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)

Right. This is specifically about WP:DUE weight. Simply mentioning these at all is giving them significance, and making implications using Wikipedia's voice. Without secondary sources, we're forced to try and determine how important these letters are, which is not something we should have to do. Grayfell (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to favor inclusion of any FDA documents related to the company's violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, since it's a relatively important event. I don't buy the argument about WP:UNDUE in this case given that the company has received so little coverage by secondary sources (2 currently cited in the article). They've received so little coverage that they barely qualify as notable. Primary sources are not necessarily precluded from use as along as they are of high quality (the FDA meets this requirement) and represented in their proper context. The text should read something like "In 200x, the Food and Drug Administration issued warning letter(s) to Young Living for violating the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act by claiming that their products x,y, and z were effective for treating medical conditions such as...". Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain how including unpublished primary-source material specifically sought out by a contributor for the purposes of putting the company in a negative light is compatible with Wikipedia policy? The is no context at all for these letters, and accordingly, the only people asserting their 'significance' are Wikipedia contributors - something that WP:NPOV specifically indicates isn't our job. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andy. Not sure what you mean by unpublished. By WP standards, the FDA letters qualify as published. It matters not who proffered the sources or why; it only matters that they exist. There is sufficient context in the letters themselves to establish the intent. It was to notify the company of a violation of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, the specific sections of which (as well as the offending claims/products) are unambiguously described. Similar FDA letters have been cited in other WP articles; it's not unusual. WP:PRIMARY does not preclude use of such sources; it merely cautions: "reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". It seems simple enough to exercise due caution in this case; the wording I suggested above does the trick. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe 'unpublished' isn't strictly correct - the letters are 'published' in the sense that every letter the FDA sends out is - they are added to a database of material available for download, though frankly I'd be surprised if more than a small proportion of such material is ever looked at by anyone, making 'publication' rather hypothetical. Which is the point, really. No secondary source has commented on them (and we have no evidence that anyone else has even looked at them), and yet it is proposed to dedicate a section of the article to them - which is exactly what Wikipedia:No original research advises against: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." We have no indication whatsoever that these letters are of any significance - are they simply boilerplate warnings concerning trivial issues, or are they the final stage before legal proceedings? We don't know and it isn't our job to try to find out - that would be original research. WP:NPOV is quite explicit in requiring us to assign weight according to reliable sources, rather than to our own personal opinions, and we have nothing whatsoever indicating that any third party has assigned any weight at all to these letters. Including primary source material entirely unrelated to anything secondary sources have to say just because we like it, rather than because such secondary sources consider it significant isn't compatible with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, my understanding is that FDA Warning Letter has a specific meaning, and I don't believe these letters qualify. There are a lot of details mentioned in that article that don't match the linked letters. The linked letters appear to me to be routine responses to submissions by Young Living. Young Living is saying, "we said/are going to say this, this, and this" and the FDA is saying, "Yes, this is fine, but don't say that or that". This is not on the same level as a Warning Letter, which is a much further up the ladder towards legal action. If my interpretation is correct, we should definitely avoid using the term 'warning letter'. If I'm wrong, that underscores how useful it is to have reliable secondary analysis of this kind of crap. Grayfell (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

No, you're right Grayfell. I took a very quick scan when I first looked at the FDA letters and when I went back for a closer look at the details I saw that they were rejections of marketing claims on the basis that they violated the FD&C Act (i.e., prohibited medical therapeutic claims). I've amended the proposed text accordingly (see comment below). Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I am tired of certain users claiming that I cherry-picked my sources in order to smear the company. I am entitled, as is every user, to the Wikipedia policy "assume good faith." Please afford me good faith, just as you would wish to receive. In any event, when I drafted the article, I included sources both for and against the company's product claims. Many sources were rejected during the June proposed deletion, which the article survived (obviously). The ones left included the primary source FDA letters, which have since been removed. As before, I advocate for the re-addition of the FDA warning letters, until such time as better secondary coverage is located. I also support the inclusion of any other valid sources of information about the company, though it's been noted that they are scarce. If it is suitable, include it. I will refrain from restating my arguments for inclusion of the FDA warning letters, which closely mirror User:RhodeIslandRed. Speaking of good faith, Young Living maintains a page of secondary news coverage beneficial to their organization. Many of those sources were removed during the request for deletion discussion in June (not by me). Maybe someone wants to re-evaluate them.Christopher Lotito (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Andy. Here's my take.

