Talk:Anthony William

This user has a conflict of interest. In his first edit this user claims "I am the authorised editor for Anthony William, Medical Medium" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_William&diff=944969686&oldid=944950611]. This user's first edits were to add link spam to William's books on Hay House where they can be ordered. The same user is now removing reliable sources from the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_William&diff=944991188&oldid=944990726]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

:See WP:TALKHEADPOV: "Don't address other users in a heading". --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|ZincRobinson}}
• {{userlinks|Joshuatree 774}}

Both these users are the same person, repeatedly inserting POV material into the lead. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Might be useful as a source: "[https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2023/04/the-medical-medium-and-the-true-believer The Medical Medium and the True Believer]" ScienceFlyer (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

To enhance the neutrality of the Anthony William article, I propose adding a brief section on support from medical professionals who incorporate or are inspired by his protocols. This includes Dr. Sherri Greene, a restorative physician who integrates Medical Medium information into her practice, as well as practitioners listed in the MMFriendly directory and Healing Ambassadors network.

This addition provides a balanced perspective, acknowledging that while there is skepticism from much of the medical community, some healthcare providers find value in William’s work.

The section will be supported by reliable sources, including Dr. Greene’s official website and practitioner directories.

Please let me know if there are any concerns or suggestions to improve this proposal.

Thank you. Sophiamiaw (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Adding Support from Medical Professionals section to improve neutrality.

:== Support from Medical Professionals ==

:Some medical professionals have expressed support for Anthony William's methodologies. For example, Dr. Sherri Greene, a restorative physician, integrates Medical Medium information into her practice, stating that it helps her address the root causes of patients’ pain.{{cite web |title=Medical Medium and the Root Cause of Illness |url=https://www.drsherrigreene.com/blog/medical-medium-and-the-root-cause-of-illness |website=Dr. Sherri Greene |access-date=2025-05-16}} Additionally, directories such as MMFriendly and communities like Healing Ambassadors list practitioners who incorporate William's teachings into their services.{{cite web |title=Practitioners Directory |url=https://mmfriendly.com/community/practitioners/ |website=MMFriendly |access-date=2025-05-16}}{{cite web |title=Healing Ambassadors |url=https://healingambassadors.com/ |website=Healing Ambassadors |access-date=2025-05-16}} Sophiamiaw (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}

:{{not done}} Sherri Greene (and other practitioners of functional medicine, Reiki, Energy Medicine, and Craniosacral Therapy), are not reliable sources in accordance with WP:MEDRS.

Also Greene is a podiatrist and doesn't appear to have relevant expertise. I was surprised that her web site claims that she is a "Medical Doctor / Restorative Physician" when she has no MD degree or license.

Your many other proposals are also not acceptable for Wikipedia. ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi ScienceFlyer,

:Thank you for your feedback. Based on your advice and WP:MEDRS, I have reworked the proposal to focus solely on public support and celebrity endorsements, without making any medical claims. This is meant to ensure neutrality while still acknowledging the significant public impact Anthony William has had. Below is the updated text for consideration.

:Would this version be acceptable?

:Thank you.

:== Public Support and Celebrity Endorsements ==

:Anthony William has gained significant public attention and support, particularly for his advocacy of celery juice and other health practices. Celebrities such as Miranda Kerr, Gwyneth Paltrow, Pharrell Williams, Elle Macpherson, and Calvin Harris have publicly supported his work, particularly through social media and wellness platforms.{{cite news |title=Why the world is obsessed with celery juice |url=https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/wellness/celery-juice-medical-medium-anthony-william-a4064821.html |work=Evening Standard |date=2019-02-05 |access-date=2025-05-16}}

:William's books have also achieved significant commercial success, appearing on bestseller lists such as the New York Times.{{cite news |title=Medical Medium Cleanses: Do They Work? |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/medical-medium-anthony-william/2020/09/14/c7e1b924-f45d-11ea-b796-2dd09962649c_story.html |work=The Washington Post |date=2020-09-14 |access-date=2025-05-16}}

