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.
Archive 1 Archive 2
Archive 3 Archive 4
Archive 5 Archive 6
Archive 7 Archive 8

Contents


[edit] The claim that she's endangering people's lives is surely hyperbole

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)

WAS, practically all drugs are poison too. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
"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)

Asked about McKeith's advice, Amanda Wynne, senior dietician with the British Dietetic Association, said: "We are appalled. I think it is obvious she hasn't a clue about nutrition. In fact her advice, if followed to the limit, could be dangerous. Her TV programme takes obese people and puts them on a crash diet that is very hazardous to health." WAS 4.250

They are appalled for a reason. WAS 4.250 06:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is very very kind to her considering the dangerous nonsense she is passing off as "medical advice". How many will forgo a visit to a real medical doctor based on her say so? How many will eat small doses of poison and believe their getting sick means they are "detoxifying"? How many will ... but enough. We are here to write an article. Enough with our personal evaluations, whether we believe she promotes poison or whether we think that is an exageration. The point is that the charge against her is quackery and not anything less than that. WAS 4.250 06:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
'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)

[edit] ASA breach

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)

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)
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)

I just added the text from Ben Godlacre's article which provides direct quotations from the ASA recommendations on McKeith's doctorate... and the whole section was immediately deleted again apparently by SlimVirgin, without any explanation. What's going on here? It's a joke. At least explain why you are deleting factual references from an article. What's the point in adding references to Wikipedia when people can get away with deleting anything that doesn't fit their biased POV. 172.207.163.158 16:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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)
(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)
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)
No, the Guardian reporter apparently wrote about it. We can use that article as our source. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It's listed, with no detail, here:[1]. 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 [2]), and b) the ASA has a limited number of categories [3] under which it could rule against her. Note that the definition of 'truthfulness' [4] 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)
To follow myself up, a search of the full CAP code[5] 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)
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)

(<-----)You misunderstand the issues, the conversation, our attitudes, and our feelings judging by your use of the words "disappointed" "hostility" "assumed" "trusted" "false" "lie" "truth". Anyone so far off the mark can't expect us to bring them up to speed on a volunteer's pay (zero). Learn more about wikipedia. Please. WAS 4.250 01:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)

[edit] Expanding on McKeith's more notable views

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)

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)
Yes, it makes a lot of sense. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] McKeith's popularity as an author

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)

[edit] Legal action section

Aside from its very non-encyclopedic tone, and the fact that it is filled with original research, the "Legal action" section is also a clear violation of WP:BLP. Please remove it immediately, before admins are forced to take action. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the specific objection? Jooler 23:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Neither on the Google page nor on the Chilling Effects page (nor indeed in Goldacre's column) does it say that the legal threat actually came from McKeith. Hypnotist uk 23:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The specific search that generates the link to Chilling Effects is a search for Gillian McKeith. The Notice says "In particular our client is most concerned that a search of her name reveals claims made by third parties and published by Google which are extremely damaging to our client's reputation and professional standing. Perhaps ou think this is some other Gillian McKeith? Jooler 00:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite prepared to believe it is from her; nevertheless nowhere does it actually say it explicitly. Given the subject matter of this section, I suggest it's worth us being really rather careful. If there's a source we can quote saying the letter to Google was from her, I'd support us quoting that completely. Hypnotist uk 00:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Where BLP is concerned, we can't be too careful. ElinorD (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


