Talk:Robert O. Young/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

In progress

This site is still in progress. The author is quite renown; but, his credentials are in question any additional research that can be done would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathweaver (talk • contribs) 2006-07-30

I have learned much from Dr. Robert Young from people who have followed the PH Miracle plan, his books, and my own research. I will dedicate myself to making this page unbiased and fact based as much as possible.--Scott bridges08 (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Alkaline diet and Robert Young (naturopath) should be merged. Articles have a large overlap. Furthermore, all references in alkaline diet mention Young's websites; therefore, the article shares critics presented in Robert Young (naturopath). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.13.83 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-28

POV

The tone of the article doesn't seem very neutral. I don't know enough about the topic to edit it, but the article has a sort of "debunking" flavor to it.Jmaclachlan 02:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not mention that Young is a Mormon? LDS have some questionable beliefs regarding nutrition, I certainly wouldn't knowingly seek diet advice from one. 71.184.176.148 14:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)N

Separate Alkaline Diet and this article

Although it is clear from the discussions page that the "Alkaline Diet" article and this article were recently merged, I recommend separating them once again, the reason being that Robert Young is not the only proponent of the Alkaline diet.

Sang Whang has also become a leading proponent of a variation of the Alkaline diet which specifically focuses on the consumption of alkalized water. AlkaLife. While this may be regarded as a minor entrepreneurial subjugation of the diet, AlkaLife has become quite a popular reference for sites discussing aging reversal, as a quick Google search might reveal.

Also, About.com appears to have a full article on the diet (Alkaline Acid Diet - What is the Alkaline Acid Diet), which may be helpful for new citations that do not specifically reference Dr. Robert Young. The article also appears to have more information on the diet than is provided herein. I move to open up this topic for discussion. - 75.10.114.157 13:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC), edited by 75.10.114.157 14:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, a Dr. John A.O. Pagano advocates an alkaline diet as a treatment for psoriasis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mruescher (talk • contribs) 01:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Move to other title

He's not a naturopath. The ND degree he got in the mail has no credibility. otherwise an "UN-D". I propose the page is moved to Robert Young (author) or Robert Young (nutritionist). --Mercola over Merck 23:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The article has been moved. =Axlq 20:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

It seems to me that a large chunk of the criticism section is based entirely on original research about the science behind Young's theories. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed some particularly egregious OR criticism; I'll come back in a bit to look at the rest. MastCell ^Talk 00:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I restored one that you removed. If a fact is easily verifiable and supported by a cited source, it isn't original research. In this case, I restored the directory listing showing the absence of Robert Young's name from the membership of the American Association of Microbiologists.

I didn't restore the other claim of (non)membership in the American Naturopathic Association because it cannot be verified. That association apparently doesn't have a web site (does it even exist?), and the original cited source pointed to a different organization (American Association of Naturopathic Physicians) which Robert Young makes no claims about. =Axlq 01:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is an ANMA website but he is not listed, I will send him an email asking him for more references on his entire biography on his website.--Scott bridges08 (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Remove misleading statement

Any person who pays the annual fee can become a member of the American Society of Microbiology (ASM). This is clearly stated in the 'About' section of their webpage. I removed a sentence mentioning such "merit" because it was irrelevant and most of all misleading in that context. It does not add relevant information but it appears as if it was one more of his "achievements". SoyYo (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis?

I have labelled the following as synthesis:

The alkaline diet has similarities with the Dr. Hay diet which is also based on avoiding presumably acid food. The vast majority of the medical community view this diet as pseudoscience.

