Talk:Young Living

Removal of trivial sources

Looking over the article, I decided to remove some content and supporting references. The Conde Nast article was extremely trivial. The article had more to say about it than the source itself did, which is a bad sign. Similarly, the brief mention in Epoch Times did not adequately support the attached content. Implying that it 'has been recommended' is technically true, but misleading, since only one person has recommended it for such, and her only listed qualification is being described as an 'expert'. Medical claims are very, very tricky, and need to be held to much higher standards, per WP:MEDRS. I'm still looking for sources and forming an opinion on the (currently proposed) deletion of the article, but I thought I would explain my edits in the mean time. Grayfell (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Grayfell, when you say medical claims, I did not write the article with the intent of making any medical claims. I have no interest in that whatsoever. I wrote the article to describe the medical claims that others have made. I'm not sure your application of WP:MEDRS applies here. I don't think the article is telling anyone to go use essential oils to treat a medical condition and if it is, maybe that aspect is what should be altered and the sources left as is.Christopher Lotito (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not questioning your motives. I'm willing to debate the point with you, but I believe I'm correct that this is a MEDRS issue. My concerns mainly applied to the Epoch Times source. The statement 'has been recommended' was extremely broad, and lacked important context. By simply saying that it's been recommended without explaining who is doing the recommending, the article is using Wikipedia's voice to imply that it is a common or mainstream treatment. If it is, the article needs much stronger sources to that effect, and if that is the case it seems like it would be better to mention it at essential oils first. The one source giving the recommendation has not been established as a medical professional (a bio of her that I found). The source did not say that the Young Living brand, in particular, was the important part of the recommendation (it was a single sentence mention as part of a longer article). The source is a popular press item being used for a medical issue. I can understand wanting to use the source with a different phrasing, but I really don't believe that the source is going to be useful to this article. Grayfell (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

We need to get rid of this smearing asap

The FDA warning letters section is absolutely absurd.

If you click on the actual links themselves, especially the bottom 3, you can see that the FDA was simply requiring a certain representative to provide a signature to complete a process.

Yet on the page it states that this is a "violation" of some article. Are you kidding me? How could this possibly be neutral or informative. It is clearly targeted negative smearing and has absolutely no place in wikipedia.

It is a big edit, so I am reluctant to do it without community backing - because I keep making mistakes, so I'd rather put it out there to review yourselves, and after agreement that it is ridiculous to include this in a wikipedia article, then we can take it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpmeli (talk • contribs) 04:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

What would you propose we put in its place? Do you feel that the public does not have a right to know that a company which makes products for use on your body, for supposed treatment of illness, can't even successfully file the paperwork required to prove it isn't selling poison? These are public records from the US government. Your use of the word "smear" is offensive and has no place on Wikipedia. I am the author, I have no connection to the company, and I am donating my time to try to make Wikipedia better. Please use neutral language and state your issues with the article in a clear, concise, and factual manner.Christopher Lotito (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, those should probably go. They are much stronger than you're implying, though. The 12/27/00 letter specifically lists examples of medical claims, and says "These claims suggest that these products are intended for use as drugs. These claims do not meet the requirements of21 U.S.C. 343(r)(6). These claims suggest that these products are intended for use as drugs within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. 321(g)(l)(B), and that they are subject to regulation under the drug provisions of the Act." It's legalese, but it's a lot more than "You forgot to sign this". Having said that, the lack of secondary sources fails to establish due weight for this, and if no other sources can be found, they should be removed. Grayfell (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed all of the primary sourced legal tidbits. Although this kind of behavior is hardly commendable, it's become the corporate equivalent of a speeding ticket. The EPA issues these kinds of things all the time, and without secondary coverage, there's no good reason to believe it's significant. The OSHA thing is unfortunate, but likewise, not independently noteworthy. Grayfell (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I am the author of the article and I absolutely disagree with the decision to remove the FDA warning letters from this or from any Wikipedia article. These are public records and a matter of fact. It is up to the public to review these records and to seek interpretation, not to have reality edited for them according to the whims of individual editors.Christopher Lotito (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Great thank you. I agree that the one about the products being intended as drugs was significant, but the signature one was not. And yes, it was definitely a matter of wording, and when they changed that it was fine. I appreciate your perspective on the EPA thing, I am still planning to reach out to YL and ask what that was about for my own edification.

And Yes - The Osha thing is important, and I also agree that it doesn't need to be front and center on wikipedia as it adds nothing to what Young Living is, so thank you for removing it.