FYI : - Chilling Effects Clearinghouse is a joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George Washington School of Law, and Santa Clara University School of Law clinics. ([6]) Who say's it's not reputable? Jooler 23:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The source does not support the claim, and the other part about something no longer appearing on Google is original research. I have to wonder, yet again, why people are editing Wikipedia, and especially biographies of living people, without having read the content policies. It seems to be a particular problem on this page. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
You keep changing the goalsposts. You said it was not reputable - now you say it does not support the claim. The claim is that a result was removed from a search on Google.co.uk, that fact was reported in the Guardian "Google received a threatening legal letter simply for linking to - forgive me - a fairly obscure webpage on McKeith." [7] - The Chilling Efects site provides the text of the letter. What's the problem? Jooler 00:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOR and WP:BLP. You cannot insert your original negative research in an article about a living person. Fix it now. This is your final warning. Jayjg (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
For crying out loud! - What original reasearch!? Jooler
"Legal action was also taken against the search engine Google[1]; [2]. The search result concerned only affects Google.co.uk and not Google.com." This has already been explained to you. Playing dumb won't help. Take it out now, and don't restore it. Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not playing dumb!! - "Google received a threatening legal letter simply for linking to - forgive me - a fairly obscure webpage on McKeith." - reported in The Guardian. Jooler 00:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. The rest is original research. Revert your last edit now. I'll give you 2 minutes. Jayjg (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
It is not original reserach - Please reread. Now you are also moving the goalposts! Jooler 00:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
And using somewhat bullying language.Jamrifis 00:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Legal action wasn't taken, but rather a letter threatening legal action was sent. However, Goldacre gives a link to neither Google nor ChillingEffects. We can only assume the links given match what Goldacre was saying, not be 100% sure - and we can't seem to quote anyone to say it for us. In this context, in a section about legal actions by someone, that seems too dangerous to me. Hypnotist uk 00:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
This is original research: "The search result concerned only affects Google.co.uk and not Google.com."
This is an inappropriate source because it does not mention McKeith: Google.co.uk search with note on removed item at foot of page
This is an inappropriate source because it does not mention McKeith: Chilling Effects, notice 973. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I call hogwash. No, the link on google searches of "Gillian McKeith" does not say that the legal request to remove a link was made on behalf of McKeith. However, it does say that more information can be found at the provided link to Chilling Effects. The 'more information' found at that link also does not say that the client in question is McKeith, but it does request that a link be removed from searches of their client's name. So... Google says they removed a link from searches of "Gillian McKeith" because they received a letter asking them to remove a link from searches on the name of the writers' client. Ergo, the name of the writers' client IS Gillian McKeith. That's not 'original research'. It's basic reasoning. Google is a reliable source for information on legal actions taken against them... unless the suggestion is that they might be lying about having received that letter or about having removed a link because of it. That the text of the letter is housed at Chilling Effects rather than a sub-page maintained by Google themselves is irrelevant... except that it increases the reliability given that Chilling Effects would not host a forged letter. In any case, the fact that McKeith took legal action against Google was reported by The Guardian, certainly a reliable source. Not to mention various others of less prominence ([8], [9], [10], et cetera). So why exactly is this obviously reliably sourced fact being removed? --CBD 02:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Of the sources you provide, only the Guardian is a source we can use and it says "Google received a threatening legal letter simply for linking to - forgive me - a fairly obscure webpage on McKeith" which does not claim McKeith "took legal action". When someone is sued in America for illegal reproduction of a song by Madonna do you think Madonna has herself taken legal action? Wikipedia can not make the assumptions you wish us to make. I think McKeith "took legal action" against Google but you have yet to provide a useable source for it for a Wikipedia BLP. We don't do reasonable evidence here, we do exact attribution of claims from reliable sources. WAS 4.250 08:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Whatever sort of distinction you are attempting to draw between sending "a threatening legal letter" and taking "legal action" is lost on me. If Madonna's representatives sued someone on her behalf then yes, I would say that she took legal action... what else would you call it? I certainly do not agree that Chilling Effects is not a usable source... especially given that they supply the text of the letter in question. If you would prefer that the article say, 'sent a threatening legal letter', rather than 'took legal action' for some reason I hardly think that semantic non-difference would matter to the people who just wanted to add this easily verified fact. --CBD 11:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unjustified 48 hours on my block

The justification for 24 hours was the inclusion of OR or material breaching BLP - Slim Virgin moved the goal posts on this one. She initially claimed the Chilling Effects was self-published - "the sources for the last bit look self-published" [11] - clearly she didn't investigate the matter properly before taking action. She then stated - "Legal action - removed OR and non-reliable source: do not restore; it's a BLP violation" [12] (she also broke the link to The X Factor (TV series)) which I was trying to fix. Chilling Effects is clearly a reliable source (see above). It looks like a knee jerk reaction by Slim Virgin. Both Slim Virgin and Jayjg failed to indicate how, in specific terms, the material constituted the breach of OR/BLP (they merely reeled out the same mantra about breaching BLP). Jayjg did not explain but merely pasted the material in dispute, when I pointed out that the first part had been published in The Guardian, he said "the rest of it" (i.e. Google site comparisons - see below why this claim by Jayjg is wrong) and when I asked Jayjg what was wrong with this he accused me of "acting dumb" over the matter. Apparently I'm acting dumb because Jayjg couldn't or wouldn't explain the rationale behind his actions. Only after I had been blocked did Slim respond with the following.

