Talk:Gillian McKeith/Archive 1

message: Gillian McKeith was born and brought up in Perth, Scotland.  Later in her life, she moved to America for an extended period. Grayum 09:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth Place 

message: Would it be fair to replace the photo with a less airbrushed one? I'm not doing this to be denigrating, but I do feel it's false pretence for a health expert to use such a photo when, in real life, she is slightly more haggard (to put it mildly).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/jowhiley/images/gillian_mckeith/420.jpg
P. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulmoloney (talk • contribs) 17:06, 16 January, 2006.
Hi, Paul. Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this ~~~~. They will automatically expand into your signature plus the date and the time. Regarding the photo, the most important thing is that we don't violate copyright laws. After that, it's a matter of getting consensus on which photo should be used. AnnH (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: If this quotation stays (I'm not saying it shouldn't -- it does seem to illustrate McKeith's pseudo-scientific approach) then I think it needs to be pointed out below that it's at best scientifically dubious, and certainly misleading.
Firstly, many molecules don't have overall charge.  While it could be argued that she's referring to subatomic charges distributed through molecules, the statement as it stands gives a false impression, because usually references to "charged molecules" imply ions, which many molecules (and food components) are not.
Secondly, colours are not generally a function of molecular vibrations: these usually lie in the infra red region.  It's probably the case that she uses "vibrational" in some generic sense, divorced from chemists' normal usage, deriving from some misplaced vague understanding of quantum mechanics.  But if she's going to make what sounds like a scientific statement then she should use the terminology correctly.
Third, it's entirely false to suggest on the strength of any of this that similarly coloured foods contain similar "nutrient makeup".  All it shows is that their distribution of electron energy levels (not vibrational levels) leads to a similar retinal response.
If Ben Goldacre or someone else has already explained this then a link is needed to that explanation, in my view.
Stuarta 17:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Chlorophyll cannot function to produce oxygen in one's bowel (not least because it's dark), and even if it could, the body cannot absorb significant oxygen through its digestive tract."
Nor, for that matter, would you want free oxygen in these parts of the body. It's dangerous stuff.
TRiG 15:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  McKeith on molecules 

message: Can we have some evidence of these before they become part of the article please:
**It is rumoured that using some sort of ancient magic she actually sucks the fat out of people and draws nourishment from this.
**She was seen doing triple backflips after "helping" Michelle McManus. (?)
Also, isn't a 'trivia' section irrelivant?
--82.28.226.210 09:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Sprouts are also packed with vitamins, minerals, protein, enzymes and fibre as well as two anti-ageing constituents — RNA and DNA (nucleic acids) — that are only found in growing cells. [26] You Are What You Eat (2004), page 211
In my copy it says living cells, not growing cells. Are there different versions? Can anyone with a different hard copy verify this quote?
DNA is only found in living cells? DNA is an 'anti-aging constituent'? What is the evidence that "Dr" McKeith has had any scientific education at all, let alone acquired a PhD? Does anybody know? Jamrifis 21:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarifying quotes

message: I had updated an associated Wiki page for the college she attended, and it's been deleted after having a Deletion request added by an anonymous IP address. Any idea how I complain about this?
P.--Paul Moloney 13:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article is up for deletion, discuss at the AfD page; if it has been deleted, take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Iolakana|T 13:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clayton College

message: I have changed the description of Dr Ben Goldacre from describing him as a GP to a (physician) doctor and journalist as I am not certain he is a GP. Please feel free to change it back if I am wrong (I thought he was in hospital medicine of some sort but am not sure)--Doctormonkey 15:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Small Change Explanation(s)

