Talk:Gillian McKeith/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

More basic policy

I note that User:Jooler has re-inserted the following claim into the article (insertion highlighted):

McKeith says she has conducted a number of studies, including investigations into the effects of blue-green algae (Aphanizomenon flos-aquae) on childhood learning disabilities and behavioural problems, and into the link between “stressors” and ageing and immunity, but there is no evidence of this.

Jooler, this is very obvious instance of original research, that is "It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position". Do you have a reputable source that says there is "no evidence" that McKeith conducted those studies? If not, please remove your argument as soon as possible. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. She has no published works relating to her research (no PubMed references) - ergo there is no evidence to back-up the claim of research. Jooler 01:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"Ergo" = argument. Please source your argument that here is "no evidence" as soon as possible; WP:BLP demands swift action for unsourced claims and arguments, and the penalties for inserting WP:BLP-violating material are severe. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

'ergo' adv.Consequently; hence. I have just explained above. No PubMed references means no published research. Therefore no evidence. You can find this out by going to the PubMed website and lookng her up - if you think that this act constitutes OR - I'm dumbfounded.Jooler 01:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to find it in a reliable source instead; telling people to "go look something up" doesn't count. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I'd agree; I'd limit the statement to the work not appearing in PubMed.

However, this is a problematic issue that I've raised recently at Wikipedia talk:No original research. It seems that in contentious medical/scientific areas, original research policies give an automatic POV bias in favour of unscientific claims. As User:Conjoiner said above, someone could get notability by wide publicity of their theory that the world is made of cotton wool, but no-one can even hint that it's not a view held by mainstream science unless someone has specifically refuted it somewhere.

That's not really a problem if claims are self-evidently weird, but when they're more subtle and can only be placed in neutral context by (say) referring to how the digestive system is generally agreed to work, it seems mad that we can't add this context.

I find it hard to believe that this inbuilt bias against neutrality is a consequence that was intended for WP:NOR. Tearlach 02:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a bias against original research; this doesn't compromise "neutrality" in any way. Has some reliable source said she's not found in PubMed? If so, great, put it in. If not, leave it out, and work on other areas of the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Has some reliable source said that the sky is blue? The evidence is available by obseveration. Looking something up in a book is observing. It is an observable that there are no articles under her name on PubMed. This is not original research is is an observation that anyone can make. Jooler 08:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"Has some reliable source said that the sky is blue"? Yes, of course, thousands of them. Here's one. It took me under a second to find it using Google. However, one of the key policies of Wikipedia is WP:V; if you make a claim, you must find a reliable source which backs up that claim. Which reliable source backs up your claim that her works are not found in PubMed; anonymous Wikipieda editor User:Jooler? Again, please observe policy, rather than trying to argue your way around it. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the sky is tartan but we merely perceive it as blue due to cognitive correction. Can you find a reliable source saying that this isn't so? Do you see the problem when wrong claims become sufficiently explicit? Tearlach 16:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

First find a reliable source that actually claims "the sky is tartan", then we'll talk. People always claim that WP:V and WP:NOR are unworkable, but I've never seen them come up with any real-life examples. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OK: real world example. Let's try this out on Mucoid plaque: scam diagnosis widely reported (hence notable) on the bowel cleansing circuit. Tons of counter-evidence that we can't report because of WP:NOR. Extreme paucity of specific published refutation. How would you handle it? Tearlach 17:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, the current article about Mucoid plaque is pretty bad, filled with lots of original research used in a desperate attempt to debunk the notion. There is already enough material in there to debunk it, the addition original research actually makes the debunking seem less reliable. Second, if you need more sources, you could always quote from Daniel Harris's interesting essay on pages 190-191 in Cute, Quaint, Hungry and Romantic: The Aesthetics of Consumerism, or simply note that Medinfo 2004 describes mucoid plaque as a "non-credible concept" (page 932). That's really all you need; you're not going to convince people by inserting all sorts of WP:BLP violating original research insisting that "Richard Anderson is in the business of selling books promoting this view and products to fix or remedy it", or even the Pub-med original research there, which someone should remove or slap a "fact" tag on. The non-policy violating material there already makes it clear enough that Anderson made up the idea, and there's nothing really backing it. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Which reliable source backs up your claim that her works are not found in PubMed - Pubmed? Andy Mabbett 17:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Pubmed is a database. Databases don't make "claims". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The question was not "who makes the claim..." but "which reliable source backs up the claim..." Are you saying that Pubmed is not a reliable source? Also, please respect "INUSE" labels Thank you. Andy Mabbett 17:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

PubMed is a database; it provides access to many reliable sources, but it is not an authority in and of itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The "no evidence" thing is clearly original research. I took it out once, so I have no idea why Jooler would put it back, given how clear a violation it is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

this doesn't compromise "neutrality" in any way

How doesn't it? It makes a huge difference to the credentials of a cited study whether or not it has appeared in any of the peer-reviewed lifescience journals covered by PubMed. Tearlach 03:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not find a way of putting it in without violating NOR? I see no reason to doubt the assertions that she has no publications in peer-reviewed journals. Since she's quite famous, there must be some reliable source stating that. "Professor X from the nutrition department of the University of Y wrote in an article in Z that McKeith's success is puzzling in view of the fact that she has never published anything in a peer-reviewed academic journal." Does that sound okay? Then find it. I'd look for it myself if I had more time. ElinorD 12:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Since she's quite famous, there must be some reliable source

That's the usual argument in such circumstances, but chances are, there won't be. Academics don't have the time to go around specifically analysing the credibility of every single claim by celebrities. Another example: in the latest programme, she said pasta, white rice and white bread weren't complex carbohydrates. You can find any number of scientific references showing she's utterly wrong: starch is a complex carbohydrate. But it could be forever before we see a specific source saying "Professor X said Gillian McKeith misused the term complex carbohydrate in such-and-such an episode of YAWYE". Tearlach 14:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I still have no idea why you think this is a "neutrality" issue. More importantly, it is not your role to debunk McKeith claims; rather, you simply report what reliable sources have said about her. That's all. Wikipedia is not a crusade, it's an encyclopedia. If she said pasta isn't a complex carbohydrate, and there's no source which explicitly refutes her, so be it. The sky is not falling. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I still have no idea why you think this is a "neutrality" issue.