This is original research: "The search result concerned only affects Google.co.uk and not Google.com."

This is simply nonsense - Something that is demonstrably true from the primary source is not original research. It is self evident that a link that can be found through Google.com cannnot be found through through Google.co.uk (Google states very clearly that this is "In response to a legal request submitted to Google") and that google.co.uk generates the link to Chilling effects which explains why the link is removed (a letter from the lawyers of a female client who is "most concerned that a search of her name ..."). WP:OR says - "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." In fact Chilling Effects themselves provide a direct comparison between Google.co.uk and Gogle.com (http://www.chillingeffects.org/search-comparator/search.php?se=google.co.uk&q1=gillian%20mckeith) and this is linked at the bottom of http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=973 There is No WAY this is original research! Jooler 10:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Further to this Wikipedia:Attribution: say "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source Jooler 13:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate source because it does not mention McKeith: Google.co.uk search with note on removed item at foot of page

Bizarra statement! - Yes it does mention her , look in the search box and on every item.

This is an inappropriate source because it does not mention McKeith: Chilling Effects, notice 973.

It is a page link provided by Google to explain why a result for 'Gillian McKeith' does not show up and specifically mentions the female client wishing to have a result removed from a search for her name. It is a published fact that McKeith's lawyers sent Google a letter regarding searching for her name; ref:The Guardian' (see above). This is not circumstantial evidence pointing at McKeith, it is direct evidence. A primary source once again.

