Talk:Gillian McKeith/Archive 9

Legal action

In the light of the above debate, I propose to restore the "legal action" section, using new reference URLs and the wording:

McKeith took legal action against The Sun over comments made about her in 2004, as well as blogger PhDiva and website Eclectech for making an animation mocking her appearance on the The X Factor. Her lawyers have also complained about alleged "damage to their client's reputation and professional standing", to the search engine Google, who subsequently removed a web page about her from their listings; . The search result concerned is not removed from google.com .

Unless anyone has a good reason I should not; or wishes to propose an alternative acceptable to all. Andy Mabbett 08:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The point of sourcing at wikipedia is for credibility for a claim and a source of further information for the article so it needs to be published and reliable for the claim it is supporting. A book that can be found in the library or a website page that is stable enough that it is archived or stays unchanged is considered published in the sense that it can be viewed by many people at any time and each will see pretty much the same thing. Specifying which edition for books and the date the on-line source was accessed helps guard against variation. Web contents that are generated on the fly such as a google search are not like this. There is no expectation for a google web search to be stable. It is supposed to change over time. It is not a "published reliable source" in the sense that wikipedia needs it to be. Your personal observation of what you see when you look at it becomes "original research" as that phrase is used in Wikipedia. While blogs are generally not reliable, one could be used as a source for the message at the bottom that appears in the UK google search but not the COM google search - but we use reliable sources to also help us decide what is notable enough and what is not notable enough in cases like this to avoid undue weight. Undue weight is an editorial decision. Original research is encouraged in helping to make editorial decisions. So the question becomes why is this message at the bottom of a UK google search worth bringing up in an encyclopedia? Who thinks it is a notable fact about Gillian? What role does it play on the story of Gillian? Everyone in the media protects their image with lawsuits. Everyone who is anyone in the media is partnered up with larger interests that share in the commercialization of their public image, so much so that a TV network can sue to protect the image of a star they have sighed up and Recording Industry companies sue music downloaders without even the knowledge of the music artist or the TV star involved. We lack evidence of even Gillian's knowledge of the specifics of the Google thing. WAS 4.250 11:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your claim Your personal observation of what you see when you look at it becomes "original research" as that phrase is used in Wikipedia. is, I believe, fallacious. Andy Mabbett 11:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It is also a total corruption of the original purpose and intent of the principle of OR which in Jimbo's words "orginated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks" - It's not about censoring verifiable and clearly observable facts. Jooler 08:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

While it is common for public figures to protect their image it is not common to see disclaimers about removed links at the bottom of Google searches. Ergo, this does seem like an unusual legal action. The argument about Google searches not being stable is 'accurate', but... a legal disclaimer at the bottom of the page isn't the same thing as changeable 'search results'... and the actual 'substance' of the issue is housed on Chilling Effects, which is certainly stable.

Let's put it this way. Can everyone agree that the link from Google searches of 'Gillian McKeith' (and the like) establishes that the letter on Chilling Effects was from McKeith's lawyer(s)? If so, then it would seem that we have a reliable source, The Guardian, citing the existence of the complaint and a reliable source, Chilling Effects, providing the text of the complaint. Does that not establish that this is 'notable'? The only thing Google is 'contributing' here is verification that they received the letter shown on Chilling Effects... which is something that they are certainly a 'reliable source' for - and which Chilling Effects would have verified before hosting the letter. --CBD 11:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Who thinks it is a notable fact about Gillian? What role does it play on the story of Gillian? Everyone in the media protects their image with lawsuits.

Some more than others. Unusual legal pickiness is notable (for instance, the Samuel Beckett estate [2]).

As the original research thing, I think it's a trivial jump of logic that hardly counts as OR. But it may well be that the Guardian, being well-vetted legally, deliberately chose to be inexplicit - proving enough detail for anyone in the know to work out what site was being referred to, but without compounding any possible defamation by giving explicit details of where the allegedly defamatory material was hosted. I'd say report it exactly as the Guardian did. Tearlach 11:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian, Goldacre, Google.co.uk and teh lawyers are al in the UK. Wikipedia is not. Andy Mabbett 11:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Libel laws in teh UK are far more uptight. If the Guardian can say it in the UK, we can certainly say it here.Merkinsmum 15:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Grauniad did not say it, that's the point. They nearly, but not quite, said it. DanBeale 16:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a notable fact that she tries to intimidate people, so I dropped the 'blogger called' PhDiva an email, and she replied with a copy of the letter from McKeith's lawyer. Saying blogger makes it sound like someone sitting in their pyjamas with nothing better to do. In fact the 'blogger' is a British academic called Dr. Dorothy King, who has her own Wiki entry and whose research has included epidemiology ... Sorry, but that trumps McKeith's qualifications ... 86.160.14.189 (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

and threats against

I'm getting confused by some of the editing. Earlier some editors were saying that we could not say "legal action", now some editors are saying that we can only have "legal action" and a reverting "legal action and threats againts critics" heading.

So, what's a good compromise? Does a lawyers letter count as legal action? DanBeale 13:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

On this page you can only have what SlimVirgin thinks is right. Jooler 22:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The source is quite clear that she has mainly issued legal threats, not started legal action (which has a very clear meaning involving actually starting court proceedings). She's only taken actual legal action against The Sun newspaper. Therefore it's quite wrong to have this under "legal action" - and very much against BLP. I'd expect this to be changed ASAP. On the other hand, "legal action and threats against critics" doesn't make it clear that the threats are legal in nature(!), "legal action" standing alone somewhat. "Legal threats and action" sounds overly wordy but meets BLP. I don't think there's any need to mention critics in the heading. Hypnotist uk 17:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My main objections are to the use of "threats" without making it clear that they are legal threats, and to the word "critics". Even though the context might make it obvious that the threats are legal, the word "threats" suggests something intimidating and menacing. Also "critics" suggests that she threatens or sues people just for criticising her, which could make her sound unreasonable or touchy. (Please, no discussion about whether that's just or not. We're trying to find a neutral wording.) It's likely that the people she has sent legal letters to had done more than just criticise her. If "critics" is left out, then people are more likely process the word "threats" by linking it back to "legal" rather than forward to "critics". ElinorD (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and updated this - as I said, I don't think "Legal action" by itself can stand, and my change seems to address the concerns noted. It could well be refined if someone can come up with a nicer way to put it (that nevertheless covers both the unactioned threats, and the action). Hypnotist uk 18:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm contributing correctly, but I'm the blogger her lawyer threatened to sue - but did not. I find it annoying that someone keeps writing that I made claims about nutritionists, when I did not ... my post also clearly had nothing to do with McKeith, and described what another nutritionist told me. Her lawyer threatens people, and they cave, even without a legal case. He sends them out en masse - mine started "Dear Sir" even though I'm clearly a woman, and my name was at the top of the page. So yes, the letters are aimed at anyone who 'criticises' not just her but ANY nutritionist.Dorothy King 20:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote from the Independent

I've added a small quote from the Independent in the intro as it both a direct quote and covers the wording it replaced. For those who can't see, the quote has a reference and does not voilate the WP:BLP rules!  BRIANTIST  (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's negative, controversial, about a living person, and is presented out of context, in such a way as to give an impression that Wikipedia is stating this (rather than in the context of a section that quotes what some people say in favour of her and against her), then it does violate WP:BLP. ElinorD (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

How about posting your logic rather than just reverting?  BRIANTIST  (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was doing when you made your post. As you can see, mine was considerably longer and therefore took more time to write. ElinorD (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(Merged sections after edit conflict) ElinorD (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The article had this section in the lead:

"Critics of McKeith contend that her methods are unscientific; some consider her advice potentially dangerous."

