Talk:Gillian McKeith/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →

Contents

alcohol/detox

People keep changing it to no alcohol, but she only recommends this for some people, or for a short time whilst on a detox diet. The ref. that was used is what she recommends for a detox after the holiday season. If she publically said no alcohol -for everyone- people would just laugh.

One version of her diet is much stricter than the other one, like on the TV programme, I think that is also a detox diet.Merkinsmum 13:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Image

The image currently on the page can't be claimed under fair use, and is meant to be deleted shortly. I've written to McKeith asking if she'll release one for our use. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Internet Archive

You know the Internet Archive is very useful here.

    • Jooler 11:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I take it Slim will have no objection to these sources being used to back up some of the material removed earlier? Jooler 12:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

My own position is that at least in BLP cases we generally cannot rely on web.archive.org as a source for controversial information, for at least 2 reasons:
  1. If the current person's web site does not include a bit of information, then it could be that it was a mistake on an older version. By pointing out that possible mistake, we as WP would be reaching a new conclusion, interpretation or conjecture, which would violate our WP:NOR policy and its 'no synthesis' subset
  2. The web.archive.org site is not automatically allowable as a source - we do allow use of an article subject's own web site, but not a copy of it by a third party, and in this case an old copy
Having said that, if there is some other independent reliable source which points out something and bases it, for example, on web.archive.org, I would see no problem in citing that. Crum375 13:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
That her website used to contain this information was contained in the original references that were removed by Slim and the archive verifies those claims. (BadScience.net links to one of the above archives - [1]) Point 2 makes no sense in this respect. The criterion is verifiability. And clearly the archive is verifiably that of McKeith's website as per the Archive's remit. Jooler 15:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, as I did above, that archive.org may be used indirectly, when it is quoted by a third party, as in the reference you provide. This way it is someone else reliable, not WP itself, analyzing the web page's history. I do draw the line when WP is comparing differing versions of a web page on its own, as that would violate WP:BLP, WP:NOR, 'no synthesis', IMO. Crum375 15:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Like books, a specific website can go "out of print" without invalidating itself as a source. Under Wikipedia's sourcing rules, it's acceptable to refer to a specific edition of a book, and likewise it's acceptable to refer to a specificly dated website page. Provided the point being made conforms to notability and no-original-research rules, and the citation itself is valid, then it's acceptable to link to the Internet Archive's version of the cited web page in order to make it easier to verify. 62.31.67.29 13:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Accreditation status of Clayton College

"The American Association of Drugless Practitioners Certification and Accreditation Board was established in 1990" so it can't have accredited the American Holistic College of Nutrition, as it then was, when GM attended there. [2] states that Clayton College has only been accredited by the AMAB since 1996, so the same criticism applies. Clayton College does not appear on CHEA's list or the US Department of Education's list of accredited institutions. Neither the AADP or the ANMAB are recognised accreditation agencies for naturopathic medicine. Motmot 14:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I note you deleted my addition about accreditation: why? I think it's entirely germane, especially as the ASA just told her to stop using her title *because* it was unaccredited. Motmot 10:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Clayton

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


ASA complaint

Slim you added - "The Times reported that McKeith had agreed not to use her academic title in commercials, after a complaint to the British Advertising Standards Authority," -Whoah there! Talk about putting a spin on a story. She voluntarily stopped using the title because otherwise the ASA would have BANNED her from using the title Doctor on her products because it's a phoney title. The draft ASA report says "the claim ‘Dr’ was likely to mislead" it breached two clauses of the Committee of Advertising Practice code: "substantiation" and "truthfulness". A piece by The Guardian's media correspondent says "After the Advertising Standards Authority came to the provisional conclusion that the honorific was likely to mislead the public, McKeith Research said it planned to drop it from its advertising, obviating the need for a full investigation" - http://www.badscience.net/?p=153 Jooler 08:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned that some of these edits could be construed as attempts to whitewash McKeith by suppressing information. Will this extend to other persons who have obtained these dubious mail-order "degrees" before Clayton received its accreditation? -- Fyslee's (First law) 11:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The 'soruce' for the ASA complain is [3]