I accept 24 hours of the block for 3RR, however if you look at the edits closely you will see in most of the edits I was actually trying to fix broken links to The X Factor (TV series) and The Sun and got caught in edit conflicts when the text was changed by someone else. I do not accept that the material constitued OR or breached BLP and resent the 24 hours block given to me for that. I am disgusted that Jayjg used the excuse of "acting dumb" as a reason to add another 24 hours. I was not "acting dumb" on the talk page I was asking for clarity. I truly resent the accusation and see it as both a personal attack and an assumption of bad faith. Furthermore I would like to see where it is written that "acting dumb" is an offence and if it is an offence where it is written that a block of 24 hours can be issued for "acting dumb"? Jayjg also posted above ""Revert your last edit now. I'll give you 2 minutes" - What if I had lost connection, or the doorbell had gone? I've never heard of anyone imposing a time limit on action like this. Action BTW that jayjg knew full well I was unlikely to take given the fact that I believed (and still believe) that I had done nothing wrong. The purpose appeared to be to intimidate me. Jayjg could have blocked my for 3RR and reverted the page himself. Why didn't he do that? Jooler 09:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Another admin on the 3RR page said he was about to give you a four-day block, so perhaps you got off lightly with 72 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I have asked that admin to justify it. Jooler 10:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
You were restoring obviously BLP-violating material like this, and rather than removing it when warned, insisted on further "discussion". BLP is an extremely important Wikipedia policy; so much so that sources used for any material must be top-notch and completely reliable, rather than conclusions you have drawn based on Google searches. Google searches are not attributable to specific individual reliable sources, and are therefore completely inadmissible on Biographies of Living People (not to mention anywhere else). BLP demands we err on the side of caution, and remove the material immediately, and you have been warned about BLP on this article many times. Your editing history here seems geared mostly to finding negative material about this individual, which is also a BLP violation. I personally haven't edited the article, and continue not to do so, because I am acting purely in an administrative capacity. Jayjg (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey get your story straight. Firstly the original text that I restored was not my own, so don't blame me for the precise wording. The specific edit that you specifically asked me to remove (you said "Revert your last edit now. I'll give you 2 minutes") and that you blocked me for was this [13] - Before that edit I had changed the wording several times to try to make it conform (as had Pigsonthewing). Regarding "conclusions you have drawn based on Google searches" - that's not the issue at all. It's Google itself that is the source not what it links to. I am drawing no conclusions. It is simply a matter of saying that A states that a search result has been removed and B does not state it and the Chilling effects website shows why. Jooler 12:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
"Restoring" the material is the same as creating it. "Google" is a large search engine; it is not a reliable source, and cannot be cited as such. "Simply a matter of saying that A states etc." = original research. Jayjg (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Attribution: section - What is not original research? says "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source. Again The Google Engine itself IS the source or if you like the Chilling Effects comparison (http://www.chillingeffects.org/search-comparator/search.php?se=google.co.uk&q1=Gillian+McKeith) inked at the bottom of the letter is the source. Jooler 13:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
""Restoring" the material is the same as creating it" - yest but you didn't block me for restoring the link shown above you blocked me for my last edit. you specifically refered to it. "Revert your last edit now. I'll give you 2 minutes" you said. Jooler 13:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding "editing history here seems geared mostly to finding negative material about this individual" - No. My editing history here has been supporting the inclusion of properly sourced material questions her ability. Such material has been frequently removed with questionable declarations that it breaches BLP/OR or something else. There are about a dozen editors on this page who have had a similar experience. In this specific instance there is NO WAY that the above claims of violating BLP (as bullet pointed by Slim Virgin) stands up. Jooler 12:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
"properly sourced material exposing McKeith etc." is another violation of WP:BLP. Are you looking to be blocked again? Jayjg (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a talk page. ... later ... Okay I'll change it Jooler 13:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP applies to talk pages; have you read the policy? And it's not your job to "expose" anyone, that in itself proves my point that "editing history here seems geared mostly to finding negative material about this individual", and is a demonstration of the problem here. Jayjg (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not anyone's job to do anything on Wikipedia. We're all volunteers trying to add factual information to articles. We're not here whitewash the woman. We're not here to flatter her and censor properly sourced factual information. There was nothing contentious in my edit. It was all perfectly verifiable. Was your block because of this specific accusation of BLP violation or for my general editting history. If it's the latter it seems entirely prejudicial. Jooler 15:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Funny how there's no BLP warning on Osama Bin Laden. maybe people think his spouse is less likely to sue. Jooler 15:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
