Talk:Gillian McKeith/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Diet advice

I think one of the opening statements should be revised. The article currently says "Her advice focuses on an alcoholic beverage-free vegan diet of organic fruits and vegetables".

Firstly (fussy but significant punctuation issue) an extra hyphen's needed: "alcoholic-beverage-free vegan diet" - the diet isn't alcoholic and beverage-free, it's alcoholic-beverage-free!

Secondly, her recommended diet isn't vegan - saying "free of dairy products and red meat" is closer to the truth (oily fish and some white meat are sometimes included).

Thirdly - it's true she recommends people eating organic fruits/veg, but the diet isn't a strict organic diet. Rephrasing to say she advocates organic produce where possible (or some such phrase) would be a more accurate description.

What do people think?

Howard Wright 13:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Howard Wright

Excellent points. The ideal solution would be to include a one-paragraph quote from McKeith, in which she summarises what she thinks is the ideal diet. I'm sure one of her books or articles must have this. Sideshow Bob Roberts 13:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've changed "alcoholic beverage-free" to "alcohol-free" as the beverage bit is implied. ••Briantist•• talk 14:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

On the "vegan" front, I can't recall her ever allowing anyone to eat any sort of meat in her TV programmes. ••Briantist•• talk 14:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A vegan diet avoids not just meat and dairy but all animal products (including eggs, fish and honey). Is there any evidence she's ever advised this? If I recall correctly, she's a fan of fish oils. Unless we have a reference, this vegan thing should go. Sideshow Bob Roberts 14:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Use largely vegetarian instead? ••Briantist•• talk 17:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

or even Pesco/pollo vegetarianism ••Briantist•• talk 17:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I had rewriten this bit to link to a page by McKeith herself about what she recommends. As it stands now it is an untrue description of what she advocates (again). The alcohol free and some of the other stricter rules are only for the 8 weeks of the telly program, not something she necessarily advocates for life.Merkinsmum 19:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not vegan, because she sometimes allows dairy, white meat etc the stricter rules are only for the hardcore version on the tellyMerkinsmum 19:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I flicked through her You Are What You Eat Cookbook, and my eye immediately fell on a recipe for "Warm Chicken Salad". I've never watched her programmes, so I don't know what she allows on them. ElinorD 00:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary saying - "you cant use 'The Sun' as a source"

Eh? Jooler 18:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Slim. after you've finished editing I think it would be helpful if you explained here what you have done to the article. Comparing different versions where text has been chopped up and moved hither and thither very confusing. Jooler 18:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jooler, I've tidied some issues that were problematic in terms of our BLP policy, following a complaint on the BLP noticeboard. Regarding your question about the Sun, it's not a reliable source; criticism of BLPs must use the best sources.

Overall, the tone of the article struck me as an attack piece, relying mostly on the Mail on Sunday and Ben Goldacre. The "response to critics" section needs to be built up; it's not clear who's saying what, and it's much shorter than the criticism section (and even the response section contained unsourced criticism). Ideally, criticism and response should be merged. The page also contained some OR, which I removed. Editors shouldn't add their own opinions, even if they're sourced. See WP:NOR.

