Talk:Gillian McKeith/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Slim's edit

[1] Edit summary - "Qualifications and research - the only source that says that is Goldacre; enough of him)"

I'm not happy about this kind of edit - Too much Goldacre?! - what does that mean? - Are you saying he's lying!?! Jooler 09:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying this page relies too much on one source, to the extent that at times the article looked like an extension of Goldacre's blog. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It comes to something when you withdraw a piece of factual information because someone knows too much! Jooler 09:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of one serious piece of journalism written by Ben Goldacre about Gillian McKeith. His columns are tongue-in-cheek; he insults her; he applies for membership of a professional organization on behalf of his dead cat, and so on. That doesn't mean what he writes is worthless, but it does mean we shouldn't rely on it too much. Even if he were writing serious pieces, it would still be inappropriate to rely on one person for so much criticism. If this is worth reporting, someone else will have done so, so please use that someone else as a source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If satirical jounalistic pieces cannot be used as sources on Wikipedia then God Help us! Remove all references to Private Eye throughout the whole of Wikipedia. Jooler 13:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It's possible to use humor to make a serious point, you know. His columns are certainly more serious than McKeith's own research; his are based on actual "research" (the "cat" incident) while her are a result of perusing health magazines. Perhaps someone can find a copy of her original article and go through the references themselves? P. --Paul Moloney 09:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

one serious piece of journalism - look at Ben Goldacre: he has won serious prizes for journalism. I went to the trouble to track down the award web sites and the articles he won the awards for, so that readers can see for themselves that he did in fact win the awards and see why he won them. He uses satire, but that does not mean his journalism is not serious. He insults her because she makes absurd claims and thoroughly deserves to be insulted for them. It is a great deal easier to verify his conclusions than it is to verify McKeith's non-peer reviewed "research" rubbish. Regarding the applies for membership of a professional organization on behalf of his dead cat, the organisation in question is so professional that they gave it to him for $60!! The same organisation that gave McKeith her Masters and PhD. And he wins awards while McKeith wins...censures. Phaedrus86 11:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No,McKeith's PhD isn't from the AANC, she is merely a member of the AANC. The thing is we already know Goldacre's views about her.Merkinsmum 13:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is time for SlimVirgin to be dismissed from this page. Her logic is awful - both the Guardian and The Sun for some reason cannot be used a source! ••Briantist•• talk 13:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that SlimVirgin's edits have been almost uniformly detrimental to the article. Information has been relentlessly removed. I don't think this fact is particularly surprising given her apparent willingness to pronounce without having read the relevant sources. For instance, here she was yesterday, querying if Goldacre even worked as a doctor — a fact that a most cursory examination of his articles or website would have made clear; and a fact that one might have thought worth establishing before weighing in on Goldacre's credibility as a source. The facts were of similarly little concern with respect to the The Sun libel action and the "peculiar" article in the Glasgow Herald.

I understand that anyone making as many Wikipedia edits as SlimVirgin cannot have a mastery of the sources for every article touched. But I do expect that editors making such sweeping changes at least acquaint themselves with the minimal facts. SlimVirgin has apparently not done this. Worse, she has refused on more than one occasion to engage with those facts even when they have been (at times repeatedly) pointed out to her.

The degradation of the article is best summarised by perhaps her most astonishing edit: the one with the description "let's leave out the whole issue of accreditation". There she removed the information that McKeith's PhD was not accredited. I leave to any neutral reader to decide if such information was, or was not, worth including in an encyclopaedic article about a celebrity trading off the title "Dr".

Stuarta 14:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Ben Goldacre is an excellent source for the information in this article. He has researched Mckeith extensively and has, in his many articles, debunked much of what she has said. To try to say that we cannot use him as a source, because his articles are humourous is complete rubbish. As has already been illustrated, he has won various prizes for journalism including the 2007 Award for statistical excellence in journalism from The Royal Statistical Society. He is an impeccable source. Wikipediatastic 14:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I think SlimVigin's edits are very reasonable. Some of us here, myself included sometimes, tend to forget that WP is not an exposé site, nor a promo, for anyone or anything. Our job is to present in a neutral tone a balanced summary of verifiable sources. In the BLP case, we need to tread extra carefully, and give the subject the benefit of the doubt wherever possible, using multiple reliable neutral sources for any negative or controversial information. Dr. Goldacre is clearly an anti-McKeith advocate, which does not rule him totally inadmissible, but does require us to observe a proper balance while using him as a source, and limit his contribution to the entry, regardless of the ultimate 'truth' or validity of his message. SlimVirgin's point about the dead cat is well taken - I am sure any of us with memberships in professional societies, upon careful reflection, will admit that most of them will easily allow enrollment by anyone under any name, upon some declaratory statement and payment of a fee. The organization which accepted the dead cat is not the institution which granted McKeith her PhD, as can be clearly verified. So everyone, please let the facts speak for themselves, and let's present them in a neutral and balanced manner. We'd like our readers to walk away with an impression that WP is bending over backwards to be fair and neutral to any living person - not that we are an attack or exposé site, bent on debunking frauds. Thanks, Crum375 14:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Professional associations commonly require a nominator and seconder from the association's membership as well as qualifications and publications. I find it hard to believe that a dead cat was nominated by a member of the association or had qualifications to join it. McKeith is not a member of any professional association for nutritionists, she is a member of an organisation that is interested in alternative therapies which is open to anyone - including dead cats.--Conjoiner 15:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