I've no idea why you think it isn't, if Wikipedia allows reporting of some false minority view, but disallows using background knowledge to show, neutrally, where that view lies on the spectrum of belief. Tearlach 16:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:V? "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." - those are the first words of the policy. Everyone thinks they know "The TRUTH". Wikipedia tries to avoid those unwinnable theological arguments. Trust me, working within the policies really does work, and the end result is better. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly "verifiable" that McKeith is wrong about "vibrational charges", acid/base equilibria, etc. The information is present in countless basic textbooks. There is no "theological" argument about it.

The problem is the interpretation of Wikipedia policy that says one must find a refutation that names McKeith. This, as has been pointed out, means numerous crank claims will never be counterposed by actual science because scientists spend their time talking about science, not cranks. The result is that Wikipedia is less informative, and acts as a platform for every lunatic pseudo-scientific claim around. A policy originally designed to exclude unverified pet theories instead results in their implicit promotion. In Wikipedia terms I would have said that was the sky falling in, yes.

Stuarta 16:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This very article has numerous sources that challenge this woman's views on science. They are all included in the criticism section, what is the problem again. I'm not trying to argue, I honestly don't get it, it's all in there: "In 2004, John Garrow...". These all mention McKeith explicitly! --Merzul 16:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

But that's the point: it isn't all in there. She made numerous other statements which we either don't include, or include (according to the policy you advocate) without any scientific context. I provided two such examples in the above post which have not been addressed by Goldacre, Garrow, et al., yet are in contravention of elementary science. We are therefore left with the choice of either not giving a full account of McKeith's beliefs — leaving out her views of "vibrational charges" and so forth — or not providing the relevant context, and thereby implicitly promoting them.

Stuarta 16:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So what? So what if we can't refute or debunk every single thing McKeith has said? There's plenty of debunking already in the article, and as I've already pointed out, it's not our job to do debunk her anyway; we merely report what reliable sources have said regarding her and her claims. The encyclopedia in no way suffers as a result. For example, the David Icke article lists his beliefs that the British royal family, the Bush family, the Rothschilds, and many other wealthy or powerful individuals or families are actually reptilian humanoids with mixed human-reptilian DNA which allows (among other things) shape-shifting. There really is no need to insert some original research argument stating that human and reptilian DNA cannot actually be mixed in this way, and that there is no scientific evidence for his claims; indeed, the article would seem to be protesting overmuch if it did so. Save the debunking for your blog, or Ben Goldacre's. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So what? So Wikipedia is less informative, more misleading, or both, as a result. I have no desire to "debunk" everything McKeith has said. It is, however, my view that in order to give a full account of McKeith it is necessary to present her various beliefs. That, however, cannot be done alongside any scientific context, according to you. That is the problem.

As for your question-begging assertion about original research (I become deeply tired of the endless linking to this page: I have read it, and it isn't as clear cut as you suggest) on David Icke, there are some fairly obvious differences. Icke's claims about reptiles are not credulously watched by millions on national television every week, and do not have the same patina of scientific credibility. He does not claim, as far as I know, to have conducted "clinical studies" on DNA; nor does he pose in a white coat and suggest he is an expert on molecular biology.

interposition at this point - and this is the crucial dividing line. Icke's reptile claims are patently bizarre; general knowledge of the world is sufficient to provide context for where they are on the scale of believability. Yet if a claim strays into plausible-but-wrong areas where particular scientific knowledge is needed to provide a neutral view of its status, suddenly this context falls away, and we're not allowed to provide it. Tearlach 18:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If we report McKeith's claims without making clear how little they are accepted within scientific thought, we are retailing pseudo-science to Wikipedia readers. (In any case, even if I thought Icke were directly comparable, I would rather Wikipedia did include the scientific data on Icke's contentions, rather than the other way round. That way, Wikipedia would be more informative, not less.)

The endpoint of your policy is a morass of relativist claims, with no objective truth acknowledged. I cannot see how Wikipedia can provide scientific information of any kind if this is so. The page on gravity does not present the theory as merely a claim like any other: it presents it as the way the universe is known to operate. We also know that acid-base equilibria do not involve free oxygen, but you are suggesting that this piece of information cannot be relayed precisely where its presence is most important in order to avoid misleading readers: alongside McKeith's false counter-claim. That appears to be an abdication from the idea of presenting science at all.

Stuarta 17:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

(unindent, responding to Stuarta) Your concerns are valid, but if a person doesn't listen to "Amanda Wynne, senior dietician with the British Dietetic Association" and all the other reputable information that we link to, and is available for people to read; then I'm sorry, you can do all the original debunking you want, and this person will not listen to us either. The best we can do is to include briefly the criticism of reputable people, and interested readers can look further at their websites. By including so much negative information, we are instead turning off readers who might have read the book, but may have some doubts. We could inform these people and send them off to the right sources for mainstream dietary science, but instead I think we are offending them. --Merzul 17:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In addition, you must understand that Wikipedia is neither the place to present "the TRUTH", nor is it a forum for "presenting science". WP:V is very clear that the point is about verifiability, not truth, and WP:NPOV is very clear that neutrality means presenting a range of opinions, not the "correct" one. Science itself recognizes that theories are in flux, that there are majority and minority opinions, that views can change. Even with gravity, there are many competing views of exactly how it works. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And so we go round again, with not the slightest effort to engage with arguments presented. I addressed precisely this point above. By forcing me to repeat it, you are wasting my time. The science presented in refutation of McKeith's pseudo-science is certainly verifiable. To verify it, you pick up a standard textbook. Then it's verified. I really can't make it any clearer than that.

As for the bizarre proposition that the necessarily provisional nature of all scientific theory should mean adoption of relativism, with "majority and minority opinions" all represented in scientific articles, I barely know where to start. Such a stance is inimical to the very idea of an encyclopedia. It also fundamentally misunderstands the nature of scientific advances. But fortunately it is not reflective of how Wikipedia actually presents science, as a quick glance at the gravitation page would show you.

Quite apart from all this, I must point out that your assertion that "neutrality means presenting a range of opinions" does of course undermine your case against inclusion of scientific context. What you are actually promoting is not a range of opinions, but one opinion: McKeith's.