Briantist changed it to the following:

"Dr" Gillian McKeith bullies overeaters mercilessly on screen while cloaking her advice in a veil of questionable science; some consider her advice potentially dangerous.

It sticks out badly there. There's no preparation, no introductory clause saying who said it. (Admittedly there's a footnote for the source, but to quote that without saying who said it looks very much as if we're endorsing it.) It's also stylistically poor, as the two halves of the sentence, separated by the semicolon, don't balance each other properly.

The piece in The Independent is not attributed to anyone, as far as I can see. It's not actually about McKeith at all; it just mentions her en passant. I wouldn't object to having that quotation used later in the article, if (and only if) there is a need for more criticism quotations to provide balance. But ideally it would be presented in context, in a section dealing with criticism from reputable sources. (I accept The Independent as reputable, by the way, but do not consider that an article about obesity, by an unnamed journalist, which makes one brief attack on McKeith, is one that we should necessarily use; certainly we should not use it in the lead, out of context, and without prefixing it with who said it.)

Basically, I feel that this smacks of trying to find quotations that disparage McKeith and to stick them in at any opportunity, regardless of relevance, regardless of context, and regardless of style. ElinorD (talk) 08:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way, I simply thought that the "veil of questionable science" was a better way of phrasing it, and by including it as a direct quotation it meets the WP:BLP rules. It's not an attempt to "disparage", but to improve!

If I wasn't assuming good faith, it might seem to me that you will do anything to defend this person, which isn't NPOV  BRIANTIST  (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There would be no need to feel that, as I am not going to great lengths to get hold of any quotation I can find that praises her and to stick it in anywhere it will go. ElinorD (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hay, how about having a discussion before removing it?  BRIANTIST  (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought that posting my objections at length on this talk page meant that I was having a discussion. ElinorD (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh right, I see that you're a Wikipedia bully who simply want their way without discussion. I see you're ignoring the rules. Sad!  BRIANTIST  (talk) 08:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

McKeith should not be defended, and deserves all the criticism she gets. That said, the quote is out of place and needs to be included in another place in a better manner. Context is everything. There is no real BLP problem, it's the presentation that's problematic. You don't have a consensus here to include it in that manner, so please find a better place and manner to do it. Reverting. -- Fyslee/talk 08:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just used the four words "veil of questionable science". Is this OK?  BRIANTIST  (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine. The other quote can still be used somewhere else. -- Fyslee/talk 08:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. What "other quote"?  BRIANTIST  (talk) 08:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. That was unclear. I meant the other words in the quote: "Dr" Gillian McKeith bullies overeaters mercilessly on screen...." -- Fyslee/talk 08:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the original version was better. There are lots of critics who say that her methods are unscientific. There is one, unnamed journalist who has used the exact phrase "veil of questionable science". So it's not accurate to say that "critics" contend that her methods "have a veil of questionable science", no matter how much you may like the quotation. Anyway, as I said, I wouldn't object to that quotation being used properly, in context, if there is a need for it to provide balance. If it is appropriate anywhere, it would be in a section dealing with criticism. But I do have doubts as to whether we need another anti-McKeith quotation, when it's by an unnamed journalist, whose expertise in science is unknown, and who is not writing an article about McKeith, but is just briefly attacking her in the context of another subject — that of obesity. ElinorD (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, a direct quoation from a mainstream national newspaper is always going score better Wikipedia points that an user's opinion.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The quotation came from an article that was not attributed to anybody, and that was not about McKeith. I'm sorry, Brian, but it really does give the impression of wanting to put in any newspaper quote that can be found, as long as it disparages her. ElinorD (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the quote mentions this woman by name, it's a direct quote and it's from a reliabl source. Please stop adding your own rules.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

On the same general issue — that of people apparently trying to find any negative quotation they can get hold of and insert it into the article, I very much question the need to have four footnotes for this phrase:

She has been censured twice by the Advertising Standards Authority, most recently to prevent her from using the title Dr. on her products.

The newest extra reference, added by Briantist today was not about McKeith at all, much less about the Advertising Standards Authority's ruling. It was a piece about Britney Spears, and just made a passing sneer at Gillian McKeith, with reference to Goldacre's dead cat. It wasn't even reliable. The cat didn't get a doctorate. According to Goldacre, she got membership of the American Association of Nutritional Consultants. That article from the mirror has nothing to add except a sneer and a piece of inaccurate information. ElinorD (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

But you did! My reverts are OK as they are fixing yours!  BRIANTIST  (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"Sneer"? That's not NPOV!!!  BRIANTIST  (talk) 09:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I see you have reveted again. Why is this, we have agreed here that it is OK. It doesn't voilate the rules. Stop reverting please!  BRIANTIST  (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You have made four reverts within the space of one hour and one minute. You know from before that partial reverts count. Please self revert immediately. I do not intend to violate the rule myself. ElinorD (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

The page uses an INFOBOX Actor... is this correct?  BRIANTIST  (talk) 08:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever works. She's an "actor" in her own show.....;-) If you have a better info box, please suggest it here. -- Fyslee/talk 08:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

He he... {{infobox|fraud}} or {{infobox|quack}}  ???  BRIANTIST  (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the biography of living persons policy apply to talk pages as well? ElinorD (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. If the proposed info boxes don't exist, then the joke may be in bad taste, but hardly actionable. It shouldn't be hard to find V & RS that apply both terms to her. -- Fyslee/talk 11:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the actor infobox originally, but following that I changed it to a journalist infobox, which is what I thought was more suitable to the article. However, my edits got reverted for some reason. The journalist infobox maybe as suitable but provides the same information, the only difference being that the journalist infobox is orange and the actor infobox is light blue. Eagle Owl 19:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the name of the infobox is; the only thing that matters is the content and appearance of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Nutritionist

I don't think we can call her a nutritionist; she has no qualifications in the area. Perhaps "self-styled nutritionist" or "self-taught nutritionist"? --Guinnog 17:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost tempted to treat it like we treat David Irving; last time I looked the consensus was not to call him a "historian" for similar reasons.--Guinnog 18:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If no-one objects, I will remove "nutritionist". A reliable source indicating she is regarded as a nutritionist by any serious authority would be required; until then we should just call her a TV presenter and author, both of which are verifiable.--Guinnog 17:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I object. A person doesn't need a "serious authority" to call them a nutritionist. It's quite legal, and many people do it. I, DanBeale, am a nutritionist. Dan Beale 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In the UK anyone can call themselves a nutritionist, with no qualifications or knowledge. Perhaps some distinction could be made between "nutritionist" (a person doesn't need any qualifications or registration to be a nutritionist) and "dietician" (a person needs to be qualified and registered to call themselves a dietician) could be made. But she refers to herself as a nutritionist, as do many of the sources used in this article, so it's daft to say that she isn't. Especially, as I say, any duffer can call themselves a nutritionist. Dan Beale 18:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I take your point. I just thought that saying "self-styled nutritionist" would look unencyclopedic. If anyone can find evidence that anyone other than her considers her as such, we can readd the description. --Guinnog 18:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