We have a reliable source that says the AANC supplied Goldacre's dead cat with professional membership. It is therefore both biased and uninformative not to mention this fact when we report that "McKeith says she is a member of the American Association of Nutritional Consultants (AANC)." There is no scope for "benefit of the doubt". We have the information: we should relay it to the reader.

It is, furthermore, irrelevant whether you believe "any of us with memberships in professional societies" would agree on some generalised point about professional societies. As it happens, I don't agree, based on my experience — it is, to say the least, a contentious assertion. But regardless, McKeith has promulgated her membership of this organisation, apparently in a bid to bolster her nutritionist credentials. Goldacre would not have mentioned the AANC if she had not done this. It would therefore be irresponsible not to make clear the meaning of her membership of this organisation. One cannot "make the facts speak for themselves" without the facts.

On another note, you have not addressed the issue of the PhD-granting institution. Do you agree that its non-accredited status is relevant? If you do, then you agree that SlimVirgin's excision of this information was not "reasonable".

Stuarta 15:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can join the British Astronomical Association [2] - a group for laymen interested in astronomy - but only published academics can join the International Astronomical Union [3]. That's the difference between a group for people with a hobby and a professional body. McKeith is not a member of a professional or academic body with an exclusive membership.--Conjoiner 15:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Crum375, I think you are missing an important point: a neutral, balanced point of view is one that tells what seems to be the truth while acknowledging claims to the contrary. Any neutral, balanced article about McKeith will inevitably contain a lot of criticism of her because there is a lot to criticise and little to praise. It is a matter of fact that her 'qualifications' are very dodgy and her theories are not accepted by mainstream scientists. Man with two legs 16:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree the facts should speak for themselves. If a neutral presentation of the facts causes readers to think that Gillian McKeith is a fraud, then I don't think we can (or should) avoid that. IanHenderson 16:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not missing the fact that she has a lot of criticism, and not saying we should suppress it. It is simply a matter of balance and tone. When there is negative information in BLP, I'd like to see it from multiple neutral verifiable sources, not a torrent of criticism from a single source which focuses on advocating against the subejct.

Regarding professional societies, I was speaking from personal knowledge of the ones I am familiar with - not all of them have the requirements of the Royal Astronomical Society. In any case, it is very common for people to list their membership in professional societies, and it does not necessarily connote meeting eligiblity criteria but often simply indicates one's area of interest and work. And the issue, again, is that of balance - the piece must sound neutral and fair, not like an anti-McKeith advocacy piece. As of last time I checked we do have the 'unaccredited' near her alma mater, which I think is reasonable - for more information the reader can click the link and read more about it. Crum375 16:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

On the dead cat: A more defensible position (not one I agree with) would be that the AANC should not be mentioned in the article. As it is, we have her membership of the AANC mentioned, but not what that membership means. If you are arguing that her boasts of membership are not important enough to warrant contextualising, then surely those boasts themselves do not belong in the article. But I disagree that it is normal practice to publicise meaningless professional associations. And I disagree that such behaviour is irrelevant to the McKeith story, when the credibility of her qualifications has been the focus of so much coverage.

As the Observer put it:

McKeith's much-vaunted certified membership of the American Association of Nutritional Consultants is also a peculiar boast.

On the PhD: Yes, we do currently reveal the non-accreditation of institution that granted her PhD. My point was that SlimVirgin decided we should not do so. That was not "reasonable", as you now apparently concede.

Stuarta 16:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies: the information about the AANC is in there currently. It used to be introduced with the information that she's a member, but of course that was all broken up recently.

Stuarta 16:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

So this is SlimVirgin's latest head-ache...

