Jump to content

Talk:Gillian McKeith/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Semi-protection

With her appearance on reality TV, the article is attracting higher levels of vandalism which will probably continue for the near future, so I've requested semi-protection. Greenman (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs

Are the introductory paragraphs of this article really in line with WP:Criticism and praise? From WP:LEAD we should be summarising the article, of which this negative stuff forms part but not such a large part. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think the criticism is already mild and conservatively phrased, compared to the impression that many independent sources give about McKeith. bobrayner (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Bob. A slight change might help this impression, and it would be a logical progression. That is if we make the last paragraph the second one. I'll try that to see how it looks. Revert if you don't think it's an improvement. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is half the lead spent attacking the subject? The WP:LEAD is supposed to summarise the content of the article. While the article contains some cited criticism, this does not make up 50%. Neither should the lead be the place for details not covered elsewhere in the article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree that the lede should be more of a summary. However if much less than half of the body of the article is critical, perhaps that's the problem.
Google results basically break down into two categories: (1) Those written by McKeith or selling her products, and (2) severely critical of McKeith. The article, including the lede, should reflect what independent sources say.
bobrayner (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the lead is quite mild, and reflects the relevant facts about her career without ascribing specific motives or commenting on her character. Doctor Pablo Phd, BSc, MOT, FRSB 09:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Much of the article content details her various media projects, so I think it's misleading to look at the article and say a certain proportion of it is or is not criticism, because all that detail takes up a lot of room. The lede should cover the important issues, and I think it does that well. Bondegezou (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

cites

Hi, this is being used to support some content but I can't see any bio for her there , can someone point me in the right direction http://www.channel4.com/4food/recipes/tv-show-recipes/you-are-what-you-eat-recipes - also where is her dob cited to, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Channel4's website is not exactly renowned for static content - I expect there was a previous version of that page which had more bio on McKeith. The current version of this would support a basic claim about her involvement in those series &c bobrayner (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.fmwf.com/newsarticle.php?id=402&cat=5 this also number 6 has some issue. So if that channel 4 bio has gone and we can't find it in the archives then where can we cite her dob? and it is also being used to cite three of 4 more comments. Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Checklinks - the reds are dead - http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Gillian_McKeith - Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Article NPOV

