Talk:Young Living/Archives/2020

Requesting edits

I am from Young Living and part of my duties here include updating the Wikipedia page about the company. I read the notice at the top of this page about disclosure and have made such on my userpage. I would like to ask that someone review the disclosure to ensure I am in compliance prior to me requesting any specific edits to the Wikipedia article. --MarSureMa (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

You should not edit the Young Living or Gary Young articles, as you have an inherent conflict of interest; please read WP:COI. Wikipedia has this purpose, which does not include advertising for a company or updating its article based on internal news. Secondary independent sources, WP:RS, are used for the encyclopedia. It would be ok if you notify this Talk page of a verifiable secondary source on information not currently in the article, but you should have no role in writing it. --Zefr (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Hello, @MarSureMa:. Thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest. As Zefr says, you should not edit the article. If you notice any discrepancy with the article, you can propose changes here for consideration, but please be succinct and patient. Please also consider using Template:Request edit (you may find the show preview feature helpful). I will leave a boilerplate message on your talk page providing links to additional information on editing with a conflict of interest. Please review these links for everyone's convenience, so we can avoid rehashing old discussions. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the talk page information. I read through COI carefully and believe I understand what I need to do (as well as what I should NOT do). I fully understand that I am not supposed to edit these pages directly and will not do so. For the most part, we are just trying to introduce more information about our history as it seems to be lacking. I have taken to the time to read through information related to reliable sourcing and put together an initial edit request which I will post shortly. If at any time I am not doing something correctly, please let me know. --MarSureMa (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Request Edit

I would propose adding a section for company history and start it by adding the following which documents some of the early history and how the company got started.

In May 1992, Donald Gary Young purchased a farm in St. Maries, Idaho where he began growing lavender, clary sage, peppermint, and thyme while also testing new distillation methods. He founded Young Living Essential Oils in 1993 and incorporated the business the following year. Young and his wife, Mary, established the first headquarters in Riverton, Utah. In 1995, they purchased a 160-acre farm in Mona, Utah where they would also grow plants for distillation.

There is additional history which I will propose in a few days as I am trying to find more reliable sources to include. Thank you for considering this request. --MarSureMa (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Reply 04-DEC-2018

  Already implemented  

1. The salient point proposed in this edit request—that D.G.Y. started the company in 1993—is already included in the current version of the article.
2. The remainder of claims within this edit request are part and parcel of the Young Living creation story, making them notoriously difficult to anchor in reliability (the quaint farm in Mona, Utah used for distillation purposes, for example). To that end, please advise if any newer references are found.

Regards,  Spintendo  09:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The founding information is a single sentence in the opening paragraph of the article. The opening paragraph should be more of a summary, yet there is nothing about the founding or other history in the body of the article. The references I used are very reliable as well so I am not sure what additional sources are needed. I know this was only a snippet so I created an entire history section (below) which has more context and sources. Could you please review and implement the edits if they meet Wikipedia standards. --MarSureMa (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

In May 1992, Donald Gary Young purchased a farm in St. Maries, Idaho where he began growing lavender, clary sage, peppermint, and thyme while also testing new distillation methods. He founded Young Living Essential Oils in 1993 and incorporated the business the following year. Young and his wife, Mary, established the first headquarters in Riverton, Utah. In 1995, they purchased a 160-acre farm in Mona, Utah where they would also grow plants for distillation.

In 1996, the company acquired property in Payson, Utah with the intent of developing a new 100,000-square-foot headquarters. After demolishing an existing building there in 1997, the company eventually sold the property pack to the City of Payson in 1998 because it had already outgrown the planned development. Its headquarters remained in a remodeled school building in Payson. In 1999, Young Living was named the second-fastest growing business in Utah.

In 2001, the company opened a 200-acre western-themed tourist attraction called Young Living Heritage Park at its farming facility in Mona. The visitor center at the farm also featured the Whispering Springs BBQ restaurant. Around 2002, its main headquarters moved to a 59,000 square-foot facility at the Thanksgiving Point Business Park in Lehi, Utah. In 2004, the company started expanding into international markets like Europe and Japan. By 2005, the firm claimed to have 250,000 distributors throughout the world.

In 2006, the company began construction on a 110,000-square-foot production and distribution center in Spanish Fork, Utah. That year, it also purchased a 2,300-acre farm in Ecuador, its first outside the United States. The company opened the Young Living Academy in rural Chongon, Ecuador in March 2008. In 2011, the company was listed at number 3,833 on the Inc. 5000 list of the fastest growing companies in the United States. By 2013, it had annual revenues of $230 million with offices in Australia, Ecuador, Peru, and Japan.

In January 2015, the company started a 100,000-square-foot expansion of its distribution facility in Spanish Fork. Later that year, Mary Young was named the company's CEO after her husband voluntarily stepped down from the position to pursue writing and philanthropic endeavors. In 2016, Young Living began working on the construction of a new headquarters near its current Thanksgiving Point base. It officially broke ground on the 263,000-square-foot project in May 2017. Between 2015 and 2017, the company posted annual revenues of over $1 billion. In May 2018, Young Living's founder and former CEO, Donald Gary Young, passed away.

Some of the details proposed seem OK but overall seems liked excessive detail about facilities, bordering on trivial. As for income claims, are they based on public filings? Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

References

New structure

Hi all,

It seems to me this Young Living article is too short and too biased (the lede and all 3 main sections are "negative" -- about controversy, bad press about the FDA, etc:

The current structure is:

• 1 Company
• 2 Prohibited marketing claims
• 3 Litigation

I suggest the article be modified to imitate a similar company such as Herbalife

• 1 History
• 2 Products
• 3 Business model
• 4 Criticism (or "controversy")
• 5 Litigation

This new structure would be (a) more informative and (b) still able to present negative, or critical information in context.

The sections about the USFDA's warning against Young Living and DoTerra not to suggest that their products cure disease, and the litigation against DoTerra, are important. But they should not be 80% of the article.

What are your thoughts?

Disclosure: I am not a Young Living distributor, but I use the products and know several distributors who have made me familiar with the company. CircularReason (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The content dictates the structure, not vice versa. The content itself is dictated mainly by what has been published in independent WP:RS. It's not a platform for company advertising. The reality is that the majority of in-depth press coverage that the company has received has been unflattering. As unbiased editors, it is our task to faithfully capture that, not to attempt to artificially "balance" articles or inject our own POV. FYI, being a product advocate and chummy with distributors would be enough to cloud your vision and constitute a WP:COI. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Rhode Island. While I don't appreciate the insulting special pleading ('mangled grammar' and 'clouded vision'), I certainly agree that the Wiki is not a platform for company advertising. Neither is it a platform for disinformation. Your previous reversion concisely stated that "WP:SECONDARY are preferrable for income statements;" the New Yorker article cites (as "public records") the same Young Living income disclosure as my revision. The only difference is that the New Yorker cites one from 2016, and my revision the more accurate one from 2017. Can explain why outdated primary source is preferable to a current one? Our common goal is to make Wikipedia accurate. CircularReason (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The issue here is that you are inserting your own interpretation of a WP:PRIMARY source (the income disclosure statement) into the article, and it contradicts what the secondary source (The New Yorker) wrote about the income disclosure statement, which emphasized that “94% of Young Living's active members made less than a dollar that year". Your original interpretation, shown in the examples that follow, was at odds with the New Yorker’s focus, and therefore it constitutes a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR.

“Top earners in the "Diamond" ranks earn a median average is $27,000 per month and up.”[1]

“The 2017 disclosure reports earnings ranging from $15 per month to upwards of $20,000 per month.” [2]

“According to 2017 public records, 33% of active Young Living distributors made $15 per month and 41% made $58 a month, with smaller percentages earning more.”[3]

In addition to the POV violation and WP:OR, there's also an emerging concern about WP:EDITWAR and WP:COI. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I've added further context from the source that, I believe, mitigates some of CircularReason's valid concerns without stumbling into any of the problems noted by Rhode Island Red. 73.59.67.130 (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The edit in question, which was improper WP:SYNTH, was reverted.[4] Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

As is, the current Company section inappropriately synthesizes two different sources to imply that Young Living members are members for the purpose of earning commission, but that the vast majority of them never do, in direct violation of what one of those sources clearly states. The additional Monroe quote eliminates that misconstrual without obscuring the point of the 94%-statistic, that most members don't make money. You're right that the reverted edit was in danger of violating WP:SYNTH, but it was a step in the right direction of presenting the sources accurately rather than editorializing selectively combining disparate citations. So I propose the following version of the Company section. If anyone has issues with it, please provide a version that you think is appropriate, as it would be better to remove the 94%-statistic from the article than continue misusing it. Alweth (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

As a multi-level marketing company, Young Living recruits "thousands of independent distributors who can sell directly to customers and earn commissions on sales to distributors recruited into a hierarchical network called 'downlines'."[ref in original] According to a public income statement from 2016, approximately 94% of Young Living's active members made less than a dollar that year. However, "many distributors who don’t make a substantial income nonetheless stick with it, in part because the benefits are more than just monetary."

References

That's the exact same WP:SYNTH by the anon IP that was reverted.[5] Clearly not a viable option. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The issue of income and number of profit-earning members is moot and WP:V unverifiable. So-called "public" income statements from Young Living can't be trusted or verified because the company releases to the public whatever exaggerations it wants; it doesn't file to an independent body like the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that would hold its financial statements to federal penalties if violated. The New Yorker author Monroe was reporting what Young Living sources gave her. Unless a source for the article is reliably WP:SECONDARY, comments about company members and finances should be removed. --Zefr (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not conversant enough with the nuances of WP:V to evaluate your claims, but if there's questions about the verifiability of the 94% statistic, I agree that just eliminating it is the simplest way to improve this section of this article while mildly addressing CircularReason's concerns about negative bias in the Company description. Alweth (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no relevant question about verifiability with respect to the statement about 94%. It's published in a reliable secondary source (New Yorker). The goal here is WP:NPOV, not to placate the "concerns" of product advocates (and certainly not by using WP:SYNTH). Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Also conspicuous that a WP:SLEEPER[6] would suddenly awaken from a 5-year hibernation to support the whitewashing proposed by a product advocate[7] and an anon IP WP:SPA.[8] All sorts of concerns here: WP:TAGTEAM, WP:SOCK, etc. That's a warning. Rhode Island Red (talk)

As for the verifiability of the 94% claim, I'll let you and Zefr argue about that. The concerns expressed by CircularReason have a certain amount of validity and to that extent I share them. The Company section is currently not true to its sources. This is a problem. The edit I suggested is not a violation of WP:SYNTH. Please see WP:What_SYNTH_is_not. Specifically, "If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources." Also, "If a putative SYNTH doesn't constitute original research, then it doesn't constitute SYNTH." The suggested edit simply juxtaposes two claims made and juxtaposed in the same source. Alweth (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Alweth. The recent proposed edits do not violate SYNTH. The article previous iteration of the articleis misleading. What must be understood by all parties is that the New Yorker's quote is from Young Living's 2016 Income Disclosure. The current public records has the exact same validity and reliability as the New Yorker article, except it is more current. And, the 2017 records contradict the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's current iteration article.