In future, I strongly suggest you a) read what has already been said and b) engage with it rather making generalised ex cathedra pronouncements. Otherwise this discussion page ceases to host a discussion.

Stuarta 00:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a proposal WP:ATTRIBUTE, which really helped me understand what "verifiability" means on Wikipedia. In fact, when Jayjg talks about "verifiability, not truth"; he isn't saying that he doesn't understand that a standard textbook on physics would refute all of this. He is asking, who is it that has taken a standard book on physics and done showed the contradictions? We can present the critics and attribute the criticism to them, but if we do any analysis of our own, even when obvious, then we should put our names under the article, like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or dare I mention it... Citizendium. If you want to contribute collaboratively and anonymously, then you have to respect the rules under which the Foundation is willing to take the moral and legal responsibility for what we write! This is not a trivial issue, people can be hurt by what we write, and if that means nothing to you, people can take legal actions because we debunk or harm their business. That's the reality, and we have to accept it. --Merzul 01:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The above was only about your first paragraph. I will also address your objection about relativism. Well, this is not an article on nutrition or biology, it is an article about a living person. It makes all the difference in the world, do you not agree? As to only presenting this womans views... I don't know, are we reading the same article? I don't really see her view expressed anywhere, except when it is cited by her critics, so this is very difficult to respond to. --Merzul 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I should say that what I wrote above was in response to Jayjg, not you. I'll see if I can reply to what you wrote soon.

Stuarta 11:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

American Association of Nutritional Consultants

User:Jooler has inserted the claim that

McKeith says she is a member of the American Association of Nutritional Consultants (AANC).

claiming that "This is on her CV for crissake!" However, rather than linking it to her CV, or her website, he appears to have linked it to some sort of site claiming to hold an archive of a description of her on some management site from 2004. The insertion is dubious at best, certainly not current, and appears to be there solely for the purpose of discrediting her. To be honest, I know almost nothing about McKeith, but I do know something about WP:BLP, and I'm seeing quite a few violations on this article, which is disturbing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the Internet Archive - She's listed here http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/Nonrecorg/aanc.html - it is also mentioned in Ben Goldacre's blog,, The Guardian and dozens of other places. And that was her CV.Jooler 02:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Then why not link to her CV? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note - that I wan't linking to anything. The URL was put into the edit summary to explain that it was not OR. Jooler 08:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it no longer mentions AANC. http://www.drgillianmckeith.com/about-mid2.php

http://www.drgillianmckeith.com/about-credentials.php so couldn't be used against her:)Merkinsmum 02:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It was, however, widely reported in the past (Guardian, Observer, Sun, Daily Record, Tonight with Trevor MacDonald - refs if you want) so could be mentioned in the past tense. Tearlach 03:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Centre for Nutrition Education

"McKeith is a post-graduate Member of The Centre for Nutrition Education" - Click on [1] - this has been rebranded "Centre for Nutrition Education and Lifestyle Management". What does this mean 'post-grad Member'? It's not clear. Jooler 09:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

Could people please take some care when adding refs? If the reference already exists, it should have a name, and if it doesn't, please give it one. Then all you have to add is add the name, rather than writing the citation out again. In that way, we see how often each ref is being used, which is important because it tells us whether we're relying too much on any one source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And if others - like yourself - could make sure not to delete the original reference that the other refer to too? Thanks ••Briantist•• talk 09:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Where did I do that, Brian? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The day before yesterday, as I recall. You removed the first reference to the "c4bio" I think 2005 ASA adjudication. ••Briantist•• talk 10:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Telegraph

[2]

McKeith has just voluntarily agreed with the Advertising Standards Authority not to use her title of doctor any more, on the basis that it might have given the impression that she was a qualified medical doctor.

The silly woman. If she wanted a nice title, she should have paid Tony Blair for a really good one, just like everyone else. Allegedly.

••Briantist•• talk 13:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A Guardian link to the same story (12 February 2007): [3]. Man with two legs 13:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Max Clifford

I do hope that no-one on here is in the employ of Mr Max Clifford. If anyone is, they should declare it. Some of the editing does seem particularly "PR", I have to say. ••Briantist•• talk 13:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I have a particular assurance that the image used on the web page was not provided by Mr Clifford (or someone working for him)? ••Briantist•• talk 13:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I simply don't understand this concern. A reasonable skeptic concern would be to include a few critical views of her nutritional advice, and I can accept that people are offended that she abuses science, so we can use some reliable sources that are upset about that; but why on earth would you object to having a nice picture of her?? (I'm not confirming that this was given by her, I'm just asking why does it matter?) --Merzul 13:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. While you'd hardly expect an authorised image to be anything but a publicity photo, I wonder if too idealised an image (one very different from the one she presents on the TV programmes) is buying into some kind of spin? Comparing with recent pics on the Channel 4 and BBC sites, it looks not recent and/or highly Photoshopped. Tearlach 13:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. It certainly is unlike the PR photo I was supplied by C4 but forbidden from using. Anyway, a PR whitewash would be a terrible thing for wikipedia, so I am inviting denials, otherwise we'll have to go though the whole balance thing again. ••Briantist•• talk 13:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, responding to Tearlach)::: Ok, I take your point, she looks a lot younger on our picture than on the ones you present. I don't know what exactly is at stakes her though, but there are certainly legal problems. If we are given a picture of her, then we can't pick one of those copyrighted pictures. Fair use only applies when there are no free alternatives. So if you want a more recent picture of her I guess you would have to take that picture of her yourself and upload it under a liberal license for us to use. --Merzul 13:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Still not seen any denials! Is there a {{''PR''|Whitewash}} tag??? ••Briantist•• talk 14:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The photo is fine. What sort of an image did you want? One that shows her as a hunchbacked old crone sneering at someone's pooh? The image is of her, and as such is fine for the article. Regardless of where it has come from. Wikipediatastic 14:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Didn't someone point out to me that "no photo is better" than an unsuitable one. I'm NOT complaining about the photo, I am simply asking if there is any content of Gillian McKeith which is directly or indirectly provided by Max Clifford or anyone else who is a PR for Gillian McKeith. The feeling I am getting from the responses is they lack anything in the way of denial. ••Briantist•• talk 14:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

One that shows her as a hunchbacked old crone sneering at someone's pooh?