Toolbox
I've done some tidying today: tightening, fixing dead links, checking refs, updating, editing for flow. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the changes made, while many are very useful in terms of flow, checking refs etc. -- and thanks for all that -- I think some of the changes go too far the other way in trying to achieve a neutral point of view. McKeith's health advice has been widely and repeatedly condemned in WP:RS. I feel that should be more clearly highlighted in the lede. Bondegezou (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a suggestion for a good source and how to express it? I was thinking we also need to say more about what her actual advice is. The only thing I know about it is she advises people to cut down on fat, sugar, meat, junk food, smoking, and alcohol, and to exercise more. Hard to see why that would be criticized. So we would need to be clear about what exactly is the target of the criticism. The way the article was previously worded, and to some extent still is, the criticism is unfocused, and ends up making no sense for that reason. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Bondegezou, you restored material I removed because it was unsourced or poorly sourced in violation of BLP. Could we stick, please, to uninvolved secondary sources in high-quality newspapers and similar? No primary sources and no self-published sources. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Some of the material I restored/you re-removed seemed to me to have WP:RS support. I'm not certain what you mean by your latter comment: WP:RS does not require material is only in high-quality newspapers, quite the opposite! I presume you're objecting to Goldacre's book...? I don't myself see why that isn't suitable under policy. Thanks for your other comments: I'll have a think about all that and see what I can come up with. And I hope others will jump in with ideas too! Bondegezou (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure (though I'm writing from memory) that that material was in the article before Goldacre's book was published, but I will go back and check that. Also, I think we need to find sources other than Goldacre wherever possible. He's been in so much conflict with her, including legal threats from both parties, that he's now a primary source. I think for reasons of BLP we should try to focus on uninvolved secondary sources as far as possible. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
It would take a while to find all those examples, but I can remember them, and I've found one. Here (under Response to critics) in February 2007, we include that there was a legal threat against a website hosting a flash animation of her. The source(s) were poor to non-existent as I recall. You restored that here using Goldacre's book as a source, which wasn't published until 2008. So there's a danger that it came from Wikipedia. Unless he cites his sources for this and the other legal threats, or we can find them independently, it's best to leave them out. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Others explicitly claim to have got legal threats from her. That is, arguably, a primary source; but it there's no interpretation needed, and it's there solely to corroborate that an otherwise reliable secondary source really is telling the truth in this case... bobrayner (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
It's a self-published primary source; see WP:BLPSPS. I was also wondering about some of the things we attribute to her. Do we have a source for her saying that chlorophyll will oxygenate the blood? We write that she has been criticized for saying it, but I can't find an example of it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I would rather suggest that that (or a closely related one) is the source Goldacre used, since it's a biologist starting a thread on Goldacre's forum complaining about how McKeith had made legal threats. I think it's a drastic step to discount an otherwise reliable source just because there might have been some earlier content on a similar topic on wikipedia (though that hasn't been checked yet) - is there any good reason to believe that Goldacre based his claim on wikipedia? That would be a very odd move given other things he has said about legal issues and a cautious approach to publishing contentious content about people who are prone to making legal threats (cf Rath). If you do find any interesting old diffs, I'd happily compare them to the wording in the book; but in the meantime we have a much more plausible basis for what this source says. bobrayner (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
It also seems worth pointing out that, as far as I recall, Goldacre's analysis of McKeith pre-dates any particular relationship or 'feud' between them. Thus, Goldacre's analysis seems to me a sensible source for an article on McKeith, even if subsequently the book itself has become part of the story. Bondegezou (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I perhaps didn't explain that properly. Looking at the legal threat to the website, we had that in our article in 2007. We therefore can't use a 2008 source for it, because it raises the possibility of circular sourcing. We need to find a source that predates it being added to our article. If it's correct it should be easy enough to find a contemporaneous source for it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
That exclusion does not appear to be in WP:SOURCES (specifically WP:CIRCULAR) and it's not mandated by WP:BLP either; and I've yet to see any evidence at all that Goldacre copied this stuff from Wikipedia (in fact a plausible alternative source has been given; how often do you get insights into how sources found their sources?). Have I misread policy or is there some other basis for this exclusion? bobrayner (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
BLP requires that high-quality sources be used. These claims were in our article in 2007, and they were removed because no good sources could be found for them. Now they have been restored relying on a book published one year after we had them in the article. We should therefore find sources that predate the book to avoid even the possibility of circular sourcing.
This has been an attack article for a long time, and now there are complaints about it, so it would be good to get it fixed at last. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 92.39.196.95, 7 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

I have found a Date of birth reference See here; as there is no date of birth listed for Gillian.

--92.39.196.95 (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a pay per view site? I can't see anything. Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. I just clicked the "accept conditions" without filling in the email (or reading the conditions) and got to the details. I don't know if it counts as a reliable source, though. Favonian (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

EC - I see it now , there is nothing to support it is this Gillian McKeith. We are looking to report a reliable report of her date of birth, we are not investigative journalists. Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Charlatan

I believe that with the definition of charlatan provided by wikipedia, and the opinion of mainstream medicine. I believe that charlatan is an accurate and legitimate description of this person.

This term may be seen as an opinion/loaded by some, but it is accurate according to science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solid L (talk • contribs) 18:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, calling her a "charlatan" in Wikipedia's own voice would be over-the-top. But I agree that this article severely softpedals the problems with McKeith's nutritional advice. She hasn't just "attracted praise and criticism" and sparked "debate over qualifications," she's spouted demonstrable nonsense and called herself "Dr" based on a worthless "PhD" from a non-accredited distance learning diploma mill. Those are facts and should be covered -- in NPOV fashion, but upfront and without weasel words. TiC (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mvrensburg, 28 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} please change the following line: </ref> Ian Marber, a nutritionist, described her in 2006 as fervent in her beliefs and thinks of her as a sort of health televangelist.[1] Ian Marber, a nutritionist, described her in 2006 as fervent in her beliefs and thinks of her as a sort of health televangelist.<refMarber, Ian.