First, the first sentence - which likens Young's diet to Hay's diet - is not supported by any reference. If anyone finds one, please provide it. Second, even with a good reference, we can't say or imply that Young's diet is pseudoscience unless we have a source specifically saying that it is. The sources provided currently discuss Hay's diet or Acid/Alkaline diets in general, but do not mention Young's diet or call Young's diet pseudoscience. It seems that what these two sentences are suggesting is: Hay and Young are similar diets, and since Hay is considered pseudoscience therefore Young is pseudoscience as well. This is essentially a WP:SYN violation (except we don't even have a source which likens Hay and Young). In order to say that Young's diet is pseudoscience or considered pseudoscience by some, we need a reliable source stating this outright. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Eh, same old problem. The idea that "acid" or "alkaline" foods as part of a general diet have a significant influence on bodily pH is entirely implausible from a medical standpoint. In a person with any reasonable renal function, your kidneys will quickly sort things out and maintain your pH where it belongs. Even if you set out to purposely consume massive amounts of bicarbonate supplementation to overwhelm your body's natural pH regulation, you'd quickly feel so awful that you'd stop. Similarly, the claim that the body relies on the "alkaline mineral calcium" to counteract "acidity" is implausible; the major metabolic regulator of pH is bicarbonate. I think anyone with some training in physiology would regard this as pseudoscience if they thought about it, but it's not like the NIDDK or WHO are going to bother to come out with a position statement officially declaring this "pseudoscience". But that leaves us with WP:OR and WP:SYN.

I agree we should probably take out the editorial links of Young -> Hay -> pseudoscience - it seems a bit contrived and probably violates WP:SYN. I suppose rather than a blanket statement that "this is pseudoscience", we can just cite the directly critical references (NCAHF, Intelihealth, etc) indicating the medical implausibility of this idea, and let people draw their own conclusions. We should probably leave out the links dealing with the Hay diet, since that connection is WP:SYN - I think this is what you're getting at? MastCell ^Talk 17:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I really have no personal opinion (or much knowledge of) Young's diet or Acid/Alkaline diets in general. (I'm a "30-30-40 and raw organic juice" person myself and it works for me.) But in terms of the editorial links of Young -> Hay -> pseudoscience -> SYN, yes, that was what I was getting at. In terms of citing the critics, realize that with NCAHF we must be sure attribute its views as opinions, but with Intelihealth (which is at least reviewed by Harvard Med), we have more leniency with attribution, I imagine. Of course Intelihealth is put out by Aetna Health Insurance, so it should probably be taken with a grain of salt (to balance the pH!) too. Actually, on second look, the Intelihealth ref doesn't even mention Young's diet specifically. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I was bold and took out a huge chunk from this section. I removed criticism of Acid/Alkaline diets which were sourced to refs not discussing Young's diet specifically. By applying them here, we were effectively violating WP:SYN. I left the NCAHF ref which discusses Young and his diet specifically. The last paragraph about his court dealings probably doesn't belong in Criticism per say, but some other section. Not sure which though. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the "misdemeanor charge" information, I can't find that source anywhere on the web except as a ref on Quackwatch. The text we are currently using in the article is word-for-word from Quackwatch; thus a WP:COPYVIO. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have also remove extensive discussion of the general alkaline diet. This discussion is better suited for the Alkaline diet article. The same goes for criticism of the general diet. Criticisms of Young's take on the diet would be appropriate here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I would favor leaving the Intelihealth reference in as a general statement that ideas like Young's are considered medically implausible. If he advocates an "acid/alkaline" diet and a reliable source says that acid/alkaline diets are bogus, then I think it's reasonable to have one sentence in the article to that effect, and probably necessary to place things in an appropriate context. MastCell ^Talk 20:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that may be a SYN violation, albeit borderline. But if no one else has a problem with it, I suppose common sense would allow one sentence to slide here. Especially since it seems Young is just recommending an acid/alkaline diet but doesn't necessarily have his own version of that diet (i.e. The Young Diet). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I just think that if the fella's claims are widely regarded as fundamentally implausible, we'd be in remiss in terms of completeness and encyclopedicity if we didn't in any way allude to that. The Quackwatch/NCAHF stuff is ad hominem, as Quackwatch tends to be, but since Intelihealth directly addresses the substance of Young's notability/work, I think the single sentence is a good balance between WP:SYN and WP:WEIGHT/WP:FRINGE. MastCell ^Talk 23:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think the make-or-break factor here is that Young isn't a proponent of his own version of the Alkaline Diet (i.e. "The Young Diet"). If that were the case, I feel it would be unacceptable to use a review of alkaline diets in general to pass comment on the hypothetical Young Diet if the review we are using doesn't specifically make mention of "The Young Diet". That doesn't seem to be the case here though. Young seems to be just a proponent of the alkaline diet in general. So yes, the single sentence is a good balance between WP:SYN and WP:WEIGHT/WP:FRINGE. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion it is more appropiate to say that medical science does not support theories used by Mr. Young. Not only quackwatch have something to say about the diet, for instance, there is also the Health and Human Services that does not support live blood analysis; and in fact, all research on acidosis. I think that if critics that focus only on the diet are to be removed, then also his claims should be removed until those are proven to be only his. According to WP:SELFPUB point 6 that won't be easy.

