Talk:Gillian McKeith/Archive 8

message: Well, at least there has been some progress since I last saw this, especially flattening the criticism section and putting the rebuttals at the appropriate places. Now, I wanted to add something about her father dying and she going on a crusade against smoking. It's such a sentimental story and Max Clifford is really proud of it, but...  the cited article said his father was a "Shipyard worker" and our other source says he is a "civil servant", so are there many shipyard working civil servants in the UK, or do we have a conflict here? --Merzul 04:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm slightly confused with the source that it is taken from, it seems like a rant about everything, and then mentions McKeith somewhere there. I actually wanted to add something about why she is so damn popular, and I was assuming that her collection would contain something, but finding somebody that says nice things about this woman isn't easy. I think Max Clifford should be fired!  --Merzul 05:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Her father

message: Jokes aside, WP:WFTE has a link to Principle of charity, and that's an article I would recommend to our more critical editors; because that's what this article desperately misses. This woman is presented entirely through the eyes of her enemies; so without joking, we need to write a bit for Max Clifford. --Merzul 02:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing for Max Clifford 

message: Is this being used? http://observer.guardian.co.uk/foodmonthly/story/0,9950,1502075,00.html Jooler 03:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a quick one

message: She promotes "Miracle superfood: wild blue-green algae" which can be deadly; and whose deadly effects is called "detoxification" by the quacks. In other words, as it poisons you the quacks are telling you it is helping you. It has been legally dealt with but our laws are weak against lying profit centers that give campaign contributions. 
Cyanobacteria is the scientific name for blue-green algae, or "pond scum." Cyanobacterial toxins are the naturally produced poisons stored in the cells of certain species of cyanobacteria. One group of toxins produced and released by cyanobacteria are called microcystins because they were isolated from a cyanobacterium called Microcystis aeruginosa. Microcystins are the most common of the cyanobacterial toxins found in water, as well as being the ones most often responsible for poisoning animals and humans who come into contact with toxic blooms. Although many people have become ill from exposure to freshwater cyanobacterial toxins, death from algal-contaminated drinking water is unlikely to occur given that water resources are usually effectively managed to control taste, odour and other algae-related problems. It's possible that extended exposure to low levels of cyanobacterial hepatotoxins could have long-term or chronic effects in humans. Historically, large-scale harvesting of blue-green algae masses was done for research purposes, to study their properties, their possible use as therapeutic and antibiotic agents, and their potential as agricultural commodities. Today, the algae used to manufacture blue-green algal products are harvested from controlled ponds or natural lakes. Before or during harvest, some types of algae will naturally produce chemicals such as microcystins, and these toxins could be retained in the blue-green algal products. Blue-green algal products are sold in some pharmacies and health food stores as food supplements, often in tablet or caplet form. Health Canada is advising consumers to apply caution in their use of the products until evidence of their safety can be firmly established. In particular, adult consumers who choose to use products containing non-Spirulina blue-green algae should do so for short periods of time only. However, consumers can safely use products made only from Spirulina blue-green algae as these were found to be free of microcystins. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/water-eau/drink-potab/cyanobacteria-cyanobacteries_e.html
In 1982, Microalgae International Sales Corp. (MISCORP) and its founder, Christopher Hills, agreed to pay $225,000 to settle charges that they had made false claims about spirulina. The company had claimed that its spirulina products were effective for weight control and had therapeutic value against diabetes, anemia, liver disease, and ulcers. On May 5, 1999, the Canadian Health Protection Branch warned that products containing blue-green algae may contain toxins harmful to the liver and some species of blue-green algae naturally produce toxins known as microcystins. To determine the extent of this problem, Health Canada, through the Office of Natural Health Products, Therapeutic Products Program, and the Food Directorate of the Health Protection Branch, surveyed products to determine how many are on the market, in what forms they are, and the levels of microcystins they contain. On September 