I was wondering what was keeping her from looking over the WP:ATT proposal... Well, critics of McKeith, if you work with SlimVirgin instead of resisting her changes, then this article, including the criticism, would be far more credible. Being a skeptic myself, I worry that nobody will take the legitimate criticism on this page seriously because it tries so hard to refute everything about the subject. I think Crum is also agreeing that there is a lot of legitimate criticism, but this article is completely out of balance and could be renamed "Goldacre's criticism of McKeith". I don't understand, what possible harm there is in reducing the amount of criticism? --Merzul 16:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Slim hasn't even recommended limiting the amount of criticism that is currently on the page much, just not adding more from a single source. I agree that the summary of info about the AANC should be included, as it is at the moment. Also the ASA statement about her using the title 'Dr.' being 'likely to mislead' would be an absolute gem if we could track it down from the ASA themselves, or some other source. The thing is Goldacre already has a fervent opinion of McKeith's using the title 'Dr.' so any mention he makes of it he will have construed in such a way as to support his (completely understandable) polemic.Merkinsmum 17:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if a source other than Goldacre is available then it should be used. In the case of the ASA there are other sources. For instance, there is this one. And this one. The Press Association's version of the story has been reported in various places, including on the Which? magazine site.

But I do not agree that information relayed by Goldacre should not be included purely because he is her most prominent critic. Whatever his opinion of her, his factual claims are made in a national newspaper. McKeith has already demonstrated her willingness to sue, so I find it highly unlikely that — for instance — the dead cat claim was false (it was in fact corroborated by Quackwatch, but then McKeith's various defenders decided that wasn't a usable source either).

Stuarta 17:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The 'dead cat incident' IMO is neither relevant nor notable, within this article, simply because it carries no meaningful message and sounds like propaganda. If a subject says he's a member of society X, and it turns out that X only requires a declaratory statement and a fee, then this is non-news, since it is extremely common. If then some person files a false memebership application named after his dead cat and 'joins', that also is non-news and non-notable. Although we are not a newspaper, we also need a man-bites-dog (or cat ;^)) story to show significance and justify inclusion. Crum375 18:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained what "message" it carries. McKeith vaunted her membership of this organisation, as noted in both the Guardian and the Observer. It bears on her credibility as a nutritionist. Certainly if the AANC is to be mentioned at all, their standards cannot be ignored.

Stuarta 18:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that if she 'vaunted' that membership by clearly saying or implying that joining it is anything more than a statement and a fee, and we have clear evidence that this is false, that combination (when cited from neutral reliable source) could be relevant. But short of that, it does not belong. Crum375 18:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have quoted the Observer describing it as "much-vaunted". You are suggesting that the Observer was not accurate in this summary?

Stuarta 18:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer a source showing us one or more direct quotes from McKeith where she appears to be 'vaunting' the membership in an organization in a way that clearly implies or states that membership therein requires more than a declaration and an entry fee. Just some paper (i.e. some reporter) saying someone 'vaunted' something is insufficient evidence IMO to allege fraud in a BLP article, which is what we are effectively doing here. Crum375 18:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And accuracy is not my concern. This is not an article about nutrition, but an article about a living person. Sensitivity, respect, and neutrality are more important than who is right and who is wrong. We should inform that there are critics and give them about 1/3 of the space that is given to sympathetic treatment of the subject. I don't think we need to debunk all her claims or black-mouth at every opportunity. --Merzul 18:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If ever I heard a non-neutral POV that has to be it!!! ••Briantist•• talk 22:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing non-neutral in this. I would say the same thing on any article about a living person. In fact, I think this woman is a fraud, but I don't think wikipedia should be the one who tries to expose her. Imagine if this Wikipedia article was about you! I mean, nobody deserves a page like this unless they are a mass-murderer. I'm not asking you to remove all criticism, I'm asking for balance! --Merzul 23:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

By your argument, Wikipedia is a place for a PR whitewash! ••Briantist•• talk 05:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"Adolf Hitler started World War 2 and exterminated millions of Jews, homosexuals and gypsies. However, he was also known as a vegetarian who loved animals." I'm sorry, but "balance" does not mean simply adding positive spin or deleting negative materials from articles. --Paul Moloney 09:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Very sad, even my "unless they're a mass-murderer" could not resist the power of Godwin's law, and PR whitewash is just as unfair. According to the peer review: "I just created my first wikipedia article, inspired by Ben Goldacre's [recent] "Bad Science" coloumn for The Guardian. I'm reasonably proud of the accomplishment, but am uncertain that I've attained the heady heights of NPOV. My POV, clearly, is that she is a fraudulent quack. Would it help to attribute the criticism to Goldacre rather than incorporate it into the factual exposition?" I admire his honesty, and request to neutralize the article. --Merzul 13:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if there is one thing more predictable than an Internet discussion tending towards mention of Hitler, it's the invocation of Godwin's Law when it does. Its mention is as much a cliché as what it describes. Furthermore, as the page to which you directed us says, "Godwin's Law can itself also be abused, as a distraction or diversion, to fallaciously miscast an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparison it made were actually appropriate."

