Talk:Robert O. Young

In the WP:MEDRS tradition, QuackWatch is by default the preferred WP:RS for WP:FRINGE medical topics, when there are no high-quality sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

:I think "not a trained scientist" should be restored. I believe it's covered in other refs or in the potential refs I listed below. --Ronz (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking over the state of this article, past discussions, and recent editing, I think we could use more and better sources. Here are a few potential refs: --Ronz (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• https://www.health.com/celebrities/alkaline-diet-creator-jail-time
• http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/north-county/sd-no-phmiracle-sentence-20170628-story.html
• https://cancerscience.pulsusconference.com/2019/speaker/robert-o-young-director-r-nph-miracle-medical-association-r-nusa
• https://www.businessinsider.com/alkaline-ph-diet-founder-arrested-2017-1

:Oh, boy, if a cancer conference lists him as a speaker, that conference is dogshit. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

::Yep. I don't think we could use it alone, but it's a heads up that we're likely to get more COI problems here. --Ronz (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/north-county/sd-no-ph-miracle-young-20170405-story.html

The edit summaries weren't enough to understand why this was removed. I'd guess it's redundant, but I've not looked at the refs. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

In November 2018 a jury awarded $105 million to a cancer patient, Dawn Kali, for negligence and fraud, after after Young advised her to forgo chemotherapy treatment in favor of alkaline treatment theories. {{Cite news|url=http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/sd-me-phmiracle-civil-verdict-20181102-story.html|title=Jury awards $105M in suit against pH Miracle author|last=Figueroa|first=Teri|work=sandiegouniontribune.com|access-date=2018-11-07|language=en-US}}

::It wasn't exactly removed, it was mentioned twice. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

{{reflist talk}}

My addition of "unlicensed" was reverted with an edit summary which stated "an 'unlicensed naturopathic practitioner' makes no sense because no license is required", but this is incorrect. First, it doesn't matter particularly whether they are required, but rather if they exist. Regardless, in both Utah and California, where he "practiced", accredited naturopathic licenses do exist and are required. [https://aanmc.org/licensure/| Naturopathic Doctor Licensure] "In the United States: 25 jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands all have laws regulating naturopathic doctors.... States currently offering licensure or registration to naturopathic physicians:... California... Utah...". NonReproBlue (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

:Additionally, see the RS supported statement "The 44-month sentence in the plea agreement included a declaration by Young that he has no degrees from any accredited schools, and that he is not 'a microbiologist, hematologist, medical doctor, naturopathic doctor, or trained scientist'" (emphasis added). Regardless of the fact that licensed naturopaths are in no way comparable to actual doctors (in terms of training, efficacy, not practicing quackery, etc.), there is such a thing as a licensed naturopath, and he had to specifically admit that he wasn't one. If we are going to call him a "naturopathic practitioner" in Wikipedia's voice (as opposed to fraudster, convicted felon, etc.), we must also call attention to this fact, per the policies regarding fringe theories and pseudoscience. By not doing so at the beginning, it removes any mention of his fraud and convictions and falsely presenting himself as a doctor from the brief blurb that appears in the summary pulled from Wikipedia when his name is googled, giving readers who do not open the page a false impression of respectability. NonReproBlue (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

::Nowhere does the article claim he's a "naturopathic physician" or "naturopathic doctor", and the article cannot claim it because he is not one. He is described as a "naturopathic practitioner". My own mother is the same: she practices naturopathy. One does not need a license for that. And it wouldn't be appropriate to describe him as an "unlicensed naturopathic doctor" because, well, he isn't a doctor.

::Furthermore, there is no source stating that he is unlicensed. We have only a source quoting what he is not, and that quotation doesn't mention licenses. He was found guilty of practicing medicine without a license, not that he was practicing naturopathy without a license. For all we know, he may have a license, if not in California, then somewhere else. The article or the cited sources say nothing one way or the other about it. Concluding he is unlicensed from the current sources is WP:SYNTHESIS, which isn't permitted here.

::I agree that the lead paragraph needs to make it clear that he's a fraud, but slappiing the word "unlicensed" without proper sourcing isn't the way to do it, and violates WP:BLP. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

::Update: I see a conversation above (#No actual degrees) that I was involved in and forgotten about (see a few sections up) about calling him a "naturopath" vs "naturopatic practitioner". Maybe the generic term "naturopath" would be better, or "naturopath convicted of fraud". ~Anachronist (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

:::"Naturopath convicted of fraud" seems like a good alternative to me. NonReproBlue (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

::::No reference was indicated demonstrating that WP:LABEL is WP:DUE. --Hipal (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

:::{{u|Anachronist}}, quack would work. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

::::Not in an encyclopedia, no, we don't engage in name-calling unless a preponderance of MEDRS sources calls him that, and even then I would be hesitant about doing it without attribution. What we do have are sources that refer to him as a naturopath convicted of fraud. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

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

• {{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.

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)