaning, like doctor. If the introduction said that Gillian McKeith is a biochemist, you'd be quite right, but "nutritionist" doesn't mean anything like that. The 'controversial' before it (a bit euphemistic, I admit) stops it from reading like a claim that she's a expert. Robin Johnson (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, there's no such thing as a qualified nutritionist. A nutritionist is anyone who 'claims' to know about nutrition, and who is successful in convincing enough people of this. Jamrifis 14:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That may be the case but I suspect that very few people would be aware that anyone can call themselves a nutritionist and get away with it. I reckon most people would expect that the person has some sort of qualification and expertise. They certainly wouldn't expect that the person "doesn't have a clue". Jooler 22:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please reread the article before criticising the changes

All the quotes are back where you put them and want them, I did it while someone was banned for 3RR I think. The article has more structure due to having the separate headings, but criticism is what it is, so why not call it that? You are welcome to remove the headings I suppose if they are what offends you:)Merkinsmum 13:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. it was another user that removed the AANC cats, hampsters etc. information, not me. I created a separate article so that the issues got a mention/explaination anywhere on wikipedia. I don't have a problem with them being explained here. But that there are less criticisms, makes a more balanced article. Just cos there's a concensus among sceptics that she's a bad'un, doesn't mean that's the only view of her.Merkinsmum 13:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the NPOV tag thing. There's more in it about her programmes etc which makes it less unbalanced. This article has also improved stylistically. It's not a long list containing too many quotes like before. As it stands it's not that NPOV. I wish an expert in McKeith-ism would come along and say more about her work but they'd have to find their way here by themselves:)Merkinsmum 13:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is NPOV or not, it it's "not that NPOV" then it is, by defintion, not neutral. I can't see why the NPOV has been removed when there is active discussion about it. Seems like someone wishes to close down the discussion??? I'm going to restore the article tag until all the matters are resolved. ••Briantist•• talk 14:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is definitely moving in the right direction now. We could do with a few more details about her TV shows and the other work that she has conducted as these are the things which made her notable in the first place. The criticisms which are contained within the article are facts and so are not a POV. Any more than mention of the people killed by Stalin makes his article POV. Wikipediatastic 15:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Briantist, I don't think that your latest entries are that good. They come across as blatant POV. Putting advice in italics for example.Wikipediatastic 16:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought you would be happy to have the NPOV tag removed Briantist. But perhaps it does need to stay there. Especially if you add comments such as 'emotional blackmail' and other loaded terms in the article.Merkinsmum 17:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all a fan of Gillian McKeith, but I'm very concerned that all this "scatologically infamous", "passes herself off as Dr", "sells herself as Dr", "claims to be a nutritionist", "uses emotional blackmail", etc. is in violation of WP:BLP. Thank you, Merkinsmum, for taking it out. ElinorD 17:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think some of the changes are an improvement. The basic description of her television shows is useful. Some of the cutting down of quotes is welcome too. I also agree with some of the new structure.

I haven't looked in enough detail — it's not easy to see what has changed now — but here are some changes that I feel still need to be made.

Basic information on the AANC plainly belongs in this article. Goldacre's revelation that they certified his dead cat was made in the context of McKeith, and provides crucial background to her membership of this organisation

I do not see the advantage in excising all her specific contentions regarding faecal matter and pimple-based diagnosis. Spelling out these things makes it far clearer exactly what she does on her show, and what her book says. Without them the article is just less informative, and Catherine Collins's rebuttal is less meaningful.

I object to the wording of some criticisms. For instance, "scientists critical of McKeith say that molecules are frequently without overall charge..." is just silly. All qualified scientists say this. The source we cite on the matter is a standard chemistry textbook.

I think a carefully extracted version of the taxi driver anecdote would show how she presents her qualifications to unqualified people who question her. It is also important to know that she views her "research" as placing her above doctors.

As I have already pointed out, saying that Mckeith "holds theories about Blood pH which are common among several practitioners of alternative medicine" is non-sourced. I also doubt that it's true. Perhaps you can point me to someone else who cleaves to her eccentric theory of acidosis, but I think it's unlikely you'll show me it's "common among several practitioners" (to the extent that that means anything at all).