She can legally call herself a nutritionist in the UK, although it's illegal for her to use her degree in many US states such as Texas Dorothy King 20:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We've discussed this before, and it will be in the archives. She earns money by advising people about nutrition. Therefore, she is a nutritionist. It's not a regulated profession in the UK (unlike dietician). And in any case, for most professions, you don't need a qualification in order to call yourself something. You just need to be doing the thing. If a school employs you as an English teacher, even though you don't have a degree in English, then you're an English teacher. ElinorD (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I accept your logic though that is a very bad comparison; teachers in the UK are a regulated profession unlike, as you say, nutritionists. --Guinnog 21:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What was the matter with non-clinical nutritionist?  BRIANTIST  (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

For wikipedia: Not one of our sources calls here a "non-clinical nutritionist", most of them refer to her as a "nutritionist". Calling her "non clinical" is POV and OR. There's a good reason why no-one calls her a non-clinical nutritionist. There's no such thing as a "clinical nutritionist" - that would be a dietician. Anyone who isn't a dietician but who is giving nutritional advice (no matter how flawed that advice is) is a nutritionist. Anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. You don't need to know anything about food or nutrition to be able to do so. Dan Beale 10:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely with DanBeale. ElinorD (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

McKeith is not a registered nutritionist (RNutr). This is the major distinction between persons professing to be a nutritionist and those who have provided evidence of their ongoing proficiency and competence. Unlike 'dietician' the term 'nutrtionist' is not currently protected by law, but nutritionists can apply for voluntary registration with the Nutrition Society in Britain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.205.224.155 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 19 June 2007.

• (comment moved to help discussion) This is a good point. Perhaps the nutritioninst page could be tweaked to include stuff about the difference between registered and non-registered nutritionists. It's certainly worth mentioning that McKeith is an unregistered nutritionist. Dan Beale 14:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Legal action

What is our source for the legal action section? We link to an article that seems not to mention it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's in the reference, about a third of the way down, and it starts "But those who criticise McKeith have reason to worry." HTH. --Guinnog 23:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Guinnog; for some reason when I did a search for the keywords, none of them came up. Maybe I was looking at the wrong article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-clinical

There isn't a single hit for "non-clinical nutritionist" on Google. [3] Let's not start making up terms for her. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And, indeed, many hits for "clinical nutritionist" are for people also involved in homeopathy and other pseudo-scientific 'stuff'. Dan Beale 22:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. ElinorD (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to make it really clear: I do not support use of "non clinical". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanBeale (talk • contribs) 16:02, 31 May 2007.

Who does not?  BRIANTIST  (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That statement came from DanBeale. I have added the {{unsigned}} template, but it would have been quite easy to find out by looking in the history of this page. ElinorD (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Also "non clinical" results in 1,140,000 hits on Google.  BRIANTIST  (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And There are 249,000 for "non clinical" +nutritionist... Looks like SlimVirgin can't use Google! LOL  BRIANTIST  (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Briantist, you seem to misunderstand how to use a search engine. Getting results that tell you that "Smith is a non-clinical lecturer" and "Jones is a nutritionist" does not mean that "non-clinical nutritionist" is a title in current usage. ElinorD (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Briantist, you should look at the type of people calling themselves "clinical nutritionist" - exactly the same type of person as McKeith. A Google search for "non clinical nutritionist" returns zero hits. Dan Beale 18:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Briantist, inventing new titles for people violates WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:BLP. Google has zero (0) hits for "non-clinical nutritionist". Also, if you follow the wikilink for nutritionist, you will note that there is no requirement for any schooling. Crum375 17:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The woman may be a fraud [4], but she is certainly a nutritionist, and is in good company. --Coroebus 17:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. ElinorD (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm puzzled by Briantist's edit summary, where he reinserts "non-clinical" before "nutritionist", saying that he is adding "non-clinical" "as per the agreed comments". That phrase had been removed by three different editors (four by now!), had not been added by anyone other than Briantist, and had been out of the article for two days. At the time that Briantist said that he was restoring it "as per the agreed comments", this page had also not been edited for two days, and the state of this page showed three editors objecting to his addition. Where are "the agreed comments"?. ElinorD (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Briantist - your actions are disruptive. McKeith offers individuals "consultations" - thus she's "clinical". "Clinical" does not mean "medical". A "medical nutritionist" is a dietician, and we're not calling her a dietician. I remind you to re-read BLP and 3RR. Especially this bit: Revert warring is disruptive, and the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day. Dan Beale 10:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

She certainly isn't a dietitian - in the UK that's a controlled term & she doesn't hold the appropriate (to put it mildly) qualifications... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.224.78 (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I think most people agree. She has no relevant qualifications or registration to be called a dietician. We're now stuck with the terms "clinical nutritionist". The problem is that some nutritionists study, register, and do important sensible work, and others are snake oil bunkum peddlars. Many people calling themselves "clinical nutritionists" have no real qualifications, and are at the less medical end of the scale. It seems they use "clinical" to mean that they see and "treat" individuals. Thus, using the term "clinical nutritionist" is just using a term they apply to themselves, and should not be seen as endorsing their abilities as nutritionists. Perhpas this is somehting to be mentioned here, and on the nutritionist and dietician pages? Dan Beale-Cocks 23:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ElinorD and DanBeale. Briantist, I count at least six people who object to the term "non-clinical nutritionist". Please start listening to other editors, your revert warring is disruptive. Sideshow Bob Roberts 12:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's important to note that she does see clients, and thus she _is_ a 'clinical' nutritionist. Dan Beale 13:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is appropriate to describe McKeith as a nutritionist, given what the wiki entry on "nutritionist" actually says. It doesn't help to describe her as "non-Clinical". I oppose the description of "clinical nutritionist". The word "clinical" does not mean "sees clients in a clinic". It carries, instead, implications of relating to medical treatment. McKeith is not a doctor and is not qualified to give medical treatment. To describe her as "clinical" has the effect of unreasonably boosting her status. --Dannyno 20:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

and another thing. if it is important to emphasise at the head of the article that people pay McKeith money for her opinions, then simply say that she runs a business that offers people advice on what they should eat. Don't call her "clinical", as though that meant anything. Lawyers see clients, but there aren't any "clinical lawyers". --Dannyno 20:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, sorry. Just to say that I find there *are* "clinical lawyers", but they specialise in medical law. So that's not the analogy we want. I'll stop now. --Dannyno 21:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't think anyone wants to call her a clinical nutritionist. People are arguing that we shouldn't use the term "non clinical" because it doesn't apply. By the way, the term "clinical nutritionist" *does* mean "a nutritionist who sees clients". Other nutritionists work with food companies or write books/articles or do "research" (scare quotes intentional). It carries, instead, implications of relating to medical treatment. - and this is probably why so many nutritionists use the term, because they know the public don't know how the industry works. Dan Beale 23:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

GA-Class

This fits all the criteria. It's well written with good prose, contains excellent sourcing and covers all the information one would expect to see in the article. Meets the Criteria of WP:GA, so there you have it. Cheers, Lanky ^TAL_K 17:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

X Factor contestant?

