Talk:Gillian McKeith/Archive 4

message: People keep changing it to no alcohol, but she only recommends this for some people, or for a short time whilst on a detox diet.  The ref. that was used is what she recommends for a detox after the holiday season.  If she publically said no alcohol -for everyone- people would just laugh.  
One version of her diet is much stricter than the other one, like on the TV programme, I think that is also a detox diet.Merkinsmum 13:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: alcohol/detox

message: The image currently on the page can't be claimed under fair use, and is meant to be deleted shortly. I've written to McKeith asking if she'll release one for our use. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A 20 year-old air-brush photo - not really NPOV. Jooler 00:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume that when you say "for our use", you actually mean something like GDFL or Public Domain, because when I joined, I uploaded some images, and one of the licences I was not allowed to choose was one where the image was permitted for Wikipedia alone — something to do with Wikipedia being a available for free copying and free modification as well as for free use. But I'm not fully clear on image copyrights, yet. ElinorD 01:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The slogan "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" makes the same mistake that Richard Stallman made that forced him to forever afterwords explain "free as libre not free as in gratis" or other such phrases, usualy involving beer. The foundation of the Wikipedia community is to be found in the free culture movement and Wikipedia was born an encyclopedia that promotes the freedom to reuse information in all media forms. Wikipedia, the freedom encyclopedia is more accurate. WAS 4.250 21:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: "The American Association of Drugless Practitioners Certification and Accreditation Board was established in 1990" so it can't have accredited the American Holistic College of Nutrition, as it then was, when GM attended there.  states that Clayton College has only been accredited by the AMAB since 1996, so the same criticism applies. Clayton College does not appear on CHEA's list or the US Department of Education's list of accredited institutions. Neither the AADP or the ANMAB are recognised accreditation agencies for naturopathic medicine. Motmot 14:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accreditation status of Clayton College

message: Clayton College of Natural Health has its own article now.  Mock away:) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merkinsmum (talk • contribs) 20:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clayton

message: http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,,2011095,00.html
Recaps some information he's already covered before, but has some new information. Perhaps someone with more spare time than me can use it to expand the entry.
P. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulmoloney (talk • contribs) 12:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Goldacre Article 

message: I wonder whether these articles will be useful for this article, or are they not regarded as reliable sources? I'm not sure what is acceptable any more.
Advertising Standards Authority adjudication: http://www.asa.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/1EFF75D3-C489-4DB1-BE7B-B9712782CC4F/0/Broadcastrulings8June05.pdf
Behind the label: Dr Gillian McKeith's living food love bar: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/healthy_eating/article474842.ece
Decent, honest and truthful?: http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/volume119issue6_comments.php?id=1058_0_33_0_C
Food fighters: http://www.guardian.co.uk/befit/story/0,,1379280,00.html
--Conjoiner 13:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That particular ASA ruling is not as juicy as if there is a 'likely to mislead' one, which might be a scoopMerkinsmum 16:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles 