I agree that the article needed to be edited, but the deletion in my opinion was too extreme. The first WP:SYN you mention just needed to either remove Hay's sentence, or move it to the end of the paragraph. All links referred to the diet in question, not to Hay's diet, so the coneccion between pseudoscience and the diet was direct. As I said, perhaps the WP:SYN was in coneccion with Hay, but since he also promotes an alkaline diet I doubt it. The flow, after a minor edit, was simply diet->pseudoscience. The paragraph included relevant information for readers about what science has to say about the diet. If the rest of Young's believes are not remove I would recommend to include a paragraph that explains the medical view on this matter. (SoyYo (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

The various acid-alkaline diets have their own articles, and editorializing isn't really warranted, no matter how much scientifically-minded Wikipedians would like--unless it is based on actual valid sources critiquing Young's writings. On the other hand, the specifics of his degrees (dates, names of degree, and institutions) that were blanked several days ago certainly should be re-added, as those really are key to an understanding of this individual. Badagnani (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that his "career" should be more specific. However, there is a lack of accuracy if taken directly from his webpage because obviously that version does not specify that titles are unaccredited. That gives a false impression.

One of my points is that the argument is not applied throughout. If what he says is different to what the diet claims, then the diet is other and it is necessary to check the WP:SELFPUB. If the diet is the same, his claims of what the diet does should be removed based on the same claims as the critics were removed. Or, critics on the diet returned.

Still, I think that the phrase "According to Quackwatch" is too narrow. At least on that point the Health and Human Services agrees that the method is not valid. (SoyYo (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

Removals

The removal of detailed, sourced information about Young's academic degrees (i.e., year and name of each degree and names of each institution) in favor of the vague language on Young's own website is absolutely unacceptable. Please restore this blanked text immediately. Badagnani (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Which text specifically? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The text that provided Young's academic degrees (years and name of each degree and name of each institution), which was removed several days ago. Badagnani (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please quote the text in question here with its sources so we can discuss it? Thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to the page's history. The removals were absolutely unwarranted and reduce the encyclopedic nature of this article. Badagnani (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You might be right, but I really can't comment on this until I know exactly what you are referring to. Please at least provide a diff to the edit(s) which which made the removal which you are discussing. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly available in the page history, just a few days ago. If you are as assiduous as you claim to be regarding this article, you will have familiarized yourself with the page's history and Discussion history. Badagnani (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Over the past several days, there were multiple things removed from this article pertaining to this article. I have not claimed any assiduousness here specifically. It's just another article on my Watch List, though I really don't know anything about the subject or his work outside of Wikipedia. I am unsure why you are reluctant to provide me with some clarification of what you want to discuss. I am here to work with you. I am just not sure what you are referring to at this point. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring to the specific information about each of Young's degrees, and the year and institution from which he received each, which was removed several days ago. Badagnani (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand that. But I see that lots of that kind of information has been added/deleted recently for different areas of the article, so I am unsure what specifically you are referring to. Perhaps it would simply be easier for you to restore the information yourself and then I will know for sure what we are discussing here. Or simply copy-and-paste the info (with their sources here). Or provide the diffs which removed the information you are discussing. Otherwise, I am afraid I can't be of service here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a difference between the American Society of Microbiologists and the American Society for Microbiology? Young's website say that his a member of the former, but the ref we were using to claim that he is not listed was from the latter. Regardless, I believe that this kind of negative searching constitutes WP:OR and I have removed it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani, don't be lazy. It's reasonable to request a diff for an edit. Rather than repeat your complaint, you could have simply provided a link to the edit to which you object. Simple courtesy.