No, just a normal current one that doesn't look as if it's been airbrushed to death. The one used by her management agency [4] is nice. Tearlach 14:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That one is much more suitable, but is it copyright free? ••Briantist•• talk 15:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This whole PR whitewash thing is unfair. Why don't you accept that some of us just want a higher quality of criticism instead of bashing the subject at every opportunity? I said it above and I will say it again, I wouldn't like people to write a wikipedia page about me that looks like this. At some point, I plan to be very famous and I'm sure people will find many reliable sources about all the bad things I have done, I just hope there will be editors like SlimVirgin around to defend me. --Merzul 14:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfair? Where is the denial - that's all it takes. ••Briantist•• talk 15:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And please define "higher quality of criticism" because you seem to be proposing the exact opposite. Or is "higher quality of criticism" another dodgy PR phrase? ••Briantist•• talk 15:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Also "people will find many reliable sources about all the bad things I have done, I just hope there will be editors like SlimVirgin around to defend me" is hardly a neutral POV is it? It's very biased, in fact! ••Briantist•• talk 15:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

All of the criticisms of Mckeith are valid. They may be sourced from the same place, but they are easily verifiable for anyone who knows anything about basic science. However you criticise people who have edited this article for relying on one source. However if someone uses other sources such as scientific text books, to back up criticisms levelled by the main source we are accused of "original research". This smacks of an effort to whitewash the article, as anyone with a grasp on reality would be able to see that Ben Goldacre both criticises Mckeith and backs it up with references etc. Two weeks ago, this article did need improvement, as there was not enough about what it is that has made her famous. However once we covered her professional background we had created a good reliable article. For you to then remove tracts of text and the references that go with them, because we are relying too much on one reference is a joke.Wikipediatastic 15:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No-one has removed much criticism have they. If so, please show me where. I agree with Merzul- imagine how one of your worst enemies or someone who has a 'bee in their bonnet' about you, could write about you.Mine would come up with real nastiness for sure. It just seems some people are desparate for this article to include stuff such as former membership of an organisation of which she is no longer a member, and excessive picking on her PhD. I mean this Clayton College is acredited now, even if it wasn't at the time McKeith got her degree. McKeith stated that the ASA 'likely to mislead' comment was only about a pamphlet where it wasn't made clear that she wasn't a medical Dr. All Universities aren't equal, but picking on someones' degree just because they got it via distance learning or through a former polytechnic or something, would be considered bad form usually.Merkinsmum 15:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

She uses the title "Dr" to part people from their money, so the validity of that qualification is highly relevant. Man with two legs 15:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, there are still bits of the US government that do not recognise Clayton College. Man with two legs 15:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the ASA comment about it is in there, r u not happy?:)Merkinsmum 15:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is, or is sometimes, fairly good as far as I can see. My one strong feeling is that the bits that make it crystal clear that her qualifications and practices are dodgy should not disappear at some stage. This article is where a lot of people will look for the truth about her. Man with two legs 15:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a serious logical error, Merkinsmum. It is irrelevant what status an institution has now, because accreditation of a degree cannot be conferred retrospectively. What matters is what the place was like when she was pursuing her course, not what it turned into afterwards.

Secondly, it is highly misleading to say Clayton College is accredited now. According to the website it is accredited by the "American Association of Drugless Practitioners and the American Naturopathic Medical Accreditation Board" which are "not affiliated with any government agency". These are not accreditation bodies recognised by the US government for the purposes of funding.

Thirdly, the idea that "[a]ll Universities aren't equal" is quite astonishing to hear at this stage, after all that has been said. There is a clear division between universities accredited by recognised bodies, and those that aren't. If no such distinction were observed, anyone could set up a "university" and print themselves a degree certificate, rendering all qualifications meaningless. It is insulting to students of former polytechnics to bracket them with degree mill graduates.

McKeith stated that the ASA 'likely to mislead' comment was only about a pamphlet where it wasn't made clear that she wasn't a medical Dr.

That is indeed her line, just as she came out with some anti-EU boilerplate when forced to withdraw her unproven sex aids. But if the problem were related solely to one leaflet, she wouldn't have agreed to expunge "Dr" from all advertising materials; she would simply have corrected the leaflet. Just as with the sex aids, she issued a disingenuous, dismissive statement about the ASA agreement; but that doesn't make the issue trivial.

So I don't agree that either of these things is nitpicking.

Stuarta 16:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I should say that I've discovered that there appears to be a discrepancy between McKeith's website and Clayton's. On her site it says, "The College is now accredited by the State of Alabama Department of Post-Secondary Education, a government body", but on their site the "accreditation" section makes no mention of this. Apologies for so quickly dismissing the idea that Clayton is now accredited. It is still irrelevant to McKeith's degree, for the reason given above, but her site does bring into question Clayton's accreditation status.

However, from what I can tell, McKeith's claim is not as significant as it sounds. There is an article from three days ago in the US press titled "State's diploma mills draw academic ire". It says

Although they can no longer look to ACHE [Alabama Commission on Higher Education] for program review waivers, diploma mills can still turn to the state's postsecondary education system [that is, the State of Alabama Department of Post-Secondary Education].

McKeith states that this is "a government body". But according to the article

the Department of Postsecondary Education does not review the quality of the education offered.

The article further states:

[Lloyd] Clayton also started the Clayton College of Natural Health, which claims to be accredited by the American Association of Drugless Practitioners, which is not recognized by the federal government as a legitimate accreditor.

Chadwick and Clayton College are both listed as a potential diploma mill in Oregon’s database.

The problem with Clayton is their accreditation is not recognized so there’s no known oversight," [administrator of degree authorization for the state of Oregon] Contreras said. “We don’t know what they do, and that’s why people who get degrees there can not be licensed in Oregon.

Stuarta 18:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Tedious, I know, but this seems relevant as well. The Alabama College System website says:

Listed below are the institutions that are presently licensed to operate in the State of Alabama. The license is issued to operate in the State of Alabama AND IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH ACCREDITATION.

Clayton is licensed by the authority mentioned, but not accredited by them. Firstly, it doesn't accredit colleges. Secondly, if Clayton were accredited by a government body this fact would appear on its website.