ADVERTISER: McKeith Research Ltd
AGENCY: Chris Horton Films Ltd
Date: 8 June 2005
Media: Television
No. of complaints: 1
COMPLAINT:
An advertisement for the book You Are What You Eat by Dr Gillian McKeith, which featured her on the front cover, was shown in the commercial break following the programme You Are What You Eat, in which she appeared. The advertisement featured her voice saying 'Hi. This is Gillian McKeith. Please be sure to get my new You Are What You Eat cookbook with over 150 delicious recipes. Available now at booksellers everywhere'. It was scheduled as the second advertisement in the break. A viewer complained that the advertisement contravened the rules on scheduling as it featured, in picture and voice, a person who had also appeared in the preceding programme.
ADJUDICATION: Complaint upheld
Channel 4 said the advertisement was given BACC approval to be scheduled in the advertising break following the programme provided it was not first in the break. It believed the scheduling of the advertisement was acceptable because it was for a product based on the programme and the Code allowed for this. We accepted that the product was based on the programme. However, the CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Rules on the Scheduling of Advertising Rule 4.2.7
(b) does not permit advertisements which feature a person who appears regularly as a leading performer or participant in a series or serial to be shown in or adjacent to an episode regardless of the position in the break. The only exception to this is for advertisements for products or services based on the programme which contain an actual extract from the programme, which had not occurred in this case. The scheduling of the advertisement was therefore in breach of CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Rules on the Scheduling of Advertising

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Briantist (talk • contribs) 14:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

This is not the ASA ruling relevant to today's news. There is no ruling as the agreement to cease using the title 'Doctor' removes the need for a formal ruling.
Unfortunately there has recently been a sustained attempt to suppress various pieces of information previously in this article — see above. Various reasons have been invoked, but the result is invariably the same.
Quackwatch and The Sun have been dismissed as unreliable sources, whatever the corroboration of what they report (this from a person who believes Deepak Chopra and crank, UFO-spotting journals are worthwhile sources). There was a bid to remove quotations printed in the Glasgow Herald purely on the grounds that somebody thought something in the article was "a little odd" and "peculiar". Basic science in university textbooks has been categorised, ex cathedra, as "original research", and is therefore inadmissable. While McKeith's alma mater's supposed accreditation with accreditation mills was deemed relevant, its lack of accreditation with a recognised funding body apparently wasn't. McKeith's affiliation with with the AANC is worth telling readers about, but not the fact that some of their members are deceased pets. And on, and on. Even quotations from McKeith's own book — her contentions on excrement-based diagnosis, for instance — have been excised, for no adequately explained reason.
Mantra-like chanting of the names of the various Wikipedia policy pages is used in place of argument to justify all this. It is a fairly sad comment on Wikipedia that this behaviour is tolerated.
Stuarta 14:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
If there is a source like the ASA itself for the 'likely to mislead' comment it certainly should be in. Gillian can't be completely glamourised. Here is the actual story- http://www.badscience.net/?p=362 we need to get our hands on the ASA ruling somewhere that says the 'likely to mislead' quote. Because we already know what Goldacre thinks:)Merkinsmum 16:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

New Goldacre Article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,,2011095,00.html

Recaps some information he's already covered before, but has some new information. Perhaps someone with more spare time than me can use it to expand the entry.

P. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulmoloney (talk • contribs) 12:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Articles

I wonder whether these articles will be useful for this article, or are they not regarded as reliable sources? I'm not sure what is acceptable any more.

Advertising Standards Authority adjudication: http://www.asa.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/1EFF75D3-C489-4DB1-BE7B-B9712782CC4F/0/Broadcastrulings8June05.pdf

Behind the label: Dr Gillian McKeith's living food love bar: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/healthy_eating/article474842.ece

Decent, honest and truthful?: http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/volume119issue6_comments.php?id=1058_0_33_0_C