Levine2112, your removal of the objective statement that he isn't a member of the societies he claims, seems like whitewashing. Young makes a statement about membership, and the society doesn't confirm that statement. Those are objective facts, not OR. I admit that the difference in wording between "American Society for Microbiology" and "American Society of Microbiologists" creates an uncertainty that dictates removal of the comment about membership, but that isn't the case for the other organization mentioned in that sentence. =Axlq 17:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What about the WP:OR violation? In order to find out that he is not listed, we must perform a search. It would be one thing if we had a source stating that though he claims to be part of organization X, organization X does not list him as a member. However, when we are actively doing the research ourselves, we violate WP:OR - and also in this case, WP:BLP. With regards to the information about N.D., we can just link it to the appropriate article as we do with the rest of the degrees. That Clayton is non-accredited is probably okay to mention because Quackwatch makes that assertion in conjunction with a discussion about Young. Perhaps that should be part of criticism though, because essentially that is what it is. That said, "Criticism" sections are generally frowned upon, so perhaps we should consider incorporated the criticism into the rest of the article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You have a strange idea about OR. Verifying sources isn't "original research". We report verifiable facts here. He claims to be a member of the American Naturopathic Organization. That organization doesn't list him as a member. Those are verifiable, objective facts.

I, too, now wonder if the American Society for Microbiology might be the same as Young's "American Society of Microbiologists". I see many references to the latter name on Google, but it's all people's resumes and profile descriptions. No actual organization by that name can be found. It seems like a natural mistake to make. In any case, the sentence in the article no longer speaks about membership in that uncertain organization. And I have restored Badagnani's preferred version of the education paragraph with the degree dates.

I don't see how reporting the accreditation status of a school can be constituted as criticism. Young feels it important to list his degrees, and it's valuable to state the source of those degrees. =Axlq 17:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

American Society of Microbiologists has zero Google hits. It must be an organization similar to the ACLJ, which is fairly small and whose name was developed to be similar to another, much more reputable organization. If he was a member of the American Society for Microbiology, he would say so. Badagnani (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should just remove it. If he is mistaken, we cannot assume. If he is correct, then it is a non-notable organization. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and to Axlg, that sort of "verification" is original research, IMHO. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Object to blanking of these organizations. They are in all the sources. Badagnani (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources? Or just source? There are lots of things Young mentions on his bio page. Why list something that is either incorrect or non-notable? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are we treating N.D. different from his other degrees? Why not just link it to Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Because that is not the name he uses when spelling out the actual full name of the degree. Badagnani (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My previous comment referred to reporting objective and verifiable facts published by reputable sources, which is decidedly not OR. I also object to blanking. However, there doesn't seem to be a point to mentioning the American Society of Microbiologists, because the name isn't clear and there is no way to verify Young's claims about it. The Naturopath organization is another matter, and should be kept.

No problem making N.D. consistent with the rest. =Axlq 17:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Reporting facts not published by reputable sources is not the same thing though. Essentially, we would be using this non-information to imply that Young is misrepresenting himself. That is a big WP:BLP no-no. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If it turns out that the name of the microbiological organization is a concocted one, for the purpose described above, it would be significant to a complete and encyclopedic understanding of this individual. It wouldn't be the first such organization. Badagnani (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is, we don't know unless we have a source telling us that he concocted it. Until then, we can't imply any wrong-doing on the subject's part. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Who said he wasn't in the prestigious organization? This page says otherwise. I am very displeased with this poor research and hope we will do better in he future.. Badagnani (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That's good to know. Good work. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I guess Young misspelled the name after all. The sentence looks fine now. =Axlq 18:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he is a member, but anyone with a bachelor that pays the annual fee can become a member. Why so much importance in adding that sentence. And about misspells, most of his product say that they cure dis-eases, not diseases. (SoyYo (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC))

To be properly and fully encyclopedic, the inclusion of that properly sourced fact would be necessary. Badagnani (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Microscopy Linkspam

Sorry to get involved in the dispute here. I made a simple edit that removed some linkspam, only to have it immediately restored.

In an effort to follow WP:SPAM and WP:SOAP, I suggest removing the information I did before, and changing the current version by removing what I've struck out below:

He also offers a microscopy course in which he promotes work done by Antoine Béchamp on bacterial pleomorphism and trains individuals to be able to understand live blood analysis. According to Quackwatch, the live blood analysis which Young advocates is an unestablished test which has no scientific validity.

