Talk:Gillian McKeith/Archive 7

message: User:Jooler has inserted the claim that
:McKeith says she is a member of the American Association of Nutritional Consultants (AANC).
claiming that "This is on her CV for crissake!"  However, rather than linking it to her CV, or her website, he appears to have linked it to some sort of site claiming to hold an archive of a description of her on some management site from 2004. The insertion is dubious at best, certainly not current, and appears to be there solely for the purpose of discrediting her. To be honest, I know almost nothing about McKeith, but I do know something about WP:BLP, and I'm seeing quite a few violations on this article, which is disturbing. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the Internet Archive - She's listed here http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/Nonrecorg/aanc.html - it is also mentioned in Ben Goldacre's blog,, The Guardian and dozens of other places. And that was her CV.Jooler 02:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why not link to her CV? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note - that I wan't linking to anything. The URL was put into the edit summary to explain that it was not OR. Jooler 08:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Because it no longer mentions AANC. http://www.drgillianmckeith.com/about-mid2.php
http://www.drgillianmckeith.com/about-credentials.php  so couldn't be used against her:)Merkinsmum 02:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was, however, widely reported in the past (Guardian, Observer, Sun, Daily Record, Tonight with Trevor MacDonald - refs if you want) so could be mentioned in the past tense. Tearlach 03:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Association of Nutritional Consultants 

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

message: Could people please take some care when adding refs? If the reference already exists, it should have a name, and if it doesn't, please give it one. Then all you have to add is add the name, rather than writing the citation out again. In that way, we see how often each ref is being used, which is important because it tells us whether we're relying too much on any one source. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if others - like yourself - could make sure not to delete the original reference that the other refer to too?  Thanks ••Briantist•• talk 09:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did I do that, Brian? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The day before yesterday, as I recall.  You removed the first reference to the "c4bio" I think 2005 ASA adjudication. ••Briantist•• talk 10:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes

message: McKeith has just voluntarily agreed with the Advertising Standards Authority not to use her title of doctor any more, on the basis that it might have given the impression that she was a qualified medical doctor. 
The silly woman. If she wanted a nice title, she should have paid Tony Blair for a really good one, just like everyone else. Allegedly.
••Briantist•• talk 13:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Telegraph

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

message: On the issue of callimg somene's qualifications dodgy,  Paul McKenna sued someone who did that to him and won.  The quackometer blog has a good article about the use of the title 'Dr' here http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2006/09/quack-word-3-doctor.html Merkinsmum 20:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, which is one reason we want the names of the critics so that Max Clifford can sue them and not us. Except, Clifford wouldn't sue us ;) --Merzul 21:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read that Max Clifford thought it was a mistake that McKeith used the title "Dr" after her run-in with the ASA, and said that she didn't need to call herself a doctor to sell books. I don't think he would sue. The fact is that her qualifications are dodgy by virtue of the fact that she bought the degree off a non-accredited institution and is a member of an association that is not what she claims it to be. She's not the only one. "Rev" "Dr" Ian Paisley started his own church and uses an honorary degree awarded by his friend Bob Jones to get his titles.--Conjoiner 21:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Conjoiner, could you say which other accounts you edit Wikipedia with? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't edit with any other accounts. Why?--Conjoiner 22:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Pigsonthewing, several editors on this page have agreed that we have enough Goldacre already, so please don't add any more. The other website you restored is also not acceptable in a BLP. Please review WP:BLP, which is policy and mandatory. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't "added more", so your claim is bogus. Andy Mabbett 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You know what she means, and we have been over this. This is not PR, we simply want a more credible encyclopedia page about a living person. We also don't want to be like quackwatch that indiscriminately criticizes all alternative medicine, and we don't want to rely on a single source, but on a range of different criticism. Slim is doing a marvelous job at improving the credibility of this page, for skeptics and fans of this woman alike. Personally, I'm the worst kind of skeptic.  --Merzul 23:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Merzul. I'm also a sceptic (I use British spelling) and I feel that SlimVirgin is doing a marvellous job. I personally have doubts about a lot of McKeith's claims, but I don't think the article should set out to debuk them all, as if that's our agenda — it makes it seem as if we're attacking her. ElinorD 00:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Pigs is also removing "Goldacre writes ..." that he applied for a thing in his cat's name. This is an odd claim, and so we should fully attribute it and not write it up as a fact. Attribution doesn't mean we think the material is false; it simply indicates that we are distancing ourselves a little from it. We don't say "Goldacre claims," or "Goldacre alleges," but "Goldacre writes," which is completely neutral. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The more I see of the NPOV policy, the better I like it. ElinorD 00:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, we are now reverting too big pieces, there were link fixes etc... I will start applying Slim's fixes one by one... --Merzul 00:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Merzul, I have no major problem with this if you really want it. I removed it only to shorten the amount from Goldacre and because it wasn't a direct criticism of McKeith, but it's certainly related, so by all means restore it if you like it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have already departed with it, so it is strange for me to put it back in. Something tells me that there might be other editors who will put it back in though... :) --Merzul 00:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's good, Merzul, thanks. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blogs, Goldacre

message: I have just archived another two pages' worth of material , mostly last updated yesterday (14 Feb). Andy Mabbett 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the future please don't archive very recent discussions, particularly discussions people are still engaged in. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving, 15 Feb

message: "McKeith met her American husband, lawyer Howard Magaziner, in Edinburgh where he was spending a year studying. At the time he ran an extremely successful chain of health food shops in the United States with which she was to become involved. The company they now run from their Hampstead home had a turnover of almost £900,000 last year but the business they ran in 1996 spiralled into debt before declaring insolvency owing $117,000." WAS 4.250 06:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say yes, it should. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I added it. I'm sure the editing can be improved. And perhaps the source was previously used .. don't know. WAS 4.250 17:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should this be in the article?