Food fighters: http://www.guardian.co.uk/befit/story/0,,1379280,00.html --Conjoiner 13:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That particular ASA ruling is not as juicy as if there is a 'likely to mislead' one, which might be a scoopMerkinsmum 16:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Can someone explain why the photograph was removed? ••Briantist•• talk 16:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove the photo - it was provided for publicity and is covered by fair use. ••Briantist•• talk 16:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Publicity photos ••Briantist•• talk 16:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The Wikimedia foundation's goal is freely useable educational information. Information in a form that is less than freely useable that can be expected to eventually be replaced by equivalent information in a freely useable form is being removed. In practise this boils down to deleting non-free images of living persons. The issue is that some people misunderstand wikipedia as a free (gratis) encyclopedia when it is a free (libre) encyclopedia. WAS 4.250 17:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. That photo shouldn't be there, not because it's necessarily breaking the law, but because it's breaking Wikipedia policy, which is stricter than the law. I was confused with images copyright tags when I joined, and still don't fully understand them, but I understand that when I submit content to an article, it may be freely copied onto other websites. Using images that we take from other websites, even when they are promotional photos, compromises the idea of something which may be freely copied, reused, modified, etc. And since Gillian is alive, and a fan (or critic!) could go along to one of her lectures or book-signing sessions, etc. and take a photo, the photo here is not valid as a "fair use" one (as far as I know). ElinorD 17:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I've received a photograph from McKeith's company to which they've released all the rights, and I've added it to the article, but there seem to be server issues today — it took ages to upload and now I can't see it on the page. I'm assuming this will right itself soon enough. In case others can't see it either, it is there. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit as it doesn't produce a photo and there is no reason to remove the one supplied by Channel 4's press office. ••Briantist•• talk 18:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
What's the matter with you SlimVirgin? Why can't you read and understand Wikipedia:Publicity photos ???? ••Briantist•• talk 18:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I can read it, and it says: "If it is possible to replace the publicity image with a new, free, image of similar value to the reader then the free image must be used in preference to the restricted and copyrighted publicity photograph." SlimVirgin (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
But it was OK before a replacement was obtained? I just want to know. ••Briantist•• talk 19:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Not really, no. The Foundation is tightening up its fair use policy, and it's very unusual for a photograph of a living person to be allowed to remain on the site under fair use. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
How am I supposed to work that out? The above is not a summary of Wikipedia:Publicity photos, is it? ••Briantist•• talk 21:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
You're supposed to "work that out" by reading our image policies e.g. WP:FU; and for editing, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP; and as for implying in edit summaries that regular editors are vandals, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:VANDAL. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Briantist that SlimVirgin's edit "doesn't produce a photo" (at least according to my screen), but it seems that Wikipedia:Publicity photos is only an essay. I looked here, and it said "Fair use on Wikipedia only applies if it is not possible to replace such publicity image with a free image." In any case, what's lost by being patient? Isn't it better to have no photo for a while than to have one that may be in violation of policy? ElinorD 18:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Withering Goldacre quote