The bottom line is that we can't take a position on who's right about these issues. Goldacre may be wrong. All we do is report what each person says, bearing undue weight in mind, and try overall to produce a balanced piece. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, the article talked up the distance-learning PhD program that she had to pay for as though it's an utter scandal. In fact, all PhD courses have to be paid for, and a great many involve having almost no contact with tutors, even at top universities, so let's be careful to keep the criticism in perspective. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a source other than the Herald for the Linus Pauling thing? The Herald article is a little odd, claiming for example that "The General Medical Council allows anyone with a legitimate PhD to call themselves a doctor," which is nonsense — PhDs have nothing to do with the General Medical Council. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The part you removed refered to her use in her book Dr Gillian McKeith's Living Food for Health and on her website to to having a PhD from the American College of Nutrition. That was not reliant on The Sun, you just have to look at the book. The bit that was from The Sun was a quote from her. I can';t see how you can dismiss the Sun in this case. If she had given the quote to Hello magazine would you remove it also because it's not reliable? Jooler 19:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Jooler, if you have an alternative source by all means add it, but we can't base criticism of a living person on something that appeared only in a downmarket publication. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Tha'ts a value judgement on your part with implied POV Jooler 23:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That bit was strange, it's an anecdote by Gillian but the context surrounding the quote seemed to imply that it may not be true. So it wasn't clear whether that bit was pro or anti gillian or what it was trying to say.Merkinsmum 19:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It implied dishonesty, and yet it was completely unclear what was being said. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You cannot dismiss The Sun generally, or specifically. That particular article was cited in a libel action launched by McKeith against The Sun about her qualifications (this was a subject I planned to raise once this stuff died down). If McKeith felt they had misquoted her, she didn't say so in that court case. It would have been in her interest to have done so. On another note, it is supported by Goldacre, referring to an "intern" getting the name of her college wrong.

Even if this were not the case, The Sun is a newspaper bound by editorial standards and exposed to complaints against misrepresentation (as the court case demonstrates). You are not in a position to discard facts it reports on personal grounds of taste. That applies to the Herald too. Just because you find something "a little odd" does not mean it can be discarded in the absence of any contrary information.

Stuarta 19:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

When criticizing a living person, we have to use the best sources. The Sun is not regarded as a reliable source, and in fact used to be named specifically in one of the sourcing policies or guidelines as an example of a source to avoid. As for the Herald, the reporter's comment about the GMC regulating that PhD holders are allowed to call themselves "doctor" is completely false, which indicates there's a problem with the piece. If you have an alternative source for the Sun material, by all means add it back. I didn't say the material was unacceptable; I said we can't rely on the Sun as a source. This article must stick very closely to WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if I accept your view of The Sun (I don't), quoting it on the mechanism by which the wrong qualifications data was passed out is not "criticizing" McKeith. It was her defence from the more serious claim that she was lying about the qualifications. As it is, I have cited two additional sources — the court case (I can point you to the judgement) and Goldacre. That you ignore them does not nullify their existence.

Again, your view that there is "a problem" with the Herald source is irrelevant. You have no specific reason to doubt the quotations it contains. Whatever you might believe about the dubiety of their reporting of GMC regulation, nothing pertaining to that was even in the Wikipedia article. Therefore it stays.

Stuarta 21:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, the media are not credible sources, scientists are not credible sources, science is to be placed on a par with quackery. I guess this is not an encyclopaedia at all, but a stage for quacks, conspiracy theorists, religious crazies and nationalist loons to spout their propaganda. I simply can't take any of this seriously. The fact is that McKeith's theories are largely unproven unscientific nonsense. They are her own theories. This should be stated. If not, then this is a site for cranks.

I don't understand any of the Wikipedia jargon and these acronyms you keep quoting. It seems that you are intent on throwing regulations at us in order to tie us all up in red tape and get your own way. You are probably an estate agent or insurance salesman.--Conjoiner 21:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of credible sources out there. I encourage you to click here and learn which ones Wikipedia prefers. In the meantime, here's some basic policies which may help you understand article creation:

• Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
• Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
• The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.

Again, I encourage you to expand on this article. Seek out reliable sources that comment or study Gillian McKeith and include them with proper references. Remember, this is kind of droll work at Wikipedia. We aren't writing essays or creating positions. We are merely citing verifiable information from reliable sources and trying to sustain an objective, neutral point of view. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