message: The introduction to this article currently reads:
Gillian McKeith (aka the poo lady) (also passes herself off as Dr Gillian McKeith but does not have an accredited doctorate) (born September 28 1959, Perth, Scotland) is a controversial
Scottish television presenter and author.  She fronts Channel 4's You Are What You Eat, Granada Television's Dr Gillian McKeith's Feel Fab Forever and has had a number of slots on shows such as ITV's This Morning and BBC1's Good Morning. 
Biographies of living persons should not include derogatory or malicious material.
Even if it were not derogatory or malicious, I don't think the "poo lady" nickname is notable enough to be mentioned in this article.  Apart from Ben Goldacre and a couple of websites, no-one seems to use it.
I'm deleting the mention.  If there's a consensus that it's worth restoring, it should not go in the first sentence (which, according to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section, should “give the shortest possible relevant characterization of the subject”).  
Sideshow Bob Roberts 19:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the poo lady because it is not  derogatory or malicious (mearly explanatory) and as she has been refered to such in at least one newspaper and on BBC Radio 1, and lots of other places which I don't have links to hand for.  Her "act" involves forcing people to look at their "poo" on TV!!! ••Briantist•• talk 19:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the Wikipedia rules, you need to provide a reference to show that something isn't true, rather than just your own opinion.  Thanks. ••Briantist•• talk 19:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google search for "Gillian McKeith" "poo lady" gives me 347 hits, which undermines your 'couple of websites' claim. ••Briantist•• talk 19:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've removed "poo lady" again, and also the "passes herself off as a doctor" bit.  The rather iffy claim of having a doctorate appears later in the article. I haven't examined the references, and depending on how good the sources are, some of that might be okay later in the article, but definitely not in the lead. (I'll look at them later.) Please read WP:NPOV. ElinorD 19:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added "poo lady" as a comment in the "Excrement" section, together with reference. I humbly submit that this is a legitimate place for this point to be mentioned. 82.33.156.75 23:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's a proper, reliable reference, and if the "poo lady" title is reasonably widespread, I wouldn't object to having it reported in the article in an appropriate place. It seemed completely inappropriate to have it in the lead section. However, I have some doubts about that reference. It looks like some kind of blog, inviting comments. Can you find a better reference? ElinorD 23:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, that reference seems better. Thanks. I think we have to be careful not to make the article seem as if we're making fun of her, although we still need to report the facts. But having "aka as the Poo Lady" and "passes herself off as a doctor" in the lead section makes it very clear what the editor thinks of her. See also WP:BLP. ElinorD 10:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be interested to know that the rule doesn't apply if you are restoring items that have references which are being replaced by opinion. ••Briantist•• talk 10:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Exceptions include Reverting unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons) ••Briantist•• talk 10:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, it's not me who appears on TV every week at about 830pm forcing people to smell and look at poo! ••Briantist•• talk 10:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that if unreferenced, poorly-source material, potentially damaging to a living person, is being added to an article, one may remove it repeatedly, without worrying about the three-revert rule. I don't see anything that indicates that you can repeatedly re-add material, whether referenced or not, that other editors are taking out, except in such obvious cases as a vandal blanking massive sections of an article. This seems to be a content dispute, where some people think that putting in the introductory paragraph that she's "also known as the poo lady", and that she "passes herself off as a doctor" is a violation of the Wikipedia [WP:NPOV]] policy and possibly also of the WP:BLP policy. The passage from 3RR that you quote does not at all give you a licence to re-add that material repeatedly. And it's not "being replaced by opinion"; it's simply being removed. ElinorD 11:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yawn!  That is your OPINION and is not backed up by facts.  Either find some fact that links that name poo lady to another person OR find a denial by Ms McKeith that she is the poo lady.  You have to find PROOF for your POV, not just keep restating your OPINION.  OK??? ••Briantist•• talk 11:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: “Poo Lady”

message: I see that reference to McKeith's title has been removed altogether from the introductory paragraph.  I agree that "passes herself off as a doctor" is not neutral, and should not be in the article.  However, previously the framing paragraph simply stated that, although she styles herself "Dr Gillian McKeith", she does not have an accredited doctorate.  It is a basic fact about McKeith that the title she uses so prominently to promote her work as a celebrity nutritionist does not signify the expertise that it would imply to many.  That surely deserves to be made known where the title is introduced.  I shall therefore reinstate the neutral wording.
Stuarta 12:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't object to a neutral reporting of the fact that she uses the title "doctor" although her doctorate is not from an accredited university. I would probably not put it in the opening, since the opening already states that she's controversial, and that she has been heavily criticised by members of the scientific community. However, I don't have strong feelings as to where it should go, as long as it's reported in neutral language. ElinorD 12:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "Dr Gillian McKeith" is a name that she goes by commonly enough to warrant a mention in the introduction (it's house style to list the common aliases of the subject there), and I also think it would be a violation of neutrality to mention the "Dr" title without pointing out that it it is unaccredited (i.e., misleading). So I am for both these things being in the introduction. Robin Johnson (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. What I was really objecting to was the stuff about "the poo lady passing herself off as doctor". She does indeed use the title all the time, and I have no reason to doubt that the doctorate is unaccredited. I wonder would "although her doctorate is not accredited", or "although her doctorate is not from an accredited institution" be better than "although she does not have an accredited doctorate"? ElinorD 13:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. The assumption that the latter phrasing implies is "an unaccredited doctorate is not a doctorate", so the question is, is that assumption a NPOV violation? Personally I don't think it is, because of the undue weight rule and a dose of hunch. Robin Johnson (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer my suggestion because it suggests that she has something which is useless rather than that she doesn't have anything. In the same way, I'd prefer "his marriage isn't valid" to "he isn't in a valid marriage". (Nothing to do with this article, just an example.) However, it's not a strong preference, and I don't have a problem with "does not have an accredited doctorate". ElinorD 10:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Only because the facts are very anti-McKeith. If we don't use deliberately insulting language, it's not a problem, in my opinion. Robin Johnson (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am NOT anti-McKeith ffs!  It is a simple matter of FACT supported by EVIDENCE as required by this Wikipedia and is required to counter the use of the "Dr" in the introduction.  OPINION does not count here, FACTS DO!! ••Briantist•• talk 11:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calm down! I can't quite follow your point. I didn't call you anti-McKeith. I'm "anti-McKeith", I suppose, in that I understand she is selling ineffectual 'medicines' based on pseudoscience. McKeith's not having an accredited doctorate is an important fact that speaks for itself and should be in the introduction. Calling her an infamous poo lady, etc., is just an insult and will only help her by making her detractors look like bullies. Robin Johnson (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put. And on reflection, I can accept both the false doctorate and the "poo lady" name being reported in the lead (though not in the lead sentence!) as long as the language remains neutral and we're just reporting facts. Stuff like "passes herself off as" and "scatalogically [sic.] infamous" is not acceptable. ElinorD 19:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: McKeith's title