:Supporters have credited his dietary and wellness advice with improving their health, although these testimonials are personal accounts and not supported by scientific evidence.{{cite web |title=Medical Medium Blog Testimonials |url=https://www.medicalmedium.com/medical-medium-blog-testimonials |website=Medical Medium |access-date=2025-05-16}}

:Despite his popularity, critics have questioned the scientific basis of William's claims, characterizing them as pseudoscientific.{{cite news |title=Medical Medium Anthony William: The man behind the celery juice trend |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/medical-medium-anthony-william-celery-juice-goop-book-b1782544.html |work=The Independent |date=2021-01-12 |access-date=2025-05-16}} 174.90.73.218 (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}

::I don't agree with any proposed edits. Plus all the AI generated comments and numerous new topics is not something that I'll entertain.

::I was recently involved in another talk page where someone posted obnoxious AI generated comments and was blocked. ScienceFlyer (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That is solely based on your personal opinion, not on facts. What do you not agree with? Explain.This is supposed to be subjective not for personal opinion 160.32.203.171 (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::If you want to add the few celebrities that support William, then it would be far to list all the celebrities that think he is doing harm and promoting nonsense. You can't ask for one list and not get the other. Do you have any idea how long that non-support list would be? Same with asking to have medical doctors that support him added, then we would have to have non-supporters as well. Think about your proposal. Besides what about these celebrities shows they have any expertise to evaluate William's medical abilities? Are you going to want to list other categories of people who endorse him, footballers, bowlers, plumbers, used car salespersons, pilots, who? Wikipedia does not work that way. Sgerbic (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::So what is the rationale behind only talking about the criticism? And not the other way around? Then if we can’t mention all the list of people who criticize nor who support him then we should remove the section altogether. Like I mentioned in this talk section, suggesting that he gives medical advice even tho he never said or intended to do so with all the disclaimer and mention that he did referring to the comment of one doctor, is beyond the rationale you just pointed out. Worth mentioning no legal action have ever been taken against him in that matter either. Would need to be added. 160.32.203.171 (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::For instance,

:::::Dr. Prudence Hall, founder and medical director of The Hall Center, contributed the foreword to William’s book and supports his work.

:::::My point is that this Wikipedia page needs balance between support and criticism. If that can’t be achieved how can we call this neutral? Sophiamiaw (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. You have suggested incorporation of unreliable sources and also filled this page with AI Slop.

::::::For example, Dr. Prudence Elizabeth Hall has been [https://abcnews.go.com/Health/doctor-stars-disciplined-controversial-menopause-therapy/story?id=57777792 disciplined] for unprofessional conduct (gross negligence and repeated negligent acts), plus incomplete and illegible record keeping. You stated that she contributed with William's book. Therefore she is not independent of William, like many of the sources you have suggested.

::::::You also suggested Sherri Greene, a podiatrist who misrepresents her credentials. You even believed her deception, falsely [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anthony%20William&diff=prev&oldid=1290765102 claiming] "Sheri Greene is a Functional Doctor and not a podiatrist" before [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anthony_William&diff=prev&oldid=1290765576 removing it]. I would suggest reviewing what constitutes reliable sources. ScienceFlyer (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::the page places a significant emphasis on criticism, whether you like the fact people use AI to help formulate answers, or not, you are totally missing the point and clinging into technicalities.

:::::::The page highlights criticism from doctors and scientists, emphasizing the lack of scientific evidence for his methods. If we want to weight it out and be neutral it would only be logical to add support too. While I may give the impression I am advocating, this current page editing gives the impression of editorial bias, which goes against Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View policy. Correct me if I’m wrong in pointing out how neutral this is and citing the balanced section that doesn’t only highlight negative views.