McKeith is part of popular culture, not academia. Consequently, the popular media, not academia, is where she is criticised. There are no academic papers on McKeith because she is not a credible scientist, she is a TV presenter. Consequently, popular media is a legitimate source, just as it is a source for many articles dealing with popular culture and celebrity. As such, The Sun and other media sources are the most reliable sources you can find.--Conjoiner 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia requirements for sources are very conservative. (I don't mean that in any bad way). It's a pain and I've had whole articles deleted because of it, even though the sources were referenced in newspapers. But that's the way it is here. If you want to write using different sources you might consider contributing to The Wiki That Dare not Speak its Name or some other sites. Not saying you should stop trying to do what you want to do here but if the rules are frustrating you here you might enjoy writing there too.Merkinsmum 22:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Very conservative, unless the subject is a crank. I don't know what website you are trying to point me to. I am not frustrated by rules, but baffled by them, particularly when people repeat acronyms like mantras: see GR:TRY and read XP:HRT very carefully. It is gobbledegook designed to confused in order to impose a certain editorial agenda. This is what Slim Virgin and others are trying to do - create a smokescreen.--Conjoiner 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And why would I want to do that, Conjoiner? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

So you can legitimise the unfounded theories of a celebrity quack.--Conjoiner 23:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would I want to, in your view? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have already twice pointed out that:

• The work experience story is corroborated by Goldacre

• McKeith did not challenge the The Sun's quotation of her in her libel action against the The Sun.

• What was quoted from the The Sun was not damaging in any case. It was her defence.

And yet you continue merrily on, talking about the standards of sources in abstract, as if The Sun were axiomatically excluded from being a source regardless of the intrinsic credibility of what it reports, and as if what it said were damaging. What the source says was corroborated in an upmarket newspaper (phew) and accepted without comment by McKeith's lawyer in the High Court. It is therefore reliable. Choosing not to address these points does not make them go away.

Stuarta 00:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Then why won't you supply another source? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't wish to be rude, SlimVirgin, but have you read what I said? I cited two sources backing up The Sun article. I pointed out that what The Sun quoted was accepted in a court of law by McKeith's own lawyers. Goldacre you already have. I offered to point you to the court ruling. I also pointed out, in any case, that what the The Sun quoted was not damaging to McKeith. Are you being deliberately obtuse? This is the third time you have simply refused to engage with the facts I have placed before you. What is the problem?

Stuarta 00:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that in this instance The Sun is a credible source. As pointed out McKeith is a media celeb not a scientist, you arn't going to find articles about her in Nature magazine. Jooler 00:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You just keep asserting that, Jooler. I've explained that it used to be named in WP:V as an example of what we call a "dubious source," and it was removed only because we felt no example was needed, not because opinion was revised. I'm not saying it could never be used, but it can't be used as the sole source of negative material about a BLP. If the material is interesting and legitimate, someone else will have published it, and as the argument on this page is that multiple sources have published it, then all you have to do is produce one of them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's clear that in this cas what was written in The Sun has credibility and so there can be no reason other than pure predjudice not to use it as a cite. Jooler 00:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. The ability to discern where a source is appropriate and where it isn't is basic to constructing Wikipedia articles. I have no doubt that elsewhere in Wikipedia The Sun is cited on celebrity stories. This is because such stories don't appear in peer-reviewed journals. In this particular case the quotation has endured far more scrutiny than almost any other, because McKeith's libel lawyer, seeking to prove defamation by The Sun, did not challenge it. We have the court judgement. To maintain in the face of this that it isn't credible is unhinged.

Stuarta 00:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Stuarta, would you answer this one question, please — why don't you find another source? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I don't understand. I think perhaps the ability to read or write English has either escaped me or you. I have explained over and over that a) we already have two sources and b) The Sun source is credible for the reason that it was accepted by McKeith's libel lawyers. Therefore a) we don't need another source and b) we already have one. There really is no point in you replying unless you engage with these facts.

Stuarta 00:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree there's no point going back and forth, so this is hopefully my last comment on this particular issue. If you want to restore that material, do so, but use a different source. If you already have another one, that's great. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

See above for why The Sun is a perfectly adequate source.

