Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gillian McKeith: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:21, 11 March 2008 editSideshow Bob Roberts (talk | contribs)1,011 edits NPOV: huh?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:04, 19 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots8,040,257 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 5 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 5 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject Scotland}}, {{WikiProject Skepticism}}, {{WikiProject Television}}, {{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(210 intermediate revisions by 74 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=C|listas=McKeith, Gillian|1=
{{ArticleHistory
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=Low}}
|action1=PR
{{WikiProject Scotland|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Television|importance=low|the-x-factor=yes|the-x-factor-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism|importance=Low}}
}}
{{ArticleHistory|action1=PR
|action1date=22:24, 27 Aug 2004 |action1date=22:24, 27 Aug 2004
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Gillian McKeith/archive1 |action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Gillian McKeith/archive1
Line 7: Line 13:


|action2=GAN |action2=GAN
|action2date=18:45, 23 January 2008 |action2date=17:26, 1 June 2007
|action2link=Talk:Gillian_McKeith/Archive_9#GA-Class
|action2result=listed |action2result=listed
|action2oldid=186393713 |action2oldid=134858687


|action3=GAR
|currentstatus=GA
|action3date=18:58, 23 January 2008
|topic=arts
|action3link=Talk:Gillian_McKeith/Archive_9#GA_Sweeps_.28Pass.29
}}
|action3result=kept
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=GA|importance=|listas=McKeith, Gillian|s&a-work-group=yes|a&e-work-group=yes}}
|action3oldid=186394097
{{Rational Skepticism|class=GA}}
{{archive box|auto=long}}


|action4=GAR
==Legal action==
|action4date=19:54, 5 December 2010
|action4result=delisted
|action4oldid=400712383


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

{{User:MiszaBot/config
:McKeith took ] against '']'' over comments made about her in 2004, as well as blogger PhDiva and website ]<ref name=Goldacre>, Guardian, February 12, 2007. Accessed March 7, 2007.</ref> for making an animation mocking her appearance on the ]. Her lawyers have also complained about alleged "damage to their client's reputation and professional standing", to the search engine ], who subsequently removed a web page about her from their listings<ref name=Google></ref>; <ref name=Chill></ref>. The search result concerned is not removed from google.com <ref name=Chill2></ref>.
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}

|maxarchivesize = 200K
Unless anyone has a '''''good''''' reason I should not; or wishes to propose an alternative acceptable to all. ] 08:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
|counter = 10

|minthreadsleft = 1
The point of sourcing at[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. ] 11:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
|algo = old(30d)

|archive = Talk:Gillian McKeith/Archive %(counter)d
::Your claim ''Your personal observation of what you see when you look at it becomes "original research" as that phrase is used in Misplaced Pages.'' is, I believe, fallacious. ] 11:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
}}

{{Archive box|auto=long}}
::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. ] 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. --] 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 ).
::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. ] 11:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
:::The Guardian, Goldacre, Google.co.uk and teh lawyers are al in the UK. Misplaced Pages is not. ] 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.] 15:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::The Grauniad did not say it, that's the point. They nearly, but not quite, said it. ] 16:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

== 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? ] 13:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

:On this page you can only have what SlimVirgin thinks is right. ] 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. ] 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". ] ] 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). ] 18:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

::::::Not sure if I'm contributing correctly, but I'm the blogger her lawyer threatened to sue - but did not. I find it annoying that someone keeps writing that I made claims about nutritionists, when I did not ... my post also clearly had nothing to do with McKeith, and described what another nutritionist told me. Her lawyer threatens people, and they cave, even without a legal case. He sends them out en masse - mine started "Dear Sir" even though I'm clearly a woman, and my name was at the top of the page. So yes, the letters are aimed at anyone who 'criticises' not just her but ANY nutritionist.] 20:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

==Quote from the Independent==
I've added a small quote from the Independent in the intro as it both a direct quote and covers the wording it replaced. For those who can't see, the quote has a reference and does not voilate the ] rules! ]&nbsp;] 07:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
::If it's negative, controversial, about a living person, and is presented out of context, in such a way as to give an impression that Misplaced Pages is stating this (rather than in the context of a section that quotes what some people say in favour of her and against her), then it does violate ]. ] ] 08:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
:How about posting your logic rather than just reverting? ]&nbsp;] 08:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
::That's exactly what I was doing when you made your post. As you can see, mine was considerably longer and therefore took more time to write. ] ] 08:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


(Merged sections after edit conflict) ] ] 08:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The article had this section in the lead:
:"Critics of McKeith contend that her methods are unscientific; some consider her advice potentially dangerous."