message: Born September 1959, so 47 as of today. Where does this come from? Jooler 12:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea. I just accepted it because it was there, but of course, you're right. If we don't have a valid source for that, it should come out. ElinorD 12:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Observer article has some much needed biog that could flesh out the non-critical part of this Wikipedia article. Quickly skimming the Observer piece, I'm struck by her vagueness on dates. Jooler 03:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that article gives 1959, but says nothing about 28 September, or even just September. Unless we have a source, I'd feel inclined to take out the day and month, and just leave the year. And could someone who understands how footnotes and refernces work link the 1959 in first sentence to a footnote with the Observer article? ElinorD 23:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I think I've figured it out. At least, I don't understand it, but I copied and pasted it from elsewhere in the article, and it seemed to work. Please modify if I've done anything wrong. Also, I've taken out day and month of birth, as I don't think we have a source for that. ElinorD 23:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Age

message: No direct mention of the 'Tonight With Trevor McDonald' programme from 2004. Jooler 13:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trevor McDonald's expose in Dec 2004

message: As much as I can't stand this charlatan, it is odd that the article barely covers her career in the media. Surely there should be a major paragraph at the beginning which should state, which programmes on  Channel 4 she has appeared on, when these were etc. As a media figure she has been very successful. After we have written that section it would then make sense to include all of the (fully warranted) criticism. Wikipediatastic 16:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements

message: I've found a fuller version of that air-brushed 20-year old photo that appears on her products. I always wondered why her hand was in that positiuon - http://www.zam.it/1.php?id_autore=1460 Jooler 22:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: Are people a bit happier with it?  I put all the criticisms back, etc, but there's a bit more about the prog and books.  I got rid of some quotes that were written out in full but kept the refs.Merkinsmum 20:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Happy now?:)

message: It still criticises a lot more than it does anything else.  I'm not knowledgeable enough to say more, I need to find an 'expert' in McKeith's work, or in 'nutrition' a la mcKeith, to explain more their POV.Merkinsmum 00:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find and cite reliable sources, go for it! The refs that I struck were tangential... criticising not McKeith, but rather the university which McKeith attended. I've been down this road before where I was adding criticism of a person's university trying to show how that reflects on the person; I learned that this is considered a violation of WP:OR. The other crit I removed was a criticism about an organization which McKeith is a part of... American Association of Nutritional Consultants. Again, criticizing that here is out of place. Criticisms for the university and the association should be made on those articles and then those articles should be wikilinked from here. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. McKeith portrays herself as a nutritional expert and medically qualified. The fact that she has bought qualifications from controversial business, rather than established educational or medical institutions, should be stated clearly. There isn't a lot to say about her programmes: she insults some fat people until they shed tears, force feeds them horrendous "detox" concoctions (fennel twig tea, goji berries and horseradish smoothies), makes them defecate on national television and insults them about the smell and texture of the faeces and then bullies them until they submit to her diktat. For all her Blairite hectoring in that annoying squeaky accent about how the nation is going to the dogs because people are too lazy, it is edifying and instructive for her victims to know the professional basis for her food fascism - which appears to as substantial as the number of calories in the mung bean stew she is trying to get us to eat. I think we should know the facts.--Conjoiner 01:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I don't know a thing about McKeith's methods. I don't have an opinion on McKeith either way. But Wikipedia policy is pretty clear here. You can't associate criticism (or anything) with a subject by way of another subject. This is considered original research. However, I do agree with both of you that this article can be expanded to deal with the subject in greater detail. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I believe the fact that she bought most of her qualifications from businesses, rather than earned them through reputable institutions, is of great importance as she is portraying herself as the nation's leading nutritionist. It is not up to us to judge whether she is a quack (I think she is, but that is bias), but it is up to us to outline the controversies surrounding her qualification to advise people on nutrition. If there were no public controversies about McKeith, then perhaps it would classify as "original research". But press has talked about her qualifications and this should be mentioned in the article.--Conjoiner 01:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a reliable source that states that McKeith bought most of her qualifactions and then cite it in the article. We can't extrapolate or synthesize that statement. We need it stated outright by a reliable, verifiable source. -- Levine2112 discuss 02:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is not NPOV because