Stuarta 01:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

(Here via Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board, where Jooler posted a note about this discussion.) If there are two (or more) sources for the same information, and one of them is The Sun, I would far prefer the other one. The paper's Hillsborough coverage is the one people routinely bring up, but it goes back a long time before (I am easily old enough to remember the made-up interview with the widow of "Colonel H", for example), and continues to the present day: our current article on the Sun actually refers to the story about the swan-eating asylum seekers that never existed. Telsa (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Journalism scandals. Even the most august journalistic organs can be guilty of such misreporting. Jooler 21:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "but other papers are unreliable too" particularly justifies anything beyond a serious appraisal of whether we should be using newspapers on Wikipedia as much as we do. Much of the argument surrounding GM's "qualifications" is to do with credibility, in one way or another. Consequently, if there are multiple sources, it makes sense to me that Wikipedia should use the one with the best reputation and the most credibility. Telsa (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I continue to be baffled by people's unwillingness to consider the particular source in question. As I have said, over and over again, the quotation excised was accepted, without comment, in the libel court, by McKeith's lawyers. I fail to see how there can be any further debate, then, on that quotation's authenticity. This holds regardless of one's general view of the The Sun.

Before Goldacre's recent article, we had corroboration that an "intern" (not specifically a Spanish work experience person) had supplied the wrong CV. Now we have even more specific corroboration, in that Goldacre's new article mentions more detail. However, the specific quotation — McKeith's own words — only appeared in The Sun. Since they are the ones who phoned her up, this is hardly surprising. Therefore I still contend, regardless of abstract debates about newspapers' credibility, that we can reasonably use the quotation from The Sun.

One cannot cite another source for the quotation, because I don't believe one exists. That is not to say we have only one source for the information contained in that quotation — that is corroborated by two Guardian articles now — but we can, if we wish to have that quotation, only cite The Sun as its source. As I have explained, that is not a problem since the quotation has endured scrutiny from McKeith's libel lawyers.

Stuarta 14:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I really like this version

20:17, 9 February 2007 by Slim Virgin- the style of it seems proper encyclopedic, factual, tight, not rambling, not too many quotes- love it. Thumbs up Slim!Merkinsmum 19:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not like this version — at all. Numerous pieces of critical material, and quotations from McKeith herself, have been removed. The article is plain less informative.

Stuarta 19:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks a lot more professional now. (It's also less interesting, but I suppose that's an inevitable consequence of making it more professional!) It's certainly more in keeping with WP:BLP and WP:NOR, I think. Those who think that those policies are being applied too strictly should see it as a challenge to find better sources for the negative information they want to include. I personally think it should make it a little more obvious that there are question marks over her doctorate.

Thank you, SlimVirgin. ElinorD 23:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A non-exhaustive list of what the article is now missing, quite apart from the basic science disputed above:

• Information about the AANC. Nobody will now know, even if they click on the AANC link, that it issued Ben Goldacre's dead cat a certificate. This fact formed the basis for one of Goldacre's critical articles. It is relevant to her status as a nutritionist. It belongs in the article.

The bulk of information revealed in the Herald interview. Nobody will know, for instance, that she said she worked with Linus Pauling. He was a Nobel prize-winning chemist. This is not relevant?

Her attitude to doctors, and their relative ability to pronounce on nutrition, as revealed in her taxi driver anecdote.

All of her specific contentions regarding faecal diagnosis.

All of her specific contentions regarding pimple-based diagnosis.

Explicit recognition of the fact that she styles herself "Dr Gillian McKeith".

The fact that she does not have a doctorate accredited by a recognised educational funding body. Instead we have information about accreditation from accreditation mills. This is bias.

Aside from the basic science question, the article simply contains less information now. Why do you judge that readers have no interest in the status of her title/PhD? Why, strangest of all, do you think it advantageous to suppress direct quotations from her book? Surely readers, of whatever opinion, benefit from specific examples of her diagnostic theories? Quotations of her own material are not criticism; they aren't from an "unreliable" source; so why are they no longer in the article?

Stuarta 00:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

By all means write it up in a disinterested tone, using good sources and sticking to the content policies. The Linus Pauling thing was peculiar though, so I wouldn't add that back. I worry that you're relying heavily on Ben Goldacre, as though everything he says must be right, even though his column is to some extent tongue-in-cheek, he's trying to sell a book, and he seems obsessed by McKeith. Try to take a step back and write about this as though you don't care one way or the other. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless you supply a more compelling reason than thinking a reported fact "peculiar" then I shall include it.