Additionally, as a NPOV and FRINGE issue, I see no need for "According to Quackwatch" given the content of live blood analysis. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What link spam? Please describe. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, Quackwatch offers opinion pieces and as such we are obliged to attribute their opinions. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

We already have a page on live blood analysis. His ASM bio even states that this is his main area of interest. Badagnani (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to use his ASM bio as a source here, even if it mentioned live blood analysis. What are you suggesting? --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that we don't need editorializing about the analysis when the wikilink takes readers to the page that discusses such analysis. Badagnani (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

So how should live blood analysis be mentioned, and with what sources? --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

We have newspaper sources stating that he does it, and apparently travels all over the world demonstrating it, does it at his expensive ranch in California, etc. It should be mentioned, as that seems to be the primary thing he does professionally. Badagnani (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote it to follow the Quackwatch and SignonSanDiego sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Misdemeanor charge

Young pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of attempted practice of medicine without a license and was promised that the charge would be dismissed if he stayed out of trouble for 18 months. We should include this. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Was this published in a reliable source like a newspaper, or in a crime database? Badagnani (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I was ready to remove the comments above per WP:BLP, but someone already replied. If no source is forthcoming, I think it should be removed. Regardless, the section title is changed and should remain so. --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This was mentioned on Quackwatch here. Quackwatch cites a newspaper article as its source: Herbalist in Alpine pleads guilty to reduced charge. Deseret News (Salt Lake City), Feb 5, 1996. While I have no reason to think Quackwatch is fabricating anything, it would be nice to be able to access and verify the newspaper coverage to be sure that if we include this, we do so in a balanced way. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - You beat me to it! Tah dah. Also, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune, he was also charged with another felony in 2001 for allegedly telling a cancer patient to stop chemo and take one of his products instead; the charges were dropped and Young described the incident as "harassment": [1]. We should incorporate these sources. MastCell ^Talk 18:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The brushes with the law were apparently covered by the Deseret Morning News. See [2]. Badagnani (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

We definitely can include those using those newspapers as a source. Nice work. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no date on the Deseret archive article. Who do they have building their databases? Badagnani (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Top right corner: " Monday, February 5, 1996". -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

See also this from the Deseret News, which deals with the 2001 felony charges. MastCell ^Talk 18:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else having problems with the deseretnews links? I'm unable to read any of the articles, nor find any way to access the info. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I got [3] to work.

"HERBALIST IN ALPINE PLEADS GUILTY TO REDUCED CHARGE". Monday, February 5, 1996. First and last paragraphs:

An Alpine researcher and herbal marketer has pleaded guilty in 4th Circuit Court to a reduced charge of attempted practicing of medicine without a license.

He said his research proves degenerative illnesses are caused by micro-organisms and that disease comes from within and not from outside the body. Young said he looked at the women's blood and simply gave them some nutritional advice.

--Ronz (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Cellular research scientist?

Just blanked: "cellular research scientist < ref > http://www.phmiracleliving.com/press-kit.htm < / ref >". This is in all the sources and seems to be his primary stated activity. Badagnani (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

So are you proposing to restore it? I'm not following you here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because it's his primary activity, according to all the sources. Badagnani (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Sounds good to me. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. Let's ease up a little on recapitulating everything in his press kit. It's not in "all the sources"; it's a self-description in his publicity materials. This is an enyclopedia article, and his notability as established in independent sources is as an author and entrepreneur. While his press kit describes him as a "cellular research scientist", he has certainly not done any research which has significantly affected the field of biology. I think we should focus on where his actual notability is, rather than on his self-description in his press kit, for encyclopedic purposes. MastCell ^Talk 18:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

According to his ASM bio his primary job activity is in research. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That is self-supplied information - I belong to a number of professional societies of that sort, and you supply them with your demographic info including your areas of interest and your primary focus. It's not the case that the ASM has independently looked at him and determined he's a "researcher". MastCell ^Talk 19:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