27, 1999, the survey results were announced in a news release: Results of Health Canada's market survey testing of blue-green algal products show that no microcystins were detected in products made from only one type of blue-green algae, Spirulina blue-green algae, which is generally harvested from controlled ponds. However, testing indicates that for many non-Spirulina blue-green algal products, harvested from natural lakes, consumption according to manufacturers directions results in a daily intake of microcystins above that considered acceptable by Health Canada and the World Health Organization. Microcystins are toxins which accumulate in the liver and can cause liver damage. They are naturally produced by some kinds of blue-green algae. Blue-green algal products are sold in tablet, capsule, or powder forms as food supplements, often as a natural source of minerals. Health Canada began its broad sampling of blue-green algal products available on the Canadian market in May 1999, after several blue-green algal products were found to contain unacceptable levels of microcystins. Analytical testing was then performed to measure the levels of microcystins in the blue-green algal products, and the level of risk to Canadian consumers was determined. Based on the results, products made only from Spirulina blue-green algae are no longer considered a microcystin-related health risk. For non-Spirulina blue-green algal products, follow-up will be done on a case by case basis. Health Canada's Food Directorate has communicated the test results and their health significance to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and has indicated that products on the Canadian market, when consumed according to manufacturers directions, should not exceed the daily intake of microcystins considered acceptable by the World Health Organization and Health Canada. Subsequent compliance measures are the responsibility of the CFIA. Health Canada recommends that children not be given products containing the non-Spirulina blue-green algae until measures to address any risk have been implemented. Because of their lower body weight, children are at greater risk of developing serious illness from blue-green algal products containing elevated levels of microcystins, especially if these products are ingested for an extended period of time. Despite recent reports that blue-green algal products can be used as a treatment for Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), Health Canada has not received any evidence to support such claims, and has not authorized the marketing of any blue-green algal products for any therapeutic purpose. In Canada, the blue-green algal products examined to date are sold as foods, and Health Canada does not allow therapeutic claims for substances sold as foods. Adult consumers who choose to use products containing non-Spirulina blue-green algae should do so for short periods of time only. Adverse symptoms from long-term use of these products (weeks to months) may not be obvious but could range from a feeling of general malaise or gastrointestinal discomfort, to jaundice. Concerned consumers should contact their health care professionals for advice [4]. In May 2000, the Oregon Department of Health released data from a survey which found that 63 out of 87 samples contained microcystin levels above its regulatory limit of 1 microgram/gram. The published abstract states: The presence of blue-green algae (BGA) toxins in surface waters used for drinking water sources and recreation is receiving increasing attention around the world as a public health concern. . . . BGA products are commonly consumed in the United States, Canada, and Europe for their putative beneficial effects, including increased energy and elevated mood. Many of these products contain Aphanizomenon flos-aquae, a BGA that is harvested from Upper Klamath Lake (UKL) in southern Oregon, where the growth of a toxic BGA, Microcystis aeruginosa, is a regular occurrence. M. aeruginosa produces compounds called microcystins, which are potent hepatotoxins and probable tumor promoters. Because M. aeruginosa coexists with A. flos-aquae, it can be collected inadvertently during the harvesting process, resulting in microcystin contamination of BGA products. In fall 1996, the Oregon Health Division learned that UKL was experiencing an extensive M. aeruginosa bloom, and an advisory was issued recommending against water contact. The advisory prompted calls from consumers of BGA products, who expressed concern about possible contamination of these products with microcystins. In response, the Oregon Health Division and the Oregon Department of Agriculture established a regulatory limit of 1 µg/g for microcystins in BGA-containing products and tested BGA products for the presence of microcystins. Microcystins were detected in 85 of 87 samples tested, with 63 samples (72%) containing concentrations > 1 µg/g. HPLC and ELISA tentatively identified microcystin-LR, the most toxic microcystin variant, as the predominant congener [5]. 