The article is included in a category of "X Factor contestants", but the article's text contains no mention of McKeith ever taking part in such a show. Is it an error? --84.66.78.105 11:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)–

She sang the "Shoop Shoop Song" in a celebrity version once, though I'm not sure that's particularly noteworthy. StripeyBadger 12:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

see article here: [5] --Dannyno 12:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Snake oil salesman

Is there such a category this can be added to?  :-) 86.17.211.191 15:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Eclectech

Anyone know any more about the status of this case? Thanks brob (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (Pass)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. I would like to note, however, that this article paints a very negative portrait of the individual, and does not come off as very neutral. While I made some changes to improve neutrality (took out some of the more implicative categories, added mention of her award in the lead) so that it could remain a GA, I think that work could be done to make the article more balanced. Cheers, CP 18:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how you could have an accurate article about Gillian McKeith that didn't paint a very negative portrait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.136.106.126 (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been *huge* amount of bias and spleen here over TV entertainment series by a person with excellent credentials in international relations and marketing exploring the soft underbelly of nutrition. Not that I've seen much expertise here either.--I'clast (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I've opened a discussion on this article at the new NPOV notice board. Editors may like to comment there. Dan Beale-Cocks 19:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

After comparing this article with that of a far worse example personality, a convicted British GP, I find this article an adversarial advert, starting with the Lede. Trimming, moving adversarial advert details, clarifying the lede more toward a topical, less obscure, bio. As for stool checks, well, somebody probably should give a s- check occasionally e.g. malabsorption cases where combined achlorhydria, pancreatic insufficiency and low bile output might go medically unnoticed, dismissed as head problems or subclinical for far too long, in a surprising number of cases to the nutritionally untrained, unaware or "skeptical", say after unannounced population trials of the latest P450 eliminator, er, new drug before a total recall.--I'clast (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you trying to suggest that McKeith's poo claims are not complete nonsense? Good luck finding a reliable source to support that. Have you actually seen You Are What You Eat? Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the show is written and produced as dramatic entertainment for a modern post-industrial (technically illiterate) audience as well as a particular point of view on nutrition. However reversion to judgmental even prejudicial, non-encyclopedic language and phrasing isn't going to digest too well. As for diagnostics, scat is still quickly qualitatively indicative of many digestive problems that have a scientific basis even though an organoleptic exam certainly isn't a CDSA lab exam. Tongues? Many doctors, the first thing they wanted to see was the tongue. Tell you what, I've made a few improvements per your suggestions, why don't you take it slow and easy, try to address one change at a time, and I'll try to explain a different V, NPOV, and science perspective for you this week. Finally, this is Gillian McKeith's biography, not Ben and Garrow's icy esteem or their free promo by WP - I left sufficient, less redundant reference and text to cover their qualifications.--I'clast (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The reference URL on Garrow linked was missing and the Healthwatch site appears to be a very partisan site with some seriously POV personnel, including a notorious member that wrote a scandalous obit & personnel attack for BMJ on the founder-editor of the medical journal, Medical Hypotheses that ignited a firestorm, generated official complaints, and still got a less than contrite apology from the obit writer, a "Healthwatcher" (vulture?). HW appears to be of the same questionable technical reliability as QW, not a WP reliable technical/factual source.--I'clast (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove hyperbolic partisan statement. Although it is fair to criticize specific statements, the sweepingly general dismissal, "...diametrically opposed..." that is not true is not satisfactory. Nutrition Australia seems to be a partisan organization where this technically false statement I am pretty sure would be a basis for lawsuit where I live. (We have licensed, degreed naturopathic physicians, although I haven't utilized their services, I am familiar with their educational literature that cites previous peer reviewed science & medical literature.)--I'clast (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem with McKeith - she has no relevant qualifications, she is not registered or licenced. *anyone* in the UK can call themselves a nutritionist and offer advice. Her 'advice' appears to be looking at poo (not any other tests on it) and telling people that they need more fibre, and selling a range of branded foods. Dan Beale-Cocks 17:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's my point. A generalized statement that all her statements are opposed to scientific nutrition is false. Looking at the internet, I can identify statements from her that have a technical basis. The pieces that I've looked at appear to be somewhat a do-it-yourself adaptation of the licensed naturopaths literature, including peer reviewed refs, and GM took an abbreviated course at a naturopathic college. Not only is the Nutr Aus statement technically invalid, it certainly faces a high requirement of evidence for BLP where this is more a replay of the old conservative dietician attacks on naturopaths and other nutritionists. The conservative dieticians have been repeatedly shown to be 10-20 years late to the dance when the US FDA has whistled them out on "scientific nutrition" for public policy changes that seriously affect lives e.g. folic acid for birth defects.--I'clast (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi I'clast, I'm puzzled by your recent edits and your comments here. A few points:

1. (a)I'm not sure what you mean by "reversion to judgmental even prejudicial, non-encyclopedic language and phrasing". (b) Do you honestly think that "McKeith argues that organoleptic examination of faeces can give clues to bodily misfunction" is better than "McKeith argues that examining and smelling faeces can give clues to bodily misfunction"? (c) And that "she makes statements [...] about the utility of lingual and faecal examination" is better than "she claims [...] that she can diagnose ailments by examining people's tongues and stools"? (d) How many of our readers do you think will understand the word organoleptic?
2. I don't understand why you deleted Catherine Collins' statement that "it is impossible to diagnose medical conditions from looking at a normal brown stool"[6] Your edit summary wasn't helpful: how on earth was this statement "tautological"?! From what I understand, everyone (and I mean everyone) with a basic understanding of modern medicine thinks that McKeith's claims about smelling poo are complete rubbish. If you can find a reliable source who disagrees on this, I'd be very interested to read it. But you have no right to delete statements from experts just because you disagree with them.
3. What on earth is this edit about? Even if the reference did in some way support McKeith's claims about poo (and it doesn't), patents are not reliable sources because any nutter can write one. If you want to argue that McKeith's poo claims are solid, find a reliable source who says so.
4. I'm having trouble following your logic in many places. If I understand correctly, you removed the mention of John Garrow from the lead section because someone from HealthWatch once wrote an offensive obituary in the BMJ? Garrow's academic credentials are excellent, and he's eminently qualified to comment on McKeith's claims. If you don't think he's a reliable source, you're going to have to come up with a better reason than "someone he knows once wrote something offensive". (From http://www.healthwatch-uk.org/committee.htm:Professor John Garrow, MD, PhD (St Andrews), FRCP(Ed), FRCP(Lond): Chairman HealthWatch 1991-93, 1997-1999, 2003-2005. Editor: European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1988-1999. Formerly Professor of Human Nutrition, University of London, Hon consultant physician St Bartholomew's, St Mark's, Royal London & Northwick Park Hospitals; Head, Nutrition Research Unit MRC Clinical Research Centre, Harrow. Member of Dept of Health Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy (COMA), Chairman, Joint Advisory Committee on Nutrition Education. Chairman, Association for the Study of Obesity. Author: Obesity and Related Diseases (Churchill-Livingstone 1988) and over 200 peer-reviewed papers on human nutrition.)
5. What's the basis for your claim that "Nutrition Australia seems to be a partisan organization"? The fact that they have harshly criticised McKeith does not make them "partisan". (Unless by partisan you mean that they favour scientific evidence over complete rubbish...)
6. In your effort to discredit Nutrition Australia, you've blatantly misquoted them. They didn't say that "all her statements are opposed to scientific nutrition". They said her ideas are "a complex mixture of orthodox nutrition, misinterpretations of orthodox nutrition, new-age wishful thinking, Eastern (especially traditional Chinese) medicine and reflexology. Her teachings are generally diametrically opposed to those of current, science-based nutrition and she is not a reliable source of information on how diet can benefit health". You say "I am pretty sure would be a basis for lawsuit where I live". What do you mean? I see nothing defamatory there. If you don't think her teachings are "generally diametrically opposed to those of current, science-based nutrition", perhaps you can find a scientist who supports her? Or someone who thinks she's "a reliable source of information on how diet can benefit health"? I think the Nutrition Australia statement is a pretty fair summary of what most experts think.
7. The American Association of Nutritional Consultants is a joke, so it's misleading to mention McKeith's AANC qualification without noting that it's absolutely worthless. We've had long discussions about this (see the archives) and the consensus appears to be that we should include the fact that Ben Goldacre's dead cat is also a member of the AANC. If you disagree with this, please discuss it on the talk page instead of just deleting it without any discussion.
8. You claim in the article that the Advertising Standards Authority prevented her from using the title 'Doctor' on her products because she doesn't hold a "British accredited PhD". This suggests that McKeith's PhD is accredited, but not in Britain, which is untrue. She doesn't hold an accredited PhD from any country in the world. (Moreover, your edit suggests that McKeith would be allowed to use the title 'Doctor' in her advertising materials if her PhD were a "British accredited" one. Do you have a source to back this up? My understanding is that the ASA was concerned that her use of the title 'Doctor' would potentially mislead consumers because, PhD or not, she's just not qualified to give medical advice.)