This is incorrect. There is a BLP warning on Osama Bin Laden's page, and it's been there for a while. DanBeale 17:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I should also point out that a 2 week block was imposed on User:Pigsonthewing for the now discredited supposed BLP violations. As CBD pointed out on User_talk:Heimstern#Block_of_Pigsonthewing "A two week block of just one participant in an edit war, based on false statements from another participant, does not seem equitable." See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Pigsonthewing Jooler 13:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The "supposed BLP violations" have not been "discredited"; on the contrary, you are compounding them. Please stop. Jayjg (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
In what way am I "compounding them"? Jooler 13:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
By making similar BLP violating statements on the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Jooler, the point is that a very small number of editors keep coming back to this page with the sole intent of making McKeith look bad. In addition to having strong POVs about McKeith, all those editors are bad editors. They don't know the policies, they don't know how to use sources, and they can't write well. Therefore, the article has from time to time ended up looking like a dog's breakfast.
Crum375 tidied your efforts to add material about the Google legal threat, and he sourced it all to the Guardian, a reliable source. There was therefore no need for you to revert him and add other stuff, referring to a letter that doesn't name McKeith and "the search result concerned is not removed from google.com," which is pure original research on your part (whether you first added it or simply restored it, you are responsible for it). [14] Not only do you engage in this kind of editing, you also violate 3RR in support (a) of BLP violations, and (b) of another editor who has been blocked umpteen times for 3RR and was banned for a year by the ArbCom. Between the two of you, you've been blocked 29 times! And yet still you wonder why Jayjg blocked you for 72 hours, and why Heimstern was about to block you for four days. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I will respond to the other points later but please take a look at the blcks for me again. You will see that barring the first one for 3RR the others were all reversed because they were not justified. Jooler 13:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg blocked me for 24 hours for "acting dumb" - totally unjustified. I was blocked for another 24 hours for not removing my last edit. He specifically asked me to revert it. Your characterization of Crums edits do not match the facts. He first removed the entire para and then removed the second half, taking out the valid citations that supported statements. The reference to The Guardian was already there on the original edit that you removed in its entirety [15]. He removed the reference to Chilling Effect (which you first claimed was "self-published" and then you moved the goal posts to claim it was "not reputable" and then on here stated that "The source does not support the claim". Once more it is not original research. The Google pages themselves are the primary source because of the Chilling effects message at the bottom of the page. It specifically says that the result is removed on Google.co.uk. for legal reasons. I actually changed the original wording "The search result concerned is not removed from google.com" to "The search result concerned only affects Google.co.uk and not Google.com" so that it was more accurate. [16] Jooler 13:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The point — which you really ought to take — is that you were editing disruptively, and that two administrators entirely independently of one another believed your editing merited a three-day and four-day block respectively. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The point is that both myself and pigsonthewing have done nothing wrong except 3RR and the reverts only occured because the perfectly valid edits were being removed without valid justification. Your claims of OR and BLP violations do not hold water. As CBD stated with regard to the block of Pigsonthewing " A two week block of just one participant in an edit war, based on false statements from another participant [i.e. YOU], does not seem equitable" Jooler 14:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Where CBD say that? SlimVirgin (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Here. ElinorD (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The point being, SilmVirgin's WP:ANI report [17] makes reference to four reverts as part of the reason for the block on Pigsonthewing. If you look at those cited as 2nd revert [18] and 4th revert [19], they appear not to be reverts at all, but minor revisions of material restored by User:Jooler. Tearlach 19:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Good grief. This is getting ridiculous. It appears that there is a right old war going on here. Some people seem to want to have a level of truth about this snakeoil woman, and the admins seem to want a whitewash! Is there a procedure for dealing with admins who have taken it all too far? ••Briantist•• talk 14:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you could all have a listen to The Now Show [20] and have a laugh at Mr Punt taking the pee out of ThePooLady. ••Briantist•• talk 14:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Get me a doctor"
"good morning, give me a piece of your poo"
"I said a DOCTOR you stool-slicing freak" [21] ••Briantist•• talk 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. That post doesn't seem very helpful. ElinorD (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
More helpful than yours, methinks. At least I managed to bring some new information. ••Briantist•• talk 19:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The ultimate question here actually strikes me as quite complex: is Google's statement that it removed the hit citable on the Gillian McKeith article? Jooler says yes: [22] is a Google webpage giving hits on "Gillian McKeith," which says that a certain hit has been removed for legal reasons. Other pages seem to reference this removal. Why not include it? The answer seems to be: A Google search isn't about Gillian McKeith the person, but simply the phrase, and WP:BLP doesn't allow us to draw connections, even if it's pretty clear (particularly when it relates to a matter of potential litigation). That's to say, even if Google is a reliable source, we'd have to decide that the comment at the bottom of the page relates to Gillian McKeith the person and subject of this article, which is the kind of decision we're not supposed to make.