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/algae.html
I investigated the algae when one of my patients came in sick after eating some. The patient had symptoms of poisoning caused by endotoxins or enterotoxins - nausea, vomiting, fever, chills, malaise. I called the salesman who sold my patient the algae, and he said these symptoms proved the algae was working, that the patient's body was ridding itself of toxins. But this patient was a vegetarian, lived in the country, exercised regularly, and was very healthy before she ate the algae. Based on the salesman's reasoning, my reaction to eating algae should have been ten times more nauseating, since I eat meat, drink city water, live in a moldy home, listen to Lou Reed records, etc. [...] I received several pro-algae letters from Vermonters; 100% were Cell Tech distributors. Nobody wrote a positive note who didn't have a vested interest in Cell Tech. I heard from six people with bad "algae stories," who suffered many side effects after taking SBGA, including nausea, vomiting, chills, fever, anxiety, psychosis, and even hepatitis. [...] The manuscript has undergone truthful peer reviews by another health practitioner, Dr. Matheson; an author/medical researcher, Dr. Roos; and researcher, Dr. Soons. Their letters are enclosed. All references directly support the statements and assertions of my article. No conclusion or summary statement of any reference is in opposition to my premise. I have not been paid to write this article. I do not work for a proprietary company which will benefit by publication of this article. I do not sell or provide a product or service which will benefit by publication of this article. http://www.tldp.com/issue/167/algae.html
The defendants were permanently enjoined from manufacturing and marketing any products that contain blue-green algae.http://www.mlmwatch.org/05FDA/kclabs.html
In early May 1999, Health Canada warned consumers that products containing blue-green algae may contain toxins harmful to the liver and should not be given to children.http://www.life.ca/nl/68/algae.html
As near as I can tell, she promotes poison. WAS 4.250 05:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WAS, practically all drugs are poison too. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Poison" means "too much". Water is poisonous in sufficient quantities. The very name of her book "Miracle superfood: wild blue-green algae" claims a substance which can be toxic in small doses is actually a food which indicates it is not to be taken in minute doses even tho she sells it in tiny doses mixed with applejuice (which is mostly sugar) at prices indicating it is drug like with health benefit claims without the kind of tests needed to make it legal to sell as a drug. What part of this fraud aren't you understanding? WAS 4.250 16:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: WAS, your sources talk about the "deadly" effects of blue-green algae. Can you name one person who is believed to have died as a result of ingesting the amounts recommended by health food stores? SlimVirgin (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could either one of you first specify what this is about. Is it about the use of the term "quackery" in the lead paragraph, or is it more concerned with the general tone of this article? I would prefer if these two issues were discussed independently. --Merzul 14:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For me, it's about the use of the terms "quackery" and "pseudoscience," as well as the general tone, which is "science = good," and we're not supposed to make that judgment, even if the proposition were meaningful, which it isn't. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I agree with you about the general tone; and I fully support all efforts to remove quackwatch style indiscriminate criticism of alternative medicine. However, WAS is making a very strong case that "quackery" is a good term to describe the opinion of the critics of McKeith and he has formulated the sentence, I think, in such a way that it isn't endorsing the use of this term. Again, when you read the entire sentence (Criticism of McKeith's position can be summed up as an allegation of quackery; her defence is that she uses a holistic, rather than a standard, approach to nutrition.), does it still seem loaded and POV? I think it is quite fair. --Merzul 15:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is my standard take on the use of pejoratives. We as WP cannot call someone 'stupid', even if the evidence appears to point to it. OTOH, if we have verifiable reliable source X calling Y stupid, and it is otherwise pertinent and relevant, we may directly quote it, "X has called Y 'stupid'[1]". In this case, since 'quackery' and 'pseudoscience' are considered by many (myself included FWIW) to be pejorative terms, we can only cite them inside a quote, per the above, IMO. Thanks, Crum375 15:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, thank you so much Crum375, because a third opinion was really needed here! And this is especially pertinent since Ian Hendrson has also raised the concern that very few of her critics actually directly calls her a "quack"; none of our nutrition experts directly use that term, and when I searched for it, even Goldacre only used it indirectly. So while I still think WAS is extremely convincing, the lack of any source that actually uses the term "quack" in this regard probably means we shouldn't summarize them as saying so. --Merzul 15:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Missed the discussion going on down here - I agree about avoiding "quackery" and "pseudoscience".  I put together a sentence that might work to summarise her critics' views' under Who uses Quackery?, above. IanHenderson 16:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Quackery' is more often used for gadgets, such as Hulda Clark's zapper, and maybe techniques, such as reiki.  'Unscientific' is more accurate and self-explanatary to the average reader I think.Merkinsmum 17:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The claim that she's endangering people's lives is surely hyperbole