Briantist changed it to the following:
:''"Dr" Gillian McKeith bullies overeaters mercilessly on screen while cloaking her advice in a veil of questionable science''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article2499592.ece|title=Obesity: It's time to stop the fat attack - Independent Online Edition > Health Medical|accessdate=2007-05-08}}</ref>; some consider her advice potentially dangerous.

It sticks out badly there. There's no preparation, no introductory clause saying who said it. (Admittedly there's a footnote for the source, but to quote that without saying who said it looks very much as if we're endorsing it.) It's also stylistically poor, as the two halves of the sentence, separated by the semicolon, don't balance each other properly.

The piece in '']'' is not attributed to anyone, as far as I can see. It's not actually about McKeith at all; it just mentions her ''en passant''. I wouldn't object to having that quotation used later in the article, ''if (and only if) there is a need for more criticism quotations to provide balance''. But ideally it would be presented in context, in a section dealing with criticism from reputable sources. (I accept ''The Independent'' as reputable, by the way, but do not consider that an article about obesity, by an unnamed journalist, which makes one brief attack on McKeith, is one that we should necessarily use; ''certainly'' we should not use it in the lead, out of context, and without prefixing it with who said it.)

Basically, I feel that this smacks of trying to find quotations that disparage McKeith and to stick them in at any opportunity, regardless of relevance, regardless of context, and regardless of style. ] ] 08:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

:I'm sorry that you feel that way, I simply thought that the "veil of questionable science" was a better way of phrasing it, and by including it as a direct quotation it meets the WP:BLP rules. It's not an attempt to "disparage", but to improve!
:If I wasn't assuming good faith, it might seem to me that you will do anything to defend this person, which isn't NPOV ]&nbsp;] 08:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
::There would be no need to feel that, as I am not going to great lengths to get hold of any quotation I can find that praises her and to stick it in anywhere it will go. ] ] 08:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Hay, how about '''having a discussion''' before removing it? ]&nbsp;] 08:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
::::I thought that posting my objections at length on this talk page meant that I ''was'' having a discussion. ] ] 08:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Oh right, I see that you're a Misplaced Pages bully who simply want their way without discussion. I see you're ignoring the rules. Sad! ]&nbsp;] 08:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

McKeith should not be defended, and deserves all the criticism she gets. That said, the quote is out of place and needs to be included in another place in a better manner. Context is everything. There is no real BLP problem, it's the presentation that's problematic. You don't have a consensus here to include it in that manner, so please find a better place and manner to do it. Reverting. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i>/<b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 08:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

:I've just used the four words "veil of questionable science". Is this OK? ]&nbsp;] 08:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

:: Fine. The other quote can still be used somewhere else. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i>/<b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 08:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

:::OK. What "other quote"? ]&nbsp;] 08:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

:::: Sorry. That was unclear. I meant the other words in the quote: ''"Dr" Gillian McKeith bullies overeaters mercilessly on screen...." -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i>/<b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 08:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

::I think the original version was better. There are lots of critics who say that her methods are unscientific. There is one, unnamed journalist who has used the exact phrase "veil of questionable science". So it's not accurate to say that "critics" contend that her methods "have a veil of questionable science", no matter how much you may like the quotation. Anyway, as I said, I wouldn't object to that quotation being used properly, in context, if there is a need for it to provide balance. If it is appropriate anywhere, it would be in a section dealing with criticism. But I do have doubts as to whether we need ''another'' anti-McKeith quotation, when it's by an unnamed journalist, whose expertise in science is unknown, and who is not writing an article about McKeith, but is just briefly attacking her in the context of another subject &mdash; that of obesity. ] ] 08:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

::I disagree, a direct quoation from a mainstream national newspaper is always going score better Misplaced Pages points that an user's opinion. ]&nbsp;] 08:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
:::The quotation came from an article that was not attributed to anybody, and that was not about McKeith. I'm sorry, Brian, but it really does give the impression of wanting to put in any newspaper quote that can be found, as long as it disparages her. ] ] 08:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

::::I'm sorry but the quote mentions this woman by name, it's a direct quote and it's from a reliabl source. Please stop adding your own rules. ]&nbsp;] 09:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