Whoever added "citation needed" to the contention that "vibrational charge" is a meaningless term is asking for something that can't be provided. What source could we conceivably provide that proves a term has no meaning? We could tighten it to say that "vibrational charge" is not a term used in molecular quantum mechanics, but even there no source could be provided.

Stuarta 18:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

if you say 'is not a term used' then it sounds less dismissive of McKeith than 'meaningless' because it's just a statement of fact. You could put some of the bits, quotes etc you liked back in but try and keep the article tight and reading like an encyclopedia article, that is, criticisms people have said, not just 'here is a list of the flakey things she says'.

The blood ph thing is common in Alt Med circles, I will try and find a source for it. Actually I think the different coloured foods having different vibes is shared by quite a few believers too. As are her opinions about yeast. I will find sources for them.Merkinsmum 19:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• A note to all: Just remember not to sythesize information or any statements from sources. For instance, if McKeith says "A" to be true. But then you do your own research and find a text book which says "A" isn't true... you can't include that in the article to refute what McKeith said. That is considered original research. However, if you find an article or research that specifically refutes McKeith and what she says, then by all means include it (if it is notable, verifiable, not misleading, and from a reliable source). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you are suggesting that standard scientific precepts are not to be included in an encyclopedia on the grounds that they are "original research"? I do not understand how you came to interpret Wikipedia policy in this way. What I read is:

Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

As far I can see we have a reliable source. Why do you not believe a textbook is a reliable source? We are not presenting unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements or theories. We are stating scientific orthodoxy. This is original research?

Stuarta 20:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It would constitute original research it you applied a finding that was not specifically and driectly dealing with McKeith and her positions to this article. That is because you are creating the argument against McKeith by synthesizing data. It would be okay if you found a reliable source who critiqued McKeith and her positions specifically. But to apply a third-party source that doesn't mention McKeith or her positions would constitute original research. I know it is a bit frustrating, but trust. It works both ways. Just the same, you couldn't include a piece of supportive research that backs up McKeith's positions if that piece of supportive research didn't specifically mention McKeith and/or her positions. Remember, our job here is to collect and present relevant facts from reliable sources; not to create arguments or essays or perform research. Make sense? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make sense. It represents a concept terminal to an encyclopedia concerned with facts. Either the equilibrium governing acidity in water is between H⁺ ions and OH^-, or it isn't. Either McKeith is wrong about this, or she is right. A physical chemistry textbook says, unequivocally, that she is wrong. Therefore she is wrong, and readers of this work, if they care at all about facts, will want to know. As you say, "our job here to collect and present relevant facts from reliable sources". That is precisely what I am advocating.

The idea that every farcical piece of pseudo-scientific claptrap requires specific refutation from a qualified scientist before it can be counterposed with reality is simply absurd. I cannot see the basis for your opinion in the policy page. But as it happens, I have a PhD in chemistry, so can I now pronounce that McKeith is talking nonsense by reproducing the relevant content of Atkins's book with the words "contrary to McKeith" inserted? Where must I publish it? A peer-reviewed journal? Do you think scientists spend their time rebutting the ludicrous claims of self-appointed TV "experts"? No? How then will Wikipedia's readers ever find out what is true? Oh, they won't, but the god of Original Research will be appeased.

More to the point, why would I waste my time labouring under this self-abnegating policy? Plainly scientific knowledge -- the sort of thing one might expect to be able to contribute -- has no claim to be heard in this encyclopedia, so why bother?

Are you seriously suggesting that in the authorship of articles no analysis of information is required? No collating? No drawing together of threads, no elucidation of contradictions? How then could any article, on anything, ever be anything but a list of blandly juxtaposed claims? The moment one summarises a point of view, the minute one uses language at all, analysis is performed. Yet you try to draw a strict line based on some kind of Talmudic exegesis of the the Original Research page. I honestly don't know whether I completely misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia.