So in summary, McKeith's website is at best deeply misleading on the subject.

Stuarta 18:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet another source has the "director of institutional effectiveness and planning at ACHE" explicitly saying Clayton is "not accredited by the state". So I think that's the end of it.

Stuarta 19:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad Merkinsmum has already expressed my concerns quite well. I will try to explain why I deleted some refs about the nutritional advice. The problem was that it expressed Goldacre's analysis as if Wikipedia had done the analysis itself. Even if this analysis is true (and I think it is), there is still the question of who is disputing McKeith, Wikipedia is not in a position to argue against a person no matter how right we are. This is very fundamental policy, and this we just have to accept. Even some obvious statements require a name behind them, if they are used to draw contentious conclusions. This is not because they are inaccurate, but because somebody must be responsible, and this should not be the foundation, see WP:OFFICE. I have since replaced that section with Goldacre's piece from the British Medical Journal. This is the most prestigious medical journal in the world, even a 1/1000 of a criticism from a source like that is better than all of Goldacre's blog posts put together, and infinitely better than our own unsigned opinions. I hope this explains what I mean by a higher quality of criticism. --Merzul 16:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The BMJ- brilliant! You can't get better than thatMerkinsmum 16:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Max Clifford payed me a fortune to include that one! ;) --Merzul 16:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oooh I must ask him for a raise!:)Merkinsmum 18:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Archives

I've just archived everything before the earliest section to be updated today - four new pages of archives! This page is still 77Kb. Thanks for your patience. Andy Mabbett 17:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No original research

Our no original research policy is useful for many reasons. Suppose someone wants to present a detailed list of what she said and the scientific reasons she is wrong. According to WP:NOR this is not allowed as it is an original synthesis. "How ridiculous!" one might think. Yet, would that be balanced? To balance that should we then add all the statements she makes that do have scientific validity (against tobacco for example). And the scientific evidence supporting those positions? What of someone who wishes to add what they believe are supporting evidences for nonsense she says that is none-the-less widely believed (and thus could win in a !vote ?) That is not a good road for Wikipedia to go down. Stick to NOR. Really. It works for Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 19:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Amen. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please recall that this is discussion page, not a religious affirmation ceremony. Expressions of faith that "it works" do not become more convincing on every repetition, even when accompanied by an "Amen".

The only engagement with arguments and McKeith, as opposed to devotional hallelujahs to the policy pages, is the idea that any scientific context must be extended to McKeith's correct as well as incorrect claims. Firstly, her claims about smoking are not peculiar to her, or a particularly notable part of her books or TV programmes. Their prominence is therefore unlikely to be large under any circumstances. Secondly, she does not make pseudo-scientific pronouncements about smoking. Therefore if her views were included they would not risk misrepresenting science.

The idea that evidence bolstering her incorrect claims might be included is an odd one to raise. The whole point is that there is real science, and there is pseudo-science. The one is available in recognised journals and textbooks; the other isn't. It is not remotely hard to distinguish between the two. The gravitation page does not present general relativity alongside Pari Spolter's theory that gravitational force has nothing to do with mass; it presents the scientific consensus. What I am asking we do here is merely point out that McKeith's pronouncements do not accord with standard texts.

Stuarta 12:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging the argument for NOR that I raised. You say "What I am asking we do here is merely point out that McKeith's pronouncements do not accord with standard texts" and NOR says you may so long as it is not you doing the pointing out but you referencing a reliable published source that does the pointing out. WP:IAR could be used, so let us identify a reason for this NOR rule. If you can point out that McKeith's pronouncements do not accord with standard texts, then others can point out where they believe her pronouncements do accord with standard texts (and using their idea of standard texts); as I said above: who can add what they believe are supporting evidences for nonsense she says that is none-the-less widely believed and thus could be decided to be consensus and get you blocked for edit warring against consensus even tho you are "right". Since Wikiality is a real possibility if consenus has an unrestricted right to determine contents, policy is needed to adequately manage this possibility. NOR helps us manage this possibility. On a related but different issue: the addition of "don't use too much from one source" is not policy or guideline, but simply a quick and dirty guesstimate of how to best move forward with this specific article and I believe that has been useful in improving this article. Don't use that guesstimate as some sort of iron-clade rule, but do use it as a useful tool in trying to create a balanced article. WAS 4.250 20:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Stuarta, the real point is that this is a biography, and therefore we write about the individual, in a way that is extremely cognisant of WP:BLP. This is not the page for debunking pseudo-science, and no pages on Wikipedia are good places for inserting original research, no matter what extremely important public service you think you are providing. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

references

I still don't know how to put </ref> citeweb etc properly so forgive me if I get it wrong.Merkinsmum 20:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Merkinsmum, there's no need to use the citation templates. They're cumbersome and pointless, and they make the text hard to edit. Here's an example of how to cite a newspaper article. <ref name=wray>Wray, Richard. [http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2012816,00.html "Warner boss seeks middle way for mobile music"], ''The Guardian'', February 14, 2007.</ref> SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please avoid them, they're hopelessly cumbersome, an arcane language to learn that makes citing difficult at best. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Templates allow elements to be labelled, thus adding information which is very convenient for novices and anyone else that comes along later. They are not difficult to read if formatted neatly with each element on a new line with a modicum of white space. "Cumbersome and pointless" is a POV, which you are entitled to, but I don't think this should be stated as a fact - e.g. "I think templates are...". I don't think they are difficult to learn if you just copy an existing example - there are plenty in the article. Compare these two versions of your example:

<ref name=wray>Wray, Richard. [http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2012816,00.html "Warner boss seeks middle way for mobile music"], ''The Guardian'', February 14, 2007.</ref>