You say, "nobody deserves a page like this unless they are a mass-murderer". That is hyperbole for a page that does little more than present facts about its subject's qualifications, affiliations and pseudo-scientific pronouncements. Some people here appear to believe that, almost regardless of the subject and the documented record, a biographical Wikipedia article should not be too negative. To this end, various facts have been elided; and as a consequence the article contains less information. Yet, as I have already said, it is not possible to assess whether this article is fair without a detailed consideration of the sources. Vatic proclamations regarding policy pages are not sufficient.

The exception you allow for mass-murderers illustrates the point. Sometimes a biographical page will necessarily carry a lot of criticism. This possibility cannot be ruled out a priori, as you appear to be suggesting, purely on the grounds that its subject is a TV nutritionist and not a murderer.

Stuarta 14:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I apologize for the immature ways I have tried to explain myself. This discussion is essentially being repeated below, so I will respond there. --Merzul 15:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the above comment is an example of Godwin's Law. McKeith was not being compared to Hitler. The point was being made to show the absurdity of always insisting on giving both 'sides of the story' even treatment when one is plainly trivial or absurd. The use of a reductio ad absurdum argument seems fairly acceptable in this case. Jamrifis 11:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The essence of BLP

This article has to be written as though we know and care nothing about Gillian McKeith, except insofar as we have an obligation to make sure the article is well-sourced and fair. Some very strong feelings of animosity toward McKeith are being expressed on this talk page, particularly by Stuarta, Conjoiner, Jooler, and Briantist, and at several points in its history the article has looked like an attack page as a result, which is why an alert was posted about it.

Every piece of criticism and praise has to be carefully sourced and carefully written up. I haven't suggested that Goldacre's material be removed. I'm suggesting that we don't continue to use him as a source, otherwise we may as well invite him here to write the article himself. If his criticism of McKeith is valid, others will chime in, so let's use those other sources from now on. If that means there's less criticism available, it also means other sources aren't repeating what Goldacre says, and we should let that tell us something.

The first two sentences of BLP say: "Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons and/or including any material related to living persons. These require a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies: Verifiability, Neutral point of view (NPOV), No original research."

The impression I get from a couple of the more aggressive participants here is that they haven't even read the content policies, much less agreed to adhere to them strictly.

The essence of BLP is that articles about living persons must tread lightly, and editors must remember that a real person's real life is being affected. We must try to reflect what has been published about that person, while striving to be fair and decent. This is sometimes a very hard thing to do, especially when the coverage by reliable sources involves insults and satire, and it requires Wikipedians to be good writers and responsible editors, and to develop intuitions about when a reliable publication needs to be quoted, when it needs to be paraphrased, and when it perhaps ought to be ignored. For example, if the Observer mentions her "much-vaunted" membership of a professional body, we don't have to reproduce that quote, because we recognize it as a dig, and we're above that, even if the Observer is not.

I'm requesting that everyone on this page adopt a position of disinterested enquiry about McKeith, within the spirit of the content policies, with the aim of producing an article Wikipedia can be proud of, rather than one that's triggering alerts on noticeboards and causing editors to fall out with each other. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I was not suggesting we include that quotation from the Observer. I was pointing to it because it is part of the justification for inclusion of information about the AANC that some people here do not believe should be included.

Secondly, I do not think "disinterested enquiry" mandates that McKeith's PhD's lack of recognised accreditation be omitted from the article, as you have advocated.

Stuarta 20:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have lost the thread here: is anyone still advocating that the status of her PhD be concealed? I regard disclosure as essential. Man with two legs 20:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The current version states:

In 1994, she obtained a master's degree, and in 1997, a Ph.D., both in holistic nutrition via a distance-learning programme from the non-accredited American Holistic College of Nutrition — now the Clayton College of Natural Health in Birmingham, Alabama.

which sounds fine to me. The reader can get more info about the school by clicking through the wikilink. Crum375 20:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

YES, I KNOW THAT. I can read. My question was about whether there are still people who want to remove it or whether that one is now settled. Man with two legs 10:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone ever wanted it concealed. Of course that information should be there. The problem is that when something which may be true is written in an attacking way, especially when it's about a living person, and when the sources used are the kind that are discouraged by policy, it's quicker to remove the problematic material than to rewrite it. It can then be discussed on the talk page. The wording around the time that I became involved was very biased, and I believe that it was as a result of my complaint that two administrators are now at this page trying to enforce policy. If they were here because they're huge fans of McKeith and have an axe to grind, they would have been editing this article long ago. ElinorD 11:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, SlimVirgin removed the fact that McKeith's PhD-granting insitution was unaccredited, with the comment "let's leave out the whole issue of accreditation". She has not explicitly rescinded this view, but seems to have ceased advocating it/deleting the information. It looks like we have tacit consensus on this now: the non-accreditation fact stays.