I tend to agree with the exclusionists here, but it seems unfortunate Jooler would be blocked for 72 hours for what seems like a good faith disagreement, or possibly misunderstanding. I think people forget the complexity and extent of WP policies/guidelines/essays/etc., and the difference between how a person might read them and how they end up actually being implemented. That said, perhaps next time Jooler would also be willing to hash this kind of thing out on the talk page before insisting on inclusion in the article, which might encourage a more helpful discussion. Mackan79 20:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The letter refers to a Dr. I understood that she was to stop calling herself that, so is the letter about her? DanBeale 20:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The letter is from her lawyers - so no suprise that it says "Dr." - re your point above - "we'd have to decide that the comment at the bottom of the page relates to Gillian McKeith the person and subject of this article, which is the kind of decision we're not supposed to make." - As CBD points out 2+2 =4. That the letter is about her is no more than a logical deduction. And this IS allowed as per my cite of WP:ATT above. Jooler 21:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I've only made one edit to this page (this is my second). Some points -
  • I hate her. I realy hate her. I think she's a fraud, a scam, a sham, I think she's harmful. I want to see her exposed. This is exactly the reason why I do not edit the article. I am unable to maintain NPOV.
  • Some people say that she's notoriously litigious.
  • If is seach Google.co.uk for "dr gillian mckeith" I get some text saying " In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org.". This tells us that a link has been removed. It tells us that someone made a legal request. It does NOT tell us that the request was from mckeith or her representatives. A google search for "dr gillian mckeith" returns pages with her name in, but those pages also refer to other people, anyone of which may have made a legal request to have the page removed.
WP:ATT specifically talks about making logical deductions. See link below how this can only be about The Scottish nutrionist Gillian McKeith with a qualification from Clayton College who has Sanj Patel on her programme and no one else. Jooler 13:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Reading the chillingeffects text tells us that a female is worried about her reputation and professional standing, and that the person refers to themselves as Dr. This might be mckeith, but it might be any one of a number of other people who do similar work. You must know that there are several UK television shows with similar content to mckeith's programme. (EG Spa of embarrassing illness, etc) A website 'debunking' mckeieith may well 'debunk' other people, and it could have been one of those people who complained to google.
none of the others are a Gillian mcKeith the scottish nutrionist with a qualification from Clayton College who has Sanj Patel on her programme Jooler 13:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Another possible explanation - people hate mckeith, a reputable person might not want their name associated with hers. If a Google search for dr gillian mckeith returns a list of debunking sites then someone called dr jane doe might not be happy.
No. Sorry. Because the letter at Chilling Effects specifically refers to "certain claims published and presently available through a search of our client's name using the Google search engine" Jooler 13:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • BLP is firm and clear an non-negotiable. 2+2=4 is not good enough for living persons. It has to be a reputable reliable source to 2, and a reputable reliable source to 2, and a reputable reliable source to someone saying 2+2=4.
WP:ATT allows logical deduction. Does BLP say logical deduction is not allowed? - Are you saying that Chilling Effects is not a reliable source for showing that a search for Gillian McKeith Scottish nutritionist with qualification from Clayton College who has Sanj Patel on her programme shows a result removed for Google.co.uk? Jooler 13:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
BLP is very clear. Logical deduction is not allowed. "Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." We cannot claim that "Gillian McKeith's lawyers sent a letter to Google demanding they remove a link" until there's a reliable reputable source saying that. Here's the text of the Gruaniad - "But those who criticise McKeith have reason to worry. McKeith goes after people, and nastily. She has a libel case against the Sun over comments they made in 2004 that has still not seen much movement. But the Sun is a large, wealthy institution, and it can protect itself with a large and well-remunerated legal team. Others can't. A charming but - forgive me - obscure blogger called PhDiva made some relatively innocent comments about nutritionists, mentioning McKeith, and received a letter threatening costly legal action from Atkins Solicitors, "the reputation and brand-management specialists". Google received a threatening legal