Regards, Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite the dump there. I have skimmed the archives, and I see that a number of admins and other editors seem to agree with my positions. First, I think that the article is still very heavy with clearly partisan sources that are both criticism too narrowly sourced given their obvious bias and are in fact technically incorrect or highly distorted on a number of points with regard to the technical basis McKeith's positions. Finally I have not seen her show, nor do I think it especially important where I have largely AGF'd (eeeek!) the accuracy of the summaries about her TV shows here. I have relied on the internet and went and skimmed a copy of You are what you eat (2006) this evening. As I said before, her positions are largely recognizable as an abbreviated version of some form of nutritional naturopathy where there is a well known, long standing struggle between the ultraconservative sectors of dietitians and various observational and science based nutritionist camps with a different synthesis.

1. (a) The phrasing is POV and too defprecative in nature for even a regular article much less a BLP, similarly remarked on numerous times in the archives. (b) with better linking and/or refs, definitely yes. (c) yes, with a link & a click. (d) most with a link & a click. This is an area where dry, clinical presentation is both the favored format, and greatly aided by hot links. I am tired of the 5th grade bathroom smears (toilet humor) on serious altmed subjects with social sniggers and taboos using obsolescent, senescent and/or purely partisan POV.

2. Catherine Collins, a dietician, is not medically qualified much less a medical authority, so Collins' statement is not WP:RS on medical diagnostics. Also "to diagnose medical conditions" from "normal...." *is* tautological, medically diagnostic conditions tend to be abnormal. Further McKeith's book, You Are What You Eat^[7](2006), pp 44-48, cites stools that are not normal or brown. Further I found corroboration of a number of her (McKeith's) descriptions in Krause's Food & Nutrition Therapy ^[8] (2007/8) 12th ed including the malodorous parts.

3. gave a quick example of "organoleptic examination" since WP didn't have a handy article. Off-wiki, patents do contain reliable material, it tends to be in the backgrounder sections of industrial patentors rather than the patent claims part. The b/g is referenced, examined and is likely to get you tossed or delayed if you monkey with it, distorting b/g or leaving stuff out, they'll ask for more.

4. the URL ref was dead, the Garrow material largely redundant and "well poisoning" in nature and placement from what appears to be a very partisan site with lots of examples. More discussion later if necessary

5. This could use more discussion later, but it is pretty clear the most favorable description of Nutrition Australia's McKeith review would be "very conservative" dietetics with a political slant. They seem to be unaware of carbohydrate/insulin resistance issues - metabolic syndrome that affect huge fractions of the population in their review of McKeith[9] Their "8 glasses of water" was "6 - 8 glasses" in the priinting of the book I saw today. Their summary of conclusions on McKeith are overdrawn and/or overstated in a number of places, and it undercuts their credibility.

6. in technical regards, "general" means "all", the rest is padding.

7. I noticed in the archives a number of admins and editors agree with me that (1) this article is already overlengthy and dependent with respect to a partisan Goldacre, (2) that the Henrietta story is redundant and already linked, (3) that deprecation of membership controls of AANC resides with the AANC article not GM, (4) strictly speaking it is OR that largely unmonitored membership in professional societies automatically means something negative about the member e.g. I am aware of professional societies, with powerful members, with tens of millions $ in annual dues, and members with many college degrees from prestiguous, top X and XX, colleges with bachelors, masters and PhD, that impact a significant chunk of the world economy and yet I am sure "Henrietta" with a draft could get memberships there too with little challenge.

8. You have a lot of OR and speculation there. Pls feel free to improve the NPOV, BLP wording of the sentence. I think part of the problem here is that Clayton has gotten some kinds of minor accreditation of unknown effect (probably not 20 years) and since this is a hot BLP, the general "not accredited" needs to be checked for currency and accuracy.--I'clast (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I give up. With all due respect, I'm having serious problems following your reasoning. In most cases, you've responded with off-topic rants instead of addressing my concerns. Most of the time, I have no idea what you're talking about. (What does "8 glasses of water" have to do with anything? What "5th grade bathroom smears" are you talking about?) To be frank, I think most people who read this article will have just as much trouble understanding what you're banging on about. "Organoleptic examination" is not particularly NPOV or encyclopedic: it's just bad communication. And it's bizarre for you to suggest that readers will be able to understand it "with a link & a click" when you haven't provided a link that explains what you're talking about.^{Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)}

"5th grade smears" refers to all the emphasis on distortion and potty language/attacks here. You may not be familiar with other altmed etc biographies where anything referring to excretion, process or organs were long used to unfairly and unscientifically deride a person or their work. Since McKeith has been criticized in the sources here about "8 glasses" of water daily, I am merely pointing out her critics may be one sided in presentation, or not be current/complete, since her book presented a wider, more typical range, 6-8 glasses of water. The "link and the click" simply means we can work on easy to use references or Wikilinks for verbally challenged readers. --I'clast (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad communication? Organoleptic is much more a correct technical term and representation where more senses than smell are used, such as sight, as referred to in the person's *cited*, written material. When you (or her critics) quote her TV show as a position, WP:RS and VP:V would be to cite the specific show and text, although any written quote alone is likely out of context as transcripts alone of TV performances are unlikely to reflect either other communication or physical acts e.g. seeing, etc. as well as olfactory examination, or as full (and as carefully considered) a statement as the author's published writings. I have added (sensory)[10] to aid the reader.--I'clast (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Your claim that I "have a lot of OR and speculation" is laughable. You're the person making a claim in the article, without citing a source that explicitly backs it up. I'm questioning your claim. It's up to you to cite a reliable source that says the ASA didn't want McKeith to call herself a doctor because "she does not hold a British accredited PhD". All I'm saying is that, if you can't cite a source that specifically says that that was the ASA's concern, we shouldn't say it in the article. I've never suggested adding anything to the article that wasn't explicitly supported by a reliable source, so I don't see how you can possibly accuse me of original research.^{Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)}