Stuarta 11:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

On the day that she started editing this article (I think), SlimVirgin left a note on my talk page saying that she didn't disagree with my feeling that the question mark over the PhD should be made clearer, but that she'd like to see better sources used than the Sun. It seems that every time an administrator (or a user) tries to remove something because of policy, there are all sorts of ad hominem remarks about that editor's motives, instead of a calm discussion on how we can find a way to include that information without violating policy. ElinorD 11:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is you who is failing to assume "good faith". Is it your POV that takes critism personally? ••Briantist•• talk 12:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what SlimVirgin left on your talk page. Her edit record speaks for itself: she removed the information, saying that we should "leave [it] out". Consequently, as a matter of verifiable fact, it is not true that no one "ever wanted it concealed". SlimVirgin did want it concealed, whatever she wrote elsewhere.

As it happens, she removed this information after she left the message you refer to on your talk page. There is also the problem that she appeared to think that The Sun was the source for "the PhD thing". It wasn't. It was the source for an uncontroversial quotation regarding the wrong CV being sent out. This, unfortunately, illustrates the general problem of editors arriving here and assuming religious citation of the Wikipedia policy pages will suffice to produce a worthwhile article. At least as important are a proper grasp of the sources and a willingness to engage with the facts of the particular case.

Since SlimVirgin has now apparently ceased promoting the removal of the PhD accreditation status from the article, I regard the matter as closed. But please read the factual record before making such assertions again.

Stuarta 12:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not irrelevant. People are implying that SlimVirgin (who wasn't sufficiently interested in the subject even to have found this page before I complained to administrators about it) has some axe to grind, and is removing this information because she's a fan of McKeith, or something like that. I can't speak for SlimVirgin, but since I know that I am not at all an admirer of McKeith, and since I have been subject to the same kind of insinuations, simply because I felt the page was in violation of BLP, I feel that there is a tendency on this page for every editor who doesn't want poorly-sourced negative material about McKeith in the article to be suspected or accused of being a McKeith fan with an agenda in editing this article. Now, I know where I stand with regard to McKeith. SlimVirgin may be a huge fan; she may even be Gillian McKeith herself, or someone who works for her, hiding under Wikipedia anonymity. But it seems extremely unlikely, since (a) she showed absolutely no interest in this page until a complaint was made, and (b) she's doing nothing except trying to enforce policy, for which I commend her. Although I've opposed a lot of the attacks and insults in the article, I'd be extremely happy if someone put some properly-sourced, reliable, material, not all coming from Ben Goldacre, into the article, explaining that there are question marks over her doctorate, that she has no peer-reviewed publications, etc. And, going by the "irrelevant" post SlimVirgin made on my page (how is it irrelevant?), and some of her posts here, I'm quite sure that she would be happy with such material as well. ElinorD 13:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It remains true that, regardless of what SlimVirgin wrote elsewhere, she did indeed advocate removal of the information regarding accreditation. I am not interested in speculating about what you feel people are "implying". I am simply pointing out the facts.

You wrote: I don't think anyone ever wanted it [the PhD accreditation status] concealed.

I have pointed out that SlimVirgin did indeed want to conceal that information, and removed it from the article. This stands regardless of what she wrote on your page. Further discussion is futile until you address this.

Stuarta 13:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at the article, I think there is enough, and quite possibly too much criticism from Goldacre in here. Goldacre appears to be only mildly notable, and that in part because he is a persistent critic of McKeith. This article should not be an extension of his column and blog. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If his criticism of McKeith is valid, others will chime in...and we should let that tell us something.. Not necessarily. McKeith is wealthy and has a record of suing. Only a few people who have the resources of a major newspaper behind them or the chutzpah of Goldacre or John Garrow can feel free to publish. Little people who complain get sued. On a slightly different tack, if there were any credible sources that supported her science and qualifications, I would quote them...but there aren't any.

BTW, are we mere mortals permitted to see these alerts on noticeboards so we can judge for ourselves if the complaints are justified? Phaedrus86 23:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)