He may present his work with his apparently numerous and wealthy patients as "cellular research" -- drawing their blood and analyzing it in order to further his research -- rather than actually practicing as any kind of physician. Badagnani (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Elsewhere he presents himself as a "cellular biologist." Badagnani (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell. I cited three different policies/guidelines when I removed the information: WP:SELFPUB, WP:SPAM, and WP:SOAP. Additionally, WP:LEAD applies as well. --Ronz (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, he's clearly not just an author. He takes blood, he analyzes it, he advises people how he thinks they should improve their health based on these analyses, he presents himself primarily as a cellular research scientist, etc. Saying that he's just an "American author" is, thus, incorrect. That's clearly only one thing that he does. Let's try to do this subject justice and have the best possible encyclopedic article. The lead should reflect the various things this individual does in his professional life. Badagnani (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Only if those things are properly sourced and deemed important enough to address. Otherwise, we're in danger of violating all the policies/guidelines already mentioned, plus others such as WP:OR. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's all sourced. We've been discussing them all day. Where we make a mistake, we fix it, as happened just a few moments ago with the journal article. Badagnani (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide one source that doesn't violate WP:SELFPUB, WP:SPAM, and WP:SOAP. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

He could accurately be described as an entrepreneur, I believe. Or as a well-known advocate of the alkaline diet. Or even as a practitioner of the questionable diagnostic practice of live blood analysis. All of those should be uncontroversial, whereas "cellular research scientist" is WP:PEACOCKing, given that he has not conducted anything that would generally be recognized as research by independent, reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 21:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the blanking editor insisted that he solely be called an "author," which is incorrect. That is only one thing he does. Badagnani (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if anything I wrote gave the impression that he should be called an "author" and nothing else. My edit summary reads, "he's an author - let's be careful with all the self-published sources per WP:SELFPUB, WP:SPAM, and WP:SOAP". --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

To add

• His work in drawing and analyzing the blood of patients.

• His $2,500.00 retreats in southern California. Badagnani (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes and yes. The newspaper articles provide sources for those. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• He apparently teaches microscopy.[4] Badagnani (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Image proposed for deletion

I recently re-tagged the image in this article Image:DrRob m2.jpg with the proper fair use disclaimer (the original uploader was claiming it to be his own work). Now the image has been proposed for deletion, if anyone cares. Personally I don't see the need for an image in this article, but there are more appropriate shots of Robert Young on his press release page (scroll to the bottom). The head-shot only would be OK, but as I said, I don't care if this article has no image. =Axlq 18:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the image with a head-shot. =Axlq 04:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...

Let's be a bit careful here. We're claiming that Young published a paper entitled "Sympathetic Resonance Technology, Scientific Foundations and Summary of Biologic and Clinical Studies" in the December 2002 issue of the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. This journal is actually PubMed-indexed, so it's odd that I (like Quackwatch) couldn't find any PubMed-indexed publications for Young.

So I went to the journal's website and found the article. It turns out that it is actually authored by a Beverly Rubik, and Young's name does not appear so far as I can see - certainly not as an author. I'm going to stop short of speculating on what's going on here, and say only that:

1. Unless "Beverly Rubik" is a documented psuedonym of Young's, we should remove our claim that he authored this paper, and
2. Once again, we need to be careful about relying overly on the subject's press kit and personal website and should look to independent sources where possible, in the interest of encyclopedicity.

Incidentally, whoever wrote the paper, I notice that it carries a caveat from the Editor-In-Chief which begins: "The technology and the phenomena described in this paper are new, proprietary, remain unexplained, and may appear implausible." Interesting stuff. MastCell ^Talk 19:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I couldn't imagine that someone would purport to have written a paper when they didn't write it? Is he even mentioned in the text? Badagnani (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, upon closer inspection, the text states that his "findings" have been published in that article. Badagnani (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the info. Badagnani (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm not going to remove it right now myself. I don't know how close to 3RR I am, but I feel like I'm reverting this article too much, so I'm going to take a break. I think we should just remove the paper. People say all sorts of things on their CV's, I guess, but when a researcher's "findings" are published they will appear on the list of authors. MastCell ^Talk 19:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

His name is mentioned twice in the article and I've revised the article. Take a look at all the sources, then give your opinion. Badagnani (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've read the full text of the article, and I do not think this warrants mention here. Young is mentioned tangentially in two places by the author. In one part, Rubik notes that Young conducted an "uncontrolled open pilot study", which Rubik clarifies is unpublished. On the following page, Rubik mentions that Young also conducted a "double-blinded controlled trial", but again notes that this is in fact an "unpublished report commissioned by Clarus Products International, LLC".