I removed the 2nd Goldacre quote as it really sounds unecyclopedic. He is regurgitating old facts and he's already quoted above. I would prefer to have other neutral independent sources added to balance out the piece. This is an encyclopedia, not an attack ad on a person. Let the key facts speak for themeselves. Low key and neutral tone will be better all around. Thanks, Crum375 20:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article is almost an extension of Goldacre's website. Let's use multiple, authoritative sources instead of relying on one person. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. Can we also remove claims from her website which cannot be indepenently verified? For example, "celebrity health reporter for The Joan Rivers Show", but this is a show that ran for 2 seasons 18 years ago. Given her documented record for inaccuracy with her CV, claims like this should not be repeated without either a secondary source or the qualifier "claims to have...". Phaedrus86
Yes, a subject's own web site can only be used to provide non-controversial facts about the subject. If there is controversy (e.g. conflict re existence of TV show at specified date), then that item should be removed pending support by an independent verifiable source, IMO. Crum375 22:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:RS says "personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources", so I agree, anything that is claimed only on McKeith's personal web site should be removed. Any opposition or alternatives to this? Phaedrus86 22:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not a personal website it's a business website and the info forms her CV. Jooler 23:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it's 'personal' or 'business' - the point is that it is a site controlled by the subject, and hence it would be considered unacceptable for controversial info by WP. Crum375 23:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
McKeith's appearances on the Joan Rivers show are disputed, in some detail, in the Daily Mail, here. Some qualification of her claim regarding this is therefore necessary.
Stuarta 11:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Phaedrus86 and Crum375, you seem to be ignoring this, which specifically allows even otherwise poor, non-RS, and very controversial sources to be used, when they are the subject's own site or writings, and used in the article about themselves. IOW, anything she has written can be used both for and against her, but not against others. If a controversial matter is so sourced, it is no longer "contentious", but can be sourced as an opinion of that person, or a fact, and thus not to be "contended". -- Fyslee's (First law) 23:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:V and it says:
Material from self-published sources ... may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as:
  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.
SlimVirgin (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
"Not unduly self-serving" covers it because her dubious Masters and PhD are fairly obviously published purely to boost her credentials as a self-styled "worlds top nutrionist". Regarding "relevant to their notability", she has an obvious claim to being a BBC TV presenter and author of books that appear to sell well. However she is also prone to polishing the resume a bit much and has been caught out doing this more than once. I don't think Wikipedia should be a party to it. If things can't be independently verified then don't propagate them here and thereby add authenticity to dubious claims. Phaedrus86
If the subject's web site says "I went to school X in 1989" it would generally be acceptable. But if someone can find a source showing that school X only started in 1992, then the statement would be controversial, hence failing the contentious criterion, hence inadmissible. In this case, if we have her claim on her controlled web site conflicting with some other reliable source, that would make her web site claim controversial and inadmissible. Otherwise if it's non-conflicting and reasonable, it would be admissible. BTW, 'admissible' doesn't mean we accept it as gospel or as WP's own view - just that she says it. Crum375 00:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
that she says it - exactly, put "she claims...", which lets the reader see that it is only her claim. If it appears unqualified then readers take it as an expression of fact. Not all readers have the time to work out that it only appears on her personal web site, and is therefore unsubstantiated. Phaedrus86 01:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
She "claims" indicates we don't believe her. No one disputes that she has a PhD. What they dispute is whether it was awarded by a properly accredited body, and whether a distance-learning course is sufficient. All we say is that she was awarded a PhD by X and we add that it was distance learning, so it's fine as it stands. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) "Claims" is listed as one of the Wikipedia:Words to avoid. ElinorD 01:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
No one disputes that she has a PhD - which gets back to the nutrition diploma that Ben Goldacre was able to get for $60 for his dead cat from the same organisation that gave McKeith her Masters and PhD. Anyone can award a PhD, I could award one, doesn't mean it is worth anything. But you're right, we should just copy any claims she makes along with criticisms. Put her claims first so that only a few readers will manage to stay awake long enough to read as far as the criticisms and get as far as a reasoned judgement as to what her claims are worth. Should get at least, gee, 1 in 1000 to understand it. Another article to take off my watchlist. Phaedrus86 01:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The point is "Why should I believe that?" The policies and guidelines are an attempt to help us with that and not a source of strict rules to be used to wiki-lawyer to a self serving end. Regardless of the exact wording of policy and guidelines (which can be altered if they need to be), the intent is to help us create information attributable to reliable published sources written in a neutral manner. Self serving assertions do not strike me as especially believable. Especially in the face of scientific objections. Especially when those assertions are used to generate income by the person making the claims. We have a Conflict of Interest guideline for a reason. WAS 4.250 01:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that we need to decide what is controversial and what is not (on her web site) and then use the non-controversial items. Her PhD from a given institution is not controversial per se, as SlimVirgin notes above, its value or validity is. So all we need to do is state she got a PhD from institution X, for example, then wikilink to the institution and debate the value of their PhDs there. I don't think we need to get involved with it in her article. Crum375 02:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Her believabilty is the very essense of the issue and to assert she has a Ph.D. without distinguishing between one I issued her or one MIT issued her is to ignore the very point. I say this without a clue to the value of her PH.D. (except that I know she is selling snake oil, so to speak). WAS 4.250 02:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Anything she says about herself that indicates she has any credibility is controversial. Birth day, name of child, favorite color, anything that doesn't help her make money seems noncontroversial to me. WAS 4.250 02:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
WAS, regarding her education, a PhD is a piece of paper, regardless of where it comes from. The value of that paper is determined by the institution that issues it. In this case we can say she got a PhD from institution X and perhaps even mention that it has an unrecognized accreditation (whatever the linked article ends up saying, in a nutshell). Then for more details the reader can follow the link to the institution. If we get other neutral reliable sources who comment directly on the value of her PhD, then I would think that would be acceptable and preferable. Crum375 02:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
"If we get other neutral reliable sources who comment directly on the value of her PhD, then I would think that would be acceptable and preferable." Yes. Exactly. That's all I'm saying. A degree can be unneeded to indicate ability due to life experience or other things ... or can be worthless as a measure of the validity of someone's assertions due to buying the degree or a stroke or being paid to make those assertions or other things. But it is up to us to present reliable published sources about such things and not draw our own conclusions. So we agree. Well, except that our article must be neutral, not the sources. The sources must be reliable which is not the same as neutral. The point of a source is that we can trust it for the claim we are using it as a source for. But that's probably what you meant. WAS 4.250 03:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian

I don't know whether The Guardian is considered a reliable source, but yesterday's G2 section contained a feature pages long destroying McKeith's qualifications and her bogus science.[4]--Conjoiner 01:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That's Ben Goldacre again though, her bette noire. Other sources are needed. Maybe swap some of the quotes by him for these newer ones if you think they are better, but there can't be more quotes by him in here really.Merkinsmum 03:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It's starting to get worrying how much of this article depends on him. We have to rely on other sources from now on. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The thing is that because she doesn't actually do any research or publish peer-reviewed papers, there isn't a lot of evidence at all in support of her approach to nutrition. Most of the article is focussed on her questionable qualifications and research, and not on her undeniable broadcasting and publishing skills. Instead of trying to prop up her dodgy qualifications and avoid scrutiny of her medical credentials, why not expand the publishing and broadcasting parts of the article, then there won't be any need to be critical of her. Phaedrus86 05:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so the Guardian is barred as a source for biographies because it publishes articles critical of a celebrity quack. Can someone tell me what critical sources are allowed on Wikipedia? No academic can waste their time disproving McKeith's pseudo-science, so there is nothing in peer-reviewed journals about her.--Conjoiner 12:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No-one's saying the Guardian as a whole is banned. Just that the article you mention is by Goldacre, we already know what Goldacre thinks about McKeith and there's a lot of quotes by him in the articleMerkinsmum 13:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to censor anything that Goldacre writes?--Conjoiner 14:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

To discount Ben Goldcare's research on McKeith is mad as discounting Michael Crick on Jeffrey Archer. Jooler 19:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

We are not discounting Ben Goldcare's research on McKeith. It is simply a matter of balance. We already have a lot of his quotes included, and since this is BLP we prefer to have other independent neutral verifiable sources also. Otherwise, this will become another Goldcare attack piece and not an encyclopedic article. Again, this has nothing to do with the merits of Goldcare's arguments or evidence - it's just that we'd like to balance his views with those of other independent sources. Crum375 19:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Goldacre is the main investigator and debunker of of her claims. We are not talking about quotes - we are talking about research. I see no reason whatsoever why a well founded research and investigation by Goldacre should not be included. Jooler 23:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, nobody says he can't be included, just that he shouldn't monopolise the article. Are there some earlier Goldacre references that can be removed? Can we find similar material from other sources, just to balance the article a bit more? ElinorD 23:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Crum375. Nobody is saying that we can't quote Goldacre. But as the article stood a few days ago, the whole thing might have been written by him. I'm perfectly happy to quote Goldacre, but there's something wrong with the balance if in every paragraph we have Goldacre's comments on McKeith. I remember hearing in college that we'd get bad marks for our assignments (or even fail them) if we relied almost exclusively on one source. So, if there's a new quotation from Goldacre that we think is better than some of his previous ones, then let's discuss it here, and take out one of the others. And I'm saying that as someone who is not a fan of McKeith, but who just wants an article that shows some balance. ElinorD 19:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It now seems that all mention of, or links to, the piece from yesterday's Guardian, referenced at the head of this section, have been excised from the article. Andy Mabbett 22:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

What's with SlimVirgin's POV taking precident?

Can someone explain why SlimVirgin, someone who is an "administrator" I am told, always makes edits positive for this woman, and dismisses critics? SlimVirgin is editing against neutral POV as far as I can see. ••Briantist•• talk 08:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Briantist, your concerns about SlimVirgin's editing are noted, and others are also concerned. For an admin to edit in such direct contravention of NPOV policy is a travesty that will be remembered and noticed. Such admins risk losing their priviliges. Especially the deletion of references is a very serious matter, as well as attempts to whitewash an article. BLP issues relate only to potentially libelous information. Once the information is published in RS, it is no longer a problem, and can be used, even when negative. Articles are not to be used as soap boxes to sell the subject of the article. The springing point is whether the information is true, verifiable, from a RS, and is presented clearly as a POV or a fact, as the case may be. If so, the NPOV policy is being followed. POV deletionism is extremely unwikipedian.
Wikipedia's NPOV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. Editors must actively enable the presentation of all significant sides of any controversy. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less.
The best articles are produced through the collaborative efforts of editors who hold opposing POV, who truly understand the NPOV policy, and who either "write for the enemy" themselves, or who at least don't suppress it. As regards other's POV, they are inclusionists, rather than deletionists who exercise POV suppressionism. Collaborative editors work in a "checks and balances" relationship. This ensures that all significant POV are presented without being promoted. What could be more Wikipedian than that? It's fantastic when it works, but such a relationship is rare on controversial subjects. -- Fyslee's (First law) 11:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)