:::::::A reader may not understand why this person is so popular without seeing the perspectives of those who support him. Neutrality means fairly representing all significant viewpoints, even those that are controversial, without giving undue weight to any one side. 2001:56B:3FEA:242C:D80A:8C1F:FA33:A953 (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I would appreciate people to be respectful. Thank you. Please do not bite the newcomers

:::::::Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers Sophiamiaw (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::"Neutrality means fairly representing all significant viewpoints, even those that are controversial, without giving undue weight to any one side", incorrect. Take a look at WP:Fringe, WP:NPOV and WP:CHARLATANS. Wikipedia does not give equal weight to pseudoscientific viewpoints. Veg Historian (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Thank you for explaining this. What about the part where it says that he’s been accused of practicing without a license, if he never got any legal actions taken on him and also never pretended to be a medical professional in any way? Just trying to understand how that is neutral and accurate. Thank you! Sophiamiaw (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::If there are reliable sources showing public support (like celebrity endorsements), this can be included with clear attribution?

::::::::::These supportive views are not treated as scientific validation, and they are balanced with scientific criticism. Sophiamiaw (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::The content you are disputing is well sourced and does not violate any Wikipedia policy so it is very unlikely to be removed. It doesn't matter if you disagree with it being neutral or not. As another user stated to you above we just cite what reliable sources say. We can't cite our own opinions. So far you haven't listed a single reliable source (WP:RS) for any changes you want to make. Celebrity endorsements are meaningless and trivial information for a living biography article for a diet author. They are not experts on nutrition so we wouldn't cite them. Also see WP:NOTNEWS. My advice would be to explore Wikipedia and look at hundreds of other articles that we have and edit another article or topic area because you may end up being accused as an WP:SPA or having conflict of interest over Anthony William based on your editing pattern so far. You might find it easier editing a less controversial figure. Veg Historian (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Thank you for taking the time to explain further. As you all know it’s obvious that I am new here. We all start somewhere. It’s just hard to wrap my head around that “practicing without license” claim that is source but the sources I see are from different parts of the US but none refers to William? Thank you for helping me understand better. Also, although trivial it may seems the current article is talking about Goop and Paltrow, so how in that instance is it more prevalent and relevant? Thank you for your patience. Sophiamiaw (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I think I’m starting to understand the reasoning behind Wikipedia and that it is not intended to include anyone, let me know if I get that right. I tried looking up to find a comparison for Dr Eric Berg, Dr Mindy Pelz, Dr Jessica Peatross, and they don’t seem to have a Wikipedia page at all, however Dr Gundry does have one and is still in the realm of pseudoscience. Could someone enlighten me on the purpose of Wikipedia and the type of content it’s designed to showcase please? Thank you in advance. Sophiamiaw (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Thank you for attempting to understand, Wikipedia editors often speak in a "code" that they forget that most people don't understand. Fame, popularity, awesomeness all those things can't give someone to have a Wikipedia article, we have to have independent secondary sources from notable people or from notable organizations i.e. New York Times, Cleveland Dealer, Time Magazine, Elle Magazine and so on. The people you mentioned above may not have articles because they don't meet the criteria OR they do and no one has written them yet. Just because they have Dr. in front of their name means very little. You have to stand out from your peers and be recognized by those same reliable sources I just mentioned. There are billions of people with Dr. in front of their name, very few will be able to have a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not just a website, it has rules that are enforced across Wikipedia.

::::::::::::::The idea that a Wikipedia article has to have equal parts positive and negative is false. We editors would like to write with balance, but only if the reliable sources exist. Think of it this way Sophimiaw, think of an evil person like Timothy McVeigh (I'm picking a extreme example so my point is clear) do you think McVeigh's Wikipedia article is balanced with equal parts positive and negative? Is that even possible when all reliable sources are going to be negative? Same with people who have done amazing things and have Wikipedia articles because they passed the tough rules. Should we say they can't have a Wikipedia article until there is enough negative content to balance the article?