This article is getting there, much appreciated for your support and understanding of my learning curve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpmeli (talk • contribs) 05:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Grayfell Please restore the section with the FDA warning letters, post that section as a request for comments on the article, and let the crowd make the decision.Christopher Lotito (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Corporate history of company

The article used to explicitly say, and now still sort of suggests, that Young Living is a division of Whole Living, Inc.This 2014 10-K form suggest that Whole Living Inc. became Forevergreen Worldwide in 2006, but it also lists Young Living as a competitor, which is odd. Is there a reliable source for info on the company's ownership? Grayfell (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

DoTerra and YL lawsuit Settled - Claims Withdrawn - No reason to have it on this page

The lawsuit has been settled with the following public statement:

"Young Living and dōTERRA, with the authority and approval of their respective CEOs, have agreed to settle certain of their disputes in a mutually satisfactory manner, and without any admission of wrongdoing. Young Living and dōTERRA acknowledge that essential oil chemistry is complex and that some tests can be confusing for the public to interpret. Further, negative product claims based on test results can be counterproductive to the growth and development of the essential oil industry.

As a result, Young Living and dōTERRA have withdrawn their negative claims and published testing results about the purity of each party’s respective products..." -http://www.healinginourhomes.com/2014/05/lawsuits-settled-doterra-and-young.html

There is no need to continue the drama of all this by having it here. Ideally - we take it out as I don't see any point to saying: "they fought about it, its fine now..." Less ideally, we can at least update this so that it emphasizes the settlement instead of the drama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpmeli (talk • contribs) 06:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't remove it. Wikipedia is just as much about history as it is about current events, and the lawsuit was newsworthy at the time. The link about the settlement is a WP:SPS, do you have a better one? Grayfell (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Tpmeli Please state your connection to Young Living Essential Oils.Christopher Lotito (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Tpmeli Are you or are you not "Thomas Meli" a distributor for Young Living? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6pA7lluDbc Christopher Lotito (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Christopher - I am a Young Living Distributor.

My intentions with contributing to this page is not to advertise or promote the company... it is rather the following:

• to clear up the various factually incorrect data (that "8% was the total maximum commissions" received - it is actually 24%)

• to clean up misunderstandings (YL is not a MLM company that sells oils, That is like saying Nike is an advertising company that sells shoes. YL is an essential oil company that uses MLM as a marketing structure)

• To update old information (they have 9 farms, not 2... the Doterra Lawsuit has been settled),

• To get rid of absurd self-contradicting statements (like claiming "other sources of evidence were more critical" when they were in fact written by founder Gary Young himself, so they were not "other" nor were they "critical")

• and to neutralize the unnecessarily negative language with numbers and data instead of interpretations.

Seeing the vast number of errors on the page, I felt urgency around correcting them before I had adequate understanding of what constitutes WP standards around some things, and for that I appreciate greyfell's patience with me as I learn.

I am perfectly fine with negative things about the company being on this page if they are actually true and truly relevant. What was upsetting me was that the page was probably written by competitors that wanted to smear YL's name by amplifying truly insignificant negative details about the company and that was creating a misleading public perception.

It is the same with the MLM article, which also needs massive revision.

With greyfell's help, the current article as it stands now is vastly improved, better organized, and more accurate to how the company actually runs.

Study from Journal of Essential Oil Research

I have removed the bit about the study in the Journal of Essential Oil Research. As originally written it suggested that very little was found by the study, which jibbed with my interpretation, while it was then rewritten to suggest something was found, which is also valid. This is exactly why WP:PRIMARY citing of studies is a bad idea, and the whole thing needs secondary sources to avoid WP:SYNTH. Therefore I removed it. Grayfell (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for Speedy Deletion

I have better things to do than to get into edit wars with individuals who would clearly like nothing better than this. Therefore, I request this page be deleted as I feel that it no longer reflects the basic factual information which is needed to make it an encyclopedic addition to Wikipedia. It is a travesty that the FDA letters have been removed. Frankly, I find it to be nothing more than bullying and I believe that this is the opposite of the purpose for which Wikipedia was created. Long story short, the biggest proponent of deleting the article previously has spend 2 months taking away parts of the article bit by bit and I simply don't have the time in my life to fight with them. I, the author, request this page be removed. Having the edits rolled back to restore the FDA letters would eliminate my reason for requesting speedy deletion, but I doubt that's going to happen.Christopher Lotito (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because contributors other than the original author have made substantial edits to the article - CSD G7 therefore does not apply. --AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. This page should be speedily deleted because the majority of the edits other than the original author (me) have been solely to remove material, not to add or improve. Therefore, the material present is not the result of their efforts, but of mine.Christopher Lotito (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You can disagree all you like - but the fact is that you are not the sole contributor, and accordingly the article does not meet the relevant speedy deletion criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)