message: Can someone explain why the photograph was removed? ••Briantist•• talk 16:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't remove the photo - it was provided for publicity and is covered by fair use. ••Briantist•• talk 16:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikimedia foundation's goal is freely useable educational information. Information in a form that is less than freely useable that can be expected to eventually be replaced by equivalent information in a freely useable form is being removed. In practise this boils down to deleting non-free images of living persons. The issue is that some people misunderstand wikipedia as a free (gratis) encyclopedia when it is a free (libre) encyclopedia. WAS 4.250 17:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. That photo shouldn't be there, not because it's necessarily breaking the law, but because it's breaking Wikipedia policy, which is stricter than the law. I was confused with images copyright tags when I joined, and still don't fully understand them, but I understand that when I submit content to an article, it may be freely copied onto other websites. Using images that we take from other websites, even when they are promotional photos, compromises the idea of something which may be freely copied, reused, modified, etc. And since Gillian is alive, and a fan (or critic!) could go along to one of her lectures or book-signing sessions, etc. and take a photo, the photo here is not valid as a "fair use" one (as far as I know). ElinorD 17:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've received a photograph from McKeith's company to which they've released all the rights, and I've added it to the article, but there seem to be server issues today — it took ages to upload and now I can't see it on the page. I'm assuming this will right itself soon enough. In case others can't see it either, it is there. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted the edit as it doesn't produce a photo and there is no reason to remove the one supplied by Channel 4's press office. ••Briantist•• talk 18:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the matter with you SlimVirgin?  Why can't you read and understand  Wikipedia:Publicity photos ???? ••Briantist•• talk 18:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can read it, and it says: "If it is possible to replace the publicity image with a new, free, image of similar value to the reader then the free image must be used in preference to the restricted and copyrighted publicity photograph." SlimVirgin (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it was OK before a replacement was obtained? I just want to know. ••Briantist•• talk 19:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, no. The Foundation is tightening up its fair use policy, and it's very unusual for a photograph of a living person to be allowed to remain on the site under fair use. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: How am I supposed to work that out?  The above is not a summary of Wikipedia:Publicity photos, is it? ••Briantist•• talk 21:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're supposed to "work that out" by reading our image policies e.g. WP:FU; and for editing, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP; and as for implying in edit summaries that regular editors are vandals, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:VANDAL. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I can see the image now. Thanks for going to the trouble of getting it, SlimVirgin. Oh, and Briantist, could you please stop using "rvv" for edit summaries when reverting edits that you disagree with, but which are not made with the intention of harming the encylopaedia? Thanks. ElinorD 19:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome, Elinor. Thank you to Crum375 who e-mailed me to suggest reducing the resolution, which made it work. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome ;^) Crum375 19:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: I don't know whether The Guardian is considered a reliable source, but yesterday's G2 section contained a feature pages long destroying McKeith's qualifications and her bogus science.--Conjoiner 01:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's Ben Goldacre again though, her bette noire.  Other sources are needed.  Maybe swap some of the quotes by him for these newer ones if you think they are better, but there can't be more quotes by him in here really.Merkinsmum 03:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's starting to get worrying how much of this article depends on him. We have to rely on other sources from now on. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is that because she doesn't actually do any research or publish peer-reviewed papers, there isn't a lot of evidence at all in support of her approach to nutrition. Most of the article is focussed on her questionable qualifications and research, and not on her undeniable broadcasting and publishing skills. 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. Phaedrus86 05:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one's saying the Guardian as a whole is banned.  Just that the article you mention is by Goldacre, we already know what Goldacre thinks about McKeith and there's a lot of quotes by him in the articleMerkinsmum 13:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We are not discounting Ben Goldcare's research on McKeith. It is simply a matter of balance. We already have a lot of his quotes included, and since this is BLP we prefer to have other independent neutral verifiable sources also. Otherwise, this will become another Goldcare attack piece and not an encyclopedic article. Again, this has nothing to do with the merits of Goldcare's arguments or evidence - it's just that we'd like to balance his views with those of other independent sources. Crum375 19:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Goldacre is the main investigator and debunker of of her claims. We are not talking about quotes - we are talking about research. I see no reason whatsoever why a well founded research and investigation by Goldacre should not be included. Jooler 23:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, nobody says he can't be included, just that he shouldn't monopolise the article. Are there some earlier Goldacre references that can be removed? Can we find similar material from other sources, just to balance the article a bit more? ElinorD 23:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with Crum375. Nobody is saying that we can't quote Goldacre. But as the article stood a few days ago, the whole thing might have been written by him. I'm perfectly happy to quote Goldacre, but there's something wrong with the balance if in every paragraph we have Goldacre's comments on McKeith. I remember hearing in college that we'd get bad marks for our assignments (or even fail them) if we relied almost exclusively on one source. So, if there's a new quotation from Goldacre that we think is better than some of his previous ones, then let's discuss it here, and take out one of the others. And I'm saying that as someone who is not a fan of McKeith, but who just wants an article that shows some balance. ElinorD 19:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, we need to start using other sources, and to stop relying on Ben Goldacre. This isn't his blog. It's almost as though some editors here are trying to promote him, and we can't afford to have even a hint of that. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is "relying" on him; the article is a significant piece of journalism in relation to McKeith, and I take exception to both the censorship of referrals to it and the implicit accusations in your comment, which fail to assume good faith Andy Mabbett 23:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Guardian