<ref name="wray">{{cite web

| url = http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2012816,00.html

| title = Warner boss seeks middle way for mobile music

| publisher = [[The Guardian]]

| date = 2007-02-14

| accessdate = 2007-02-15}}</ref>

Probably the biggest advantage of templates is that the parameters are named instead of being positional. Naming parameters means that the resulting output can be precisely and consistently formatted - all the resulting citations will look the same. Using positional parameters with <ref> alone means users have no idea which parameter should go where, so there are a dozen different formats for citations, which is IMHO poor practice. Let users choose which one they find the most readable, easiest to use, and best form for long term Wikipedia quality. I'm not saying you must or even should use them, I'm saying let users make an informed decision. Phaedrus86 00:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The use of citation templates is neither recommended nor encouraged on Wikipedia, and many editors find them very annoying. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

nor encouraged - almost right, WP:CITE guideline says the use of templates...is neither encouraged nor discouraged. It also says they help to maintain a consistent citation style across articles, and specify the citation data unambiguously. IMHO in the long term this is a Good Thing. Phaedrus86 01:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

But why quote selectively? It also says: "Because they are optional, editors should not add templates without consensus," and there is no consensus for them on this page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that's a better argument than "cumbersome and pointless". Still nice to let people have the facts. Phaedrus86 01:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The last thing we need, would be a discussion on what kind of citation templates we have consensus on :) I'm willing to take any style preferred by you guys and would even convert my templates to normal citations if need be. But, this is essentially a non-issue, and anybody can fix them when they edit that paragraph for content. I mean, does anybody feel very strongly about it? --Merzul 01:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I do feel quite strongly about them. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, no problem, except since you feel strongly about it and I don't, you will have to convert them! Oh, I'm so evil :P --Merzul 02:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Just from the POV of being comprehensible the citation templates seems much more logical to me. Without them they look like ZX Spectrum code, rather than something from C21. ••Briantist•• talk 10:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What's important is to cite a reliable published source. Let those who care, convert the form to their preferred format. Oh, they'll complain about the effort and try to shame you into doing it for them, but the key is the cite itself and not its form. WAS 4.250 05:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean? We have all cited sources, some have used templates, while others don't like them. What I meant was that I'm not going to start converting what is already in the article when I clearly don't care about the issue. --Merzul 14:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with you. WAS 4.250 20:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good, because I agree with your NOR explanation... (I don't want to imagine what would happen if an expert crackpot biologist would come here and seriously push a McKeith stance based on their "expert" knowledge of the subject. We would be in trouble, if it wasn't for NOR) --Merzul 21:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

fixing ref yet again (becoming a full-time job) comment on change by SlimVirgin recently. The change was to fix parameters in the wrong order in a ref. Honestly, SlimVirgin, cite templates go a long way to fixing this sort of problem because the parameters are named, not positional. Phaedrus86 23:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how templates help; people aren't adding full citations whether they use the templates or not. Templates are only as good as the editor, and good editors don't need to use templates — sorry, but I find them worse than useless. :-) Look at how hard this is to edit, and it's by no means the worst example I've seen; the more templates there are, the harder the text is to edit for flow and the worse the writing is as a direct result. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul McKenna

On the issue of callimg somene's qualifications dodgy, Paul McKenna sued someone who did that to him and won. The quackometer blog has a good article about the use of the title 'Dr' here http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2006/09/quack-word-3-doctor.html Merkinsmum 20:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, which is one reason we want the names of the critics so that Max Clifford can sue them and not us. Except, Clifford wouldn't sue us ;) --Merzul 21:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I read that Max Clifford thought it was a mistake that McKeith used the title "Dr" after her run-in with the ASA, and said that she didn't need to call herself a doctor to sell books. I don't think he would sue. The fact is that her qualifications are dodgy by virtue of the fact that she bought the degree off a non-accredited institution and is a member of an association that is not what she claims it to be. She's not the only one. "Rev" "Dr" Ian Paisley started his own church and uses an honorary degree awarded by his friend Bob Jones to get his titles.--Conjoiner 21:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Conjoiner, could you say which other accounts you edit Wikipedia with? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't edit with any other accounts. Why?--Conjoiner 22:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I am curious, what are you insinuating?--Conjoiner 23:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Copy edits

Could people please stop restoring copy editing errors, incomplete citations etc? I'm finding myself having to make the same corrections multiple times because people are reverting wholesale. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's unreasonable to point out that your recent edits degraded the page by erroneously conflating the Herald references and inserting incorrect information about Clayton's accreditation. Slight formatting errors in references are not as serious as this.

I find the second of these extraordinary, considering the matter had been discussed in detail. Even if Clayton were now accredited it would not be appropriate to say this on the page because it is quite irrelevant to McKeith's PhD. Nobody disputed this position when it was put forward on the discussion page.

Unnecessary work could be avoided by reading that page and achieving a proper acquaintance with the references before editing.

Stuarta 23:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What you call "slight formatting errors" I've had to correct maybe six times or more in some cases. If people would include full citations — byline, headline, place of publication, date of publication — it would be easier to tell one ref apart from the other.

I apologize for editing before checking the accreditation discussion on this page. The page is so full of insults and repetition that it's hard to read, and so I've been ignoring it, to be honest. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not think ignoring the discussion page is a good way to proceed with editing. If you find the discussion page "hard to read" then I suggest you refrain from editing until you have overcome this difficulty. It exists for a reason, and it inevitably causes annoyance when an editor ignores lengthy discussions and proceeds to make wholesale edits. Work still remains to restore quite uncontroversial information lost during these editing sessions.

