Talk:Gillian McKeith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]


Peer review Gillian McKeith has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Birth Place

Gillian McKeith was born and brought up in Perth, Scotland. Later in her life, she moved to America for an extended period. Grayum 09:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

"See Quackery." Yeah...real neutral. Welcome to Wikipedia.

I don't see the problem at all (though I hasten to mention, I didn't add "See Quackery"). I think it's pretty widely accepted amongst scientists that while some of the basic ideas that McKeith expounds are sound, a lot of what she says/writes is pure rubbish (e.g. that analysing your bodily waste can say a lot about your diet; eating fatty food makes you grow spots; that 'sugar turns to fat in the body' (misleading at best); that drinking coffee is 'bad for you', despite not giving any evidence why; her fundamental misunderstanding of plant and human biology, etc). If anything, I think the article could be a little less hagiographic and mention more of McKeith's critics.

[edit] Photo

Would it be fair to replace the photo with a less airbrushed one? I'm not doing this to be denigrating, but I do feel it's false pretence for a health expert to use such a photo when, in real life, she is slightly more haggard (to put it mildly).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/jowhiley/images/gillian_mckeith/420.jpg

P. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulmoloney (talk • contribs) 17:06, 16 January, 2006.

Hi, Paul. Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this ~~~~. They will automatically expand into your signature plus the date and the time. Regarding the photo, the most important thing is that we don't violate copyright laws. After that, it's a matter of getting consensus on which photo should be used. AnnH (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ann, sorry, forgot the signature there. How does one go about verifying a photo found on the web doesn't violate copyright? Any idea if the BBC holds copyright on all pics on their site? If so, would the web master of the BBC site be the person to contact?

--Paul Moloney 09:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not well up on the image copyright issue, but I can tell you that Wikipedia is getting stricter and stricter about it. So I'd tread carefully if I were you. You might be interested in reading a discussion (or fight) that has been going on at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. It's just been archived, so the juicy bits are in Archive 4. I think we're supposed to assume that a photo on the web does have a copyright unless it specifically says that it's in the public domain. And even if the webmaster gave you personal permission to use the photo, how would you prove that? Not that anyone would necessarily doubt your word, but just for legal security, Wikipedia has to be absolutely sure that it's not using any copyrighted images just because the uploader falsely claimed that he had permission or that they were in the public domain. My advice would be to forget it, but I admit I'm not very well up on image tagging. Someone else might be able to give you more precise advice. Cheers. AnnH (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Paying" for Degree

"She gained her PhD and Master's degrees by paying for them."

More details and a reference here would be good, since one normally does have to pay for a degree (while still studying for it).--Paul Moloney 23:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Saying the college she got of PhD from (Clayton College) is non-acreddited is inaccurate, as it is accredited - the problem is the bodies that acreddit it are not reconized. The end result is the same - the PhD is worthless, but I felt that point needed correcting. Drkirkby 03:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McKeith on molecules

If this quotation stays (I'm not saying it shouldn't -- it does seem to illustrate McKeith's pseudo-scientific approach) then I think it needs to be pointed out below that it's at best scientifically dubious, and certainly misleading.

Firstly, many molecules don't have overall charge. While it could be argued that she's referring to subatomic charges distributed through molecules, the statement as it stands gives a false impression, because usually references to "charged molecules" imply ions, which many molecules (and food components) are not.

Secondly, colours are not generally a function of molecular vibrations: these usually lie in the infra red region. It's probably the case that she uses "vibrational" in some generic sense, divorced from chemists' normal usage, deriving from some misplaced vague understanding of quantum mechanics. But if she's going to make what sounds like a scientific statement then she should use the terminology correctly.

Third, it's entirely false to suggest on the strength of any of this that similarly coloured foods contain similar "nutrient makeup". All it shows is that their distribution of electron energy levels (not vibrational levels) leads to a similar retinal response.

If Ben Goldacre or someone else has already explained this then a link is needed to that explanation, in my view.

Stuarta 17:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As a by-the-way,

"Chlorophyll cannot function to produce oxygen in one's bowel (not least because it's dark), and even if it could, the body cannot absorb significant oxygen through its digestive tract."

Nor, for that matter, would you want free oxygen in these parts of the body. It's dangerous stuff.

TRiG 15:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate tone

I have read, or a least skimmed, several thousand biographical articles on Wikipedia, and I must say that this particular article is quite unusual in the barely-concealed aggressive hostility with which it deals with its subject (I am tempted to write victim).

Please try to write in a more neutral fashion, unless you really can prove that she is the true spawn of the devil, in which case source it. See WP:NPOV and WP:OR. --Mais oui! 02:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Another thought: it may be a good idea if we balance the (very comprehensive/too comprehensive) ridiculing of her academic credentials with a presentation of her positive contributions. The article as it currently exists barely even touches on why she is notable in the first place. What has been her impact on her chosen field of work? It must be significant, or else nobody would go to the bother of attacking her. N'est ce pas? --Mais oui! 02:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Her impact is that she has made a lot of money selling highly dubious information using the title "Dr" when she isn't one.--Man with two legs 12:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
If you have a problem with the tone, then alter the tone, but don't suggest that she's being portrayed as "the true spawn of the devil" when you haven't actually disputed any of the facts presented here. On the positive side, you could, if you wanted, point out that she's apparently helped some fat people lose weight via obvious dietary advice and judicious nagging. I'm not aware, beyond that, of any "positive contributions".
Her "field" is faux reality TV as a medium for promotion of herself and sales of her branded health foods. In that "field" she has indeed had an impact, although its effects are largely seen in her bank balance -- according to last night's Room 101 she cleared £5m last year. Outside of it, for instance in fields where having a real rather than fake PhD matters, she has had no impact at all.
I'm astonished you've labelled the analysis of her "coloured food" quotation as "original research". It is not "original research" to quote precepts of undergraduate chemistry; it's simple bald fact. For this reason I've removed this categorisation. No relevantly qualified scientist would dispute the analysis given of her quotation.
Stuarta 14:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, the "citation needed" claim with regard to the "it could be argued" section appears to me to be nonsensical.
That phrase is there because there are only two possible constructions that can be put on McKeith's pronouncement regarding charged molecules: a) it's misleading and true (she doesn't mean what a scientist would interpret her as meaning) or b) it's straightforward and false (molecules quite often do not have overall charge). "It could be argued" is examining that first, more charitable line.
How you could demand a citation for an entirely uncontroversial, logical exposition of such a claim baffles me. I have therefore removed that demand, pending an adequate explanation of it.
Stuarta 14:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basic example of style