P.S. Rhode Island, Reminder: "Assume good faith, and keep in mind that in almost all cases it is better to address other editors' reasoning than it is to accuse them of being on a team. Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil." I wonder if you have an animosity towards Young Living or MLMs that might make it challenging to have NPOV? The proposed changes are not whitewashing but increasing accuracy, which is everyone's goal. CircularReason (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Zefr said, "The New Yorker author Monroe was reporting what Young Living sources gave her. Unless a source for the article is reliably WP:SECONDARY, comments about company members and finances should be removed." I'd be fine with this compromise. The reason is this: The New Yorker article used Young Living's public income disclosure, purposefully or accidentally misinterpreted it to mean that most distributors are trying to make money but failing. Wikipedia cannot, within ethics and policy compliance, knowingly perpetuate the false implications of that. If the company's own income disclosures should not be trusted, then all reference to earnings (whether seemingly damning or promotional) should be removed. If the company's own income disclosures *should* be trusted, then the most recent reference should be preferred. To assuage Rhode Island's legitimate concerns about WP:Primary, a close second best would be to simply quote the latest ranks/earnings figures from the document without editorialization. But the best thing, it seems, would be to remove both. CircularReason (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, I think Rhode Island Red and Zefr's concerns about Young Living's own financial statements are legitimate enough that those statements shouldn't be used. I agree with CircularReason that this article as a whole violates WP:NPOV, specifically by selectively representing its own sources and by combining selective quotations in a way that constitutes WP:SYNTH. I agree that the article should remain negative overall, but should do so without the two violations I just mentioned. I would welcome any of the following solutions: a) Zefr's solution of removing all references to the earnings of members; b) My suggested edit or a variation thereof; or c) Some other elimination of the WP:SYNTH that is currently present under the Company section. Alweth (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, there is no argument or question about verifiability. The statement that’s in the article now is 100% verifiable. My sole concern was already stated very clearly. You must respect WP:SECONDARY sources and not override them with your interpretation of a WP:PRIMARY source (i.e., the income disclosure statement). While there are valid concerns about the accuracy of the company’s reporting on distributor income in that disclosure, there are no valid concerns with the secondary sources focusing on the fact that 94% of the company’s distributors reportedly earned close to nothing.

“The Distributor level, Young Living’s lowest rank, comprises about 94% of the company’s members. The Royal Crown Diamond tier — the level, bluntly, that makes bank — accounts for less than 0.1% of participants. Distributors have to buy about $100 worth of merchandise per month in order to receive commissions on their Young Living sales, according to the New Yorker, and 94% of the company’s two million active members made less than $1 each in all of 2016. That makes quite a pyramid…”[9]

“According to a public income statement, more than ninety-four per cent of Young Living’s two million active members made less than a dollar in 2016, while less than one-tenth of one per cent—that is, about a thousand Royal Crown Diamonds—earned more than a million dollars. Everyone in the industry studiously avoids any comparison to pyramid schemes, which are illegal, but the structural similarities are hard to ignore.“[10]

The text now in the article (below) perfectly summarizes what the secondary sources stated:

“According to a public income statement from 2016, approximately 94% of Young Living's active members made less than a dollar that year.[12][4]"

No modification is needed whatsoever, except perhaps to add some context to the 94% figure indicating it has been interpreted as evidence that the company is in fact a pyramid scheme.

Again, arguing so strenuously to whitewash that dismal 94% figure (and improperly using WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY to do so) belies an agenda that is inconsistent with WP:NPOV, and the deluge of off-base arguments from a WP:SLEEPER, an anon IP, and a Young Living advocate only adds fuel to the fire. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red, please engage me about my criticism, not about Zefr's criticism. You have not dealt with my objection to the current use of the 94% statistic, which is that it is SYNTHed with the other claim to insinuate, in disagreement with its source, that the 94% of members are attempting and failing to earn a profit. As the source itself clearly states, "many distributors who don’t make a substantial income nonetheless stick with it, in part because the benefits are more than just monetary." I have no objection to leaving the 94% statistic in, provided it remains in a way that does not constitute WP:SYNTH. You have stated that you might want to "add some context to the 94% figure indicating it has been interpreted as evidence that the company is in fact a pyramid scheme." I have no issue with that, provided that it is done in a way consistent with Wikipedia's standards and that my concern is dealt with. I think we can do both. Alweth (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I have addressed this point sufficiently already and explained that it would be inappropriate WP:SYNTH. You can't take one part of sentence from a source explaining that 94% of distributors make less than a dollar and then tack on a qualifying statement that appears several paragraphs later in the source saying that some people stay in because the rewards are more than monetary. The latter part is also vague and non-encyclopedic and it does nothing to make the article better. Let's also keep in mind that this entire discussion began under the premise, put forth by a disclosed product advocate, that the article was misleading in its current form, which is untrue. Intent matters, and that shows intent to whitewash under a false premise. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the current version of the article, that places the previously offending SYNTH under an extended Business Model section is much better than the previous version that had it as the only content under the Company section. I still think it constitutes SYNTH, but the original research implication is weakened by the more appropriate context. I still would like to see the SYNTH eliminated, but this is a much better situation. So I'm letting this rest.

I would like to note, however, Rhode Island Red, that you seem to me to be misusing WP:SYNTH. While I did suggest the juxtaposition of two claims from within the same article that occur paragraphs apart, my suggestion did not introduce any claim or implication not already present in the source. In fact, the quotation I used explicitly made exactly the point I was using it to make. So it was not an example of SYNTH. Alweth (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Prohibited marketing claims

For accuracy, I think we need to be clear that the FDA did not accuse Young Living of directly marketing their products as a cure for Ebola and other illnesses. The FDA letter, available here, states that they:

"... reviewed websites and social media accounts (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest) for several Young Living essential oil consultants that your firm refers to as “Young Living distributors.” ... [and] a 2012-2013 product guide found on your website http://www.youngliving.com"

They then listed the violations on "some of [Young Living's] consultants’ websites that establish the intended use of ... Young Living Essential Oils products". These are all consultants per the FDA - they didn't identify any violations that they listed in Young Living's product guide. They warned Young Living because they were permitting their consultants to make these claims, and the websites then linked to Young Living to make a purchase, but they didn't specifically state that Young Living were directly marketing their products as cures. This is not surprising, as generally these companies are very careful about their wording to avoid these issues, but potentially don't police (or perhaps want to police) claims made by others. - Bilby (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Good point, Bilby. Isn't it also true that the FDA issued this warning to Doterra and a bunch of alternative health product companies, all at the same time and indiscriminately? The current iteration of the article makes it appear as if the FDA "busted" Young Living in particular for some infelicity in particular. Another possibly willful violation of WP:NPOV. CircularReason (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you even reading the sources? The FDA letter said: "FDA also reviewed a 2012-2013 product guide found on your website http://www.youngliving.com. Based on our review, FDA has determined..." More importantly, one of secondary sources stated: "But the FDA issued the company a bureaucratic fatwa, noting that the health claims for their products “cause(s) them [the essential oils] to be drugs under section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)(B)], because they are intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.”[11] In fact, the FDA did accuse Young Living of directly marketing their products as a cure for Ebola and other illnesses. And there was nothing indiscriminate about it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they clearly state that they also looked at the product guide. Then they list the violations, none of which are from the product guide or a website under the direct control of Young Living. It is great to keep saying that they looked at the product guide, but if they didn't list a violation from that product guide, and only list violations from contractors, then the identified problems were not with the guide. As to your quote, that's from The Daily Beast, which we should use with caution. Given that this is not in keeping with the FDA letter (which we have) or the Washington Post article, the Daily Beast seems unreliable on this point. - Bilby (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs based on interpretation of a WP:PRIMARY source. The text currently in the article states: "In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living against marketing its products as treatments or cures for Ebola virus, which is 100% accurate, completely consistent with all of the cited sources, and requires no original interpretation. There is no valid reason to do any refactoring or insert any weasel wording. The spirit and intent of the proposed changes is to downplay the company's responsibility, and that's just not going to fly. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Daily Beast was not in any way inconsistent with the Washington Post article or the FDA letter. All 3 fully support the text in the Young Living article as it stands now. Neither of the secondary sources support the statement that the violations were restricted to "contractors', nor do they state/imply that Young Living wasn't the direct subject of the investigation and warning letter. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Currently, we devote over half the lede and a full section on this issue. It seems to me that if we are going to give this one issue so much weight, we need to ensue that our coverage is correct.

There's an easy fix. In the FDA letter it repeatedly states that they found violations by contractors, and lists 32 violations. Just point to the violation that is not by a contractor - ideally from the product guide - and we'll be good. Which one is it? - Bilby (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be purposely not hearing what I have been saying. What we need to do is ensure that our coverage accurately reflects what the bulk of reliable WP:SECONDARY sources said when reporting on Young Living’s violations. That need was already met long ago with the text in the article stating (accurately): “In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living against marketing its products as treatments or cures for Ebola virus,[5][6] and other conditions, including "Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis.[7][8]”

The other thing we need to do is respect WP:WEIGHT, which means allocating coverage of the event in proportion to the attention it received in reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, and the plain fact is that this incident was inarguably the most widely reported event in the company’s history, being covered by respectable sources across the media spectrum (WaPo, New Yorker, Reuters, CNN, Popular Science, Pharmacy Times, Daily Herald, etc.).[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]

Our task as editors is most certainly not to root through a WP:PRIMARY source to undermine (or “correct”, as some might allege) what was reported in secondary sources. I’m surprised that I even have to bother explaining this, as these are fundamental principles of WP editing. Arguing the contrary belies an agenda that is not in keeping with the principles and policies of WP (such as WP:NPOV). The fact that anon IPs and a WP:SLEEPER are leading this charge casts a further negative light on that agenda. I suggest you put it to rest and focus on something else more worthy of editorial attention. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Our primary goal is to build an encyclopedia. Adding misleading content because we carefully selected secondary sources to say what we want to, even though we can readily check the original source, should not be how we tackle this. We can get it right, or we can do what you are doing. - Bilby (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

That comment is nonsensical and off-base (i.e., there is nothing even remotely misleading about what the plethora of secondary sources stated). It completely ignores all of the policies and sourced text I quoted above. Playing the game of "I can't hear you" will get you nowhere. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

You have the FDA letter, and you can see that they clearly state that the found problems with contractors, and provided a list of infractions all of which were by contractors. If this wasn't the case you would be able to show the infraction that was in Young Living's materials. We're claiming that Young Living made these claims directly, when the FDA were accusing Young Living of failing to properly police their contractors. It is a significant distinction. Sadly, you would rather have an incorrect claim in the article than a correct one. I guess I'll need to look for other solutions to the issue. - Bilby (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

What sources do we have which say this distinction is significant? Companies do not act independently of the people who form them. Young Living, as with other MLMs, leans heavily on the legal distinction between "contractors" and employees when its convenient. Since Wikipedia isn't a platform for these kinds of PR games, we shouldn't feel obligated to accommodate this perspective. These companies rely on contractors for revenue, almost exclusively. A company which fails to properly police its de-facto employees, whatever it chooses to call them, is a company which has failed to police itself. Grayfell (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree fully that failure to police the contractors is a serious problem. The issue is the difference between a company releasing materials falsely claiming that they have a cure for Ebola, and failing to police contractors who develop their own marketing materials which falsely claim that Young Living have produced a cure for cancer. Both are major failings, but they are different failings. - Bilby (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, there are two perspectives I have on this. I personally don't think it's useful to discuss contractor's own marketing material as fundamentally separate from Young Living's "official" marketing material. There is a difference, but it's not clear to me how much this matters. They are paid to act as representatives of the company, and the buck stops at Young Living, so to speak.