Because he now listed in Wikipedia for a link to between the pages to be established, see for source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Marber


d done! Qwyrxian (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

Someone needs to add that someone's pet can get a certificate from the American Association of Nutritional COnsultants for their deceased pet cat as long as they pay 60$ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.130.226.220 (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You are What you Eat

I thought the date when "You are What You Eat" was first published was 2004, not 2005 as this article implies. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Clayton College

It might be worth adding something about Clayton College also. The fact that it is currently being pursued in the courts for $5 million dollars of improperly kept tuition since it closed down last summer is of note. Along with the fact that it has now closed.


Note also that her PhD is not just from an unaccredited university, it is from one such that sells degrees and demands no work. See List of animals with fraudulent diplomas. The degree is not just from an unaccredited college, it is fraudulent and should thus be removed from her education. El.vegaro (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Qualifications

The lead includes the phrase "the validity of ... her qualifications ... questioned by a number of health professionals". Isn't this being over-cautious? The material in the section "Controversy over qualifications" looks much more complete and accurate, and isn't adequately summarised by the current words in the lead, in my opinion. I propose that the sentence in the lead which I quote above is restricted to doubts about the efficacy of her medical claims only, and that a new sentence is added which gives a clearer account of the status of her qualifications. Something like:

"McKeith has claimed to have one or more PhDs, but in fact possesses only diplomas from non-accredited institutions, and has been barred by the British Advertising Standards Authority from using the title Doctor in advertisements on the grounds that to continue to do so would be misleading."

Any thoughts? SP-KP (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Broadly agree. Perhaps beginning, "McKeith describes herself as having one or more PhDs, but in fact possesses only qualification from..." Is that a slightly safer wording? Bondegezou (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That seems fine, yes. The key point for me is that anyone reading the lead needs to come away clearly understanding that McKeith isn't a doctor (medical or otherwise), and it doesn't quite achieve that currently. SP-KP (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

New sources

There has been concern (as in the immediately previous section, but also earlier) with covering the controversies around McKeith while sticking within the Biographies of Living People policy. This is understandable and we must respect WP:BLP. Some of that concern has been around the choice of sources, some around wording. The article content has ebbed and flowed. To move things on, I thought it would be useful to provide some sources of a more reliable nature as a starting point. We have:

  • Colquhoun D (2008). Doctor Who? Inappropriate use of titles by some alternative “medicine” practitioners. The New Zealand Medical Journal, 121: 1278.
  • Eggers TD, Kennedy OB (2010). Nutritionists: is there a need for statutory registration in the UK? Nutrition Bulletin, 35(4):332–336
  • Goldacre B (2007). Media Watch: Tell us the truth about nutritionists. BMJ, 334(7588):292
  • Batty C (2014). Me and You and Everybody We Know: The Centrality of Character in Understanding Media Texts. In: Real Lives, Celebrity Stories: Narratives of Ordinary and Extraordinary People Across Media, edited by Julia Round & Bronwen Thomas, Bloomsbury Publishing Inc.

I offer these up to other editors and/or I'll try incorporating them at a later date. Bondegezou (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

As a general rule, I would advocate drawing a clear distinction between fact and opinion. McKeith supports detox and colonic irrigation, neither of whihc is scientifically supportable. That's a fact, plain and simple. Colquhoun (who I know, incidentally, he's a very nice bloke) and Goldacre are public advocates of scientific criticism of quackery. They are excellent representatives of the skeptical POV, both have a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. We can quote them as representative of criticism, but we should be careful to attribute this to them in their role as advocates of good science. Where they make a statement such as "the scientific consensus does not support X", we should take pains to establish that this is so from multiple sources. If two or three of the prominent and highly regarded skeptics say that something is unsupported by science, and cite sources to support it, then we can state it as a fact, otherwise we attribute it, ideally by name. That's my view, anyway. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