1. The sources are published in the WP sense of the term, so that's a moot point.
2. As long as the information is presented in its appropriate context, WP policy doesn't preclude inclusion -- WP:PRIMARY makes that clear.
3. Regarding the details of the letters, they indicate that certain claims that had been used or proposed for the marketing of various Young Living products were rejected by the FDA because they violated the FD&C Act. The claims, products, and statutes in question are all cited, and the top-line information seems noteworthy enough (e.g., it shows how the company had marketed or intended to market its products.
4. No one has proposed basing the entire article on a primary source (i.e., the FDA letter(s)) or including a large passage. The sample I proposed was a single sentence, although I would now modify it slightly (see below).
5. It is not a legal proceeding or an ongoing event, and the FDA's word on such matters is final. When they say that claims violate the law, that's the end of the story; it's not a negotiation. They are the judge and jury -- the final arbiter, akin to the Supreme Court -- when it comes to the legalities of supplement marketing.
6. A sentence along the lines of what I proposed below would not violate WP:OR. I am not proposing any elaborate interpretation of the outcome; merely a very brief summary of the key details as described in the letter(s). The details of the FDA letters are not WP:OR; however, what you are speculating about (i.e., what happened after the letters were sent) would be OR.
7. There is no WP:UNDUE argument to be made for excluding the FDA letters. Neither would WP:NPOV be applicable because there is no opposing POV that's being ignored. It doesn't really make sense to try to calculate balance by giving weight to sources that don't exist. There's a problem in general that the company has received scant attention from sources that are WP:RS and WP:3PARTY -- barely enough to pass WP:NOTABILITY if that -- and those that do exist aren't particularly flattering (the FDA letter(s) and the 2 articles describing lawsuits). That could naturally lead to the possibility of an article that paints a not particularly flattering picture of the company, but one that's still fair and balanced according to WP policy. Fair and balanced means presenting, in an evenhanded manner, what published sources have written about the subject.

This shouldn't be an argument about whether or not the FDA letters are usable -- they are allowable in principle -- but rather exactly what the proposed text for inclusion should say. I suggest something simple like: "In 200x, the Food and Drug Administration rejected various claims that Young Living had used or proposed using to market their products because they violated the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act by representing them as effective for treating medical conditions such as x,y, and z". Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of such primary source material entirely unsupported by third-party sourcing would violate WP:NPOV policy - WP:WEIGHT is predicated on the existence of sources, and isn't a licence to add primary-sourced material because 'there isn't an opposing view'. Your assertions above concerning what you think the legal position is regarding the FDA letters are clearly original research, and accordingly of no relevance to this discussion. As for the fact that there is little RS on the company, that is an argument for notability - not an excuse to ignore elementary Wikipedia policies like NPOV. If you really think that the inclusion of the letters is compliant with policy, I suggest you ask for input at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard - I'm sure you will find that your interpretation of policy isn't generally accepted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of the letters is compliant with policy. I've already cited the policy that applies in this case -- WP:PRIMARY which states "reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". Can you cite the portion of WP:NOV that you think is relevant? There's no overarching reason why the letter would be precluded by policy; it simply boils down to a question of what the appropriate text would look like (i.e., respecting the "with care part" of WP:PRIMARY). I'm discussing this with you as a courtesy; I'm not obligated to ask for permission for making edits, so if you have input on how to make the proposed text better, I'd very much like to hear it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of primary source material specifically selected by a contributor to put the article subject in a bad light, unsupported by any secondary sourcing whatsoever, is not compliant with Wikipedia NPOV policy. This is precisely the sort of selective misuse of primary sources that WP:PRIMARY warns against. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Andy, kindly stick to the editorial details rather than suggesting what you think my motives are (i.e., "to put the article subject in a bad light"). I'll give you the opportunity to redact that comment and respect WP:AGF going forward. There's a modicum of usable information about this company and what exists in WP:RS, as I already pointed out, is not particularly flattering. That's reality, not an NPOV issue. You keep repeating the same thing about the FDA letters not being supported by a secondary source and I keep pointing out to you the fact that WP:PRIMARY indicates that a secondary source is not mandatory; so let's move past that argument shall we? Do you perhaps have any editorial input for improving the text I proposed? Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The letters were in the article before you edited it - and I am basing my assertions regarding the intentions of the person who added them on what that individual actually said: "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." [5] The material has been selected (From what? Is there other correspondence between the FDA and YL? One might assume so given that they appear to be part of ongoing correspondence) with the clear objective of leading the reader to a specific conclusion - one that secondary sources have not made. So no, I'm not going to 'move past' the failure of this selective inclusion of primary sources to adhere to WP:NPOV policy - it isn't open to negotiation. As I have already stated, if you think my interpretation of policy is wrong, you are of course free to raise the matter at WP:NPOVN, and get outside input. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Further to this, I suggest you take another look at the letters concerned:

First letter [6] - routine note that previous correspondence lacked a signature. Why is this even remotely significant?