Stuarta 00:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you are frustrated. And I completely understand. Please read WP:NOT#OR section 1. The rest of the policy on that page is very helpful as well. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This is all absolute nonsense. The fact is that McKeith is using pseudo-science to justify bizarre claims, at the same time promoting a very conventional and common sense approach to weight loss. Belief in pseudo-science is nothing more than faith in the religious sense of the term. None of her scientific claims have any academic research basis. If this is an encyclopaedia, it should state this clearly. If Wikipedia is there to place quackery on the same level as science, then it should not call itself an encyclopaedia. If this NPOV nonsense is taken to a literal extreme, then I can set up a website that states the world is made of cotton wool and publish it on Wikipedia, and you'd have to find an academic journal that specifically refutes the claim that the world is made of cotton wool. If you don't accept my theory as a "point of view" and dismiss it without "evidence", then you are "guilty" of "original research". This is ludicrous. Let's just deal with the McKeith article on a scientific basis, instead of giving undue weight to her imaginative theories and false qualifications.--Conjoiner 01:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I can believe everyhting you say about McKeith to be true... but without evidence supporting your claim, I would be taking it on faith. All you need to do is find a reliable source that states that McKeith's theories are pseudoscience or not researched based or quackery and include it in the article. I am not stating that you can't state this. I am only reminding you that you need to support the statement with a solid reference. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

User Levine I think made the crucial point when he said this article has problems because people have 'created arguments' against McKeith. As such there are a lot of flaws here such as the coloured vegetable criticism and some of the other ones have no place here whatsoever until a wiki-able source is found to be saying them about McKeith.Merkinsmum 02:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you are frustrated. And I completely understand. Please read WP:NOT#OR section 1. The rest of the policy on that page is very helpful as well.

On that basis it looks arguable-about. While WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position agrees with the interpretation that adding context would be original research, I can't believe its intention was to allow an override of neutrality policies in favour of unusual views.

The same page's section on Neutral Point of View says But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors situate the research; that is, provide contextual information about the point of view, indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority.

Detailed unsourced refutal would be OR, but not brief context saying that such-and-such a claim is a minority view. Even if a published refutal can't be found, not being mentioned anywhere in a mainstream scientific/medical context is a significant detail. Tearlach 05:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that as long as you can cite a reliable source saying that it is the minority view. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The sources quoted do not mention McKeith, they are just a referal to a chemistry textbook. So it's POV to argue against her, create our own arguments against her, no matter how true they are. I just think there are enough sourced criticisms here, without adding new ones which are conclusions reached by yourselves, no matter how true they are. Look at the article now and the balance between emphasis on her work, and criticism. Hence everything unsourced is gone. The article here contains brilliant sources for material, especially http://www.fmwf.com/newsarticle.php?id=402&cat=5 which includes quotes from reputable dietitians saying her work is dangerous, there are also probably more arguments you could summarise and reference from there. So there's no need to 'make your own original research arguing against her. Also if you asked him, I bet Ben Goldacre could mention the veg and other issues in the Guardian. Then you have your proper source. I can mount all sorts of arguments against loads of the articles on here which could be factual but are still my own or other sceptics conclusions. Oh and another thing, I have used James Randi as a source and they like that on here, so if you can get him to write in his newsletter about McKeith, or if he has, you have a source.Merkinsmum 08:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me that I made a separate heading below, I didn't realise I could go in this specific bit but thought you always have to write at the very end.Merkinsmum 08:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the contents of th 'Response to critics' section should not also be integrated into a more relevant part of the text. ••Briantist•• talk 10:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

New age/ Alt med

http://www.rainbowminerals.net/Rust/rot_rust_tour2.html has some 'wisdom' about blood pH. Your reminder applies though Levine I don't know for sure that they are the same as McKeith'sMerkinsmum 19:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.prolonews.com/ph_and_healing.htm Blood pH and 'nutrition'Merkinsmum 19:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking specifically of her view of the relation between blood's acid/base equilibrium and oxygen depletion, because that's what comes straight after. Maybe alternate wording would make the link with other alternative health practitioners' views clearer.

Stuarta 21:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Everything negative that's unsourced is gone

The blood ph thing was still unsourced as that school chemistry book it linked to I don't think mentions McKeith and criticises her by name.:) If it does, feel free to quote it in full. I've removed criticisms of her even made by me:) http://www.fmwf.com/newsarticle.php?id=402&cat=5 is damning enough, in fact there's more there that could probably be mentioned here, hence I expanded the Dietician quote.Merkinsmum 02:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Conjoiner is absolutely right: this strict interpretation of WP:NOR is ludicrous. Please read WP:SYNT carefully to understand what "synthesis" means. Note that the collection of information from various sources only constitutes "synthesis" if it is used to advance a novel theory (one which has not been expressed before by a reliable source).