J Milburn's deletions

J Milburn has expressed concern with two items: see edit history and comments left on my Talk page. S/he claims sources are inadequate. The first concerns a Daily Mail report on the grounds, as far as I can make out, that the Mail is inherently not reliable. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia ruling saying that. As far as I can see, a reliable source is given. The second concerns Goldacre's book and McKeith's PhD from a non-accredited institution. Goldacre's book is cited and other citations are given for the dispute over McKeith's PhD. Again, I see no problem. I am favour of both pieces of text being restored. Bondegezou (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I am male. Concerning the Daily Mail text: Our policy on biographies of living people is quite clear that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The material sourced to the Mail is quite clearly contentious, and it is sourced to a tabloid newspaper. Here's a recent discussion of the Mail on the RSN noticeboard- it opens quite nicely with the claim "I'm sure long-time RSN editors will be aware of the unreliability of the Daily Mail". Other highlights include "The Daily Mail is a worthless tabloid which is close to useless for our purposes" and "WP:RS asks for sources with "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The Daily Mail has neither." If you want that material included, I'm asking that it is supported by a source other than the Mail. Concerning the Goldacre issue, I'm uncertain of the utility of the text "In this book, he refers to her as "Gillian McKeith (or, to give her full medical title: Gillian McKeith)" – by implication referring to the controversial manner in which she attained her Doctor of Philosophy degree." The article makes quite clear that Goldacre doubts McKeith's credentials- we don't need to include this joke he makes. I am also unclear how you're sourcing "by implication referring to the controversial manner in which she attained her Doctor of Philosophy degree". It's not our job to editorialise in this way. J Milburn (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Responding to request at BLPN: The Daily Mail has repeatedly (and properly) been ruled unreliable at RSN discussions. I agree as well with J Milburn's point about the way the Goldacre passage is being used. Overall, the article already does a good job of conveying the necessary information about McKeith's (lack of) qualifications. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I support the deletions - clearly in line with WP:BLP.--ukexpat (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
There are 2 deletions in question here. With respect to the first, I note we're dealing with an investigation apparently carried out by the Mail, so they are the only source. I read the discussion linked to above about the Mail. Reading that, it is explicitly clear that, while some editors greatly dislike the Mail, there is no blanket ban on using the Mail as a source and that cases should be considered on their individual merits. J Milburn's quotations from that discussion do not represent the views of all taking part in that discussion, nor do they represent a settled consensus. So, while I recognise concerns about the Mail, I don't feel the case put above is persuasive. I see nothing wrong with this particular article. No-one has made a case against this particular article.
On the second piece of text, the article has a number of citations around McKeith's "PhD" already, including of course Goldacre's own book. Goldacre's analysis of McKeith is probably the most notable and high-profile, so slightly more text about Goldacre seems justified. Goldacre does make a joke about McKeith, but a joke that attracted much attention seems to me notable. If you read Goladacre's material, I think it's apparent that no original research by Wikipedia editors is involved in the deleted sentence. It is a summary of what Goldacre is saying. Perhaps some alternate wording would satisfy any concerns there. Bondegezou (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Great, now we're getting somewhere. We are in agreement that there is no policy page anywhere which says "The Daily Mail cannot be used as a source." That's not how policy pages are written. We are also in agreement that there are concerns about the Daily Mail as a source, and that we have to judge things on a case-by-case basis. That's what the policy on reliable sources tells us to do. What we have here are negative and potentially damaging claims about a living person. Per our policy on biographies of living people, we need to be particularly careful on sourcing this kind of thing well. Given that the Mail is considered problematic at best, it is surely not the right kind of source for this kind of statement.
Concerning the other line- you claim "Goldacre does make a joke about McKeith, but a joke that attracted much attention seems to me notable." Could you provide some sources that show that this joke attracted "much attention"? J Milburn (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
If you accept there is no BLP issue about the Goldacre sentence, perhaps you can restore that (as per WP:BRD) and we can discuss it separately. I don't feel it is helping to lump it together with the Mail discussion.