The most that could be said is that he claims to have conducted two unpublished studies on behalf of the marketers of a proprietary device which even the editors of the Journal of Complementary and Alternative Medicine find a bit iffy. I don't think we should say anything at all, for the following reasons:

1. Unpublished results are not verifiable, and more importantly, not notable. An unscrupulous person could claim anything as an "unpublished result", but for something to carry even the smallest amount of scientific weight, it needs to be published somewhere, even in the Northern Madagascar Journal of Untested and Implausible Hypotheses. This research does not meet that bar.
2. This is trivial mention mined from an already very borderline source.

Just because Young claims this on his CV does not mean that we are obligated to feature it in an encyclopedia article about him. MastCell ^Talk 21:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that his entire career's work is mentioned briefly in only a single peer-reviewed medical journal article is significant (in that there is only one mention, and not written by Young himself), and, thus, its mention helps make the article more encyclopedic. Badagnani (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That strikes me as WP:SYN. Better to say nothing than to stretch a trivial mention in an iffy source to make an editorial point. MastCell ^Talk 22:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Your insistence that this be removed (combined with aggressive and continued reverting, in tandem with intimidating edit summaries) does not make a consensus. Please restore the text pending an actual consensus developing, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the onus is typically on the editor wishing to insert information to justify it. This is not justifiable; first you added it as a paper by Young when it is no such thing, and now we're stretching an already borderline reference which mentions Young in passing. Even if he had written the paper, we usually don't include a list of published articles by researchers unless they are of special/historical significance (e.g. some of Einstein's). Even putting that aside, if Young had actually published something, it might at least be debatable as to whether to include it, but he hasn't. I'm happy to ask for 3rd opinions etc., but this is far enough outside standard practice that I'd like to see input before we put this paper in. MastCell ^Talk 07:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"The New Biology™"

More information here. Badagnani (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

More critics here. (SoyYo (talk) 11:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

Why bother? Do you guys just want to post linkspam, even if on a talk page? The first is a promotional site, and the second is a blog. Not acceptable. Please consider refactoring this section. =Axlq 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you feel a necessity to denigrate other editors? That is unacceptable. Information is being considered and evaluated here at the Discussion page, as it should be prior to major edits on a controversial subject. Denigration is not warranted. Please do not engage in it. Badagnani (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have denigrated no one. I evaluated those links, and denigrated them. I apologize if I offended, but everyone here should know better than to suggest blogs or spam as sources to consider. =Axlq 03:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

To have the most encyclopedic article possible, we don't selectively ignore information. If someone purports to do something, we may explain this, as well as deconstruct it using other sources. This was the case when an editor proposed stating that Young is solely an author and does not do anything else in his professional career. The sources showed that he does indeed do other things. If he purports to have created a new form of biology, it is important to examine this, as very few people have claimed to have invented a new form of biology. Painting other long-time, productive, and good-faith editors as spammers does not enhance our project. Badagnani (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not all claims are noteworthy for inclusion in this encyclopedia. For an implausible claim to be notable, it generally needs to be referenced in independent sources of at least marginal reliability (see WP:FRINGE). Otherwise, we'd be obligated to expound at length from the personal websites of everyone who claimed to have developed a "new biology", and that would not be encyclopedic. This article already relies too heavily on PR material from its subject for sourcing, and I agree with Axlq that the added sources do not improve the article's coverage or encyclopedicity. If Young claimed X, Y, or Z and the only source is a promotional, self-published wesbite, then that claim likely falls below the notability horizon for our purposes. MastCell ^Talk 18:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Robert O. Young/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The description of the alkaline diet presented in the article is misleading. This description is sometimes seen in discussions, and is easy to criticize. Alkaline diet is (mainly) not about the blood pH, but about the pH of the entire body, especially of the body tissue. While the blood pH is tightly regulated and therefore seems to contradict the (crude) description of the purposes of the alkaline diet, body tissue can have a much wider range of pH. The criticism presented does not apply to this more profound sense of the alkaline diet.

Last edited at 01:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 22:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)