Talk:Gillian McKeith/Archive 6

message: * Post Chronicle: [(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/entertainment/article_21263797.shtml Nutritionist Agrees To Drop 'Dr.' Title]
* Daily India: Nutritionist agrees to drop 'Dr.' title
* Blackpool Today: TV nutritionist to drop 'Dr' title
* Which?Gillian McKeith to drop Dr title
* Guardian Newsdesk notes for Monday February 12
* Guardian TV dietician to stop using title Dr in adverts
* Times Food guru agrees to slim her name
* Spiked … ‘Dr’ Gillian McKeith
* The Herald McKeith to drop ‘Dr’ from adverts
* The Stage Gillian McKeith: “a bad joke” ••Briantist•• talk 22:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I left out the duplicates! Just thought they might come in handy for Slimdenial! ••Briantist•• talk 22:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm getting uncomfortable with the tone on this talk page. Three sections have the name of an editor in the title ("What's with SlimVirgin's POV taking precident?", "Slim's edit", and "So this is SlimVirgin's latest head-ache"), and now we have snide remarks about "Slimdenial". All I can see is that there were some people apparently using Wikipedia to attack Gillian McKeith (even if they didn't realise that themselves), and an administrator came along and brought the article into line with WP:BLP, making it look much more professional. I don't necessarily agree with every single change she made, but overall, she changed it from a blatant violation of BLP to something that we can now discuss possible improvements to. ElinorD 23:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See irony ••Briantist•• talk 05:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Jayjg (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Press reports about 'Dr'

message: The extent of McKeith's media career in the US is questioned in this article: http://www.fmwf.com/newsarticle.php?id=402&cat=5. Sorry, don't know how to do a proper link. I'm a novice. Can anyone find anything more recent on this? I'm looking.... Jamrifis 23:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Career in the US

message: McKeith also offers allergy testing by post, the British Dietitian lady had criticised that.  I think that should be included because it's something McKeith does.Merkinsmum 23:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Allergy testing

message: As someone not from the UK, this article completely fails to explain why she is into her 4th season, why her books are selling well, and why she is making so much money. I tried to search for some book reviews, but didn't find much reliable. This was the best I found. In short, this article fails to explain her success, and why people like her. --Merzul 23:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly the point I made a day or two ago: Instead of trying to prop up her dodgy qualifications and avoid scrutiny of her medical credentials, why not expand the publishing and broadcasting parts of the article, then there won't be any need to be critical of her. She is obviously good at producing TV shows and books, why not concentrate on that? Phaedrus86 00:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There would still be need to critical of her as some of what she does is good, some of it bad, like every person.  Why she succeeds IMHO is she got results with the people featured in the programme, they really did show impressive weight loss and improved shape etc within 8 weeks.  And among my friends that's why people bought her book, because they wanted those results.  It's hard to explain how (she herself seems to imply it's by nagging) but she seems able to motivate the people featured on her show to make those changes.  But that doesn't mean some of the advice she gives isn't 'wrong'/perhaps dangerous.Merkinsmum 00:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we should certainly present relevant criticism, I even added criticism like that, but I just think this article has focused too much on the negative, especially on ad hominem attacks regarding her education and use of credentials. All in all, this article seems too difficult for my Wikipedia abilities, so I will go back to less controversial articles like The God Delusion :) Good luck, everyone! --Merzul 01:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The attacks are on her education and credentials are not ad hominem per se. The attacks are merited because she gets real scientists angry because of the veneer of scientific rigour she adds. The point is that all the effort at the moment to be fair and unbiased towards the woman is going into defending her dodgy credentials. A fair and unbiased article would leave the well-deserved criticism as it is, but expand the article with explanations of how successful her tv shows and books are, and why that is so. The problem is that she is being treated as one-dimensional at the moment, and I don't believe that anyone gets to be that wealthy and famous without having a few more facets. Phaedrus86 02:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She's not 'popular' in any real sense.  'You Are What You Eat' comes in at number 28 on Channel 4's list - 2.56 million viewers (4.2% of the UK public)  ••Briantist•• talk 05:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's astonishing that you can claim "She's not 'popular' in any real sense" because "only" 2.5 million people watch her show. Jayjg (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what makes her popular?