Material constitutes "synthesis" in the OR sense if it is unpublished material (fact, opinion, argument, theory) that serves to advance a position — any position, not just a novel theory. Everything in this article must have been published in relation to Gillian McKeith. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Simply collecting information from other sources is not in itself "synthesis" or "original research": it is simply research.

It's not synthesis so long as it's been published in relation to Gillian McKeith, or perhaps the theories that she advances. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The essence of "original research" is novelty: if an article makes a point that has never been made by a reliable source, it violates the rule. Simply noting a fact that is universally accepted, such as "the sun rises in the east" or "molecules are frequently without overall charge" is not original research.

WP:SYNT states that "A and B, therefore C" is original research, where A and B are published by reliable sources, and C is a novel position being advanced in the article. In the case of the statements removed from this article, there is no B or C, simply A.

If McKeith says that "X causes cancer" and the American Cancer Society says that "X does not cause cancer", it would be ludicrous to suggest that quoting the American Cancer Society constitutes "original research". This is not "creating our own arguments against her" as there is nothing novel in noting that "X does not cause cancer".

Please note also that WP:Ignore all rules suggests that unless there is a clear reason why including basic facts of chemistry and biology would violate the spirit of either WP:NOR or WP:NPOV then we shouldn't get to bogged down in arguments about the interpretation of WP:SYNT.

Sideshow Bob Roberts 11:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Should there not be some general Wikipedia policy about people with dubious claims? There must be loads of these people! ••Briantist•• talk 13:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The policy most relevant to this page is WP:BLP, which I think everyone interested in this article should read. And remember it applies to talk pages too, and is an exception to the three-revert rule. Musical Linguist 13:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no excuse for ever violating WP:BLP, and I'd be the first to delete anything that did so. But that's not the issue here, since no-one's suggesting that the statements that were removed were a violation of WP:BLP. They were removed because it was argued that they constituted original research. Sideshow Bob Roberts 13:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I hesitate to do this — I really do. I don't want to engage in ad hominem attacks, and I don't want to veer off topic. The debate on what constitutes "Original Research" will go on. But meanwhile, with due respect, and a horror at what is likely to ensue, I feel people here need to know where "Levine" is coming from.

His/her page denotes him/her as a "skeptic". That skepticism appears to apply to mainstream science rather than alternative medicine. As far as I can tell, his/her main purpose on Wikipedia is to remove critical material on various alternative health practitioners or practices — McKeith, naturopathy, chiropractors, osteopaths, "reflex anal dilation", "psychic surgery," "magnet therapy", and on and on. This user has indulged in a rolling campaign against Quackwatch links, excising them from countless pages.

The "skepticism" espoused is detailed here:

I think a big issue is that we are misunderstanding scientific skepticism as a belief rather than a methodology of believing. Scientific skepticism is merely a way of thinking... about anything. If you think with scientific skepticism, then you approach everything with the need to have it explained rationally by the scientific method. It is the opposite of accepting something on faith (without scientific evidence). The irony is that groups claiming to be "Scientific Skeptics" are usually not truly this kind of thinkers. They claim to be, but more often they are just "haters" and disregard scientifc evidence that doesn't jive with their beliefs. This is what I call "true disbeliever's syndrome" or as Truzzi put it: pseudoskepticism. Let's stick with the apogee of sources and not low-brow hater clubs. Acadomy of Science is certainly a pinnacle organization with much less of a political or economic agenda. A Skeptic's Dictionary or a Quackwatch is the nadir of sources with too many vested economic and political interests to be considered reliable sources for this subject.

Given this stance, it is perhaps unsurprising that while basic science textbooks are out as sources, random alternative health sites and fringe cranks are in. So, for instance, we have Levine battling on the Quackwatch page for inclusion of the "peer-reviewed" Journal of Scientific Exploration, a journal specialising in UFOs, the paranormal, etc. Quackwatch itself is too unreliable a source for inclusion in Wikipedia, we learn, but not new-age book salesman Deepak Chopra (he's "too notable of a person in all of healthcare to be deleted", apparently). Everywhere the pattern is the same: references to legitimate scientific publications, e.g. Cochrane reviews, removed from alternative therapy pages, New Age sources inserted.