On the same general issue &mdash; that of people apparently trying to find any negative quotation they can get hold of and insert it into the article, I very much question the need to have '''four''' footnotes for this phrase:
:''She has been censured twice by the ], most recently to prevent her from using the title Dr. on her products.''
The , added by Briantist today was not about McKeith at all, much less about the Advertising Standards Authority's ruling. It was a piece about Britney Spears, and just made a passing sneer at Gillian McKeith, with reference to Goldacre's dead cat. It wasn't even reliable. The cat didn't get a doctorate. According to Goldacre, she got membership of the ]. That article from the mirror has nothing to add except a sneer and a piece of inaccurate information. ] ] 08:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

:::But you did! My reverts are OK as they are fixing yours! ]&nbsp;] 09:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

::::"Sneer"? That's not NPOV!!! ]&nbsp;] 09:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

::I see you have reveted again. Why is this, we have agreed here that it is OK. It doesn't voilate the rules. Stop reverting please! ]&nbsp;] 08:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
:::You have made four reverts within the space of one hour and one minute. You know from before that partial reverts count. Please self revert immediately. I do not intend to violate the rule myself. ] ] 09:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

==Infobox==
The page uses an INFOBOX Actor... is this correct? ]&nbsp;] 08:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

: Whatever works. She's an "actor" in her own show.....;-) If you have a better info box, please suggest it here. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i>/<b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 08:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

::He he... <nowiki>{{infobox|fraud}}</nowiki> or <nowiki>{{infobox|quack}}</nowiki> ??? ]&nbsp;] 08:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Doesn't the ] policy apply to talk pages as well? ] ] 11:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

:::: Yes it does. If the proposed info boxes don't exist, then the joke may be in bad taste, but hardly actionable. It shouldn't be hard to find V & RS that apply both terms to her. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i>/<b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 11:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

::::: I added the actor infobox originally, but following that I changed it to a journalist infobox, which is what I thought was more suitable to the article. However, my edits got reverted for some reason. The journalist infobox maybe as suitable but provides the same information, the only difference being that the journalist infobox is orange and the actor infobox is light blue. ] 19:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::It doesn't matter what the name of the infobox is; the only thing that matters is the content and appearance of it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 19:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

== Nutritionist ==

I don't think we can call her a nutritionist; she has no qualifications in the area. Perhaps "self-styled nutritionist" or "self-taught nutritionist"? --] 17:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
:I'm almost tempted to treat it like we treat ]; last time I looked the consensus was not to call him a "historian" for similar reasons.--] 18:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
::If no-one objects, I will remove "nutritionist". A ] indicating she is regarded as a nutritionist by any serious authority would be required; until then we should just call her a TV presenter and author, both of which are ].--] 17:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

:::I object. A person doesn't need a "serious authority" to call them a nutritionist. It's quite legal, and many people do it. I, DanBeale, am a nutritionist. ] 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

:In the UK anyone can call themselves a nutritionist, with no qualifications or knowledge. Perhaps some distinction could be made between "nutritionist" (a person doesn't need any qualifications or registration to be a nutritionist) and "dietician" (a person needs to be qualified and registered to call themselves a dietician) could be made. But she refers to herself as a nutritionist, as do many of the sources used in this article, so it's daft to say that she isn't. Especially, as I say, any duffer can call themselves a nutritionist. ] 18:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

::I take your point. I just thought that saying "self-styled nutritionist" would look unencyclopedic. If anyone can find evidence that anyone other than her considers her as such, we can readd the description. --] 18:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

::: She can legally call herself a nutritionist in the UK, although it's illegal for her to use her degree in many US states such as Texas ] 20:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

::::We've discussed this before, and it will be in the archives. She earns money by advising people about nutrition. Therefore, she is a ]. It's not a regulated profession in the UK (unlike ]). And in any case, for most professions, you don't need a qualification in order to call yourself something. You just need to be doing the thing. If a school employs you as an English teacher, even though you don't have a degree in English, then you're an English teacher. ] ] 21:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::Hmm, I accept your logic though that is a very bad comparison; teachers in the UK are a regulated profession unlike, as you say, nutritionists. --] 21:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::What was the matter with '''non-clinical nutritionist'''? ]&nbsp;] 06:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::: For wikipedia: Not one of our sources calls here a "non-clinical nutritionist", most of them refer to her as a "nutritionist". Calling her "non clinical" is POV and OR. There's a good reason why no-one calls her a non-clinical nutritionist. There's no such thing as a "clinical nutritionist" - that would be a dietician. Anyone who isn't a dietician but who is giving nutritional advice (no matter how flawed that advice is) is a nutritionist. Anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. You don't need to know anything about food or nutrition to be able to do so. ] 10:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Agree completely with DanBeale. ] ] 10:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