But what we care about is reliable, independent sources. A legal document from a government agency is a great example of a WP:PRIMARY source. We should summarize this according to secondary sources. We, as editors, are not qualified to interpret a primary source, especially one which has legal implications. We should look at how secondary sources describe this, and summarize the ways it reflects on the company. This article isn't about Young Living's oil-selling-acolytes, it's about the company as a whole. Sources linked by RIR above seem very clear on this to me, and we have to follow the sources. The FDA said both doTERRA and Young Living advertised some of their oils as "cures" for viral infections, including Ebola.[21] No mention of "contractors" here, This one is interesting, because it says A post on Young Living’s website states, “Ebola Virus cannot live in the presence of cinnamon bark (this is in Thieves) nor Oregano.” and it goes on to quote Young Living who imply that this was the work of "members". It seems clear to me that sources are treating the distinction as irrelevant, or at least weak. A company which allows paid representatives to post misleading (or false) claims on that company's website for promotional gain... well, the FDA doesn't really care how that representative's pay-check is processed, and neither do sources, and neither should we. The company acted to fix the problem, which is functionally an admission that it was a problem they had the ability to fix it, so they have already taken (limited) responsibility for it. We don't need to pad this out with PR, do we? Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't interpret a primary source, and we should just ensure that we say what they say without interpretation. The main source we have - The Washington post - doesn't say that it was Young Living's own marketing. Selected other sources do, but what we need to do is evaluate the reliability of sources - if secondary sources are making incorrect claims, they are unreliable, and we stick to the reliable ones. The thing is, the company did not allow paid representatives to post misleading (or false) claims on that company's website for promotional gain. The "paid consultants" ran their own websites and social media where they made their own misleading claims, and this is very clear (without needing interpretation) from the FDA letter which lists the infractions. Young Living's fault was in not policing this, and thus when they are quoted in response, they are saying that they will ensure that those people make sure to use correct marketing materials in the future.

Ultimately, the problem is that we're allowing incorrect claims to be added to the article - that we know are incorrect - because we picked some secondary sources that made incorrect statements or failed to provide the nuance that the issue required. While this happens on WP, it isn't really conducive to creating an accurate encyclopedia. - Bilby (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I agree with your interpretation of the Washington Post article. It shows (as just one example) an image from theoildropper.com, which is (still) a website used by a Cari, a "Silver Leader" of Young Living to sell Young Living oils, and to recruit other people to sell Young Living oils. Who controls that website, Young Living, or the "member" of Young Living... and why exactly does it matter? Lacking sources on this specific issue, a reasonable person could take either stance and it wouldn't really change anything. You say it wasn't "Young Living's own marketing", but why did the FDA contact Young Living and not the contractors? Sources can and will look at something like this and try and explain it in the simplest terms possible, because these kinds of details don't necessarily help explain the underlying issue. Knowing precisely who-owns-what wouldn't make the misleading claims go away, and they wouldn't make the letter substantially different.

From that, I don't see this as fundamentally "incorrect". The FDA issued one of their famous FDA warning letters to Gary Young as CEO of Young Living. It wasn't issued to the supposedly independent representatives who made the improper claims, merely CC'd. If anyone truly believed they were independent, they would've been held individually responsible, but nobody seems to be seriously making that case. The FDA is certainly willing to contact individual sellers when they think that's the proper course of action. The letter says You market your Young Living Essential Oil products through paid consultants... It is directly saying that Young Living is doing this marketing, and clearly the FDA holds Young Living responsible for the behavior of its paid consultants. Young Living responded accordingly. It is fundamentally accurate to summarize this as Young Living's responsibility, because every source I've seen does the same. Grayfell (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The example you give is controlled by a Young Living consultant, not by Young Living. That's why it matters in the end. It is the distinction between Young Living posting false information, and people who work for Young Living posting false information on websites they own. The reason the FDA contacted Young Living is outlined in the letter - effectively, Young Living were paying consultants, they were posting incorrect marketing materials, and Young Living should have been policing this but weren't. The FDA didn't regard them as independent because they were paid by Young living, and I agree with this. But the distinction is still important. How about an easy fix - we already quote extensive parts of the FDA letter. I add one more quote from the FDA mentioning the contractor's responsibility in this, without interpretation, and then at least it is there. It won't really fix the problem, but if you say it isn't a significant distinction, adding this shouldn't be a concern. Is that a way forward? - Bilby (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

No, obviously not. Again, it’s a distinction without a difference. The current text in the article uses the simplest incontestable language possible that is supported by all the sources; namely “In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living against marketing its products as treatments or cures for Ebola virus.” There is nothing misleading about that statement. The proposal to add additional text shifting responsibility from the company to individual contractors is not in keeping with the numerous secondary sources that reported on the incident. That would be a violation of NPOV. It is absurd to argue that all the sources were somehow wrong in their interpretation; they weren’t, and that would not be in keeping with our role as editors. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

A single, direct quote from the FDA letter, when we already extensively quote from the letter, clarifying what they found, should not be an issue. This will involve no interpretation, not be counter to the other sources, and will address my concern. If it is indeed a distinction without a difference, I can't see why you would have a problem. - Bilby (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Aside from specifying which products the FDA was referring to, We don't quote the primary sources (i.e., FDA). We are quoting from a secondary source.[22] Your "concern" has been thoroughly addressed already here on the Talk page. You are suggesting a change that is inconsistent with the secondary sources. Beating a dead horse is counterproductive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is a single quote that will be fully consistent with what is already there, and will help clarify the situation. It will not be inconsistent with any secondary sources. How about we just give it a go? I'm just working on finding a valid way forward. - Bilby (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Without a reliable secondary source specifically highlighting this quote, or providing a specific indication this quote is significant, this seems arbitrary. If it's fully consistent with what's already there, it's (hopefully) consistent with independent sources, in which case, we should use independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't that hold for the quotes we already have? The majority of the section currently consists for quotes from a primary source. - Bilby (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Continuing this argument is becoming WP:TE. Please stop and WP:LISTEN. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll stick to secondary sources. There are enough that make the distinctions that we can go by them, although the FDA letter feels like a better choice. - Bilby (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Your initial premise was the text currently in the article (“In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living against marketing its products as treatments or cures for Ebola virus.”) is misleading. That was a blatantly false assertion It is clearly and unequivocally not misleading, and despite pointing this out numerous times you are still beating the dead horse, arguing for insertion of weasel wording (to shift responsibility away from the company) and invoking primary sources over secondary sources, which is not acceptable according to policy. Please stop! Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe that text is misleading, because the FDA did not accuse Young Living of directly promoting their products as treatments or cures for the Ebola virus, but instead accused them of allowing their consultants to do so. I understand that you do not see a distinction. The FDA did, on the other hand, accuse Young living of marketing their products in a way which suggested they may be drugs, but that was a second issue. If this is to be addressed, I will ensure that it is only handled by secondary sources in order to address your concerns. - Bilby (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Using only secondary sources seems like a reasonable step. There's nothing inappropriate with accurately communicating the responsibility of the company as described in secondary sources. In fact, it's valuable. WP:NPOV doesn't mean "as negative as possible". Alweth (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Sleeper

Rhode Island Red, when you say that "anon IPs and a WP:SLEEPER are leading this charge" you mischaracterize the situation. First, there is only one anon, and that was me. I didn't realize I wasn't logged in when I made the edit or my first comment. So the supposed "anon IPs and a WP:SLEEPER" and are only one person, me, who has acted entirely in good faith and in accordance with WP guidelines. Since my initial edit was reverted, I have only engaged here in the comments as is appropriate. Second, I am not "leading the charge", especially not on this topic here, which seems to be Bibly's issue. I have only interacted over the issue of the 94% statistic in the Company section, which, after reviewing the edit history, discussion here on the Talk, and a number of the article sources, is my main concern with the article as is. I have not supported any other editors in any other of their concerns. Please refrain from deliberately mischaracterizing the situation, as you have been doing here in Talk since before I even arrived. That is not constructive. Alweth (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, thanks for clarifying that you were the anon IP. I was just letting you know proactively that when a Talk page discussion involves a disclosed product advocate and a sleeper account making/arguing for non-NPOV changes to an article that appear to be whitewashing, people notice, and it can undermine the process of creating a true WP:CONSENSUS. This sort of conduct is routine with articles on MLM companies and it's a problem. As long as you're not edit warring or POV pushing I don't really care either way. However, a polite warning seemed necessary, as this sort of thing matters to admins when looking into content disputes. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand your concern. But I also reject your characterization of my position and contributions. Alweth (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Dawn Papple source

Dawn Papple, writing for the Inquisitr, wrote [23]:

"Young Living and dōTERRA distributors were reprimanded Monday after the Food and Drug Administration FDA issued warning statements via overnight delivery to CEO Gary Young and David Stirling. Young Living and dōTERRA both use independent distributors as a sales-force. The majority of complaints the FDA issued in the warning letters involved the way some independent distributors marketed the companies’ products. Primarily, the FDA was concerned with Young Living and dōTERRA consultants’ online marketing material for the brands’ essential oils."