Since British could be construed as my OR, I started to delete "British". Then for BLP I realized a current citation was really needed. OR? She doesn't hold an accredited PhD from any country in the world. is stated as OR, especially since Clayton claims some kind of minor league accreditation now (years covered?). Strictly speaking, you *infer* (and I would tend to agree to high likelihood) that she only holds that one PhD and that *no one* in the world (possibly) accredits it. That's OR, too. "She doesn't hold a US DoEd accredited PhD." ((cite)) could be a citable, WP:RS & V statement. Partisan Goldacre's version is actually ambiguous on the specifics, not good for BLP, V, RS either.--I'clast (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's very interesting that you label people like Ben Goldacre, John Garrow and Catherine Cookson "ultraconservative". I doubt you'll find a single scientist (or, indeed, anyone with even a basic understanding of medicine) who agrees with this characterisation. It's clear that "partisan" and "very conservative" are just names you use to discredit anyone who thinks nutritional advice should be based on evidence instead of make-believe. If Nutrition Australia is in fact "partisan" and "very conservative", it should be easy enough for you to find an Australian scientist who says so.^{Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)}

In most of the former empire, AFAIK the naturopaths are largely unsupported (no accredited schools or research centers) or even suppressed (looks like they are harassed with ridicule to me, here ast WP & there) since they are a recently re-emergent licensed & accredited profession in the US. While GM is not a licensed or accredited naturopathic physcian, her writings appear largely in the naturopathic nutrition area much as Clayton Naturopathic College was previously a "holistic" college. "Conservative" helps establish their relative positions. In the US the dietitians seem to have a conservative paid (ahem) leadership with a lot of RDs chaffing to use clearly reasonable science and clinical advances, without hostile criticism, to help their clients in specific cases, and to better compete with nutritionists and NDs. There is no limit to Australia, or even RDs, that Nutrition Australia's (specific) article is conservative relative to other nutritionally oriented groups in the WP article and, here, at Talk, it can be my observation.

names you...discredit...[not]based on evidence instead of make-believe Erroneous OR - there are huge professional & scientific controversies about the nature of evidence, the levels (and agreement) required for different levels of action or recommendation with real time suffering; that assertion even has a denialist sound to it.--I'clast (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I also find it strange that you admit to not having seen You Are What You Eat, but you accuse Catherine Cookson of misrepresenting McKeith's poo claims. I've seen the program and I don't think Cookson's comments about "diagnosing medical conditions from looking at a normal brown stool" are tautological or irrelevant.^{Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)}

The quote here fails WP:RS, WP:BLP and probably NPOV, as discussed.--I'clast (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't know what you mean when you say Cookson's not "medically qualified". She's chief dietician at St George's Hospital, London, and a spokeswoman for the British Dietetics Association. Unlike quack nutritionist organisations, these bodies actually require significant knowledge about medical evidence. I appreciate that you disagree with Collins' opinions about McKeith, but that's not a valid reason to delete her comments from the article. As I've repeatedly said, if you can find a reliable source who thinks you can diagnose common medical ailments by smelling people's faeces, feel free to quote it. It's a very simple thing to do: just point to an abstract on Medline that says smelling faeces is a useful diagnostic technique. If you can't do this, it's pretty clear that there's no evidence whatsoever that what you're saying is true. That patent you're quoting is, frankly, pathetic.^{Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)}

Quoting a (partisan) dietitian on an authoritative medical opinion is not WP:RS, or NPOV, especially when I've referred you to a mainstream reference, Krause's. McKieth's position or qualifications to the RS problem are irrelevant, Cookson is not a medical doctor/authority. Now an organoleptic (sensory) examination may not be diagnostically definitive but one long known to be medically indicative for suspicion of much narrowed, related probabilities where in fact further diagnosis could be lab, if available, or by therapeutic trial. This article is allowing the typical "skeptic's" attack of gross distortion by multiply twisted parts & meanings with legally postured positions (i.e. not easily sued or jailed or "oh, you misunderstood my obscure/distorted meanings"), violations of WP:V (fact checking), NPOV and BLP.

Also who thinks you can diagnose common medical ailments... is both a loaded statement and misrepresents the proper burdens on McKieth (e.g. stated as medical diagnosis rising to a clinical medical level vs medically subclinical nutritional issues based on long medically known observations such as organoleptic (sensory) properties ).--I'clast (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you've ignored virtually all the concerns I've raised so far, I don't think there's much point in the two of us continuing to discuss this. At this stage, I'd appreciate if a few more editors would weigh in here. Do people agree that "McKeith argues that organoleptic examination of faeces can give clues to bodily misfunction" is better than "McKeith argues that examining and smelling faeces can give clues to bodily misfunction"?^{Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)}

Your edits seem to reluctant to tighten up NPOV and BLP, fail to understand anything including discussion referring directly to a *current* dietetic reference, Krause's (2007/8). Further her 2006 edition book, pp 44-48, as I said earlier, discusses properties more than just odor, such as texture and color, which I assume she also had the advantage of on her TV show (unless blindfolded?), properties discussed as indicative in medical books starting with at least William Osler's Principles and Practice of Medicine (I checked, a 1978 reprint) and a major, recognized, nutrition reference, Krause's.

Since you've ignored virtually all the concerns... Hardly, I addressed far more in one response here than I think most people care to handle. Frankly some of your responses don't seem too accurate or NPOV informing either.--I'clast (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any evidence that John Garrow is not a reliable source?^{Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)}

The removed portion did not address Garrow's qualifications. (1) It addresses the BLP requirement, BLP, Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, of a reference for such criticism, a simliar link which may be returned if someone knows what they are looking for or a better citation is used, and (2) that the amount of Garrow material here much longer than usual, say 0.5-2 sentences, for announcing a critic, a summary point of their criticism and 1-2 references in an article. Goldacre is worth slightly more space.--I'clast (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Do people agree that "generally" means the same as "all"?^{Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)}

"Generally" meaning "all" is a common meaning in law and science, and in that sentence's usage, the preferred construction.--I'clast (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if a few more editors would weigh in here.

• Do people agree that "McKeith argues that organoleptic examination of faeces can give clues to bodily misfunction" is better than "McKeith argues that examining and smelling faeces can give clues to bodily misfunction"?^{Dan Beale-Cocks 19:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)}

See this aid to reading for organoleptic, (sensory), in the main article[11], previous discussion[12]. With her *writing* directly referenced pp 44-48, the single sensory emphasis is POV, misrepresentatively misleading and a BLP violation.^{--I'clast (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)}

No - oganoleptic sounds like she a)knows what she's doing and b)is doing something more than taking a cursory look at a tub of poo.^{Dan Beale-Cocks 19:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)}

• Does anyone have any evidence that John Garrow is not a reliable source?^{Dan Beale-Cocks 19:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)}

See note, above[13], ^{--I'clast (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)}

No Dan Beale-Cocks 19:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If "organoleptic" is the technical term for "sensory examination", surely that's the term that should be used? Even if you don't think she's doing it very well, that's what she's doing. Petitphoque (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No. According to dictionary.com, Organoleptic means:

1. perceived by a sense organ.
2. capable of detecting a sensory stimulus.