McKeith is not a registered nutritionist (RNutr). This is the major distinction between persons professing to be a nutritionist and those who have provided evidence of their ongoing proficiency and competence. Unlike 'dietician' the term 'nutrtionist' is not currently protected by law, but nutritionists can apply for voluntary registration with the Nutrition Society in Britain. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:12:45, 19 June 2007|&#32;12:45, 19 June 2007|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

* (comment moved to help discussion) This is a good point. Perhaps the nutritioninst page could be tweaked to include stuff about the difference between registered and non-registered nutritionists. It's certainly worth mentioning that McKeith is an unregistered nutritionist. ] 14:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

==Legal action==
What is our source for the legal action section? We link to an article that seems not to mention it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
:It's in the reference, about a third of the way down, and it starts "But those who criticise McKeith have reason to worry." HTH. --] 23:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks, Guinnog; for some reason when I did a search for the keywords, none of them came up. Maybe I was looking at the wrong article. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 05:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

==Non-clinical==
There isn't a single hit for "non-clinical nutritionist" on Google. Let's not start making up terms for her. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

:And, indeed, many hits for "clinical nutritionist" are for people also involved in homeopathy and other pseudo-scientific 'stuff'. ] 22:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

::Agreed. ] ] 22:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to make it really clear: I do not support use of "non clinical". <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:16:02, 31 May 2007|&#32;16:02, 31 May 2007|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

::Who does not? ]&nbsp;] 17:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
::::That statement came from DanBeale. I have added the {{tl|unsigned}} template, but it would have been quite easy to find out by looking in the . ] ] 18:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Also "non clinical" results in 1,140,000 hits on Google. ]&nbsp;] 17:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

::::And There are 249,000 for "non clinical" +nutritionist... Looks like SlimVirgin can't use Google! LOL ]&nbsp;] 17:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::Briantist, you seem to misunderstand how to use a search engine. Getting results that tell you that "Smith is a non-clinical lecturer" and "Jones is a nutritionist" does not mean that "non-clinical nutritionist" is a title in current usage. ] ] 18:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::Briantist, you should look at the type of people calling themselves "clinical nutritionist" - exactly the same type of person as McKeith. A Google search for returns zero hits. ] 18:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Briantist, inventing new titles for people violates ], ] and ]. Google has zero (0) hits for "non-clinical nutritionist". Also, if you follow the wikilink for ], you will note that there is no requirement for any schooling. ] 17:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

:The woman may be a fraud , but she is certainly a ], and is in ]. --] 17:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
::] applies to talk pages as well. ] ] 18:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm puzzled by Briantist's edit summary, where he reinserts "non-clinical" before "nutritionist", saying that he is adding "non-clinical" "as per the agreed comments". That phrase had been removed by three different editors (four by now!), had not been added by anyone other than Briantist, and had been out of the article for two days. At the time that Briantist said that he was restoring it "as per the agreed comments", this page had also not been edited for two days, and the showed three editors objecting to his addition. Where are "the agreed comments"?. ] ] 18:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Briantist - your actions are disruptive. McKeith offers individuals "consultations" - thus she's "clinical". "Clinical" does not mean "medical". A "medical nutritionist" is a dietician, and we're not calling her a dietician. I remind you to re-read BLP and 3RR. Especially this bit: ''Revert warring is disruptive, and the 3RR is not an entitlement to three 'free' reverts per day.'' ] 10:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

::She certainly isn't a dietitian - in the UK that's a controlled term & she doesn't hold the appropriate (to put it mildly) qualifications... <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::Indeed, I think most people agree. She has no relevant qualifications or registration to be called a dietician. We're now stuck with the terms "clinical nutritionist". The problem is that some nutritionists study, register, and do important sensible work, and others are snake oil bunkum peddlars. Many people calling themselves "clinical nutritionists" have no real qualifications, and are at the less medical end of the scale. It seems they use "clinical" to mean that they see and "treat" individuals. Thus, using the term "clinical nutritionist" is just using a term they apply to themselves, and should not be seen as endorsing their abilities as nutritionists. Perhpas this is somehting to be mentioned here, and on the nutritionist and dietician pages? ] 23:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:I agree with ElinorD and DanBeale. Briantist, I count at least six people who object to the term "non-clinical nutritionist". Please start listening to other editors, your revert warring is disruptive. ] 12:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

:It's important to note that she does see clients, and thus she _is_ a 'clinical' nutritionist. ] 13:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