Specifically, Prager is saying that the distributors were claiming that Young Living and doTerra products could cure diseases such as Ebola. In addition, they found that Young Living also made the claim that their products were drugs:

"However, Young Living’s CEO was reprimanded for more than just consultants’ claims. Young Living’s own website made claims that promoted products in such a way that the federal government would classify the products as drugs, according to the FDA."

Is there a problem with using this source? It is a good source, that looks into the issue in depth, is fully consistent with the other in depth discussion in the Washington Post, ("The letters ... document multiple claims from the companies or their paid representatives") and clarifies the distinction I've been making without needing to use anything from the FDA letter (which says "Your consultants promote many of your Young Living Essential Oil Products for conditions such as, but not limited to, viral infections"). - Bilby (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course there is a problem with what you're suggesting. It has been explained numerous times already. I previously listed numerous examples of coverage from "respectable sources across the media spectrum (WaPo, New Yorker, Reuters, CNN, Popular Science, Pharmacy Times, Daily Herald, etc.).[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]" and they do not support the text you are insisting on jamming into the article. You managed to find/cherry-pick one additional source (inarguably the least compelling source among the entire list) that might support the POV you're pushing, but that POV is not reflected in the bulk of sources that covered the event. So obviously that's not appropriate with respect to WP:PROPORTION or NPOV. The source you dug up (Inquisitr) might not even meet WP:RS, but in either case, it is the lowest quality source among the list (one with virtually no reputation for reliability/editorial quality; certainly not matching that of the other sources).

Your approach to this is backwards. You're starting with a conclusion that you wish to make (one that erroneously attempts to diffuse responsibility from the company) and searching for that needle in a haystack to support your preferred conclusion, whereas the approach should be to base our coverage on a broad survey of the media sources that reported on the event. I'll repeat once again, the qualifier you are trying to add in is unnecessary (and misleading) because the current text in the article ("In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living against marketing its products as treatments or cures for Ebola virus,[5][6] and other conditions") is 100% accurate, supported by the bulk of sources, and entirely non-controversial. You are not solving a problem but rather creating one de novo. Furthermore, ignoring the explanations here on the Talk page, bypassing WP:CONSENSUS, and inserting your favored text into the article anyway[33] is WP:TE and completely unacceptable. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to distinguish between two options here: a) replacing the current summary of the FDA warning with the one Bilby is suggesting, or b) simply adding the details that Bibly has presented to the Prohibited marketing claims section. Rhode Island Red, I understand and agree with your objections to the first idea, but I don't think your arguments apply to the second idea (b). The Inquistr quote doesn't contradict the other secondary sources, but only adds more details, and so the fact that the other sources all agree doesn't invalidate the inclusion of the details from the Inquistr source. Furthermore, there's no question that the Inquistr source accurately represents the primary source, which we can confirm, because it is publicly available. You complain that the inclusion of those details "diffuse responsibility from the company," but those details are merely facts of the case as presented in secondary sources, so, on the contrary, the refusal to include them simply because they don't fit the narrative you're trying to push (total responsibility on Young Living itself) constitutes a breach of WP:NPOV. Bibly is not suggesting WP:SYNTH here. So, while I agree that it would be inappropriate to replace the current summary, I think it would also be inappropriate to leave out the details from Inquistr. So my suggestion is that we leave the summary of the FDA warning in the lead as is, and then allow Bibly to add the information from the Inquistr source to the Prohibited marketing claims section. Can we get some consensus on this? Alweth (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The FDA letter reads [34]:

"Your consultants promote many of your Young Living Essential Oil Products for conditions such as, but not limited to, viral infections (including ebola), Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis, that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners. "

We use that quote, but choose to drop the part which says "your consultants" in the article.

The FDA made a very similar complaint regarding doTerra, which is significant in both cases because it is placing the burden on each MLM to police the advertising made by their distributors. This has been an issue for doTerra in particular, as they have had to invest in doing so but have had issues with making this work (see [35][36]).

So let's look at your sources.

• "According to the agency, Young Living essential oils products were being sold on various websites with claims including, 'Viruses (including Ebola) ..." [37] (This is correct, the FDA noted various websites, made by consultants, with these claims).
• "Utah-based companies doTERRA and Young Living have received warnings from the Food and Drug Administration after representatives from both companies reportedly made false claims that their essential oils can cure more than just stress and fatigue." [38] (Yes, the representatives are the consultants/distributors).
• "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration sent letters to three companies this week, warning them against marketing their products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola. The letters, posted online on Wednesday, document multiple claims from the companies or their paid representatives that essential oils and other natural remedies can "help prevent your contracting the Ebola virus" and in at least one instance, "effectively kill the Ebola virus."" [39] (Yes, the FDA accused the paid representatives of Young Living - the consulants/distributors - of doing this).
• "With more than 600,000 distributors across the globe working for Young living, COO Travis Ogden says it's hard to police these ads." [40] (This is why it is a problem)
• "It’s much harder to police the millions of independent distributors. In September, 2014, the F.D.A. sent a sternly worded letter to doTerra, scolding the company for distributors’ claims about oils and conditions including cancer, brain injury, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, and A.D.H.D. ... (Young Living received a similar letter.)" [41] (Exactly what I've been saying)

Yes, there are four sources you listed which don't mention the consultants/representatives in regard to Ebola and other viruses [42][43][44], but five do, as does the FDA letter and the Inquisitr.

There are two issues noted by the FDA. The consultants making claims about Ebola and curing diseases, and Young Living making presenting the oils as drugs. The secondary sources aren;t always claer about thsi dsitinction, but enough are. Currently our article makes those two claims separately:

• ... the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living against marketing presenting its products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola virus, and other conditions, including "Parkinson’s disease, autism, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, insomnia, heart disease, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dementia, and multiple sclerosis."
• The warning further stated that the marketing and distribution of these essential oil products as drugs by Young Living without FDA approval are violations of the Act.

If in the first one we included the full quote, instead of dropping the part that said "consultants", we would be accurate. - Bilby (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You can't win this argument by WP:EXHAUST. To reiterate, WP:PROPORTION and WP:CONSENSUS must be respected; you can't use WP:SYNTH to create your favored POV; Inquistr is the worst among 8 or so sources; and most importantly, the content in place already accurately represents the top-line statements from the sources and requires no further modification. Inserting qualifiers to diffuse responsibility from the company would be erroneous and a violation of WP:NPOV. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

You missed my point. The bulk of the sources you listed supported my wording. - Bilby (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not miss your point; I disputed your point. You also haven't proposed any specific text, so the point is moot. This entire thread is one long exhausting repetitive argument attempting to justify modifying the existing text--which is accurate, consistent with all sources, and in need of no modification whatsoever--in such a way as to incorrectly diffuse responsibility from the company to its distributors using WP:SYNTH, ignoring WP:PROPORTION and cherry-picking from the lowest quality source (Inquisitr) among the 9 secondary sources that covered the event. That approach has been disputed on solid grounds. Time to move on. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I get the impression that the problem is your refusal to consider what I'm saying, (for example, to read what I wrote above where I point out how the sources you list do support my change), and instead to keep throwing acronyms rather than look at the issue. Clearly we'll need a different means of resolving this. - Bilby (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Your proposal has been given more than ample consideration and rejected on solid grounds as detailed above in great detail. The issue now is WP:LISTEN. The sources you listed do not support the change. You have neither swayed any opinions nor generated consensus for your proposal. Belaboring the point is WP:TE. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. There is a problem here with listening. - Bilby (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I am persuaded by Bilby's arguments on this specific point and support the change he suggests. Rhode Island Red, you brought up relevant points initially, but even though Bilby has adjusted his proposals to take those criticisms into consideration, you haven't updated your reasons for opposing and your arguments no-longer seem relevant. Alweth (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

It's past your bedtime WP:SLEEPER. Don't think that it doesn't matter or has escaped attention that there are 2 SPAs chiming in on this non-issue. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Your rhetorical ploy of flooding the Talk with unfounded and inaccurate accusations and distortions, along with your clear attempts to intimidate, has also been noted. You can keep saying the same thing as much as you want, but it doesn't make it true or relevant. Alweth (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me? You are a WP:SLEEPER -- that is not "unfounded", "inaccurate" or a "distortion" -- it is a simple statement fact; and it most certainly is relevant. For all intents and purposes, you also qualify as an SPA, as does one of the others editors who started this inexplicable crusade for changes based on unfounded assertions that the existing content was somehow misleading. This would raise suspicion of WP:COI to any reasonable editor. A sock puppet investigation and user conduct RfC are probably long overdue. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Certainly I am a SLEEPER. But I am clearly not an SPA. My edits since logging in again have not been single subject. And in any case, the SPA guidelines clearly state "Users with a diversified edit history that become inactive for an extended period and later re-establish themselves with single subject edits" do not qualify as SPAs. So, as I said, your accusations are unfounded and inaccurate. I would welcome a sock puppet investigation, and especially an RfC. Your refusal to work toward WP:CONSENSUS is becoming extremely tiresome. Alweth (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Your accusation about my “refusal to work toward WP:CONSENSUS” is blatant nonsense, considering the reams of text that have been written in response to the editorial issues at hand, and given that you fully agreed with my recent proposal.[45] Please try to keep up. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

With only 53 edits you went to sleep for FIVE YEARS and then reawoke to sway an editorial debate on the Young Living TPG, and since reawakening more than half your total edits have been on the Young Living TPG – seems close enough to qualify as an SPA and strains any assumption of good faith. Just calling it as I see it (and as most seasoned editors and admins would likely see it too). Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Back on topic, at this point I would suggest that Bibly propose a wording for this section that a) clarifies the role of consultants, as represented in the secondary sources, b) without obscuring that the FDA held Young Living responsible for the consultant's behavior, and c) without obscuring the fact that Young Living also made claims on its own website in violation of FDA regulations, as noted in the Inquistr piece. If such a wording can be presented, I think that's as close to WP:CONSENSUS as we're going to get at this point. Alweth (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

As stated multiple times, any proposal that in any way attempts to shift responsibility from the company to its distributors will not fly. In actuality, the closest we have come to consensus is when you agreed[46] with the tentative proposal I made yesterday to briefly note the fact that the company had acknowledged that it complied with the FDAs orders. Consensus will be all the more elusive if you can't hold a consistent position for more than a day. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not about shifting responsibility but about accurately depicting the issue. Would you find the Wall Street Journal acceptable?

Last week, the FDA sent letters to two essential-oils makers and a seller of a product called Nano Silver, telling them to rein in claims that the products can cure, treat or prevent disease because they aren't drug manufacturers and aren't FDA-approved. In addition to treating Ebola, the essential oil companies' distributors claimed the product can treat other ailments including arthritis, autism symptoms, cancer and canker sores. ... Young Living and DoTerra products primarily are sold through independent distributors, via multilevel marketing. Many distributors run their own websites and social media accounts to boost sales, and that is where the claims are being made.