Stuarta 11:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Blogs, Goldacre

Pigsonthewing, several editors on this page have agreed that we have enough Goldacre already, so please don't add any more. The other website you restored is also not acceptable in a BLP. Please review WP:BLP, which is policy and mandatory. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't "added more", so your claim is bogus. Andy Mabbett 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You know what she means, and we have been over this. This is not PR, we simply want a more credible encyclopedia page about a living person. We also don't want to be like quackwatch that indiscriminately criticizes all alternative medicine, and we don't want to rely on a single source, but on a range of different criticism. Slim is doing a marvelous job at improving the credibility of this page, for skeptics and fans of this woman alike. Personally, I'm the worst kind of skeptic. --Merzul 23:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Merzul. I'm also a sceptic (I use British spelling) and I feel that SlimVirgin is doing a marvellous job. I personally have doubts about a lot of McKeith's claims, but I don't think the article should set out to debuk them all, as if that's our agenda — it makes it seem as if we're attacking her. ElinorD 00:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Pigs is also removing "Goldacre writes ..." that he applied for a thing in his cat's name. This is an odd claim, and so we should fully attribute it and not write it up as a fact. Attribution doesn't mean we think the material is false; it simply indicates that we are distancing ourselves a little from it. We don't say "Goldacre claims," or "Goldacre alleges," but "Goldacre writes," which is completely neutral. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The more I see of the NPOV policy, the better I like it. ElinorD 00:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we are now reverting too big pieces, there were link fixes etc... I will start applying Slim's fixes one by one... --Merzul 00:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I applied Slim's edits now, one by one, thinking each one through. While I agree with all of them, even the one removing my most valued criticism ;) Mostly, in the spirit of making compromises, otherwise I think it is the most relevant thing Goldacre has ever said, just kidding, anyway... I realize I'm far from popular with the other skeptics on this page, so we may still have reverts, but at least it should be smaller pieces now... Thanks for the patience! --Merzul 00:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Merzul, I have no major problem with this if you really want it. I removed it only to shorten the amount from Goldacre and because it wasn't a direct criticism of McKeith, but it's certainly related, so by all means restore it if you like it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have already departed with it, so it is strange for me to put it back in. Something tells me that there might be other editors who will put it back in though... :) --Merzul 00:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please check though that the placement of the prose attribution doesn't change the meaning, or ordering of events, this is I suppose a minor detail, but I'm not native English speaker, so I don't know. --Merzul 00:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's good, Merzul, thanks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Archiving, 15 Feb

I have just archived another two pages' worth of material , mostly last updated yesterday (14 Feb). Andy Mabbett 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

In the future please don't archive very recent discussions, particularly discussions people are still engaged in. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Should this be in the article?

"McKeith met her American husband, lawyer Howard Magaziner, in Edinburgh where he was spending a year studying. At the time he ran an extremely successful chain of health food shops in the United States with which she was to become involved. The company they now run from their Hampstead home had a turnover of almost £900,000 last year but the business they ran in 1996 spiralled into debt before declaring insolvency owing $117,000."[5] WAS 4.250 06:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say yes, it should. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added it. I'm sure the editing can be improved. And perhaps the source was previously used .. don't know. WAS 4.250 17:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Achievements and You Are What You Eat (the book)

I've changed the Awards section to "Awards and achievements". McKeith is a popular author, and I think we should reflect that a bit more in the article. I've put in a recent report about YAWYE being the most borrowed non-fiction book in the UK 2005-2006, but I've also seen one or two other stats reported - a Sunday Times article late in 2004 reported 1.2M copies of YAWYE sold up to that point, and a report in a local newspaper saying that YAWYE had been at the top of the UK bestsellers list for 12 weeks (whether that was non-fiction only or what, it didn't say). Doubtless there are better sources than these though. It might be worth mentioning the book in the intro, and describing it as "bestselling". I'm not keen to change the intro without some discussion first though. What do you think? IanHenderson 15:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the issue to the Bibliography where it belongs as a footnote. It's a quazi-scientific chart position, not an award or an "acheivement", so it is more appropriate as a footnote. ••Briantist•• talk 16:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Also... I've used the primary reference, not the BBC's referal to it. ••Briantist•• talk 16:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - I did wonder whether it was a bit trivial for the Awards section. Maybe it should be removed completely. However I think we should put in something that reflects the popularity of YAWYE. e.g. in the intro, list YAWYE (the book) and describe it as "bestselling". What's your opinion of that? IanHenderson 17:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wierd it got deleted for quoting the press release, which was the original source of the 'award' rather than the BBC News report of the press release. ••Briantist•• talk 17:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It was a newsvertizement. News entities often repeat advertizing as lightly disguised news in the form of press releases. We need an independent source that does more than simply reprint what they are fed. Relying on an organization as reliable because it supposedly fact checks falls apart when they don't, in fact, fact check. The consolidation of media has made it incresingly hard to find sources not compromised by self interest. Promoting someone's book who has a TV show also promotes that TV show and its owners. On the other side is the claim that big-medicine is protecting its turf by criticising non-establishment health advice. We should do our best to see through self interested promotion without getting paranoid about it. WAS 4.250 18:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WAS, thank you for merging the criticism. It's a big improvement. Feel free to revert my edit to the lead if you don't like it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WAS - McKeith's shows don't occur on the BBC - they occur on competitor broadcasters (Channel 4/Granada). The lending statistics from the PLR press release were also reported in national newspapers. I'm also not sure why you think the UK Public Lending Right organisation has an interest in promoting McKeith above other authors. The UK PLR is effectively a government agency, established by act of parliament. I'll find something suitable to put in regarding McKeith's popularity as an author, although as I suggested above, the lending statistic may be a bit too trivial for that purpose. IanHenderson 11:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

WAS, I just noticed that I made my edit while you were still in the process of making your changes — I'm sorry, I didn't realize at the time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Liking this article at the moment

I'm liking this article at the moment, it manages to be damning of McKeith merely by showing the facts, so it still seems neutral:)Merkinsmum 05:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Draft ASA adjudication

The text:

The Guardian newspaper reported that a draft version of the ASA adjudication stated that by claiming to be a doctor, the advertising was in fact likely to mislead, breaching both the "substantiation" and "truthfulness" clauses of advertising regulations. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,,2011098,00.html].

was removed with the edit summary:

This is too contentous (sic) and controversial, and it's to speculative, we honestly don't need this... and it distracts from real criticism)