letter simply for linking to - forgive me - a fairly obscure webpage on McKeith." - they're clear. Google received a letter. Not even the Gruaniad say that it was sent by (or on behalf of) mckeith. DanBeale 16:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I see nothing in the above para about logical deduction not being allowed. I can't even deduce it. However in WP:ATT is specifically DOES say that logical deduction is allowable and it says this in a section entitled What is not original research?). So logical deduction does not constitute original research. FACT. In any case the para is talking about "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable" - This information is neither unsourced, nor poorly sourced, nor contentious nor highly questionable. Your mention of the Guardian above is irrelevant to that point in any case. The logical deduction I am talking about refers to the Google search for 'Gillian McKeith'. I think we can safely say that Google itself has to be reliable source in explaining why certain links that would normally appear on its website have been removed. Google is a reliable source to explain its own censorship You can't deny that! The link they provide to explain why, links to Chilling Effects, another reliable source (maintained by the EFF and Harvard Law School et al). The letter itself must be genuine. You can't deny that! It is a logical deduction that the person referred to in the letter MUST be the Gillian McKeith Scottish nutritionist with qualification from Clayton College who has Sanj Patel on her programme You can't deny that! So we have a letter that explains why a search for GK is censored that clearly originates from lawyers acting on her behalf. That a letter was sent is veirfied by the Guardian. There is nothing WHATSOEVER that remains controversial about this matter. It is the undeniable result of simple logic based on material obtained from reliable primary sources - the claim of OR is bogus. Jooler 18:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I hope this explains why some people are so keen to keep some stuff off the page. It's not because they are apologists of mckeith, it's because they recognise the very high standards that BLP imposes. DanBeale 09:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Google says that they removed a link from searches of "Gillian McKeith" because of the legal letter - which directs Google to remove a link from searches of their client's name. That the client's name is therefor "Gillian McKeith" is not 'original research', it is the clear and unavoidable reading of the facts. That this information is split between two pages on two different reliable sites (one of them a major legal project with a high standard of integrity to maintain) does not somehow make the information 'less reliable' than if it all appeared on the same page. Further, given that the existence of this complaint is verified (all on one page no less) by The Guardian, another reliable source, that would also constitute verification of the authenticity of the letter (not that Chilling Effects would host it, or allow Google to cite it that way, if it weren't genuine). The stuff about the link 'not being removed from Google.com' (non uk) does seem questionable as that link is not identified in any reliable source that I have seen and comparisons of search results to cite the one extra would be drifting into 'original research' territory - yes, we can call it a logical deduction, but can we be sure the extra link isn't included for some other reason? In one case 'client = Gillian McKeith' is unavoidable... the text literally can't mean anything else. In the other instance, 'removed link = <whatever>' seems very likely, but is not at the same level of certainty. --CBD 22:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
CBD. If you put Gillian McKeith into Google.co.uk you get the Chilling Effect link if you then click on that link you get the letter. At the bottom of the page is a link that says "At times, search engines remove different results from country-specific searches. You appear to have gotten here from a search. Click to compare your search across national domains." - It then brings up this page (http://www.chillingeffects.org/search-comparator/search.php?se=google.co.uk&q1=gillian%20mckeith) - note that the original author said "The search result concerned is not removed from google.com." which is I agree not 100% deductable. However, specifically because of the ambiguity, I changed this to read "The search result concerned only affects Google.co.uk and not Google.com."- which is demonstrably true in that the Chilling Effects link only comes up on on a search results page for Google.co.uk and not Google.com. So no original research there. Jooler 23:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's do some more primary source based research. Okay if people think that there's some possibility that it might be some other Gillian McKeith let's be more specific and search for Gillian McKeith Scottish nutritionist with qualification from Clayton College who has Sanj Patel on her programme Jooler 01:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal action