::::::::::::::Think of the Wikipedia article for Earth. If you read it will you find no mention of people thinking it is hollow or flat? That is because we don't just give the same weight to all sources. To include mentions of a flat Earth is just silly. There are articles for the Flat Earth but there isn't a mention of that on the actual Earth article and should not be. Flat Earth is FRINGE so different rules can apply. Same with Williams, the notable independent sources say he is FRINGE and so that is what we have to work with. He could be an amazing father and son, but that isn't relevant to the article. We can only work with what we are given.

::::::::::::::I know learning how to edit is difficult, I understand that it can be frustrating. It is complicated. I suggest as someone else has explained, to walk away from this article and read a lot of talk pages and work on articles that are less controversial and you might come back to this eventually. Starting out here is only going to make you frustrated and we need more editors, but we want people who take the time to learn to work with the community within the rules. We are all on the same team, we all want the best Wikipedia possible. Sgerbic (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::I can’t thank you enough for taking the time to detail all this, it really means a lot. I do not know who is Timothy McVeigh, but I just wanted to say that it’s funny that you mention the Earth because I was thinking about that yesterday, I didn’t want to be too off topic and talk about too many different things on here since it’s William page but, at some point in time people DID believe the Earth was flat. How can we know if what we think is true today, is going to be laughable in the future? Hard to quantify and impossible to predict right? So what I mean by neutrality and balance is to still highlight the pros and notable good things despite the bad ones, because it’s not black or white. Nothing is , even in Science. I think it’s always good to keep an open mind. Thanks again! 174.90.73.218 (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Stay in touch, open up an account and develop a strong diverse editing history and I'm always open on my talk page if you have a question. Sgerbic (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Oh, I see, that was also a question I had as I didn’t know where to go to ask questions. Thank you for offering. Regarding this particular page, I did more research on William and think the page is a little outdated on some details? Like the scans, he no longer offers that type of service but I did find that he developed a menu at Cafe Gratitude and hosts live events there. Also he just published a new audiobook called Angels, Demons and Spiritual Tools. Maybe worth mentioning. Thanks again for everything 2001:56B:3FEA:242C:D80A:8C1F:FA33:A953 (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::We don't abide by the scientific consensus from the year 2225, because we don't know what will that be. We have to abide by the scientific consensus from 2025. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::Any thoughts on this anyone?

:::::::::::::::::::https://www.edhat.com/event/what-we-can-learn-from-the-medical-medium-anthony-william/ Sophiamiaw (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::Sophiamiaw are you also the ip that is posting here? Try to stay signed in as Sophia if so as it gets confusing who I am responding to.

::::::::::::::::::::I don't have thoughts on that link you gave, it's just an advert for a talk that William will give. You have to remember that some things are reliable sources and some things are not. edhat.com is not. I don't think I understand your question, not every mention of Williams is something that is important enough to add to the article?

::::::::::::::::::::As I said, you might want to move away from this article and learn how to correctly edit on an article that does not fall under FRINGE. The rules for FRINGE topics are a bit different from elsewhere. The more you edit here, the more you are going to look like you are only on Wikipedia in order to push an agenda. If you are here to help out Wikipedia, then be diverse and choose multiple places to edit. Sgerbic (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::Yes the IP is also me, when I get an email notification of a reply I have the option to “view comment” and reply but when I do it seems like I’m not signed in, why the IP. The article I shared is not William doing a presentation but that Dr doing a presentation talking about Medical Medium protocols that he endorsed. Noted I won’t be commenting further on here but I don’t like to start commenting everywhere on Wikipedia either and making mistakes on everyone’s page so that’s why I keep commenting on here. I won’t anymore. Sophiamiaw (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::Correction not a presentation, it was a course* Sophiamiaw (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::What is 2225 a reference to? I don't see it in a ctrl-F Sgerbic (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::It's a reply to the claim that the scientific consensus could be wrong: {{tq|going to be laughable in the future}}. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Audiobook “Angels, Demons and Spiritual Tools, Originally published March 18, 2025 Sophiamiaw (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)