Second letter [7] - concerning a 'submission' made by Young Living. The FDA explains that the submission is unacceptable, as it makes inadmissible claims.

Third letter [8] - essentially the same as letter two. Again the FDA says that the "submission" isn't compliant with regulations.

Fourth Letter [9] - same as two and three.

It should be noted that none of these letters assert that Young Living has made claims contrary to regulations on any products actually sold - they relate to "submissions" to the FDA. The correspondence simply doesn't support the assertion that Young Living was 'warned' about anything, or that the information provided by Young Living violated any laws. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't - but we certainly can't use the YL/FDA correspondence to make such an assertion.AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Andy but I think you've failed to make a remotely compelling argument about NPOV, and it's never a good idea to unilaterally declare that an editorial issue isn't open to negotiation because it smacks of WP:OWN; furthermore, I'm not negotiating, I'm discussing out of courtesy.

Again, it doesn't matter how the FDA letters were first introduced in the article or who brought them forth -- it is entirely irrelevant -- all that matters is that they exist.

The first letter is not significant. I never proposed including nor do I think it should be included.

I never proposed including any statement pertaining to whether or not the products were actually sold, so that's a red herring. The FDA did in fact state the following "Your submission states that Young Living Essential Oils is making the following claims, among others, for the following products..." The "is making" portion is significant, but more or less moot because the wording I proposed is vanilla and doesn't delve into that much detail -- it simply states the basic facts. Notice also that I did not include the word "warned" in the proposed text; I used "cautioned", but that too is a relatively minor detail that is easily remedied by using the word "advised" instead.

Rather than arguing about this point ad nauseam, I think there are bigger issues with this article that need to be addressed, like whether or not it's notable enough for inclusion in the first place given that there are basically only 3 third-party sources cited in the article -- 2 dealing with a lawsuit and the other being the series of letters from the FDA. I've been scouring for more sources about Young Living but am coming up empty. I did however find a couple of interesting newspaper articles pertaining to Young Living founder Donald Gary Young.[10][11]; 3 more came up on a Newsbank search for "Don Gary Young". Apparently he has a bit of a rap sheet for quackery. Incidentally, this dovetails somewhat with the FDA letters. My impression is that Young may be more notable ("notorious" might be more accurate) than the company itself and that, therefore, perhaps the article should be a BLP on Young with Young Living included as one of the subsections. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree entirely that the notability of this company looks questionable, and would have voted for deletion had I participated in the recent AfD discussion. As for whether Young himself merits a biography, again this comes down to sourcing, and I'd be wary of creating one that sought to illustrate his 'notoriety' unless there was significant coverage in the mainstream media to justify it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If we were to create an article on Young, it wouldn't make sense to have it in addition to the article on Young Living; but it would make more sense to roll Young Living into the Donald Young article. I already came up with 5 articles from WP:RS on Young; they're all unflattering but that's not because of any purposeful attempt on my part to illustrate Young as notorious; it's simply what came up. We have to play the hand the the WP:RS deals us. The only significant coverage he's received has been reporting on his nefarious activities. The details are notable and it's reliably sourced. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:17, 22 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

Deleting talk page comments is rarely a good idea. It's just a simple misunderstanding, it happens. You could WP:REDACT the comment. That doesn't seem necessary, and seems like kind of a hassle in this case, but it's up to you. Grayfell (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

Farm Operations

The lead currently states "Young Living owns and operates nine farms in Idaho, Utah, Peru, France, Ecuador, Oman, Isreal (sic), and Taiwan. [1]". The lead is very brief so the information about farm operations seems trivial and given undue weight; it also hasn't been mentioned by any secondary sources (the claim is sourced to the company, a primary source). Overall this doesn't seem appropriate for the lead, if anywhere. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. If the farms are significant, they will be discussed in secondary sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Medical Claims

Re: the lone statement in the section Medical Claims:

"Young Living distributors are prohibited from claiming that the company's products are intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.[2]"

Can someone explain why this deserves a whole section, or inclusion at all, when it's just an out of context blurb from a company document? It doesn't seem notable. Saying, officially anyway, that distributors are prohibited from making certain claims doesn't mean that they or the company don't make them and are compliant with Federal regulations; in fact this seems a bit misleading because the FDA said quite the opposite. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

There was originally more in the section. You may be right though, in that it now doesn't tell us anything significant. Per WP:MEDRS there is no way that this article can state or imply that Young Living products have any medical benefits, so the whole issue is moot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

So what do you think? Pull it? Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup, unless anyone else has an objection. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Marketing Claims