So it would be a mistake to suppose that we are dealing here with a mere stickler for the rules. I think that's worth bearing in mind.

Stuarta 13:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am going to remind you about WP:AGF, Stuarta. Read the paragraph which you qouted above from me and let me know which portion of it your disagree with. And know this, I have no opinon on Gillian McKeith. I do have an opinion about equal treatment on Wikipedia. I have no problem with include information that some theory or person is "dubious" if we can find a reliable source stating it to be true. And yes, I argued for the inclusion of one review from one issue of JSE which critically analyzed Quackwatch. Know that JSE is peer-reviewed... that doesn't me that I take complete stock in it. But also know that Quackwatch is not peer-reviewed at all. It contains mere opinions (most of which come from the website owner - a psychiatrists without a licence who failed his board certifications) and who has old ties and influence from powerful lobbyists such as the AMA and big pharmaceuticals. Notice that in all of the Quackwatch website, you never see an article about the quackery passed off of good medicine by these organizations. On the whole, I consider Quackwatch to be a dubious source of information. Let's stick to peer reviewed as a higher level of sources.

Any other accusations or ad hominems you wish to launch at me? Do you have a problem with me preferring the Academy of Science over Quackwatch? To choose science over opinion? Am I wrong in this judgement? And yes, I am skeptic. I hardly ever take anything on faith. I need cold hard evidence to back up my beliefs, preferable obtained by through the rigours of the scientific method. That is what scientific skeepticism is all about. My issue is when Quackwatch or organization such as that claim to be for Scientific Skeptics and then fail to follow basic scientific protocol in their assessments - and to make it worse, they go on to present their assessments like qualified facts. By definition, this is "quackery" (not the defintion which Quackwatch invented to serve their own purposes of lambasting alternative medicines).

You also accuse mye of removing scientific journals for New Age publications. Huh? The example you show is me removing something which was completely redundant in the article and never did I replace Cochrane with a New Age source. For the record, I don't believe in UFOs, the paranormal, souls or spirits. I believe only in waht science supports as true.

Do I have an agenda here? Yes, it is to serve as a reminder that the rules of BLP, RS, OR and V apply the same accross the board for all people. Just because you consider someone to be dubious, doesn't mean that the rules go out the window. I believe if you look at SlimVirgin's comments below in "Edit summary saying - "you cant use 'The Sun' as a source" you will see that this is the policy here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As I specifically noted, I do not wish to engage in ad hominems. I expected such a splurge in response, and do not intend to reply to it. I simply wish people here to know that your stringent criteria for sources are selectively applied in pursuit of an anti-science agenda.

Stuarta 19:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I love how you say you are not interested in attacking me and then in the next sentence you do just that. :-) No, I am not interesting in selectively applying stringent criteria for sources in pursuit of an ani-science agenda. I question now whether you read either of my responses above in full. I am a scientist and I am a skeptic. And I am frustrated when these terms are misused. Look, I am not interested in supporting the anti-scientific claims of McKeith. I am telling you to feel free to go and show that her claims lack support scientifically. My only caveat is that you do so following the rules of Wikipedia. That's all. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Conjoiner is absolutely right: this strict interpretation of WP:NOR is ludicrous.

I asked for advice at the WP:NOR talk page, and first opinions there are that this a grey area where WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:SYNT are in conflict. I don't view stating an agreed majority view - or noting that something is meaningless within the framework of that view - as asserting anything "novel". We have to assume good faith, but the practical effect of hard-line adherence to WP:SYNT, at the expense of other policies, is to give a special advantage to the uncritical and contextless inclusion of anti-mainstream views. Tearlach 16:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

We aren't forced to give special advantage to anything this way. This way, we give equal treatment to all. If something is truly not mainstream and is notable, then finding a reliable source that says so shouldn't be difficult. I am encouraging you to do so. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is flatly false to say that it "shouldn't be difficult" to find "a reliable source that says" something is "not mainstream and is notable". Notable to whom? McKeith's work is not notable to scientists; it is notable only to gullible television viewers and book purchasers. As I have already pointed out, scientists do not spend their time debunking crank claims. The more outlandish such claims are, the less time anybody qualified is likely to spend on them. It is therefore not surprising that personalised rebuttals of all of McKeith's claims do not exist.

