Jump to content

Talk:Young Living

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rhode Island Red (talk | contribs) at 14:54, 24 August 2020 (→Copyright violations / overly close paraphrasing: Should have been OK under WP:LIMITED but nonetheless, attribution and quotes used to eliminate any potential concern about WP:CLOP). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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:

tedder (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
True. I'm open to suggestions if you want to propose something. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Cool. No rush. Cheers. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 [1], 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)[reply]

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)[2] that obviate any potential concerns about CLOP. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Young_Living&oldid=974706869"