message: I added the reasons (breach of the ASA code on "substantiation" and "truthfulness") for her use of "Doctor" being prohibited by the ASA to the article the other day, referenced to Ben Goldacre's article, but someone has reverted the changes.  Why?  I am very familiar with the ASA process from my own work and have to say that the section about her being prohibited by them from using "Doctor" looks like it has been carefully worded to obscure the seriousness of the issue and end on a positive spin.  According to the ASA she agreed to remove "Doctor" from ALL her advertising; she later changed tack, or at least Max Clifford did, in interviews with the press to say she thought it only applied to one leaflet.  The ASA also stated that her inclusion of a disclaimer about not being a medical doctor would make no difference to their adjudication as they thought it would still mislead, so her response, dismissing the issue, glosses over this in a way that falsely trivialises the nature of the decision.  Are the people editing these facts out trying to put a PR spin on the story?  You're wasting your energy; the truth will get out in the end, it's already all over the Sunday papers again. 172.207.163.158 09:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you seen the ASA documents where it says she agreed to remove Dr. from all her advertising, and then later changed tack for the press?  If you have quotes from ASA itself, please put them in the article.  We don't have them in there at the moment.  And I don't mean the 'truthfulness' etc refs in Goldacre's article.  I mean actual quotes from the ASA report on it.  Yes I do think McKeith may get in more trouble one way or another, but that's not for us to judge and write a piece about what a bad'un she is.  If she gets reprimanded again- then we put it in the article.Merkinsmum 12:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have spoken to ASA.  They have already confirmed the information included by Ben Goldacre in his article, which he correctly presented as quotations from their investigation.  If you are disputing the ASA decision cited by Ben Goldacre and referenced to his article then why don't you provide counter-evidence to show that Ben lied or fabricated the evidence in his article?  Anyone can call ASA for themselves, as I have, and confirm that his report is accurate.  I don't understand why any reasonable person would assume he was lying anyway.  The ASA responded to the content of his article by confirming the decision in the media, they certainly didn't say he was fabricating it.  Asking for further proof, when ASA themselves have already confirmed the story, seems like a lamentably contrived excuse to delete the information from this article.  Where is your proof to the contrary?  HypnoSynthesis 14:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me make a few suggestions. First, in a contentious topic such as this one, it would help to run changes here on the Talk page first. Although we encourage people to be bold and edit, we also caution them that in controversial articles they are likely to be quickly reverted. Second, in this particular case I believe an agreement was reached to limit the evidence from Goldacre, since it seems that much of the article is sourced from him, and we believe it would sound more encyclopedic if we have multiple independent sources. There is also the issue of neutral balance and due weight, that have to be carefully considered. Bottom line, please try to engage in discussion here, you'd be more likely to effect your changes that way. Also, it probably would be helpful to stick to the message and refrain from criticizing the messenger. Thanks, Crum375 16:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict, probably just saying the same...) It's a delicate balance to reach a neutral and sensitive representation that all of us are happy with. Just because something is the absolute truth doesn't mean it can immediately be included here since there are so many other concerns. As to this issue, I believe it was WAS who said that it's enough to say "likely to mislead" we don't need any more on this issue. --Merzul 16:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand your reasoning.  Goldacre's article is the only source for the ASA recommendation so there aren't other sources that it can be drawn from.  It is a quotation from a regulatory body, so hardly a biased point of view, it cites an established fact about the findings of their investigation.  How is it "neutral" to delete a factual statement?  You said changes should normally be discussed here on the talk page.  Sounds great.  I didn't see any explanation offered here for the deletions, though.  If you guys think it's best to leave it out then I guess we have to agree to disagree.  At least say why you're deleting edits made in good faith in future though.  172.207.163.158 17:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the Guardian reporter apparently wrote about it. We can use that article as our source. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Please have a look at /Archive 7#Draft ASA adjudication. There seems to be a clear consensus that it is not needed. --Merzul 17:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a quick specification, "clear consensus" was a bit overstating it, but it seems a very reasonable compromise considering how much spirited debate there was about including "likely to mislead" at all! Wanting to include more on the issue really is pushing it. Anyway, my deletions were also done in good faith ;), but sorry if it lacked explanations. --Merzul 17:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be possible to read the ASA documents for ourselves soon or if we ask.  My problem with goldacre's words from them is he has cherry-picked 3 or 4 words, we don't know the context for the 'truthfulness' and other single words he quotes, and if they said anything polite towards mckeith you can guarantee he wouldn't mention it. (Please no-one flame me for saying this lol, the tone on this talkpage can feel quite intimidating at times what with the claims that we are POV spies working for Max Clifford etc lol.  If anyone looked at my user contribs, they would see that when they are about subjects such as this, they are usually of a sceptical or critical nature.)Merkinsmum 18:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "clear consensus" was a bit overstating it - No, it understated the fact that there remains no such consensus whatsoever. Andy Mabbett 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You can phone the ASA now and ask.  