message: I've changed the Awards section to "Awards and achievements".  McKeith is a popular author, and I think we should reflect that a bit more in the article.  I've put in a recent report about YAWYE being the most borrowed non-fiction book in the UK 2005-2006, but I've also seen one or two other stats reported - a Sunday Times article late in 2004 reported 1.2M copies of YAWYE sold up to that point, and a report in a local newspaper saying that YAWYE had been at the top of the UK bestsellers list for 12 weeks (whether that was non-fiction only or what, it didn't say).  Doubtless there are better sources than these though.  It might be worth mentioning the book in the intro, and describing it as "bestselling".  I'm not keen to change the intro without some discussion first though.  What do you think?  IanHenderson 15:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the issue to the Bibliography where it belongs as a footnote.  It's a quazi-scientific chart position, not an award or an "acheivement", so it is more appropriate as a footnote. ••Briantist•• talk 16:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also...  I've used the primary reference, not the BBC's referal to it. ••Briantist•• talk 16:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough - I did wonder whether it was a bit trivial for the Awards section.  Maybe it should be removed completely.  However I think we should put in something that reflects the popularity of YAWYE.  e.g. in the intro, list YAWYE (the book) and describe it as "bestselling".  What's your opinion of that? IanHenderson 17:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wierd it got deleted for quoting the press release, which was the original source of the 'award' rather than the BBC News report of the press release.  ••Briantist•• talk 17:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a newsvertizement. News entities often repeat advertizing as lightly disguised news in the form of press releases. We need an independent source that does more than simply reprint what they are fed. Relying on an organization as reliable because it supposedly fact checks falls apart when they don't, in fact, fact check. The consolidation of media has made it incresingly hard to find sources not compromised by self interest. Promoting someone's book who has a TV show also promotes that TV show and its owners. On the other side is the claim that big-medicine is protecting its turf by criticising non-establishment health advice. We should do our best to see through self interested promotion without getting paranoid about it. WAS 4.250 18:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WAS, thank you for merging the criticism. It's a big improvement. Feel free to revert my edit to the lead if you don't like it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: The text:
:The Guardian newspaper reported that a draft version of the ASA adjudication stated that by claiming to be a doctor, the advertising was in fact likely to mislead, breaching both the "substantiation" and "truthfulness" clauses of advertising regulations. .
was removed with the edit summary:
:This is too contentous (sic) and controversial, and it's to speculative, we honestly don't need this... and it distracts from real criticism)
It's clearly not speculative, and nowhere have I seen evidence of it being contentious. As for it "distracting from real criticism", that seems to be a completely unsupportable view. It's a clearly cited and significant piece of journalism. Andy Mabbett 19:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't; it's Goldacre again. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that because it's Goldacre it's not cited; not journalism' or not significant? Andy Mabbett 19:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am saying (1) that the Guardian didn't "report" it, because it was only in an opinion piece by Goldacre. There was a news story about this in the Guardian on the same day, so check to see if they included it there. If the reporter felt it was true and worth reporting, it'll be in there and we can use it. If it's not in there, maybe there was a good reason. I'm also saying (2) that too much of this page already relies on Goldacre, and there is an agreement about that; (3) that it's clearly contentious, when the ASA itself says it has accepted a volunteer agreement in lieu of a report, for us to say "but here is what their report would have said, had they said it," when this relies only on an opinion piece written by someone who appears to have very strong feelings about McKeith, and who has become part of the story, and not a reporter of it; and (4) as I said first, if it's a "cited and significant piece of journalism," let's quote the Guardian reporter who wrote up the story, if he mentioned it; and if he didn't, we need to let that tell us something. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is bullshit. The Media section (not Goldacre) of the Guardian reported the story (byline Owen Gibson) and said the Advertising Standards Authority came to the provisional conclusion that the honorific was likely to mislead the public  - According to documents seen by the Guardian, the agreement prevents Ms McKeith calling herself a doctor in any advertising or mailshots relating to her company and its products. You knew about this report it's been mentioned many times and you just mentioned it yourself, yet you chose to remove the above para without even checking if it was in there! Furthermore Goldacre's articles state quite clearly But would you know it, a copy of that draft adjudication has fallen into our laps, and it concludes that "the claim 'Dr' was likely to mislead". The advert allegedly breached two clauses of the Committee of Advertising Practice code: "substantiation" and "truthfulness". Clearly this is not his opinion - but reporting of the contents of the draft ruling. So there is nothing - repeat NOTHING wrong with quoting Goldacre here!  Jooler 22:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read what I wrote. If a Guardian reporter, not Goldacre, has reported it, we can use it. We cannot use it if the only source who reported it was Goldacre, for the reasons stated ad nauseam — in part because it's a contentious claim in an opinion piece and this is a BLP, and in part because we've used him too much already. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slim here it is:) http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,,2011151,00.html the article in the guardian (not by Goldacre) says they've seen the ASA info using the phrase 'likely to mislead'.  We can't ban the whole Guardian just because Goldacre writes a column there.  They are not daft, they would have viewed the document for themselves, it says 'seen by the Guardian' not just 'seen by Goldacre.'Merkinsmum 01:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry if I'm not making myself clear here. I said if the only source is Goldacre, we can't use it, but if other sources, including other Guardian reporters, have repeated the claim, we can. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we can? hurrah!:)Merkinsmum 02:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: if the only source is Goldacre, we can't use it - I for one take issue with that wholly unjustified assertion (and your threats on my talk page won't stop me from doing so). Nonetheless, when you removed the matter in this edit: removed the ASA stuff which is repeated below (it wasn't), the source was The Times, not Goldacre. Andy Mabbett 11:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I were you I would take WP:BLP, and all threats associated with, very seriously. Jayjg (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Slim if would be good if you read the stuff that you removed before you removed it! I do not understand for what reason other than prejudice that you assert that - "if the only source is Goldacre, we can't use it" - he states "But would you know it, a copy of that draft adjudication has fallen into our laps, and it concludes that "the claim 'Dr' was likely to mislead". The advert allegedly breached two clauses of the Committee of Advertising Practice code: "substantiation" and "truthfulness" - even if it wasn't reported elsewhere in the Guardian! Jooler 11:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have that it was deemed "likely to mislead", which is very clear. Adding  "substantiation" and "truthfulness" does not add anything worth adding. WAS 4.250 12:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft ASA adjudication