In other words, it means she looks at it and smells it. Using a word most people won't understand adds nothing, makes the article less comprehensible, and is typical of pseudoscientific attempts to sound clever by using long words. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 10:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The added word, "sensory", is an adequate c(l)ue word for less adept readers. "organoleptic" is a more complete, accurate and literate summary of the pages previously WP:V, RS cited in her recent book. Uncited, pointed personal statements about some random TV showing, of unknown date or checkable text, fail WP:V, RS, as well as, typically, OR and BLP. A possible alternative description, "scatalogical examination", that in various forms dates back centuries if not millenia, would be more ambiguous on the method and redundant on the substrate. Also previously cited were major conventional medical and nutrition references, above, spanning the 20th century on the technical subject. So "pseudoscience" 'tudes sound more like personal prejudices and technical illiteracy, irrespective of some entertainment venue's limitations.--I'clast (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• No. In the absence of published, peer reviewed articles by McKieth, we can only go on the mediums she uses to provide her views - her books, her TV series. Now, based upon the TV series, her reliance upon poo is evidenced in two forms - a) Two "scientists" who allegedly examine, McKeith talking about the smell and consistency and b) a chart of how poos should look. The "scientists" never speak, we never see any evidence of their poo investigations... using a scientific type comment thus appears to give undue weight to the claims by using such jargon to try to lend credibility to McKeith's assertions. Minkythecat (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

See previous answers, above, [14] and [15].--I'clast (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• No. "Organoleptic" is an obscure term that a) is going to be unfamiliar to most readers; b) is never used by GMcK or in published discussion of her statements; and c) spins the description to make the method sound more technical than it is. What she does can easily be expressed neutrally and formally, but in simpler language: e.g. "McKeith argues that the appearance, smell and consistency of faeces can give clues to bodily misfunction". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

POV?

I know, just from looking at the page, that this has been talked about a tiny bit but when I read the article all I saw was ten paragraphs of, "She's awful she isn't a doctor she can't do anything her technique is horrible" to one paragraph, "Her techniques are based on common sense things." It's ridiculous. It's not really POV but it's definitely not fairly spread out. I mean, it's leaning a LOT, and so it does have a POV - people who wrote this article either really didn't like her, or really didn't want to look for good things about her. I don't care either way. Just wanted to point it out.-Babylon pride (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have focused on flow, the overwhelming (undue) representation of 1-2 individual critics and summarization of points to reduce the POV problems. It's still kind of long, with each major critic getting in 5-6 sentences.--I'clast (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverted undiscussed changes, kept a wikilink. Someone may not have read or understood the above discussion, especially the science, V, RS, BLP, NPOV, WEIGHT and potentially libelous parts. There's still plenty of (harsh) criticism in this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopeida, not a Weekly World News tabloid, not Encyclopedia SkeptiDramatica.--I'clast (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"Someone may not have read or understood the above discussion" - that might have something to do with the way you keep interrupting & editing other users' comments, changing the subject, and engaging in wild, off-topic rants. I noted earlier that I was having serious difficulties understanding what you were talking about, so I'm not surprised if other editors can't follow the discussion.

Please stop reverting your own edits to the article. I see no evidence that any other editor supports your changes, particularly to the lead section. (It's no use citing concerns raised more than a year ago about older versions of the article.) Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Naw, Fyslee just whizzed through with a quick dismissal[16], did not even attempt to discuss the changes. He is not a technical person and I doubt read slowly and carefully for comprehension, in the few minutes since his previous edit where technical dissection can be very tedious. I am editing toward a NPOV, technically correct article. I am sorry if such added technical discussion of WP:V & RS sources above violates any preconceptions. Actually two editors seem to agree following my edits: Mais oui!, a great deal of approval, and then Babylon pride seems to think that the article is still overcritical of McKeith. As I have cautioned you before, got to watch the denial(ism).

I originally suggested why don't you take it slow and easy, try to address one change at a time. You have chosen to throw huge blobs of objections out that will be hard to answer otherwise. I have tried to preserve comprehensibility as much as humanly possibly, by numbering your first set of responses, and answered separately below. Then the second block of responses, I split paragraphs or questions with carefully formated & preserved signature data to yield a more comprehensible Q&A. If my explanations are lengthy, they reflect serious effort to provide careful, substantial answers, not sound bites. Your response seems hostile and less than collaborative. Understand one thing, I am serious about V, RS, NPOV, BLP here.

It is clear to me that most editors here simply have had no idea what the underlying technical discussions are. As for McKieth, in terms of her well recognized credentials ( U Edinburgh , UPenn), they are in marketing and international relations, and yes she does effectively communicate (sell) with nontechnical sales speech, perhaps too successfully. Perhaps if the "q'busters" quit massacring the technical people (you know, the ones with multiple advanced degrees from top tech/med schools the average HS valedictorian can't get into) everyone won't have to listen to the tougher, more aggressive personalities that will cut through anything or anyone with any part of the full story.--I'clast (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

POV, BLP cont'd

Sideshow['s comments above , after Fyslee's edit, (my comments on Fyslee's edits below) and SSB's subsequent edit]^{* - clarified 24 Mar} ignores clear presentation, above, about favorable response from other WP editors [and he restores^* where Fyslee restored]^* material that clearly violates NPOV and BLP:

• ...fronted – POV & misleading or OR - fronted for who? ((cn)) , hosted is common & appropriate term
• ...(now cancelled) POVish wording, that tends to imply for cause
• ...and had one issue "informally resolved" by the Advertising Standards Authority, the latter to prevent her from using the title 'Doctor' on her products as she does not, in fact, hold such a title. - inaccurate (false) negative summary, remove per BLP and restore previous version
• The claims she presents, however, are without evidence. (1) Sweeping generality, (2) by a partisan in a non-scientific venue, (3) either false on her WP:V, RS cited position(s) in her latest books or (3) inadequately WP:RS, V documented statements from her shock jock TV act.

SideshowBob's (SSB) last reversion is unacceptable from WP:V, NPOV, BLP etc as explained above, repeats false or unsupported POV about McKeith. SSB's edit summary rv this organoleptic stuff again, per talk (I see no evidence that any other editor supports these changes). rm healthwatch from lead. which ignores or misstates previous editors' favorable response to changes or unfavorable response to continued negative POV and BLP violation.--I'clast (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's some incredibly misleading stuff there. First of all, the four statements you've quoted above are all from old versions of the article, not the version I reverted to yesterday. I don't know whether you're being deliberately dishonest or you just didn't bother to read the article before accusing me of violating our core policies and restoring "false or unsupported POV about McKeith" but, either way, it's typical of your comments so far on this page.

It's absurd for you to suggest that Mais Oui approved of your edits because he says "this article is an awful lot better than the last time I read it (a couple of years ago?)", or that this comment means Babylon Pride approved of your changes. So far, I count at least three editors who have explicitly disagreed with your changes, and none who have agreed with you.