Hello all, I've added a new section to the article called "Marketing Claims." I think you've probably notice via your watchlists. To that end, I'm adding this section to the talk page so that we can discuss it. Thanks for your input in advance!Christopher Lotito (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it - see WP:OR, and particularly the section on synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

And furthermore, note that we cannot link to copyright violations - like the YouTube-hosted Fox video you cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to edit the text which was added into a format which is compliant rather than simply deleting it? Since the text I added did not assert the veracity of the claims made by the proponents of Young Living products, your argument regarding synthesis is invalid: the text stated that this was the message of the proponents. The news provided coverage which showed that the statement that proponents make said claims is verifiable. The notability of the claims made by the products proponents is far more in question than the proven fact that they made the claims (though I would argue the notability is valid as well).Christopher Lotito (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I have undone your edit in the hopes that you will consider a more measured response. I do not expect you to leave the contribution as it, but I hope that you will give consideration to editing or rephrasing what you find to be objectionable. If you choose to revert my undo, I won't undo it again, though I disagree with your statements.Christopher Lotito (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not surprised you reverted by undo. How about actually editing this text now? This is the proposed copy, "Various claims are made throughout Young Living's marketing materials, extolling the virtues of their product line for the alleviation of a variety of physical and psychological maladies. <'ref>http://www.youngliving.com/en_US/company/media/news/essential-oils-may-help-fend-off-the-flu</ref> In news coverage by Fox News of Houston Texas, proponents of Young Living products assert that they have successfully used these products to treat cancer without chemotherapy as well as alleviating pain and leg cramps.<- link to copyright violation redacted AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC) -> Fox News correspondent Chris Kilham also claimed on September 18th, 2012 that Young Living's Copaiba Oil reduces skin inflammation while speeding skin healing.<'ref>http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/09/18/natural-remedies-for-skin-troubles/</ref>"Christopher Lotito (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see the Unacceptable Reversions section regarding the reversion of large edits: Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessaryChristopher Lotito (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:BRD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Is the concept of copyright violation too difficult to understand? And yes, it was original research - if you wish to add content, it is your responsibility to ensure it complies with policy, not mine. Specifically, if you wish to include a section on Young Living making medical claims regarding its products, you will need to find a source which discusses exactly that - not poorly-sourced 'examples' which you subject to your own interpretation. This is elementary Wikipedia practice, and I shouldn't have to explain it to you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I support Andy's reversion of the edit. I don't even really understand the purpose having a section on medical claims. Is it to show that they are silly, unfounded, potentially illegal? One thing for sure is that the article shouldn't include primary sourced claims from the company alleging that their products prevent the flu, which was one of the sources cited with the edits Andy reverted. I also see no place for puff pieces from FOX as a source for anything medical. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Uh, I think people might be commenting under the wrong section. This is the section about marketing claims. Nothing about medical, medical claims, medicine, or anything like that was included. Have a look at the proposed text which was deleted above. "Medical Claims" section was deleted days ago and I'm not contesting that. Rhode Island Red, I agree with everything you're saying, but this is about the marketing claims section.Christopher Lotito (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No, this would appear to be the right place -- it's the thread that you started today regarding the reversion of your edits.[12] Your edits were medical claims. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Dr Pappas Report is unverified

Hi All. I am again sad to see lack of neutral language on this page or a clear appreciation of what is fact and what is merely claimed.

I remain deeply confused wiki allows news sources on the page without double checking the information in them or being more clear that these are "claims" not facts.

In part - The doTerra and YL lawsuit was dropped because it was unverified whether the oil was truly a YL oil and could have been adulterated by someone and given to Dr Pappas. The fact that Dr Pappas received an oil with a YL label means absolutely nothing. The sad fact is that People adulterate YL oils and sell them online for less all the time to make money. So just because it came in a YL bottle means nothing about its authenticity.

Furthermore - There is no verification either that the YL sales rep was actually a sales rep and could have easily just been a person pretending to be.

I have edited the language of our article to emphasize that these are not "Facts" - these were claims. And it was in part that these claims were never verified that was why the lawsuit was dropped.

I and many others have been to these farms and it is simply not possible that their oils are adulterated. We have watched the whole process. It goes right from distillation to testing to the bottle. Nothing happens in between.

If we have such conviction that these oils are pure its because we've been a part of the process in making them and seen how ridiculous it is to say that they are not. It would be like someone coming into your grandma's kitchen that you've seen make dinner 100 times and saying that her dinner is synthetic. Obviously if someone said that, you would look deeper at where those claims were coming from and how mistakes could be made to lead to that erroneous conclusion.