In the light of the above debate, I propose to restore the "legal action" section, using new reference URLs and the wording:

McKeith took legal action against The Sun over comments made about her in 2004, as well as blogger PhDiva and website Eclectech[3] for making an animation mocking her appearance on the The X Factor. Her lawyers have also complained about alleged "damage to their client's reputation and professional standing", to the search engine Google, who subsequently removed a web page about her from their listings[1]; [2]. The search result concerned is not removed from google.com [4].

Unless anyone has a good reason I should not; or wishes to propose an alternative acceptable to all. Andy Mabbett 08:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The point of sourcing at wikipedia is for credibility for a claim and a source of further information for the article so it needs to be published and reliable for the claim it is supporting. A book that can be found in the library or a website page that is stable enough that it is archived or stays unchanged is considered published in the sense that it can be viewed by many people at any time and each will see pretty much the same thing. Specifying which edition for books and the date the on-line source was accessed helps guard against variation. Web contents that are generated on the fly such as a google search are not like this. There is no expectation for a google web search to be stable. It is supposed to change over time. It is not a "published reliable source" in the sense that wikipedia needs it to be. Your personal observation of what you see when you look at it becomes "original research" as that phrase is used in Wikipedia. While blogs are generally not reliable, one could be used as a source for the message at the bottom that appears in the UK google search but not the COM google search - but we use reliable sources to also help us decide what is notable enough and what is not notable enough in cases like this to avoid undue weight. Undue weight is an editorial decision. Original research is encouraged in helping to make editorial decisions. So the question becomes why is this message at the bottom of a UK google search worth bringing up in an encyclopedia? Who thinks it is a notable fact about Gillian? What role does it play on the story of Gillian? Everyone in the media protects their image with lawsuits. Everyone who is anyone in the media is partnered up with larger interests that share in the commercialization of their public image, so much so that a TV network can sue to protect the image of a star they have sighed up and Recording Industry companies sue music downloaders without even the knowledge of the music artist or the TV star involved. We lack evidence of even Gillian's knowledge of the specifics of the Google thing. WAS 4.250 11:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your claim Your personal observation of what you see when you look at it becomes "original research" as that phrase is used in Wikipedia. is, I believe, fallacious. Andy Mabbett 11:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
It is also a total corruption of the original purpose and intent of the principle of OR which in Jimbo's words "orginated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks" - It's not about censoring verifiable and clearly observable facts. Jooler 08:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
While it is common for public figures to protect their image it is not common to see disclaimers about removed links at the bottom of Google searches. Ergo, this does seem like an unusual legal action. The argument about Google searches not being stable is 'accurate', but... a legal disclaimer at the bottom of the page isn't the same thing as changeable 'search results'... and the actual 'substance' of the issue is housed on Chilling Effects, which is certainly stable.
Let's put it this way. Can everyone agree that the link from Google searches of 'Gillian McKeith' (and the like) establishes that the letter on Chilling Effects was from McKeith's lawyer(s)? If so, then it would seem that we have a reliable source, The Guardian, citing the existence of the complaint and a reliable source, Chilling Effects, providing the text of the complaint. Does that not establish that this is 'notable'? The only thing Google is 'contributing' here is verification that they received the letter shown on Chilling Effects... which is something that they are certainly a 'reliable source' for - and which Chilling Effects would have verified before hosting the letter. --CBD 11:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Who thinks it is a notable fact about Gillian? What role does it play on the story of Gillian? Everyone in the media protects their image with lawsuits.
Some more than others. Unusual legal pickiness is notable (for instance, the Samuel Beckett estate [23]).
As the original research thing, I think it's a trivial jump of logic that hardly counts as OR. But it may well be that the Guardian, being well-vetted legally, deliberately chose to be inexplicit - proving enough detail for anyone in the know to work out what site was being referred to, but without compounding any possible defamation by giving explicit details of where the allegedly defamatory material was hosted. I'd say report it exactly as the Guardian did. Tearlach 11:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The Guardian, Goldacre, Google.co.uk and teh lawyers are al in the UK. Wikipedia is not. Andy Mabbett 11:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. Libel laws in teh UK are far more uptight. If the Guardian can say it in the UK, we can certainly say it here.Merkinsmum 15:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The Grauniad did not say it, that's the point. They nearly, but not quite, said it. DanBeale 16:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] and threats against

I'm getting confused by some of the editing. Earlier some editors were saying that we could not say "legal action", now some editors are saying that we can only have "legal action" and a reverting "legal action and threats againts critics" heading.

So, what's a good compromise? Does a lawyers letter count as legal action? DanBeale 13:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

On this page you can only have what SlimVirgin thinks is right. Jooler 22:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The source is quite clear that she has mainly issued legal threats, not started legal action (which has a very clear meaning involving actually starting court proceedings). She's only taken actual legal action against The Sun newspaper. Therefore it's quite wrong to have this under "legal action" - and very much against BLP. I'd expect this to be changed ASAP. On the other hand, "legal action and threats against critics" doesn't make it clear that the threats are legal in nature(!), "legal action" standing alone somewhat. "Legal threats and action" sounds overly wordy but meets BLP. I don't think there's any need to mention critics in the heading. Hypnotist uk 17:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
My main objections are to the use of "threats" without making it clear that they are legal threats, and to the word "critics". Even though the context might make it obvious that the threats are legal, the word "threats" suggests something intimidating and menacing. Also "critics" suggests that she threatens or sues people just for criticising her, which could make her sound unreasonable or touchy. (Please, no discussion about whether that's just or not. We're trying to find a neutral wording.) It's likely that the people she has sent legal letters to had done more than just criticise her. If "critics" is left out, then people are more likely process the word "threats" by linking it back to "legal" rather than forward to "critics". ElinorD (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been bold and updated this - as I said, I don't think "Legal action" by itself can stand, and my change seems to address the concerns noted. It could well be refined if someone can come up with a nicer way to put it (that nevertheless covers both the unactioned threats, and the action). Hypnotist uk 18:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/i/l/Talk%7EGillian_McKeith_efca.html"