Given your anti-science agenda, I am not at all surprised that you are "inviting" us to locate sources you doubt exist. It allows you to place McKeith in a more flattering light, just as you have done with an almost endless list of quack cures. It is an ongoing project that destroys Wikipedia's credibility and purpose, because it becomes an encyclopedia with more reverence for Deepak Chopra than a university science text book, and no longer concerned with the truth.

Stuarta 19:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Stuarta, just as we're not here to promote an "anti-science" agenda, nor should we promote a "pro-science" one (whatever those phrases mean). We simply report what the reliable sources say, and we allow that to speak for itself. The article as it stood was an attack piece, and it appeared to question claims that aren't even controversial, so far as I know. The area of nutrition is a notoriously difficult one that is being fought over by big business interests. We should simply report what each side says, bearing undue weight in mind, and without editorializing or OR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that SlimVirgin. And I just want to reiterate that I am not here to promote any agenda other than following Wikipedia policy. I am getting a little frustrated with Stuarta's persistent attacks and disregard for WP:AGF. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Levine: I am not going to debate your editing background. I just wished people to know it. That has been achieved. If you regard quoting your editing history as an "attack" then that is a reflection on you, not me.

SlimVirgin: I would like to know which claims you believe were questioned that are not "controversial". Please expatiate.

Stuarta 21:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And still you lack good faith and continue to misrepresent my editing background. Reread what you wrote above. You are trying to paint me as someone with blatant disregard for science and an agenda motivated by pro-New Age metaphysical, anti-science. This is patently untrue and I take offense. I recommend that you should read up on Wikipedia's civility policies. Again, I repeat, my only motivation here is that Wikipedia policy is obeyed. There was such blatant disregard for it here that it eventually attracted the help of SlimVirgin, a seasoned Wikipedia admin. I suggest that you treat SlimVirgin much better than how you have treated me. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I made no mention of a "pro-New Age metaphysical" agenda. Nor did I suggest you had a "blatant disregard for science". Those are your words. If you wish to take offence at them, it makes no odds to me.

Stuarta 21:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, are you really denying what you wrote just inches above? I suppose you never said that I am in "pursuit of an anti-science agenda" or stated something like "Given your anti-science agenda" and "Everywhere the pattern is the same: references to legitimate scientific publications, e.g. Cochrane reviews, removed from alternative therapy pages, New Age sources inserted". Look, I am not interested in carry on a debate about the incivil and unfair accusations which you have levelled against me. Let's instead move on and talk about Wikipedia policy and the continued improvements of this article. Save the personal bickering for my talk page. Feel free to drop me a civil note anytime. Thank you and happy editing! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I said you were applying criteria selectively "in pursuit of an anti-science agenda". I stand by that, because that is what your editing record shows. The rest is your invention: I did not mention "New Age"; I did not mention metaphysics; I repeat, I did not say that you had a "blatant disregard for science". So no, I'm not "denying" what I wrote "just inches above". I'm denying what you falsely attributed to me "just inches above". Like you, I'm not interested in conducting further debate on this. The reality is on offer to those who read what is above.

Stuarta 23:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You know what? You're right. The reality is on offer to those who care to read above. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Stuarta, I don't want to get involved in debating the particular issues, but as an example it seemed to me that the sentence "She claims that ... the colours of foods are nutritionally significant" was an attempt to undermine that idea; and yet I believe it's accepted that the pigments found in plants are nutritionally significant. The bottom line is that if people in the West ate fewer calories, drank less or no alcohol, ate more fruit and vegetables, ate less or no meat, avoided pesticides, avoided processed food, and exercised more, they'd be healthier, which is what she's recommending. So we're not dealing with some dangerous crank theory that's likely to kill us all. But even if we were, the point is that we have to stick to the content policies, and the article as it was didn't do that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

She claims that ... the colours of foods are nutritionally significant" was an attempt to undermine that idea; and yet I believe it's accepted that the pigments found in plants are nutritionally significant

Well, that's an example of the difficulty caused by not being able to provide context. It is accepted that the pigments - eg lycopene - are significant, and that eating a variety of different-coloured fruit and veg gets you a variety of nutrients. But she says that it's the colours themselves, because they have different "vibrational charges" - which is a very different claim. Tearlach 14:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)