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)

Christopher [how do I tag someone I am speaking to?],

I agree with you that my word "smearing" was a bit too emotional and an inaccurate assumption on my part. Also, ignorantly, my suggestion to take them out was based, not on an understanding of WP guidelines and policies, but rather on a simple and perhaps incorrect twofold intuition that

1. It was a great insight to me to understand why secondary sources are more important than primary sources in WP, and it is clear in this situation too. The primary resources you cited did not in any way indicate the true context or what actually led to that signature not happened. It is impossible to tell how and why it happened. Without any surrounding context being clear, I don't see how it contributes to an understanding of the company or what is actually happening and I do not believe there is enough information in your sources to allow people to come to an informed decision themselves - I certainly could not.

2. The overwhelming majority of the article was littered with incorrect facts, misunderstandings, and false interpretations that I mentioned above. I was trying to make sense of this and my first hypothesis (which I see is incorrect) was that a competitor must have written the article, which had me concerned about another form of COI which seems less discussed or acknowledged here.

As for replacing it with something - I have no idea. I would want to understand more about these FDA claims and what the actual significance of it is before I posted anything.

I have responded to your other concerns in my previous post. I hope things are clearer now. Tpmeli (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)tpmeli

Here's how they were in the earlier version of the article:

Whole Living, Inc. has been the subject of a number of United States Food and Drug Administration Warning Letters for making medical claims about their oils:

• 10/31/00 - Claims made on a dietary supplement have not been approved by an authorized party.[1]
• 12/27/00 - Statements made on Young Living Essential Oils packaging violate 21 U.S.C. 343(r)(6)[2]
• 10/07/02 - Statements made on Young Living Essential Oils packaging violate 21 U.S.C. 343(r)(6)[3]
• 12/07/02 - Statements made on Young Living Essential Oils packaging violate 21 U.S.C. 343(r)(6)[4]

I'm open to the possibility that some of this may belong in the article in some form. The first one is purely trivial, though. Young Living forgot to sign a letter. How on Earth is this encyclopedic? The FDA letters are factual, nobody is denying that, but there is no clear indication what they mean or how significant they are. The term "FDA Warning Letter" has a very specific meaning, and, at least from that article, these letters are not FDA Warning Letters. They're... I dunno, prewarning letters. While it is somewhat informative about the business, it appears to be fairly routine business correspondence. If you still want to do WP:RFC, I don't object, but I think it's premature. Grayfell (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The key question is whether any of this has been covered in secondary sources. Unless it has been commented on in the media, I can't see why we should consider it significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so, my suggestion is that we add FDA letters 2, 3, and 4 back into the article, then remove them if better information is found from a secondary source. The reason that these letters are encyclopedic is because the average user might seek information from Wikipedia, as an authoritative source, to determine the veracity of medical claims made by this company. These FDA warning letters would help the reader to form a fact based opinion as the quality of information which is provided by the manufacturer on their packaging. The information is actually not all bad, by the way. While the FDA warning letters show a pattern of packaging claims which violate FDA standards, they presumably also demonstrate the company's willingness to bring its packaging into compliance subsequently. Mainly, it is my feeling that this information aids the reader and does no harm by its addition. It's even clear from looking at the list that all of these warning letters were a number of years ago. Excluding these citations would remove valuable information, while including them does not cause Undue Weight. Young Living is in good company here, a search reveals that FDA warning letters are used as sources on the Wikipedia articles for Zicam, Exenatide, Hydroxycut, Sertraline,Four Loko, and numerous others.Christopher Lotito (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, no, it doesn't work like that - see WP:WPNOTRS. Unless you can provide evidence that these letters have had coverage in secondary sources, they don't belong in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's please avoid "rules lawyering" the topic to death here. The article is improved by the presence of these sources. Respectfully, Primary sources are not specifically banned under WP:WPNOTRS. Their use in a list format in this case adequately avoids the pitfalls cited in WP:WPNOTRS regarding the use of primary sources. That page says specifically that secondary sources are preferred, but does not ban primary sources. No claim regarding the information in these sources is provided by the Young Living article and the sources do not represent a large block of material.Christopher Lotito (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless you can provide evidence that secondary sources have commented on these letters, they don't belong in the article, end of story. This isn't a platform for your own personal campaign against Young Living, any more than it is a platform for those promoting the products. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Please address my comments directly. The NPOV of a short list of primary sources is not at question.Christopher Lotito (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing 'neutral' in including primary source material that you have specifically sought out to portray an organisation in a negative light. As WP:NPOV states, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." You have failed entirely to provide any source whatsoever that asserts that these letters are significant - and accordingly, they don't belong in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 19 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 (Removed in compliance with WP:DOX) a distributor for Young Living? (URL Removed in compliance with WP:DOX) 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.

@Christopher Lotito: Identifying conflicts of interest is useful, but please do not try and WP:DOX another editor. Usernames are no excuse. It is considered harassment, and can quickly lead to a ban. There's no rush, and we can work this out on the talk page, that's what it's for. Focus on edits, not editors. Being a COI editor is not an insurmountable obstacle, and is not the same thing as being a sock puppet (WP:SOCK). Grayfell (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, have removed the offending information. Being a COI editor is not necessarily an insurmountable goal, but the edits which gave rise to my comment have failed to inspire confidence in an NPOV so far.Christopher Lotito (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Christopher. I'm glad seeing our emotions settle a bit. You wrote: "but please do not try and WP:DOX another editor." - I don't know what you are referring to. What you help me out? What did I do that could be considered harassment? What do you mean usernames are no excuse? I don't understand what you wrote above. I'm a newbie and don't yet get a lot of the terminology. Would you clarify? Tpmeli (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)tpmeli

Tpmeli, I'm the one who said that to Christopher, not you. Please check the signatures. The name at the beginning is a ping is intended to get the attention of a specific editor, and is not an indicator of who is writing. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Grayfell: got it, thanks. Should we delete this part of the conversation since it is just an error? Tpmeli (talk) 03:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)tpmeli

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)

Got it, thank you for this clarification. Tpmeli (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)tpmeli

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)