As I think I've previously stated, the ASA themselves have already been quoted as confirming the story in several different newspaper articles.  I have spoken to them about it myself.  It's a bit frustrating when you know the facts and other people are basing their views on misinformation and speculation but -deep breath!- I appreciate that it might conceivably be argued by people that Ben Goldacre is somehow distorting the ASA recommendation by quoting it badly out of context.  In fact, he is definitely not, but you would need to check with ASA to prove it.  I spoke to them myself.  There is nothing "polite towards mckeith" that has been suppressed by Goldacre -what an assumption!  Like I said, though, I think it's pretty unfair and unreasonable to assume Ben Goldacre is lying or misquoting, and if anyone really wants to argue that his article grossly distorts the recommendations, I think the onus is on them to confirm that with ASA, who I am sure will say just the opposite.  I don't think anyone should need to go that far, though, surely it is normal in Wikipedia just to quote a source like the Guardian newspaper as reliable in the absence of any evidence whatsoever to the contrary? --HypnoSynthesis 16:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether you've spoken to the ASA or anyone else, as you claim, is irrelevant, because it's OR and because you're an unknown editor who has made a total of 19 edits to the encyclopedia in seven months. I wonder why so many accounts with few edits and broken contributions histories are gathering on this and the Ben Goldacre pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm also concerned, but for a slightly different reason. I'm essentially following this to learn about how difficult articles are handled on wikipedia. From my perspective, I see editors, like  WAS 4.250 and SlimVirgin who have very different POVs (from the above spirited discussion you can see they feel very strongly about this issue), and yet they are capable of compromising. On the other hand, there seems to be group of editors here that based on their edits and comments seem to absolutely hate McKeith, which is fine I guess, but this hatred has been carried over to fellow Wikipedians, who are simply trying to improve the article. Many sceptical editors, who simply don't harbour enough hatred towards the subject to include every piece of damning evidence, and this includes myself, have been subject to severe accusations of POV-pushing. This is not something I'm very happy about. --Merzul 17:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have the ASA been quoted in print as saying McKeith has lacked 'truthfulness' and such? (apart from by Goldacre I mean). The only phrase I think I've seen is 'likely to mislead'.  The ASA decisions (even informal ones) for each week are on their website but I couldn't find this case listed. So I don't know if it's just to early to be listed, or what.  Maybe I just didn't find it.  But if and when they put it online, we can use it.Merkinsmum 17:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's listed, with no detail, here:. Since it was resolved informally I don't believe the draft will ever be published. It is clear that a) the ASA was going to rule against her (see the PA ), and b) the ASA has a limited number of categories  under which it could rule against her. Note that the definition of 'truthfulness'  includes the phrase "likely to mislead", which is what the ASA is saying about her. Do with this as you will though, I resolved not to get involved in this article - I'm just an account with few edits and a broken contribution history, after all. Hypnotist uk 14:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To follow myself up, a search of the full CAP code reveals the phrase 'likely to mislead' appears under the following categories: Truthfulness, Comparisons with identified competitors and/or their products, Other comparisons and Imitation. Hypnotist uk 14:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'm disappointed that I'm getting this kind of hostility just for suggesting that a quotation from the Guardian newspaper might be suitable for inclusion.  I'm not "anti-McKeith", I just thought this quote was relevant and don't understand the reasons for objecting to it.  My question was why it is assumed that the Guardian article can't be trusted as a reliable source?  It quotes from ASA.  As I said, surely it's unfair to assume their quote is false in the absence of evidence.  (I only added incidentally, that I've confirmed it with them, as anyone else can.)  Apart from anything else, if the quote was false or a lie the Guardian would presumably be sued for publishing it, and the ASA would also have objected to being misquoted.  If the ASA and McKeith don't object to it, I'm surprised that editors on Wikipedia question it's truth.  --HypnoSynthesis 22:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Given PA are reporting that the ASA said the claim was "likely to mislead" (see above), do we still need "The Guardian says..." in the article? If not, I personally think we have room to quote Goldacre about which areas of the code it breaches (see verification above that it is almost certainly Truthfulness). That said, I do wonder (per WAS in the archive) whether it really adds much to the article to do so. Hypnotist uk 13:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it adds anything worth adding (to "likely to mislead") and some very fine wikipedia editors believe we shouldn't add more stuff from Goldacre for now. I have no opinion on the "The Guardian says..." matter. WAS 4.250 19:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ASA breach 

message: Some of the discussion above about blue-green algae leads me to think that the article would be more informative if it elaborated on McKeith's more notable views.  Two examples:
1) One of the things she's most notable for is her stool diagnosis IMO.  (Just to get an indication, I've been asking friends and family what comes into their minds when they think of Gillian McKeith, and this is the top of the list.)  Currently, the article says: "McKeith argues that examining and smelling faeces can give clues to bodily misfunction.", but given how notable this topic is, I think we should provide the reader with more detail.  In fact some time ago, despite its faults, the Wikipedia article did have some quotes from YAWYE on the subject.