Your suggestion that the rest of us "simply have had no idea what the underlying technical discussions are" is bizarre. I don't see any complicated underlying issues here, I just see a load of (mostly incoherent, incorrect, illogical or off-topic) bluster.

I'm gonna take a wikibreak from this article for a while. I'm fed up with your lies, your complete contempt for other editors, your inability to string a sentence together coherently, and your reluctance to stay on-topic for more than thirty seconds. As I said earlier, I hope some other editors will join the discussion and express their opinions about your changes, but I'm pretty sure you'll just keep ignoring everyone else's opinions and reverting your own badly written nonsense. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I have corrected the attribution, [...]^*, of the worst bullets to Fyslee. I am going to apologize for any misunderstanding that might be fostered by our crossed edits (Fyslee, you & me) in Talk & article Mar 22. However I stand by my basic concern.

If a preference, and firm hand, for WP:V, BLP, BALANCE, NPOV, WEIGHT and technical literacy are "contemptuous", so be it. Btw, that Mais Oui ducks in with approving comments 1-2 years after being manhandled in this unpleasant space right after my overhaul probably would be registered by most objective readers, including admins, as likely some degree of approbation for my edits to the article. Babylon Pride's statement seems to indicate that I have not gone far enough in removing the vitriol in this article. You pour scorn and disdain the subject of this article, and now you are doing so on me, despite clear lack of b/g. While you are on break you might want to read Ch 1, 27, 28 of Krause's (2007) for more conventional science background.

As for "three editors", they are free to discuss any problems they have with my edits. In fact Fyslee should especially make such discussion rather than a quick, bulk reversion of lengthy discussion & changes for WP:V, NPOV, BLP, cited as "whitewashing", so as to avoid the appearance of skirting his ArbCom caution in RFAR:BvR.--I'clast (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I urge Sideshow Bob Roberts not to take a break from this article. I strongly urge Iclast to take some time to read, and understand, the article and the sources. To make it clear: I disagree with many of the edits that Iclast has made. This article should be about McKeith and *her* use of nutritional advice - for example: poo inspection as a method of diagnosing might have lots of reliable evidence, but that's not relevant to this article, especially because she has no medical qualifications and no reliable nutrition training. The article could be a lot shorter - a little intro, a bit about her books and tv programs, a bit about some of the controversy about her use of "doctor", a bit of the controversy about her often dodgy "nutritional advice". Dan Beale-Cocks 12:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that this corrected article makes various criticism abundantly clear, more cleanly, without shouting & inaccuracies. POV wording and over emphasis on "scat tales" (e.g. [17] & [18]) otherwise steers into multiple policy problems in a trashy tabloid article.--I'clast (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Bitch Session?

So, uhh... looking at the article, it seemed as if a bunch of non-qualified individuals were verbally attacking Ms McKeith, so I decided to take a look at the Talk page on it. Not only was I completely right, but then the entire (N)POV section is not only these same non-qualified individuals attacking her, but then attacking each other. All I really want is an article that doesn't make Gillian McKeith look like a quack for two-thirds of it.---Dorfner (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a PhD. I regard Gillian McKeith as the worst kind of quack.130.88.150.176 (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like more OPINION and not fact based in truth. -Dorfner (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, McKeith has no real qualifications in the field either...GiollaUidir (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Appears eminently qualified to be on TV. ahem.--I'clast (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Outrageous. Gillian's professional status is exactly as valid as Henrietta's.(Don't reply to this until you've followed the link.) --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 09:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You missed my point, somewhat of a comment about the nature of TV in general. The "telly" is all about entertainment and eyeballs. If you don't want your head filled with diverse or slanted views, including outright crap, leave it off. As I do. Now, as for formal qualifications for TV, communications and marketing skills are pretty valuable and GM went to very well regarded schools in those areas. Also there are items in Goldacre's columns where his content range is pretty scientifically limited, if not simply prejudical.--I'clast (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I got your point. I was partly trying to illustrate GiollaUidir's point, and partly trying to make a joke. I don't want to get into an off-topic discussion about Ben Goldacre's work here, but I'm interested, so I'll email you.

Since we're on the topic of qualifications, I should point out that whether Gillaim McKeith has qualifications is only part of the point - the point is that she has implied that she has qualifications that she doesn't in fact have. Having said that, Wikipedia policy and good sense both say that the qualifications aren't the point - the discussion needs to be about the facts of the matter. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Scientists mandated by the House of Lords (indirectly via the charity called Sense about Science) have looked at Mrs McKeith and are warning the public to check their facts when listening to her (see for example http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/PDF/celebrityreview2007.pdf, http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/pdf/ScienceForCelebrities.pdf).Francois Genolini (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC).

It's not an NPOV violation to point out that a quack is a quack, that's why the article on snake oil isn't just a list of it's miraculous curative powers. 92.238.128.101 (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section?

It might be useful to separate out criticisms into a separate Criticism section, which might make the structure more coherent. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism sections are discouraged because they lead to all the bad details being added to one section, rather than integrated in a unbiased way. --h2g2bob (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed sentence

I removed the following sentence from the 'McKeith's Products' section:

It is worth noting that the aforesaid Ben Goldacre's deceased cat holds the same level of medical qualification, after Goldacre ordered said qualification from the internet for $60.

It's poorly phrased ('It is worth noting' - editorial voice), irrelevant to the section, and factually incorrect (it is professional membership of the American Association of Nutritional Consultants, not a 'medical qualification', that Ben Goldacre's dead cat shares with Ms McKeith).

I'm no fan of Gillian McKeith, and it's possible there is a place for this information, but it seemed entirely out of place in the context it was presented in. TSP (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfactual?

The following paragraph has been removed once by 81.149.69.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and twice by the very newly created account Jeans1 (talk · contribs), the latter specifying "deleting unfactual part" in the edit summary.

Dr Ben Goldacre writes in a Media Watch column in the British Medical Journal that he finds it offensive that the British media is "filled with people who adopt a cloak of scientific authority while apparently misunderstanding the most basic aspects of biology." As an example, he discusses McKeith's recommendation of eating darker leaves because they are rich in chlorophyll, quoting her claim that it will "really oxygenate your blood" as erroneous.

Seems "factual" enough to me, but rather than engage in an edit war I hereby ask other editors for their opinion in this matter. Favonian (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry for the extended reference list. Didn't know how to create a "local" one for just this section. Favonian (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks factual to me too. The reference explicitly mentions the chlorophyll point. --Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 15:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --hippo43 (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's properly sourced, so it's good enough. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Lede changes

I've moved quite a lot of text to the lede, which I felt formerly failed to properly reflect the widely made and numerous criticisms of this person by well-qualified individuals and relevant authorities.Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Gillian involved in catfight on twitter with Ben Goldacre

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/07/14/shittomancer.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jul/18/ben-goldacre-gillian-mckeith-twitter

This story may well contain RS documentation of deception. She or her people have tried to hide the evidence, which has provided evidence of a coverup. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added material on this row given coverage in the Telegraph and Guardian, not to mention numerous blogs. We need to be very careful in how material is phrased given the legal dangers. Bondegezou (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)