Talk:Gillian McKeith/Archive 2

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: I'm making a separate page for the AANC where criticisms of it can go:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merkinsmum (talk • contribs) 
:Sounds good! -- Levine2112 discuss 02:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  American Association of Nutritional Consultants Do your worst, boys:)Merkinsmum 03:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AANC

message: I added to the lead that Gillian is a nutritionist. I wiki-linked to the nutritionist article, which makes it clear that being a nutritionist does not require any formal training or accredited qualifications. If we leave it just as "controversial television presenter and author", it's not clear what her books are about, or indeed why she's controversial. (For example, Melanie Phillips is a controversial author.)
I cannot see any need for Briantist to change it to "claims to be a nutritionist", and there's good reason not to. First of all, the article on nutritionists makes it clear that it's not a regulated profession, and that being a nutritionist does not imply any expertise or training (though neither does it rule them out). So there is absolutely no reason to say "she claims to be a nutritionist". It's not like the difference between "she is an expert" and "she claims to be an expert". She practices as a nutritionist; she gets her money as a nutritionist. I have a (recognised) degree in French and English. If I had bought it from a diploma mill, and got a job teaching as a result, I could still say that I was a teacher.
Additionally, "claim" is explicitly mentioned at Wikipedia:Words to avoid. It reads too much as if we're trying to convince the reader how terrible this woman is. We are not to report that she's a charlatan: we are to report which notable people said she was a charlatan (with references), and let the reader decide. A calm, neutral article, free of hostility, but simply reporting as facts that he doctorate is not accredited, that she has never had any research published in a peer-reviewed journal, and that many qualified members of the scientific and medical community dispute her claims, is all that we are required to produce. The reader will then decide for himself. ElinorD 12:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. McKeith is a Nutritionist. Lets leave it at that. Keithmahoney 12:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Aye. Robin Johnson (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No no. The word "nutitionist" implies expert (as 'Doctor' implies qualfied), and when Amanda Wynne, the Senior Dietician of the British Dietetic Association, said "We are appalled. I think it is obvious she hasn't a clue about nutrition" - then it's clear that she has no right to be viewed as an expert. Jooler 13:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the word "nutritionist" does not imply expert. Read the article. She is a nutritionist; it's her profession. If it's just "controversial television presenter and author", then people might start by thinking that maybe she's controversial because she makes jokes about black people, or because she wants people to be allowed to carry guns, or something like that, and would have to keep reading, and then reprocess the information in their minds when they got to the relevant bit. I'd be very much against calling her an expert, because the word "expert" does mean that you're an expert. But a nutritionist is just a profession, regardless of whether or not you're qualified, regardless of whether or not you're any good. ElinorD 13:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heaven forfend that they would have to keep reading the article to understand what she is about. I'm sorry, but if someone says they are a nutritionist and then gives you advice about what you should eat one would generally assume it to be expert advice, whatever our article says. You say its her profession but a profession is an occupation that requires extensive training and the study and mastery of specialized knowledge, and usually has a professional association, ethical code and process of certification or licensing." - Perhaps you would prefer the term "unqualified nutritionist" ? Jooler 13:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do expect people to keep reading to find out more, but I still feel that "what she does" should be the opening paragraph. Generally a "controversial author" or a "controversial TV presenter" would suggest something like racism, pornography, violence, or extreme religious or political views. If I read that someone is a "controversial author", nutrition is not going to come into my mind as a likely subject of her books. As regards pofession requiring extensive training, etc., we're wikilinking to "nutritionist", not to "profession", and anyway, it says "usually has a professional association . . ."  I'm not sure I completely agree with the profession article. (It's generally considered appropriate to put "housewife", "schoolboy", or "student" when filling in the box for "profession" on a form.) If you get a dentistry degree from a diploma mill, and set up practice, people would generally assume you to be an expert, but they wouldn't take it as unconditionally true that you are. However, even though you'd be a charlatan, you'd still be a dentist; that would be your profession. You wouldn't be a lawyer pretending to be a dentist; you'd be an unqualified dentist. Same goes for teacher. You can pretend to be a teacher if you're a dentist, but if you have a fake degree and teach in a school, you are a teacher. Gillian's status as an expert may be in doubt; her status as a nutritionist is not. ElinorD 14:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point is that she makes money by offering people advice on diet and nutrition. Hence she is a nutritionist. In the same way as someone who gets paid to produce utter crap that ends up being exhibited in art galleries is an artist despite the quality or otherwise of the work. (I can't believe I am actually defending McKeith. I feel so.....dirty).  Keithmahoney 14:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By that defintion a snake oil merchant is a doctor! Art is subjective and not scientific whereas the food you eat can be dealt with scientifically ••Briantist•• talk 15:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The point is that nutritionist has a loose meaning, like artist, and not a strict meaning, like doctor. If the introduction said that Gillian McKeith is a biochemist, you'd be quite right, but "nutritionist" doesn't mean anything like that. The 'controversial' before it (a bit euphemistic, I admit) stops it from reading like a claim that she's a expert. Robin Johnson (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That may be the case but I suspect that very few people would be aware that anyone can call themselves a nutritionist and get away with it. I reckon most people would expect that the person has some sort of qualification and expertise. They certainly wouldn't expect that the person "doesn't have a clue". Jooler 22:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Claims to be" a nutritionist