message: The links:
:*"A Menace To Science", accessed February 14th 2007. 	 
:*B3ta.com's interesting take on the new of McKieth's dropping the "Dr." title, accessed February 15th 2007.
were removed with the edit summary:
:yes, why are they, here? These should be referenced to, not external link style thing...
By what policy should they be "referenced to, not external link style thing" (sic)? And why were they not so referenced, instead of being removed? Andy Mabbett 19:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed because the first is the same source we agreed there was already too much of, and that piece is anyway repetitive, and the second because it's not a reliable source. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We agreed no such thing. I note that you do not answer my question about policy, and that your answer does not reflect the editor's view that the links should be "referenced to". Andy Mabbett 19:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "we" did agree. If you read all the comments about this, there was agreement that we need to use other sources and not keep on appearing to promote Goldacre. I think the other editor meant the second website wasn't used in the text, and therefore there was no need to add it to EL, but the point is that it's not a reliable source either way. The relevant policies would be V, perhaps NOR, possibly EL, though I haven't checked this last one recently. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No such agreement by me and several others. Jooler 22:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor me. The allegation of "appearing to promote Goldacre" is a red herring, and bogus. Andy Mabbett 11:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Neither of the links are referenced once, let alone seven times. Andy Mabbett 11:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, you are right, this Goldacre article is not referenced, sorry for the mix-up; but I do think it is redundant. It used to back-up his criticism of her nutritional "science", but I replaced it with Goldacre's BMJ column. It seemed that most of the arguments contained in this piece, he has rewritten in a more sophisticated tone for his BMJ column. I haven't completely checked it, but I clearly liked his BMJ column a lot more. In general, I prefer external link sections to be links to valuable resources, not just a single article, otherwise these EL section tend to grow as users just add their favorite stuff. --Merzul 14:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Pigs, you're reverting in the name of a POV that Goldacre is an "investigative journalist" of all things, when nothing could be further from the truth. He writes an opinion column, for heaven's sake! Anyway, the reason I made the edit is that the previous paragraph starts with "Goldacre has written that," and this one begins with "Goldacre writes that," and that's poor writing. Therefore I tweaked the second to improve the flow of the section, and also because it got rid of the pompous" investigating" when all he did was send off for a certificate for his cat. It's not a major improvement to the writing, but it is an improvement nonetheless, so why do you feel the need to revert it? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you've actually read much Ben Golddacre much have you? It's not merely an opinion piece. The whole point of it is that he debunks false claims by "investigating" the truthfullness of them - this often involves looking up the fact as per the article that he won an award for - see also Centre for Investigative Journalism - guest speaker Ben Goldacre Jooler 00:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Who the hell is "Pigs"? Andy Mabbett 19:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your user name is Pigsonthewing. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV versus the writing

message: I believe a better article is here: http://www.badscience.net/?p=362#more-362 - for a start, it cites further sources. -82.5.72.10 14:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And looking at Talk:Gillian McKeith/Archive 6#Goldacre blog vs. Guardian. --Merzul 22:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guardian article