::It is appropriate to describe McKeith as a nutritionist, given what the wiki entry on "nutritionist" actually says. It doesn't help to describe her as "non-Clinical". I oppose the description of "clinical nutritionist". The word "clinical" does not mean "sees clients in a clinic". It carries, instead, implications of relating to medical treatment. McKeith is not a doctor and is not qualified to give medical treatment. To describe her as "clinical" has the effect of unreasonably boosting her status. --] 20:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

::and another thing. if it is important to emphasise at the head of the article that people pay McKeith money for her opinions, then simply say that she runs a business that offers people advice on what they should eat. Don't call her "clinical", as though that meant anything. Lawyers see clients, but there aren't any "clinical lawyers". --] 20:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Sorry, sorry. Just to say that I find there *are* "clinical lawyers", but they specialise in medical law. So that's not the analogy we want. I'll stop now. --] 21:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

:: Just to clarify, I don't think anyone wants to call her a clinical nutritionist. People are arguing that we shouldn't use the term "non clinical" because it doesn't apply. By the way, the term "clinical nutritionist" *does* mean "a nutritionist who sees clients". Other nutritionists work with food companies or write books/articles or do "research" (scare quotes intentional). ''It carries, instead, implications of relating to medical treatment.'' - and this is probably why so many nutritionists use the term, because they know the public don't know how the industry works. ] 23:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

== GA-Class ==

This fits all the criteria. It's well written with good prose, contains excellent sourcing and covers all the information one would expect to see in the article. Meets the Criteria of ], so there you have it. Cheers, ] ] 17:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

== X Factor contestant? ==


== External links modified ==
The article is included in a category of "X Factor contestants", but the article's text contains no mention of McKeith ever taking part in such a show. Is it an error? --] 11:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)–


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
She sang the "Shoop Shoop Song" in a celebrity version once, though I'm not sure that's particularly noteworthy. ] 12:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
:: see article here: --] 12:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080609094934/http://www.mhra.gov.uk/NewsCentre/Pressreleases/CON2025275 to http://www.mhra.gov.uk/NewsCentre/Pressreleases/CON2025275


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
== Snake oil salesman ==


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
Is there such a category this can be added to? :-) ] 15:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 07:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
== Eclectech ==
Anyone know any more about the status of this case? Thanks ] (]) 04:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


== GA Sweeps (Pass) == == Clayton College description ==


The same or similar content was added and is being edit-warred over at least four articles:
This article has been reviewed as part of ]. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a ]. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. I would like to note, however, that this article paints a very negative portrait of the individual, and does not come off as very neutral. While I made some changes to improve neutrality (took out some of the more implicative categories, added mention of her award in the lead) so that it could remain a GA, I think that work could be done to make the article more balanced. Cheers, ] 18:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
*{{la|Robert O. Young}}
*{{la|Gillian McKeith}}
*{{la|Lyn-Genet Recitas}}
*{{la|Hulda Regehr Clark }}


All but the last are BLPs. All are FRINGE-related.
== NPOV ==


There's a discussion at ], where BLP doesn't apply. I think it would be best to see how we can resolve it there before going into the BLPs. --] (]) 16:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion on this article at the new . Editors may like to comment there. ] 19:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
:After comparing this article with that of a far worse example personality, a convicted ], I find this article an adversarial advert, starting with the Lede. Trimming, moving adversarial advert details, clarifying the lede more toward a topical, less obscure, bio. As for stool checks, well, somebody probably should <s>give a s-<s> check occasionally e.g. malabsorption cases where combined achlorhydria, pancreatic insufficiency and low bile output might go medically unnoticed, dismissed as head problems or subclinical for far too long, in a surprising number of cases to the nutritionally untrained, unaware or "skeptical", say after unnannounced population trials of the latest P450 eliminator, er, new drug before a total recall.--] (]) 06:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
::I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you trying to suggest that McKeith's poo claims are not complete nonsense? Good luck finding a ] to support that. Have you actually seen ''You Are What You Eat''? ] (]) 01:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:04, 19 February 2024

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography: Arts and Entertainment
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconScotland Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconTelevision: The X Factor Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the X Factor task force (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconVeganism and Vegetarianism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Former good articleGillian McKeith was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 27, 2004Peer reviewReviewed
June 1, 2007Good article nomineeListed
January 23, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
December 5, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10


This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gillian McKeith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Clayton College description

The same or similar content was added and is being edit-warred over at least four articles:

All but the last are BLPs. All are FRINGE-related.

There's a discussion at Talk:Hulda_Regehr_Clark#Contested_deletion, where BLP doesn't apply. I think it would be best to see how we can resolve it there before going into the BLPs. --Hipal (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Gillian McKeith: Difference between revisions Add topic