As for the Mail, your description of the Mail as being "considered problematic at best" is your interpretation, not policy. I respect your concerns and, as per BLP, do not expect that material to be included until the matter is resolved. However, I do not agree with "problematic at best". This article is a piece of investigative journalism in a newspaper that is often accepted as a reliable source. There is no indication of any problems with the article cited. No-one here has raised any issues with the article in question. It is not reporting media gossip or unnamed sources or anything like that: the article directly relates to the journalist's own investigations. How is it not reliable? Bondegezou (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
We don't need to examine the article. How would we even do that? We assume that a study published in the Lancet is reliable, we assume that a random page on Livejournal isn't. We assume that investigative journalism in The Times is fine, we take investigative journalism published in The Sun with a massive pinch of salt. J Milburn (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I also oppose use of the Daily Mail as a source for any contentious claim in a BLP. Its poor reputation is well-deserved. We have better sources about the serious problems with her credentials, and the material deleted by J Milburn seemed to hammer home the point in an excessive fashion. I support the removal. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and community discussion is clear that we should take a case-by-case approach. Yes, the Lancet is preferable, I like the Lancet, I read it more than the Mail, I've even published in it myself, but there is still material in the Lancet that fails WP:RS, and there is material in the Mail that passes. There is no policy or consensus to exclude something merely because it is in the Mail. Yet the only objection raised above is that the article is in the Mail. While I respect my fellow editors' opinions, might I urge them to offer argument based on policy? BTW, are we agreed that there is no BLP objection to the Goldacre sentence? Bondegezou (talk) 08:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that sources need to be taken on a case-by-case basis, and I agree with you that there is no policy/consensus which excludes material merely because it is in the Mail. As far as I can see, no one has contradicted either of these claims. However, precisely what it means for us to need to take sources on a case-by-case basis that we need particularly good sources for certain kinds of claims. We need particularly good sources for BLPs, and especially when sourcing negative material. The Mail, even if its use may sometimes be acceptably reliable, is never going to be a particularly good source, no matter how much you may like a particular article. (And no, we are not agreed that there is no BLP objection to the Goldacre sentence. It is a joke at the expense of a living person containing apparently unsourced editorialising. I am not going to commit to the claim that there is "no BLP objection".) J Milburn (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Your claim that the Mail "is never going to be a particularly good source" is your opinion, not policy. If I may say so, your argument still appears to be "it's the Mail" rather than an analysis of the claims made versus the nature of the article. The Mail article does not entail any rumour, or unnamed sources. It directly quotes the experience of an individual. I see nothing to suggest it is inaccurate or false. It clearly got through the Mail's legal department. McKeith didn't sue over it (as far as we know). The claims made within the Mail article are not very negative towards McKeith (not compared to other material included in the Wikipedia article). I see no BLP problem.
Let's return to Goldacre then: yes, it's a joke. I'm not aware of any policy banning the quoting of jokes. As I said, it was a quite notable joke: see this Google search https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=goldacre+mckeith+%22or+to+give+her%22&rlz=1C1KMZB_en&oq=goldacre+mckeith+%22or+to+give+her%22 to see the impact it had. Others refer to it when discussing McKeith and Goldacre, including a Daily Mail article and many reviews of Goldacre's book. If you want particularly high quality reliable references to it, see "Food Media: Celebrity Chefs and the Politics of Everyday Interference", edited by Signe Rousseau, p. 118, for a more academic analysis, or this from Irish Medical News (Ireland's leading medical newspaper, it says). The text you deleted is supported by citations given: where's the "unsourced editorialising"? I'm happy to see that section re-worded (a reasonable amount of text on Goldacre's criticisms seems warranted), but I don't see a BLP problem. Bondegezou (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