2) Similarly, I think her views on blue-green algae should be represented in more detail because of their notability - she wrote a whole book on it after all (albeit quite a short one), in addition to a chapter in her "living food for health" book and material elsewhere (e.g. in YAWYE).  The article currently says "McKeith's advice in her book Miracle Superfood: Wild Blue-Green Algae is disputed.", but the reader is left little wiser about what this advice is and her reasons for promoting it.  We did used to have a quote from "Miracle superfood: wild blue-green algae", which indicates why she thinks BGA is worth eating:
"Some algae enthusiasts believe that if you eat blue-green algae on a regular basis, you will connect with something essential and ancient. Richard France, a macrobiotic counselor, states it is not inconceivable that on subtle vibrational levels, unique genetic memories and messages of harmony and peace are stored in algae, which have grown undisturbed for aeons in a pristine environment. This information may be passed on to us at a cellular level, encouraging harmony among our own cellular family."
Would the article benefit from such an elaboration of McKeith's views on notable subjects?  And what subjects do we consider "notable"?
IanHenderson 14:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would! There used to be some information about her views, but I remember removing some material from her book because it was only used to bolster criticism. So, basically, Goldacre's criticism had just been substantiated by quotations from McKeith's book, and this is the kind of mixture of sources that we should avoid. If we are citing McKeith, then we should fairly present her views, and the critics should be cited in such a way that we don't add anything to their argumentation, does this make sense? --Merzul 15:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it makes a lot of sense. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree here with both Slim and Merzul. I think it would be good to expand McKeith's views but the quote above that I deleted has a number of problems: as a quote provided by her opposition it may not be representative or a fair summary of her views; she is quoting someone else and I don't know the context so it is not certain his views are hers; I can't tell if this is puffery on her part - perhaps some color added to fill out the feel of the book for her new-age readers or if this is a key part of her misonception of the physics of the universe. WAS 4.250 16:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; a summary of her views on blue-green algae (and/or appropriate quote) should come from her books themselves, rather than from a New Scientist column that doesn't give the full context.  "Miracle Superfood: Wild Blue-Green Algae" looks easy to come by, so I may get a copy. IanHenderson 17:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the article didn't have as encyclopedic a style in the past IMHO. It was a list of quotes interspersed with insults and mockery:):)  If we can keep the encyclopedic style I don't mind what quotes etc are in here, but the article's style was very loose and informal in the past.Merkinsmum 18:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding on McKeith's more notable views

message: I've added a couple of references that indicate the popularity of McKeith as an author (specifically referring to her book You Are What You Eat).  I've checked out the references, and believe they are defensible - the Public Lending Right figure has already been discussed to some extent.  "Bestseller" figures are notoriously hard to come by (I think the NY Times keeps its methodology secret, for instance), but the most reliable figures, used elsewhere in Wikipedia, seem to be from Nielsen BookScan (see Bestsellers for a summary of them) which I found in The Observer bestseller list that I've referenced.
I'm not sure whether it's fair to say she's a "popular author" based on these figures though.  It's true some of her other books (e.g. the YAWYE cookbook) have also sold well, but "popular author" may still be a bit of an extrapolation.  It's a term used elsewhere in Wikipedia BLP articles, but is it justified here?
Any thoughts about this or the references I've used?
Oops, forgot to sign again.  Another thought - maybe just one of those refs is sufficient.--IanHenderson 15:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: McKeith's popularity as an author