Folks: OK, so there is some controversy about this person. Fine. At the start of each section, please state the known facts. After establishing the facts as well as they are understood, then you can follow up with other incidents and controversies that might suggest uncertainty about the facts. If she exaggerated about her credentials or something, please mention this after you get the basic facts out. It is just courteous and respectful of the reader's time, in case the mature reader does not want to slog through all the muck and want to just skip on to the next section, once they have the basic facts. -- 71.141.34.132 01:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You say that "[a]fter establishing the facts as well as they are understood, then you can follow up with other incidents and controversies that might suggest uncertainty about the facts". As far as I can see the quotes section was doing exactly this, but you nonetheless removed the "follow up".
I can agree that the fundamental science pertaining to her food colours claim might belong in a separate section, if you wish to reserve the "quotes" section purely for her words. But I do not accept that it should be removed completely.
Nor do I think it irrelevant that she "uses the letters 'Dr' in front of her name" -- she is well known for this, in spite of having no legitimate claim on that title. A key fact about McKeith is that she isn't a doctor.
It is utterly misleading to suggest, as you do, that "[m]ost consider Clayton College to be an unaccredited institution". There is a well-defined meaning for "accredited", and Clayton doesn't come close to meeting it. That Clayton is unaccredited, by any reasonable standard, is a "basic fact", so why did you resort to weasel-wording on this? It is not "respectful of a reader's time" to equivocate about bald facts. This is supposed to be a fact-based encyclopedia, not a piece of post-modern textual criticism.
More generally, you should at least bother to justify your wholesale alterations and deletions on this page, rather than invoking some nebulous notion of a "mature reader".
Stuarta 13:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I would further add that, after your attentions, the "Education" section is now incoherent. The reader, whether "mature" or not, must not wade through facts and boilerplate equivocation that contradict each other. I'll see if I can edit it back to something remotely readable.
Stuarta 13:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Can we have some evidence of these before they become part of the article please:

    • It is rumoured that using some sort of ancient magic she actually sucks the fat out of people and draws nourishment from this.

Also, isn't a 'trivia' section irrelivant? --82.28.226.210 09:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of quotes section

Removed because it is not actually quotes. Anything it states, it does not cite (only stating what she apparently states). Then, after stating these unsourced statements, it begind to go n all about original research. All based on someone's interpretations. Thus, removed. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 21:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Presumably you'd be happy for the article to feature properly sourced and attributed quotes? -- Karada 21:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, sources would be ideal. They can be obtained. But I'm afraid these are "actually quotes" -- they are what she said in her work. (I note, along the way, that you appear less exercised about sources for other factual claims made in the article.)
Citing undergraduate science is not "original research" because it's "someone's interpretation"; it's simple fact.
Several "interpretations" were not mine, but quoted from experts. For instance, regarding "floating stools" (a quote cited in the Observer article if you'd bothered to look), there was the response of an expert with real qualifications (Catherine Collins, chief dietician at St George's hospital). Why did you remove this? Why do you think Ben Goldacre's analysis of her views on chlorophyll is of no relevance?
I also note that you removed critical links. Why? Why do you think readers don't want to know the background on the AANC, for example?
Stuarta 11:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I have added a selection of quotations, with references. You will note that every single quotation previously added was indeed said by her, confirming that they were "actually quotes". (While I haven't included it, the lengthy claim regarding blue-green algae was cited by New Scientist as coming from her book, Miracle Superfood: Wild blue-green algae. I have the New Scientist reference.) None of the references would have been difficult for you to track down, as they are all available in the linked articles (including the one you removed).
As I have stated, I do not see the problem with quoting orthodox scientific views regarding some of her claims, although at present there is not much of that. Certainly I do regard other people's "interpretations" as valid and relevant, particularly when unlike her they are qualified scientists, and I have included some of them.
Stuarta 18:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Now that is has been cited, it looks much better. Also, if you wish to criticize what she has said, you must also cite those sources. Iolakana|(talk) 21:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] clarifying quotes

Sprouts are also packed with vitamins, minerals, protein, enzymes and fibre as well as two anti-ageing constituents — RNA and DNA (nucleic acids) — that are only found in growing cells. [26] You Are What You Eat (2004), page 211

In my copy it says living cells, not growing cells. Are there different versions? Can anyone with a different hard copy verify this quote?

[edit] Clayton College

I had updated an associated Wiki page for the college she attended, and it's been deleted after having a Deletion request added by an anonymous IP address. Any idea how I complain about this?

P.--Paul Moloney 13:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If the article is up for deletion, discuss at the AfD page; if it has been deleted, take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Iolakana|T 13:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Small Change Explanation(s)

I have changed the description of Dr Ben Goldacre from describing him as a GP to a (physician) doctor and journalist as I am not certain he is a GP. Please feel free to change it back if I am wrong (I thought he was in hospital medicine of some sort but am not sure)--Doctormonkey 15:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/i/l/Talk%7EGillian_McKeith_efca.html"