Andrews, Natalie (October 2, 2014), "FDA Cracks Down on Sellers Touting Ebola Treatments; Agency's Move Is Part of an Effort to Stop False Claims Spreading Quickly on the Internet" Wall Street Journal (online).

Then there is the Boston Globe:

Two Utah businesses, do TERRA International and Young Living Essential Oils, also received FDA warning letters for allowing paid consultants to post Facebook and Twitter messages that insist certain oils stave off the disease.

Meyers, Jessica (October 25, 2014) "Amid fears, marketers see opportunity", Boston Globe. - Bilby (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Response

I've added back the response. All of the sources which quote Young Living's response to the FDA letter write a close variation of:

"In the coming days we will be contacting all our membership to ensure that they understand how to best use our products and remain compliant with regulatory directives. We have already contacted each of the Members cited in the FDA letter to help get them into compliance." [47]

It seems unreasonable to write about what the company was accused of, and not to then include how they responded. - Bilby (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not a mere accusation. The FDA is judge, jury, and executioner in these matters. The response adds no value and it's misleading for the reasons already discussed, as it attempts to diffuse responsibility from the company to its distributors, which is a distinction without a difference in law. Furthermore, the improvised wording that you added[48] was not directly supported by either of the sources that were cited. You have active participants in a discussion here already so it's not cool to subvert the TPG and jam in your preferred version despite the objections raised. If you can't get consensus, don't proceed. It also bears repeating yet again that the central premise of your argument was specious/flawed; i.e., that the current version contained "incorrect claims", which was a patently false assertion. The original text was unobjectionable and in need of no alteration or qualification. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

If a consensus emerges that there is any need to refer to the company's response, and I don't feel that there is, it should be neutrally worded in such a way as to not diffuse responsibility from the company for their fraudulent marketing practices, such as: "A Young Living spokesperson subsequently announced that the company was taking action to correct its marketing practices." Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I would support adding the following line: "A Young Living spokesperson subsequently announced that the company was taking action to correct its marketing practices, in accordance with the FDA warning." The additional line clarifies that they claim to have taken specific actions about the specific issues they were warned about, as their release clearly stated, rather than just generic improvements. Alweth (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

But that is not what they said. What they said is in almost every article covering this, and was that they were working with the consultants named to fix this. Specifically:

"In the coming days we will be contacting all our membership to ensure that they understand how to best use our products and remain compliant with regulatory directives. We have already contacted each of the Members cited in the FDA letter to help get them into compliance." [49][50]

"Young Living said that the company was 'cooperating fully with the FDA regarding its inquiry.' Young Living 'members,' the statement continued, 'are provided specific instructions on how to promote our products to their customers. In the coming days we will be contacting all our membership to ensure that they understand how to best use our products and remain compliant with regulatory directives.' 'We have already contacted each of the Members cited in the FDA letter to help get them into compliance.' [51]

"'Our legal team has already reached out to them and are talking to them to make sure that they know how to properly share the products,' Ogden said. 'We are going to make sure that all of their actions are in compliance.' Consultants that refuse to abide by the policies will be dropped as an independent distributor, Ogden added. 'We're already coordinating with them to make sure that within those 15 days we're going to meet every request that they have in their letter,' he said." [52]

It would be unreasonable not to include their response, as would be the case in any similar situation. Their response was that they were were working with their members to correct what was happening. Saying that they were correcting their own marketing would be misrepresenting their statement. - Bilby (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Again drawing a distinction without a difference. The FDA clearly considers all marketing of the products as part of the "company's marketing". We are under no obligation to include the company's boilerplate response, and it's also misleading considering the context, which we have discussed in depth already; so no, it's not at all unreasonable not to include it. I'll say it again -- your assertion that the original content (as it stands now) contained "incorrect claims" was wildly false. This entire thread is based on that false premise and it has been an unnecessary waste of editorial resources, as well as WP:TE (not to mention that is looks suspiciously like there is COI at play). Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

When a company is accused of acting illegally, and they provide a response, NPOV suggests that we should include that response. This is why the various media outlets contacted Young Living asking for one, and why they then published Young Living's response when it arrived, or stated that one had not arrived at the time of publication. There is nothing unusual in this, and it is normal practice. That you don't like the response is not a significant concern - it was covered by multiple secondary sources and we would typically include it in an article. - Bilby (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. They weren’t merely “accused”; they were conclusively deemed to have committed illegal marketing by the FDA, and as I said before, the FDA is judge, jury, and executioner. The company didn’t appeal or deny the illegal marketing. It was essentially a nolo contendere situation. The FDA ordered them to take corrective action, which left the company no real choice in the matter other than to comply. They were guilty – full stop – and did what they were required to do by law to avoid the possibility of being shut down by the FDA. As I noted above, in theory it might be OK (but entirely unnecessary) to add a line saying that the company subsequently announced it was taking the remedial steps they were ordered to take, but it is not OK to add some hokey boilerplate quote (or paraphrasing) from the company in which they try to shift responsibility elsewhere. Doing what they were ordered to do is a non-event barely worthy of any attention. Rhode Island Red (talk)

Rubbish. The FDA listed the problems, and Young Living made a statement that they would address those problems. From the perspective of an encyclopedia, we should be clear that they announced that they would address the problems the FDA listed, otherwise it is unclear to the reader whether or not they took action. They made a clear statement of the steps that they would take, so quoting that statement is fair and reasonable. That you don't like what they said isn't our problem. - Bilby (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

You are essentially agreeing with what I already proposed[53] and which Alweth agreed to verbatim,[54] which was that it might not be unreasonable to include a statement that the company subsequently agreed to take remedial action; not that they had a choice -- it was a fait accompli. Although I don't think it's a particularly material fact that strongly merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. However, quoting the exact statement from the company spokesperson is entirely unnecessary and it treads into the gray area of being misleading (implying that the blame falls on the distributors, when in fact, the legal responsibility is entirely the company's). Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The FDA listed the problems, when reliable independent sources document Young Living's credible response then so will we. Press releases saying "we're totes legit now" don't cut it, for obvious reasons. Bernie Madoff was issuing not dissimilar statements up to his arrest, so was Dennis Kozlowski. Guy (Help!) 11:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I view this in the context of a couple of things.

First: case law establishes that companies are liable for claims made on their behalf by independent distributors and resellers. The idea that we should not attribute this responsibility in Wikipedia's voice seems o me to be a bit legalistic given the sources that do exactly that, but I just changed it to [...]warned Young Living over the illegal marketing of its products[...] which I think removes any implicit accusation and is completely in line with the sources.

Second: Gary Young was a diploma-mil;l naturopath with a history of health fraud. This is not a company founded by a saintly person, he was a grifter and with that background it would be perverse to soften this any more, since the message of woo is clearly pretty much baked in with this firm. You can see that stupid claims made by people selling George Foreman grills might not reflect on Foreman at all, but Young was a quack running a pyramid scheme selling quack products so it is not even remotely surprising that (a) his distributors made fraudulent claims and (b) the FDA was not just watching, but watching the company specifically.

Third: We should not take any claim for this company at face value, and anything it says must be reported only via what reliable independent secondary sources say about it.

• The company was founded by a huckster who had a guilty plea to practising medicine without a license and had to shut down his clinics when the Feds came knocking. His memory is still revered by the company and they have done little or nothing to distance themselves from the only recently departed CEO.
• The company sells woo. Virtually all woo products are marketed in a borderline fraudulent way, and survive only because of special protections carved out by Big Woo in the shape of the DSHEA, sponsored by Utah-based vitamin pill salesman Orrin Hatch.
• The company's business model is MLM, which is legal only because lobbyists work to keep it that way. The majority of claims made to distributors by MLM companies are exaggerated to the point of being essentially fraudulent, there is a substantial literature discussing the harms to distributors and those to whom they try to sell both product and participation.

Companies in this space operate in the grey areas. Very often the majority of product is sold to people within the pyramid, and most people in the pyramid for most of these firms make little or no money, and can make substantial losses - with the company often being coercive in pushing what should be discretionary spending by distributors. It is not a trustworthy market segment, so any claim or statement made by a company in this sapce cannot be taken at face value, and we should rely instead on the commentary of reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Guy, thanks for trying to work toward a compromise. I agree that claims made by the company about itself should not be our sources for this article, and especially for any of the controversies. As I read Bilby's proposals, he is not suggesting that. I think it's our responsibility to present Young Living as accurately presented in the secondary sources. Letting our beliefs about multi-level marketing companies in general dictate how we present the secondary sources on Young Living specifically seems to me to be a step into the territory of original research. The article clearly and prominently describes Young Living as a multi-level marketing company and goes beyond that to describe their business model in some detail. If a reader wants to know more about multi-level marketing companies in general, they can follow the link. Also, the article is currently entirely only neutral or negative, and nothing Bilby suggests changes that fact. So concerns about MLMs in general really don't seem relevant to this content proposal. Alweth (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The minor change you made is OK with me Guy. Alweth, you should consider talking less and listening more. The constant quibbling and soap-boxing is exhausting. Try to keep the comments focused on specific/detailed editorial content proposals. There wasn't a single actionable suggestion in your last reply. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alweth: The facts about MLM legitimately inform our assessment of self-sourced material, and the degree of skepticism we might apply to a critical source. Doubly so when the company was run by a charlatan. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

As normal, what you or I personally feel about this company is irrelevant. What is important is that we create an NPOV article that follows the sources and is as accurate as we can make it. The best fix is not to use ambiguous working, but to use wording which is accurate. - Bilby (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

As normal, I have no particular feelings about the company, the facts are as stated. Read the article on Donald Gary Young. Read the article on multi-level marketing. Read the sources on this firm - the vast majority of its "distributors" make less than a dollar, that is low even for MLMs. It is legitimate to be skeptical of any claim made by a MLM firm founded by a charlatan, and that raises the bar for self-published content. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The majority of people working as distributors for MLM companies loose money on the deal. This is nothing new. Let's just keep the focus on making the accurate and NPOV. I completely agree that Young Living are required to police their distributors, and that failing to do so - especially allowing their distributors to make false claims that their products can cure disease - is a major problem. Do you also agree that this is the violation that the FDA raised in regard to claims of curing diseases?- Bilby (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The context here is that MLMs work by promoting the millionaires and downplaying the fact that most participants lose on the deal. That, taken alongside the deceptive marketing noted in the article and the fact that the founder was a fraud, means we can't trust a single word the company says about itself, so we can't use it's own statements per WP:ABOUTSELF because they are presumptively untrustworthy. It also means that critical sources based on investigative journalism are very likely to be accurate, rather than just hit pieces by disgruntled insiders (because most insiders are not disgruntled even though they usually lose money). Just like SCAM practitioners: the industry is founded on a level of systematic dishonesty and self-delusion that demands great skepticism of any in-universe source. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not missing your point, I just don't find it relevant. We're not trying to say that they fixed it based on their word, only that they claimed they were going to work with their contractors to fix the problems. They may have been lying, or they may have done it (and the lack of further action by the FDA suggests the latter), but either way, they are a good source for what they claimed they were going to do. Or is the issue that the various secondary sources misreported what they said? - Bilby (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks for your work on this talk page (which is rapidly becoming 5x the length of the article.) Sorry I was out of this conversation for a couple of weeks. I'd like to request a couple of proposals (and I'll offer one of my own). And, in response, I'd like to hear from some other dissenters. It sounds like Alweth, Bilby, myself, and one other agree that the article could be much less laughably biased with the POV of a few editors, and include more accurate and recent information. And RIR and a few others think it is basically good enough as is. The current article reads like a hit-piece and that's not Wikipedia's purpose. What small changes can both sides agree on that would either add information, correct information, or reduce POV violations? CircularReason (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

For starters, you might consider moving your post to the relevant thread (i.e., the one you started previously about your general gripes with the article) because its not relevant in this one. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead warnings

Currently the article says:

The Environmental Research Center, a Californian non-profit that acts to raise concerns about potential health hazards, lodged a complaint in 2015 alleging that some Young Living products contained lead at levels that would require a warning label under California's Proposition 65, which requires warnings when lead is present at a much lower level then elsewhere in the US.