On another note, ever since the rewrite there have been a number of unsourced claims in the article. Previously, explanations of the content of McKeith's work were accompanied by citations of her book with page numbers. That's no longer the case, so in line with the conservative source policy necessary, particularly for BLP, I shall insert the necessary reminders until this can be done. I am particularly concerned that the description of her television shows has no source at all.

Stuarta 08:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Her thesis

In the Qualifications and research section, it says,

McKeith's PhD thesis has been published as a pamphlet titled Miracle Superfood: Wild Blue-Green Algae. . . . It is published as a 48-page pamphlet, "including recipes, titles plates, and contents pages", though Goldacre acknowledges that it may be "just a shortened and simplified version of the PhD text".

I was the one who added what Goldacre acknowledges, a day or two ago. In the article that we use as a reference, he criticises her thesis heavily, says that it's a 48-page pamphlet, etc., but then acknowledges the possibility that it may be a condensed version of the real thesis.

Is there any reliable source that says that this 48-page pamphlet really is her thesis? I think if you submitted a 48-page pamphlet as your thesis, you wouldn't be stupid enough to publish it subsequently, or if you did, you'd publish it as a new pamphlet: you wouldn't broadcast that it was your actual thesis. ElinorD 00:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought when he rang up her office "under a James Bond name" they confirmed that it was her thesis? Jooler 01:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but is that verifiable? It's what he says. Supposing I rang up her office "under a Miss Marple name", and they said it was just a summary of her thesis? The point is, if that's the only source we have, we should either leave out that claim, or preface it with "According to Goldacre." ElinorD 01:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you calling Goldarcre a liar? Why don't you ask on his website www.badscience.net? Jooler 01:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, of course I'm not calling him a liar. But he admits that it might be a condensed version, and there is no source saying it's the full version, and Wikipedia goes by verifiability, not truth. (I presume that doesn't mean that Wikipedia thinks that truth doesn't matter, just that if it's not verified, we can't accept it, regardless of how true it may be.) In any case, all I'm asking for is that if that claim (that the 48-page pamphplet really is her thesis) is in the article, it should be clarified with some kind of "Goldacre says". At the moment, the beginning of that paragraph seems to contradict the end of it. ElinorD 01:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So now we should discard information reported in an upmarket newspaper (not gasp a tabloid) because you might ring up and hear something different?