"If I may say so, your argument still appears to be "it's the Mail" rather than an analysis of the claims made versus the nature of the article." This is getting silly now. As I have said, I am not interested in analysing the article itself. If I provided an anonymous blog post claiming that person x was a child molester, I wouldn't expect you to engage in some kind of analysis of the post itself before telling me where to go- the simple fact that it has been published in such a way tells us that it is not sufficient to support a claim of that kind. The same basic approach applies here. The Mail is not an appropriate source for negative information about a living person. I do not have a policy which says this explicitly, because that's not how policies are written. I also don't have a policy page which explicitly says that I can't write an article about my friend's cat's chewtoy, but I know perfectly well that it would be inappropriate. J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:SPS is a clear policy saying we don't use blog posts. WP:N is a clear guideline on notability that I imagine your friend's cat's chewtoy does not pass. So in both your examples we do have explicit guidance on what to do. There is explicit guidance saying we should consider sources on a case-by-case basis (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS) and covering how we should treat material from newspapers (WP:NEWSORG). I recognise that I am alone in opposing your deletion of the Mail article, so I drop any objection to that, but I don't think it "silly" to suggest editors base their decisions on policy and guidelines. Bondegezou (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
"WP:SPS is a clear policy saying we don't use blog posts." This isn't true- Look at the policy page. Blog posts are sometimes considered reliable. If I was a noted film critic, my blog may be a good source for reviews, for instance. Like any other potential source, blogs are judged on a case-by-case basis.
"WP:N is a clear guideline on notability that I imagine your friend's cat's chewtoy does not pass." Of course. My point is that the policy does not explicitly mention my friend's cat's chew toy. I was exasperated at the fact you were repeatedly pointing out that no policy page explicitly mentioned the Mail.
I'm glad you're dropping the objection, but I think you're underestimating the extent to which myself and others critical of the inclusion were referencing policy. Once again, I don't think the Mail is automatically a no-go (and, indeed, I had an argument with another editor about this myself, with me supporting the inclusion of material sourced to the Mail), I just think that it's never going to be an excellent source, and an excellent source is required to criticise a living person in this way. J Milburn (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The phrase used by Ben Goldacre is sourced well enough, IMO. He has said the same on TV and in print, he is a well known authority on bogus dietary claims (possibly the best known, following his run-ins with Matthias Rath and others) and his opinion has weight, and if we want to quote him we can quote him from his blog as an authoritative source for what he says.
Whether it goes in or not is a matter of editorial judgment, not sourcing policy. I think it's amusing but not especially encyclopaedic.
Her qualification are not so much controversial as bogus. Clayton College of Natural Health has a few famous alumni, McKeith is one, Robert O. Young is another McKeith has been ordered to stop using the title "Dr." as it is misleading, and Young is on trial for practising medicine without a license.
MNcKeith and her followers have been at this article before, trying to recast it in a more favourable light. Her public persona now is as a disgraced former TV "nutritionist" who humiliated people on camera and became a figure of fun on "I'm A Celebrity". We're not here to be part of the effort to resurrect her media career. We should be fair, but honest. Any honest treatment of Gillian McKeith would leave the reader - how to put this? - disinclined to buy her books. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of other reliable sources confirming the issues around her academic degrees, see The Guardian and The Guardian and The Telegraph and BBC - I could go on, those took me less than 5 mins to find. GiantSnowman 10:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Actually I think that we should remove the "doctorate" from the infobox, we can't include it there without including the fact that it's bogus, and that does seem to me to be a bit of a problem. En passant, the Daily Mail is the least reliable of all tabloids and its health coverage is more often wrong than right, we should avoid it unless there is absolutely no alternative (and arguably in that case whatever it is we're sourcing is probably either unimportant or wrong). Guy (Help!) 11:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Blue green algae

Does TAPL still advocate blue-green algae? I know it contains a potent neurotoxin, and in the last six months Dr. Rachie has also published a fantastic paper linking it with ALS. Our para ended with a quote from McKeith, which left the impression that her belief in it is blazing a trail, that's rather dangerous given that we now know the role of BMAA in ALS, so I appended a short sentence and a couple of refs. Guy (Help!) 11:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Concerns about McKeith

Why is this person not unmasked? Look hereFletcherbrian (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the name of this section because of WP:BLP concerns. I am certainly happy to see more use made of Goldacre's work in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gillian McKeith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Gillian McKeith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Marber, Ian. to show as:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gillian_McKeith/Archive_10&oldid=1072574052"