When I read that the first time, the main question I had was whether or not the ERC was correct. Did they fail to include warnings, or wasn't this an issue? I looked for sources on what happened and couldn't find anything except one - Young Living implicitly acknowledging that they had failed to include warnings on their products by stating that they now included those warnings. Is there a good reason why we can't include this? - Bilby (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes. The 60-day notice was filed by the CA State AG Office[55] and the notification was covered by a secondary source. Neither the State AG nor the secondary source mention anything about how the company responded. The source you were attempting to add is an un-refereed WP:SPS -- a mere press release from the company. It doesn't merit equal weight and should not be synthesized as an addendum. If it were notable, a secondary source would have covered it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You seem to have an odd idea about the use of primary sources and notability that is not covered by any policy. Right now, the reader has no idea if the ERC were correct or not with their complaint. When we add Young Living's response, we make it clear that they were, at least to the extent that Young Living now includes warnings on their labels. Is there a reason why we shouldn't add a text that shows how the ERC were correct and that Young Living have changed their labeling? - Bilby (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the reason was given. All you have to do is pay attention. Get off the company soapbox and wake me up if you find something better than a self-published press release. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I was asking for a good reason, not one that you made up. All we need to add is "According to Young Living, many of their products now carry a warning to meet Proposition 65", which is reliably sourced, not synth, in policy, and makes it clear to the reader that they added the warning to address the problem raised by the ERC. - Bilby (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You can ask a question once. When an answer is provided, don't ask the same question again. It's exhausting and a waste of time and resources. I have explained it; JzG explained it ("self-sourced marketing claim").[56] You're just refusing to get the point, which is WP:TE. Please WP:LISTEN and take a timeout. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm waiting on a viable answer. Something that actually holds under policy. - Bilby (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

c.f.: ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors and WP:REHASH. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I guess I'll be waiting for a while, then. - Bilby (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

It's like talking to a block of cement. You falsely claimed that the source "makes it clear to the reader that they added the warning to address the problem raised by the ERC." That's clearly untrue, given that the source doesn't even mention the ERC. You can't insert self-serving WP:PROMO fluff from a WP:SPS to create a WP:SYNTH and suggest that it was direct response to the ERC. It's hard to believe that you're pushing your luck so far. The SPS/promo aspect has been explained to you, multiple times, by two different editors now. You have been edit warring and engaging in WP:TE and are shooting yourself in the foot at this point. Stop! Take a rest. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Odd, I never felt that it was promo to say that your products contain lead. Ignoring that, I worded that carefully - I am not saying that they added the warning to address the ERC, but to address the problem that the ERC also raised: that their products failed to meet Proposition 65 by not containing a warning. Now they contain the warning specifically to meet proposition 65. I'll wait in case other opinions appear, but at the moment we're in a situation where we are saying that a complaint was made about Young Living, but we're refusing to say whether or not the issues raised in that complaint were ever addressed, even though we could easily do so. - Bilby (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Last time I'm going to address this idiotic line of WP:TE. It is WP:OR and an inference on your part that it was "to address the problem that the ERC also raised". The source doesn't mention the ERC -- FULL STOP. It's a self-serving self-published and WP:PROMO source -- FULL STOP. You've now gone past WP:TE into the Twilight Zone. Stop! Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

As I said, I'll wait for other opinions. But as to "address the problem that the ERC also raised", the ERC complaint was that they failed to meet Propostion 65 by not having lead warnings on some of their products, and they since created a whole section on their website explaining that in order to meet Proposition 65 they now include lead warnings on some of their products. This isn't a stretch to claim that both relate to the same issue - Proposition 65 - even if we can't assume that they created that page because of the ERC complaint. - Bilby (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

First up, Prop 65 is bullshit. It casts products weakly linked with slight increases in cancer risk (which could be comorbidity or even complete coincidence) as products "known to cause cancer". So I am disinclined to give it much weight regardless. Secondly, this company is controversial, it was founded and for most of its life run by a fraudster, and it's just been slapped down by the FDA, so I don't trust a single word they say, even when it's a press release saying "we now comply with the law" (newsflash: you're supposed to comply with the law, X broke the law is newsworthy, X is no longer breaking the law, not so much).

If their response is significant we can cite it to a secondary source, if a secondary source has not mentioned it then it's not significant and neither do we. Which is absolutely standard Wikipedia practice. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

We don't need a secondary source for every claim. The issue is that this creates a problem we don't need to create - we say that they were alleged by the ERC to have failed in regard to providing warning to meet Prop 65, and we don't then say whether or not they ever addressed this or even if they needed to. It is so easy to say that they have stated that they now include warnings to fix it, and it solves the problem. When I first read this I read the line about the ERC taking them to court, and my first thought was whether or not the ERC won, and whether or not Young Living had to include warnings. I doubt that I'm the only person to wonder that.

If the prop 65 issue is that minor, I don't see a problem removing it if it addresses your problem. We just pull the section about the ERC, which doesn't seem to have got any real coverage anyway. Would that fix things? - Bilby (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

No. The text part about ERC is attributable to a secondary source. The material you are seeking to add is not, and it's based on a WP:SPS that's WP:PROMO, and it doesn't mention ERC or indicate in any way that they took any action in response to the ERC. It's not even dated. As such, what you have proposed would be WP:SYNTH. Since the source is WP:SPS and it's not a direct response to ERC, it wouldn't be appropriate to append it to the details about ERC in such a way as to imply that it was a response to ERC. Like Guy said, "If their response is significant we can cite it to a secondary source, if a secondary source has not mentioned it then it's not significant and neither do we". Well put. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

It is not synth as proposed, and it is certainly not promotional to say that their products have warnings about containing lead. I'm sure that there has been an issue here with promotional editing, but not every non-negative change is promotional. As mentioned, there is no requirement that we only add material from secondary sources - we can use primary sources where appropriate. - 15:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Is the ERC complaint really noteworthy? According to the Attorney General's website "Environmental Research Center, Inc." has filed 608 of these complaints since 2012. A News search of "Environmental Research Center" and "Young Living" only brings up our one source: the Inquistr article. And as Guy has noted, a Prop 65 violation does not deserve much weight, a fact upheld by the Inquistr article itself. Alweth (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

ERC looks distinctly quacky to me - much like the Environmental Working Group. Usual; rules apply, though: significance is established by coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to scale back the warning in the lede of both this and doTerra. I can honestly say that I would never in good faith let anyone I know get caught up in any of these MLM schemes, but listing out each and every disease in an FDA warning letter seems a little extreme. People should be warned about MLM, but it's not what Wikipedia is about. We need to maintain a WP:NPOV and I think it goes a little past the line with both of these page. Just my opinion, but think we need to pull back the names of all the diseases in the lede. If it is that much of an issue, then keep it in the body. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Raindrop Technique

We've recently had added:

The company offers the Raindrop Technique, a controversial procedure that involves, among other things, the application of undiluted essential oils to a person's skin in order to cure conditions such as spinal curvature. Both the Aromatherapy Registration Council and the Alliance of International Aromatherapists made statements advising against the use of this technique, asserting that, in addition to making false health claims, the technique was "unsafe" and "poses risks to public health."[31]. Young Living continues to promote the Raindrop Technique, but do not include the original health claims in its online marketing

It is sourced to Young Living for the claim that they market it [57] and Skeptical Inquirer for the rest [58]. I don't find Skeptical Inquirer to be particularly reliable, but it seems passingly ok for general comments like this. However, although Donald Young may have marketed as a cure, there's no evidence that Young Living did so, and neither the Aromatherapy Registration Council or the Alliance of International Aromatherapists seem to be reliable. Without evidence that Young Living marketed this as a cure for spinal curvature, or that the company recommends undiluted oil (or, indeed, without a better source that this is unsafe), there doesn't seem to be a lot we can say specifically about Young Living with this. - Bilby (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you have examples of SI being unreliable?DolyaIskrina (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

This seems like an appropriate addition. And Skeptical Inquirer is certainly a WP:RS. Why are you claiming it is not? RobP (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Fyi, a comment on the same issue here. In my view, SI is not a good source, as it is a non-reviewed soapbox site, WP:SOAP, and solicits subscriptions. A true secondary source requires a more general, impartial, publicly-accessible assessment per WP:SECONDARY. --Zefr (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

As I stated on the Donald Gary Young talk page, this would not be neutral, even for the company page. If we talk about every technique or product they offer, this will turn into a company marketing brochure. If we include everything they provide only in a negative way, that would not be NPOV. And yes, there are sites that unfortunately tout these products. However, they have the same bias is support of them as SI has against. I would like to see a better source before considering the addition. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

SI solicits subscriptions, as do NYT, WaPo, and Wikipedia. Raindrop Technique is not just one thing in the Young Living brochure it is a popular treatment that consumers who might find their way to this and the DYG page should be informed about. Two essential oils organizations have warned about it. (If you assume the SI piece isn't libelous, which no one here has provided a reason to assume). Here is a mention of Raindrop in the New Yorker (which also solicits donations): "As part of her training, she took a class on a massage technique called “raindrop therapy...”https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/how-essential-oils-became-the-cure-for-our-age-of-anxiety?fbclid=IwAR2B63Ae-hMIQwz3ezbKhwJtG2HVKYr9R9-UxU4t-uKjKehk1q6a5g6517E. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