Stuarta 01:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You forget that Goldacre, writing his article after his "James Bond phonecall" said that maybe it was a condensed version. So if he acknowledged that possibility, it's plain that her office did not say "Yes, this is her thesis in its complete and unabridged form, as submitted for her doctorate." Even without Goldacre's doubts, it's a fact that people do misunderstand what other people say. Have you never been in a situation where someone was saying, "I thought you said you used to live in Paris", or "I thought you said your mother was Welsh", or something like that, where either the person misheard, or there was some ambiguity in the language. If Goldacre acknowledges that it might be a condensed version of her thesis, and if there is no reliable source saying that it's her full, unabridged thesis, then we ought not to report as a fact that it is the real, original thesis. ElinorD 01:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You are saying that Goldacre is not a credible source because he might have misheard something said in a telephone interview. He is a journalist conducting an interview. If we cannot rely on professional journalists, we had better weed out every article that relies on sources from the press.--Conjoiner 01:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I never said he isn't credible. I don't actually have an opinion on him. I had never heard of him before I came to this article. I am saying that Goldacre says it may be a shortened version, and everybody here seems to think I'm accusing him of lying or incompetence when I say it may be a shortened version. Please read the first sentence of the fifth paragraph here. I quote: "Maybe this pamphlet is just a shortened and simplified version of the PhD text, but if it is at all based on her thesis it is not a good advert for that as a scholarly work." So I ask again, why are we reporting in the article that it is her PhD thesis? ElinorD 01:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Goldacre himself gives her the benefit of the doubt.Merkinsmum 01:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this a joke? She published her "phd" thessis as a short pamphlet on recipes? Are we seriously suggesting her phd - which is a list of recipes - is legitimate and prooves that she is a scientist? Hell, I have got an MSc, I studied at the University of London and was supervised by real academics. I resent frauds like Gillian McKeith who claim that some collection of recipes constitutes academic research and then some idiots running a free-for-all encyclopaedia then portray her as a font of knowledge. She bought a certificate from some fake American university by mail order, just like "Dr" Ian Paisley. She has no publications, no research, no credibility. She is little more than a third-rate television celebrity giving her own layman theories on nutrition. Every other Wikipedia entry on minor British celebrities has a reference to The Mirror or The Sun newspapers, so why is McKeith an exception?--Conjoiner 01:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't know that that is her entire PhD though. Relax:) This is just a booklet she sells for a lay audience about the same subject.Merkinsmum 01:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this, Elinor. Conjoiner and Stuarta, could you note, please, that BLP applies to talk pages too. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What BLP? Please write in English.--Conjoiner 01:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Conjoiner, WP:BLP is the Wikipedia policy that applies to Biographies of Living People. I respectfully suggest you study it carefully if you plan to contribute to articles dealing with living individuals. You may also want to read up on WP:5, which includes all the other policies, guidelines and abbreviations. As a quick shortcut, you may want to just read the Nutshell summaries that will get you a quick leg up on the policies/guidelines. Thanks, Crum375 02:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for repeating myself, but the discussion on this issue seems to have gone cold, and I'm still not happy. We have Goldacre's Guardian article saying that he had heard from a "rogue nutritionist" that McKeith's PhD had been published as Miracle Superfood: Wild Blue-Green Algae, the nutrient powerhouse that stimulates the immune system, boosts brain power, and guards against disease, and that he had e-mailed McKeith Research under an assumed name, and they had confirmed that this was indeed McKeith's PhD. He goes on to say that it's "more like a stapled pamphlet, available at only £1.99, because it's only 48 pages. Which is quite short for a PhD. And that's including recipes, title plates, and contents pages." He then acknowledges that it may be "just a shortened and simplified version of the PhD text, but if it is at all based on her thesis it is not a good advert for that as a scholarly work."

I have pointed out that first of all, we have only Goldacre's word for it, and based on his acknowledgment that it may be a shortened version, he seems not to be sure. We don't know exactly what McKeith's office said to him, because he doesn't actually quote their words, but if he subsequently admits that it may be a shortened version, I think we can take it that they didn't tell him it was a "complete, unabridged copy of the full text of her dissertation." Yet the article currently states:

McKeith's PhD 'thesis' has been published as a pamphlet titled Miracle Superfood: Wild Blue-Green Algae. . . . It is published as a 48-page pamphlet, "including recipes, titles plates, and contents pages", though Goldacre acknowledges that it may be "just a shortened and simplified version of the PhD text"

I was the one who added that Goldacre acknowledged the possibility that it might be a shortened version, but even with that addition, the article is still stating, as fact, that this 48-page pamphlet is her thesis. My personal opinion is that it's most unlikely. Non-accredited colleges can include the most disgraceful diploma mills, which send spam e-mails offering doctorates with no study for a few thousand dollars, as well as colleges which offer meaningful courses, but at a lower standard than the accredited ones, and also colleges that are in the process of seeking accreditation. If McKeith got her doctorate from one of the more notorious diploma mills (I know nothing about Clayton College), she wouldn't be such a fool as to publish her 48-page pamphlet as her dissertation. And, regardless of whether her claims are accepted by mainstream, credible experts, it's not as if she's not able to write something longer than 48 pages.

That section needs to be rewritten. At the moment, the only source for the claim that her PhD thesis is a 48-page pamphlet with recipes is a man who seems to be interested in discrediting her, and who admits, in any case, that he's not sure. ElinorD 22:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see now that SlimVirgin was fixing it while I was moaning about it.[1] I saved my post on the talk page without checking the history of the article. Thank you, SlimVirgin. ElinorD 23:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)