It's clearly not speculative, and nowhere have I seen evidence of it being contentious. As for it "distracting from real criticism", that seems to be a completely unsupportable view. It's a clearly cited and significant piece of journalism. Andy Mabbett 19:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't; it's Goldacre again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that because it's Goldacre it's not cited; not journalism' or not significant? Andy Mabbett 19:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I am saying (1) that the Guardian didn't "report" it, because it was only in an opinion piece by Goldacre. There was a news story about this in the Guardian on the same day, so check to see if they included it there. If the reporter felt it was true and worth reporting, it'll be in there and we can use it. If it's not in there, maybe there was a good reason. I'm also saying (2) that too much of this page already relies on Goldacre, and there is an agreement about that; (3) that it's clearly contentious, when the ASA itself says it has accepted a volunteer agreement in lieu of a report, for us to say "but here is what their report would have said, had they said it," when this relies only on an opinion piece written by someone who appears to have very strong feelings about McKeith, and who has become part of the story, and not a reporter of it; and (4) as I said first, if it's a "cited and significant piece of journalism," let's quote the Guardian reporter who wrote up the story, if he mentioned it; and if he didn't, we need to let that tell us something. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is bullshit. The Media section (not Goldacre) of the Guardian reported the story (byline Owen Gibson) and said the Advertising Standards Authority came to the provisional conclusion that the honorific was likely to mislead the public - According to documents seen by the Guardian, the agreement prevents Ms McKeith calling herself a doctor in any advertising or mailshots relating to her company and its products. You knew about this report it's been mentioned many times and you just mentioned it yourself, yet you chose to remove the above para without even checking if it was in there! Furthermore Goldacre's articles state quite clearly But would you know it, a copy of that draft adjudication has fallen into our laps, and it concludes that "the claim 'Dr' was likely to mislead". The advert allegedly breached two clauses of the Committee of Advertising Practice code: "substantiation" and "truthfulness". Clearly this is not his opinion - but reporting of the contents of the draft ruling. So there is nothing - repeat NOTHING wrong with quoting Goldacre here! Jooler 22:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Read what I wrote. If a Guardian reporter, not Goldacre, has reported it, we can use it. We cannot use it if the only source who reported it was Goldacre, for the reasons stated ad nauseam — in part because it's a contentious claim in an opinion piece and this is a BLP, and in part because we've used him too much already. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Slim here it is:) http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,,2011151,00.html the article in the guardian (not by Goldacre) says they've seen the ASA info using the phrase 'likely to mislead'. We can't ban the whole Guardian just because Goldacre writes a column there. They are not daft, they would have viewed the document for themselves, it says 'seen by the Guardian' not just 'seen by Goldacre.'Merkinsmum 01:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm not making myself clear here. I said if the only source is Goldacre, we can't use it, but if other sources, including other Guardian reporters, have repeated the claim, we can. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Then we can? hurrah!:)Merkinsmum 02:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

if the only source is Goldacre, we can't use it - I for one take issue with that wholly unjustified assertion (and your threats on my talk page won't stop me from doing so). Nonetheless, when you removed the matter in this edit: removed the ASA stuff which is repeated below (it wasn't), the source was The Times, not Goldacre. Andy Mabbett 11:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If I were you I would take WP:BLP, and all threats associated with, very seriously. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Slim if would be good if you read the stuff that you removed before you removed it! I do not understand for what reason other than prejudice that you assert that - "if the only source is Goldacre, we can't use it" - he states "But would you know it, a copy of that draft adjudication has fallen into our laps, and it concludes that "the claim 'Dr' was likely to mislead". The advert allegedly breached two clauses of the Committee of Advertising Practice code: "substantiation" and "truthfulness" - even if it wasn't reported elsewhere in the Guardian! Jooler 11:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

We have that it was deemed "likely to mislead", which is very clear. Adding "substantiation" and "truthfulness" does not add anything worth adding. WAS 4.250 12:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

External links

The links:

• "A Menace To Science", accessed February 14th 2007.
• B3ta.com's interesting take on the new of McKieth's dropping the "Dr." title, accessed February 15th 2007.

were removed with the edit summary:

yes, why are they, here? These should be referenced to, not external link style thing...

By what policy should they be "referenced to, not external link style thing" (sic)? And why were they not so referenced, instead of being removed? Andy Mabbett 19:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed because the first is the same source we agreed there was already too much of, and that piece is anyway repetitive, and the second because it's not a reliable source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

We agreed no such thing. I note that you do not answer my question about policy, and that your answer does not reflect the editor's view that the links should be "referenced to". Andy Mabbett 19:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "we" did agree. If you read all the comments about this, there was agreement that we need to use other sources and not keep on appearing to promote Goldacre. I think the other editor meant the second website wasn't used in the text, and therefore there was no need to add it to EL, but the point is that it's not a reliable source either way. The relevant policies would be V, perhaps NOR, possibly EL, though I haven't checked this last one recently. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No such agreement by me and several others. Jooler 22:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Nor me. The allegation of "appearing to promote Goldacre" is a red herring, and bogus. Andy Mabbett 11:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I see the standard of edit summary is very high. Please explain though, why a link that is referenced 7 times and already accessible through the footnote needs to be there? This was a minor issue for me as I simply don't see why these links are needed. --Merzul 02:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Neither of the links are referenced once, let alone seven times. Andy Mabbett 11:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are right, this Goldacre article is not referenced, sorry for the mix-up; but I do think it is redundant. It used to back-up his criticism of her nutritional "science", but I replaced it with Goldacre's BMJ column. It seemed that most of the arguments contained in this piece, he has rewritten in a more sophisticated tone for his BMJ column. I haven't completely checked it, but I clearly liked his BMJ column a lot more. In general, I prefer external link sections to be links to valuable resources, not just a single article, otherwise these EL section tend to grow as users just add their favorite stuff. --Merzul 14:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

POV versus the writing

Pigs, you're reverting in the name of a POV that Goldacre is an "investigative journalist" of all things, when nothing could be further from the truth. He writes an opinion column, for heaven's sake! Anyway, the reason I made the edit is that the previous paragraph starts with "Goldacre has written that," and this one begins with "Goldacre writes that," and that's poor writing. Therefore I tweaked the second to improve the flow of the section, and also because it got rid of the pompous" investigating" when all he did was send off for a certificate for his cat. It's not a major improvement to the writing, but it is an improvement nonetheless, so why do you feel the need to revert it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you've actually read much Ben Golddacre much have you? It's not merely an opinion piece. The whole point of it is that he debunks false claims by "investigating" the truthfullness of them - this often involves looking up the fact as per the article that he won an award for - see also Centre for Investigative Journalism - guest speaker Ben Goldacre Jooler 00:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Who the hell is "Pigs"? Andy Mabbett 19:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Your user name is Pigsonthewing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Guardian article

I believe a better article is here: http://www.badscience.net/?p=362#more-362 - for a start, it cites further sources. -82.5.72.10 14:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could find out why from some of the discussion on this page:)Merkinsmum 20:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

And looking at Talk:Gillian McKeith/Archive 6#Goldacre blog vs. Guardian. --Merzul 22:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)