How is the New Yorker mention relevant? That is literally all it says about the technique. Nothing that says it is Young Living or anything about it that I can see. If you can point it out to me that would be great. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes that is all of it. I agree that it's not a slam dunk citation alone. However, it goes to the question of is this just one of their many offerings, and would we have to mention, for instance, specific claims for every thing they offer. It stands out as one of their main innovations. It's prominent enough to make into this article, even in this offhanded sort of way. As to the New Yorker piece not mentioning that Raindrop Technique connected to Young Living, we know from Young Living themselves that it is their proprietary technique. And this is a video of DGY doing it. Here DolyaIskrina (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

And that is exactly what I refer to on the Donald Gary Young talk page as WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. The synth comes from saying that it is not a slam dunk citation "alone." We cannot pool references together to refer something. The original research would be observing the video on YouTube and then deducing what we see to writing. Again, not to beat a dead horse, but both of these pages have been edited extensively by experienced editors who understand these rules and have worked hard to keep out both promotion and advocacy. I don't see any consensus at this time so until there is it is not something that should be added. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

New class action

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Snake-Oil.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.159.160 (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Definitely a notable development but the class action was just announced yesterday and there are no good secondary sources to back it up yet. My suggestion is to wait a couple of days because this will surely get coverage in the mainstream press, and when it does we can add the details and source citations to the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Truth in Advertising has now covered the class action and there is a PDF copy of the court filing available so this can now be properly sourced and added. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Truth in Advertising is a lobby group and exists to encourage and support lawsuits against companies. What we need is a reliable independent and neutral secondary source. Has any genuine media outlet reported on this? - Bilby (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A class action isn't a class action until a court certifies it as such. Simply filing a complaint, which one person has, doesn't make it a class action. That alone is undue. As far as the references, I echo what Bilby says above. I will also add that unless it gets traction (more than just a secondary source) and become noteworthy, we wouldn't include it. We don't list all litigation against companies. If we did, the Foundation would need to double the size of its server room. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

And I see this was re-added yesterday without there being discussion for it. I don't see consensus or an argument other than TIA being a secondary source. Yes it is, but not one that is considered unbiased or reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

TINA "is an independent, non-profit, advertising watchdog organization" according to WP. It is not described as a "lobby group" and there is no objective reason to think that it would be an unreliable source, especially in this context when we have a primary source (the court filing) that corroborates TINA's reporting. If you have any doubts about source reliability, you can present the two sources, and the context in which they are being cited here, on WP:RSN to allay your concerns. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm still not sure on the rules of what is or isn't EW, but I will say that the class action lawsuit seems significant to me. I get CNMa114's argument about not reporting every frivolous and nuisance lawsuit. However, because previous editors have agreed that this organization is Multi Level Marketing, a lawsuit asserting the same doesn't seem like some fringe accusation. At a certain point the fault lies with a bad actor if the editors can't make them look good. It's not our job to put lipstick on pigs and call that neutral. Having said that, I would feel better if there were at least one other WP:Secondary on this one.DolyaIskrina (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

TINA is a de factor reliable source on WP. It is widely cited[59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74] and perfectly adequate, along with the primary source, in this context. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

That it has been used elsewhere is not the point. You've insisted in the past that we only use high quality sources. A lobby group is not a high quality source. In addition, it is incorrect - this is not currently a class action lawsuit, because it has not been certified. It is a potential class action, but until certification it does not have that status. Until (and if) this is noted by reliable and mainstream media, this is simply undue. - Bilby (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, the source is clearly de facto WP:RS and it is backed up by the prmary source. so there is no possible concern about misreporting. Whatever personal concerns you may have about it are not sufficient cause for blanking the content and if you wish, you can take it up on the WP:RS noticeboard. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

At the moment, we have two editors who disagree with including this, one editor who supports it but would prefer a second source, and you insisting on including it. You do not have consensus to include this material. In regard to WP:RSN, the source has already been discussed there, and the general opinion was that it should be used with caution as a biased source. I'm not questioning that it is correct that a potential class action has been submitted, (although it is, I repeat, not an actual class action until it has been certified). But until a secondary mainstream source which is not a lobby group that automatically mentions every single MLM-related potential class action takes note of this, TINA's coverage does not show that this potential class action is significant. If it is significant, the mainstream press will pick up on it. That they have not done so suggests strongly that it is not.

And please respect consensus - your wish to add this to the article is noted, but you need consensus first. Repeatedly adding it back without consensus and accusing others of tendentious editing is not how this should be managed. Make a case as to why TINA's coverage shows that this is significant, why we should accept TINA's description without a neutral independent source, and gain consensus first. - Bilby (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Are none of these sources reliable?

• https://www.law360.com/articles/1149712/recruit-says-cultlike-essential-oil-co-is-a-pyramid-scheme
• https://www.thefashionlaw.com/home/the-rico-lawsuit-against-young-living-the-15-billion-essential-oil-co-should-stay-in-court-says-magistrate-judge
• https://www.courthousenews.com/%ef%bb%bfsnake-oil/
• https://www.classaction.org/news/class-action-claims-cult-like-young-living-essential-oils-nothing-more-than-a-pyramid-scheme

| MK17b | (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd be OK with one of those in combination with TINA[75] or could ask for another outside opinion at WP:RSN or WP:3O. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Excessive and largely irrelevant list of diseases

Marketing a product as a cure for or treatment of a disease causes it to be defined as a drug under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, whereas Young Living markets its products as dietary supplements and does not subject them to the regulations legally required for drugs. Thus it is illegal to market any of Young Living's essential oils as a cure or treatment for any disease. Young Living and their consultants could have been marketing their essential oils as cures or treatments for any disease and it still would have been illegal. So, I believe the long list of diseases re-added in this revert represent excessive and irrelevant detail, per WP:EXCESSDETAIL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Given that all diseases are prohibited, the list amounts to little more than a random list of diseases and conditions, which significantly interrupts the flow of the section. I believe Ebola deserves special mention because Ebola was especially prominent in the news at the time, and thus received extra attention in the media coverage of this event. Therefore I propose moving the list to a footnote (as a reasonable compromise), and replacing it with "other diseases and conditions" as in the reverted edit above. Alweth (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. This list is the most neutral way to explain the specific scope of this behavior. Grayfell (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Based on your input, I've submitted a new edit, which lists the number of additional diseases and conditions cited (10) and lists them in a footnote. I believe this is a much superior version of the section, as it significantly cuts down on the length of the section while maintaining all the information that will be of interest to the vast majority of readers. In the case where a reader wants to know which other diseases were cited, there's a clear footnote. Alweth (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

You made a proposal, I understood your proposal, and as I said, I disagree, and then you made the edit anyway? Nothing about this take my "input" into consideration. Adding awkward formatting for this information is still presenting it as trivial and downplaying significant context. This is still too close to editorializing for my tastes. Grayfell (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, as per the WP:BRD cycle, in response to your input, I included the number of additional diseases cited to succinctly convey the scope of the behavior, which you mentioned as justification for including the list. Only three of the eight secondary sources cited in this section (plus, maybe, WSJ, behind a subscription wall) include a list of other cited diseases, despite all the sources devoting more text to this controversy than this section does. The list doesn't provide any useful information because the prohibition applies to all diseases. Under what circumstances would you see the list being relevant to a reader?

How about the idea of moving the list to the end of the section, so at least it won't clog up the paragraph it is currently in? Alweth (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

That's not exactly how BRD works. You removed the content which has been stable. Since that was reverted back, it would be on you to discuss here to try and get consensus. I don't agree with the current wording, but that has been the stable version which is why it should stay until a consensus is reached. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

In any case, I'd be interested in getting your input on this topic.

So far, the one relevant point for inclusion that has been made is that it conveys the scope of the behavior. I believe this is much more satisfactorily conveyed by mentioning the number of other diseases cited (as in my last edit). The counter-argument could be made that this fails to inform the reader of which diseases the behavior applied to but I don't think this is really relevant information because: a) The list is simply a list of examples of diseases for which Young Living essential oils were claimed to treatments or cures and therefore is not intended or claimed to be comprehensive. (Indeed, given that Young Living has roughly 3 million "consultants", there's a high chance that for any given disease, a consultant has marketed an oil as a treatment for that disease.) And b) any such claims about any disease would be sufficient for the FDA warning. In other words, the specific diseases cited are only relevant to the FDA warning because it's necessary to cite specific violations when making such a warning. The more important and relevant fact for the vast majority of people is that it's illegal for any "dietary supplements" to be marketed as cures or treatments for any disease, under federal law. Clogging up the paragraph with a long but arbitrary list of diseases obscures this more important fact. In contrast, if the section is communicating clearly, the reader should understand this fact and the specific list becomes irrelevant, except perhaps to people who are researching this incident specifically. But, in those cases, going to the sources is appropriate, and having the list in a footnote is more than sufficient.

For the record, my second edit did not remove the content, but moved it to a footnote. Alweth (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Understood that you moved it to the end, but it was a substantial change to the stable version.

As far as the content of company pages, I think it is difficult with company pages to sometimes find a balance with NPOV. There are people who want to advocate against the company while others want to promote it as if it was founded by God himself. So, we need to report what is in reliable secondary sources but also need to be careful about NPOV and SYNTH (two things that seem to come up over and over). Young Living is even more difficult (as is DGY) as it gets more of this than many other articles (and some of it rightfully so). Now, specifically about the content, I dont think the FDA information belongs in the lede. The lede should be a summary of what the body says. That paragraph should be removed and something in the lede that simply says it has been previously warned by the FDA would be sufficient. However, I don't really have an opinion at the moment regarding which diseases should be listed in the body and if they belong in the body at all or just a summary. Of course I am just one opinion and I would advise NOT changing anything to the article based on my opinion alone. I agree with Grayfell in that we don't need the awkward formatting though. It either needs to be left in the body or removed altogether with a simple statement that they were warned for marketing products as cures for diseases. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The suggestion that the list of diseases highlighted by the FDA should be expunged is based on convoluted logic and misapplication of WP:EXCESSDETAIL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is neither “a random list of diseases and conditions” nor does it “significantly interrupt the flow of the section”. It’s a direct quote from the FDA and it is reiterated by a very solid source (Pharmacy Times).[76] The information is indeed crucial for illustrating the scope of the illegal marketing activity, and it is specifically highlighted by a reliable secondary source, which clearly establishes the significance and notability. In other words, the argument that it should be censored is entirely subjective and ultimately baseless from a policy/GL perspective. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking at this closer, I am wondering why the wording for Young Living is different than the wording in doTerra. I believe these were the same warning letters - and sent to an additional company as well - yet, the wording in Wikipedia is different. The wording for Young Living (and on DGY's page), state that the company and Young were warned for illegal marketing. The wording in doTerra says that the company (no mention of CEO) was warned "for allowing their distributors to market its products as possible treatments or cures". Why are they treated differently for each page?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Class Action lawsuit

In April 2019 Young Living had a class-action lawsuit, Case 1:19-cv-00412-LY . This is very important information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0w0 catt0s (talk • contribs) 02:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

List of lawsuits

I tend to think that for a 'controversial' org, lawsuits that are quickly dismissed aren't really worth mentioning. Those that lead to an out-of-court settlement, or substantial discovery, or especially a court ruling, are probably worth inclusion... though given the number of YL-initiated trademark cases, perhaps it's worth rolling those into a sentence? Here are some that I see; filing year is listed, cases are in Utah DC unless noted:

• 2009 Woodson v. G.Y. Research Institute of Natural Medicine, et al. (somehow connected, TLDR)
• 2009? Young Living Essential Oils, LC v. Marin, Utah appeals; this is cited in many other cases.
• 2012 Sullivan v. YL, Montana DC, dismissed
• 2013 YL v. doTerra, consolidated and this one was dismissed (where's the other case?)
• 2013 Thrive v. YL, trademark, consolidated (to where?)
• 2016 YL v. Nature's Truth, consolidated (to where?)
• 2016 YL v. Ovvio International, withdrawn
• 2016 YL v. Essential Tools, trademark, withdrawn
• 2016 YL v. Natural Essentials, trademark, withdrawn
• 2016 YL v. Abundant Health, withdrawn
• 2017 YL v. Sumner, withdrawn
• 2017 United States v. YL, pleaded guilty (this is the $500k to National Fish & Wildlife, $135k to Govt of Peru case)
• 2017 YL v. YL Research, trademark, withdrawn
• 2018 YL v. Painted Earth, trademark, withdrawn
• 2018 YL v. Woolzies Home Essentials, trademark, withdrawn
• 2019 O'Shaughnessy v. YL, WD Texas DC, RICO case, transferred (where?)
• 2019 Slade v. YL, ADA?, settled, in SDNY DC
• 2019 YL v. Kingston, trademark, withdrawn
• 2019 Penhall v. YL, unknown, moved?, active a few days ago

tedder (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Interesting list and good to have handy but citing court dockets on their own could pose an issues with WP:PRIMARY. The ideal instance is when the case is discussed by a WP:SECONDARY source and the docket can also be cited as backup. Ultimately would have to see what text is being proposed for inclusion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I've thought about if it's a primary/secondary source and absent some strong guideline I think that a transcript or filing is a primary source, but the judge's summary and ruling is more akin to a secondary source that is much closer to a peer-reviewed research paper than anything else. WP:RSLAW puts both of those categories as primary, which is sorta checked with this 'paradoxes of law' essay. In any case, what I like about law is there's consistent documentation to establish history, not necessarily for the controversial aspects. I have found it handy when writing about inconsistently-covered pre-FUTON topics like Private Fuel Storage or Great Western Sugar. tedder (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

True. I'm open to suggestions if you want to propose something. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't have anything article-worthy, yet. Collecting here to help with the timeline of lawsuits, mostly. tedder (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Cool. No rush. Cheers. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Controversial figure previously convicted for the unlicensed practice of medicine

This is a discussion I have wanted to have for a while. I realize there is a discussion on the DGY page about something at the moment so I thought now would be a good time since people are active on the topic. Why does the opening of this company page say "company was founded in 1993 by Donald Gary Young,[2] a controversial figure previously convicted for the unlicensed practice of medicine.[3][4]?" To me, that is irrelevant content and WP:COATRACKing. The article is about the company, not DGY. I realize it is relevant to include background on the founder in the company page, but putting something like that in the first paragraph, especially since none of the references say he is "controversial," is overstepping in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that an entry like that would typically include some context about the person and why they are notable. I wouldn't argue with the idea that he's notable for, aside from Young Living, is his unlicensed practice of medicine -- that and pseudoscience. Those aspects have probably received far wider journalistic coverage than his connection with Young Living. I could live with something along the lines of pseudoscience proponent but that's not as precise as what's there now. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I really don't think that anything about him belongs in the lede at all, but I am glad you see at least some of my point. I would say simply remove the word "controversial." He absolutely was a controversial figure but we don't need to say something that isn't in the sources. Readers can draw that conclusion by simply reading about him and the company. It isn't like any of the controversies are buried or not included. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The company makes health claims. FDA says they are fraudulent claims. The creator has a past of doing so. It's not unrelated. tedder (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course its not, but we state what is in the sources. I even stated some of his history belongs on the page. The challenge I have is for the opening sentence. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Tedder. He's not some distant founder, he died 2 years ago, and the company is built on his claims, both about his personal health history and his own pseudomedical claims. Thus his life and character are integral to the identity of the company. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Which is my point. That sentence is saying "Young Living is bad because its founder was bad." I agree, but we don't state our personal opinions. We state what it says in reliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Copyright violations / overly close paraphrasing

The current text in "Litigation" reads:

From 2013 and 2014, at least 11 reports of Young Living customers claiming serious adverse reactions to the company's products were received by the FDA. In one case, a woman claimed that her "esophagus exploded" after consuming Young Living's AlkaLime drink, ultimately requiring intensive care and surgery; the FDA concluded that the cause was a "possible product failure". The other incidents were determined to not be due to possible product failures, but rather a result of other issues, such as incorrect usage or an allergic reaction.

In 2014, Young Living settled a lawsuit with a woman who claimed that she suffered severe burns after using the company’s bergamot oil on her skin and spending two hours in the sun, leading to permanent injury of the skin on her throat and wrists.

This is sourced to Business Insider here. The problem is that it is far too close to the original text. I explained the issue [77], but it seems we're having an edit war about reinserting the text. The problem with close paraphrasing is that changing the occasional word does not fix the problem if the bulk of the text remains the same - it needs to be rewritten. Side by side, with the identical wording bolded, the two texts read:

Original	Article
Between 2013 and 2014, the FDA received at least 11 such reports of Young Living customers claiming serious adverse event reactions to the products. ... a case in which a woman claimed her esophagus exploded after using Young Living’s AlkaLime drink. She ultimately spent time in the ICU and needed surgery. When the FDA investigated that incident, in 2013, the agency concluded it was due to a possible product failure. When the FDA investigated the other incidents, it determined they were not due to possible product failures, but the result of other issues, such as incorrect usage or an allergic reaction.	From 2013 and 2014, at least 11 reports of Young Living customers claiming serious adverse reactions to the company's products were received by the FDA. In one case, a woman claimed that her "esophagus exploded" after consuming Young Living's AlkaLime drink, ultimately requiring intensive care and surgery; the FDA concluded that the cause was a "possible product failure." The other incidents were determined to not be due to possible product failures, but rather a result of other issues, such as incorrect usage or an allergic reaction.
In 2014, for instance, Young Living settled a lawsuit with a woman who claimed that she experienced severe burns after rubbing Bergamot, a citrusy essential oil, on her skin and spending two hours in the sun, sustaining a permanent injury to the skin of her throat and wrists.	In 2014, Young Living settled a lawsuit with a woman who claimed that she suffered severe burns after using the company’s bergamot oil on her skin and spending two hours in the sun, leading to permanent injury of the skin on her throat and wrists.

In this case, almost every word is taken from the original. I've tried to fix this by rewriting, explaing the problem, and simply tagging the text, but have been reverted. The only viable fix is a rewrite that does not copy the text of the original source. - Bilby (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Minor edits had already been made to paraphrase and eliminate similarity since you originally posted your concerns about WP:CLOP but apparently you didn't think those edits were sufficient. I don't agree that the text posed a concern, as it appeared to be fine according to WP:LIMITED, but nonetheless made additional edits (attribution and quotation marks)[78] that obviate any potential concerns about CLOP. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:LIMITED didn't apply. There were multiple methods of stating the facts here, and copying the original text was unnecessary. Changing it to quotations is not a elegant fix, but it is ok. - Bilby (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Strongly disagree that WP:LIMITED doesn't apply, but moot point; just stating for the record. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Bilby, it's a series of factual statements. It's rather hard to relate them faithfully to the source without a reasonably close paraphrase. As you know, on Wikipedia, any criticism of charlatans will be objected to as either not close enough to the source or too close to the source, with nothing in between. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It is fairly easy to rephrase it without major issues, and under the copyright policy we need to do so rather than copy-pasting text from the source. - Bilby (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Beating a dead horse. There are no longer any potential issues with "copyright violations / overly close paraphrasing". We don't "need to do" anything. It's done. Time to move on. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Distillery accident

In regard to the fatal accident which occured in the Young Living distillery, the statement "In 2000, the Utah Occupational Safety and Health Division (UOSHD) investigated an August 17, 2000, explosion of a distiller, designed by Young Living founder Donald Gary Young, that fatally wounded a worker at Young Living Farms in Mona, Utah" is not supported by the sources. The sources state that he designed the operation, but do not say that he designed the machinery which caused the accident. Specifically, they state "The entire operation was designed by Gary Young President and built on site". Designing an operation is not the same thing as designing all of the individual components. He may have designed the distiller, but this is not supported by the references. I propose sticking to the sources and writing "In 2000, the Utah Occupational Safety and Health Division (UOSHD) investigated an August 17, 2000, explosion of a distiller that fatally wounded a worker at Young Living Farms in Mona, Utah. ... The operation had been designed by founder Donald Gary Young." - Bilby (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Reasonable and done. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

reverted the addition of anything connectign this to the founder. Be happy to discuss but it is simply a WP:COATRACK and WP:TMI. It's another attempt to try to paint the company as bad since the founder was bad. Since it currently isn't in the page for DGY, trying to add it here as a workaround is also unacceptable. Especially since it was stated there would be a RfC and still haven't see it. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It's neither. Concerns about paraphrasing were addressed. You have no consensus to delete and its clearly not coat rack or TMI. Keep POV pushing and WP:TE and this will go straight to ANI. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It is being challenged based on what I stated above. You saying it doesn't apply is an assertion fallacy. You need a consensus. Also, not sure why you are WP:UNCIVIL with editors who disagree with you; however, stop with the empty threats of ANI just like the empty threats of RfC on DGY. Either do it or don't but stop trying to bully content on the page. It has become ad nauseam.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This tag team partisan BS has been going on here far too long and must stop. If not, we're going to Arb Com once and for all. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I see now you are templating regulars over a content dispute because you have failed so far to gain a consensus. Please take to ArbCom but stop with the treats. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)