Talk:D. Gary Young

Wives and children

Can we find a more thorough detailing of Young’s family? How many children did he have with each wife? Dates of marriages and divorces? Seeing in the article that he wed three times, but only two wives named. Have to ask also, did he at any point have ‘multiple wives’? Hyperbolick (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You could try looking. Speculating about polygamy is inappropriate. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Official bio lists two sons, but seems controlled by current family. What’s inappropriate about speculating about polygamy? Young apparently descended from Brigham Young’s family, who were polygamist. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Claims by David Stirling

I think we need to either ensure that the reader gets the full context regarding Stirling, or we don't include these claims. The claims are very serious - that Young operated on a patient without any qualifications, and that he in effect poisoned patients by injecting essential oils intravenously. The only source with have for this is Stirling's account of a video. We have no sources of other people who either independently made this claim or saw the video themselves. However, Stirling is far from a neutral observer - he was Young's main business rival, an ex-employee who left in far from good terms, and around the time of this claim was one of the subjects of a long-running and messy court action started by Young Living. This would always raise concerns about his account. I this would be enough not to include it in a BLP, but as this isn't about a living person we have some room to move. However, if we are going to include it, I think the reader needs the context of the relationship of Stirling to Young. - Bilby (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• I tend to agree that we need to be very careful about how we present one-off claims from readily impeachable sources. bd2412 T 21:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I had previously removed this for SYNTH and UNDUE but seems it was returned. This is a competitor of Young and someone who was fired so I am not sure how their opinion is relevant, especially for a BLP. We wouldn't include a statement from Young in the biography of Stirling. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted because the text in question was neither WP:SYNTH (it is a direct pickup from the source with no synth whatsoever) nor WP:UNDUE. Per WP:RS and WP:NPOV, it is not your role as en editor to make an arbitrary decision about "relevancy" when the relevancy has been clearly established by the secondary sources' coverage. Stirling was a former senior executive at Young's company and is thus well positioned and imminently qualified to comment on Young. Accordingly, removal has been reverted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Neither is it your role to reinstate it because of your disagreement. That is what the talk page is for. Consensus is one of the foundations of Wikipedia and I until there is one for this, it was originally reverted per BRD. Discussion is necessary and until one is reached, it has been reverted again. Please stop the edit warring and discussing. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Stirling was certainly well positioned, but he is also extremely far from a neutral observer, given that he was fired, started Young's main rival, and then faced long-running and messy litigation from Young Living. - Bilby (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

No evidence has been presented to back up the claim that the text in question is WP:SYNTH. As I pointed out, it is clearly not synth as it closely follows what the source wrote and is entirely devoid of anything remotely resembling synth. A mere assertion of WP:SYNTH in the absence of supportive evidence is not a sufficient reason to whitewash the content. Neither does the threadbare WP:UNDUE argument apply -- i.e., the "undue weight" argument being made is not that it is given too much weight but that merely mentioning at all is undue weight, and that's clearly not the case nor consistent with the details of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, or WP:RS. This is a case of throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping that something will stick, as though an editor decided that they didn't like the information and then subsequently struggled to provide a justification for whitewashing it, no matter how flimsy.

The material is presented in its proper context based on an impeccable source -- the New Yorker. Stirling is not the source per se, and the speculation being made here about Stirling is essentially that he lied. That speculation is not based on any reporting whatsoever, from the New Yorker or any other source, and is WP:OR. Reverting this edit over such tendentious arguments will not be tolerated. Once again, this disruptive conduct will have to go to DR if it continues. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Further to my comments above, I am not opposed in principle to the inclusion of material of this nature, so long as it is properly placed in a context reflecting the credibility of those making a claim. In this case, the New Yorker itself is careful to provide a substantial number of points of information to call into question the credibility of the claimant. The problem, then, becomes that there are so many pieces of information about the claimant that are relevant to this question of credibility that we would have little choice but to spend an outsized piece of real estate in this article explaining all the reasons why the claimant's word is questionable. Taking what might be called the encyclopedic long view, I can't say that this would make for the best narrative flow here. In any case, with a subject having supporters and detractors out in the world looking to paint either an overly positive picture or an overly negative picture I do think that it is important to obtain a consensus regarding the inclusion of controversial claims. It is generally the proper procedure here to exclude contentious claims while discussion is ongoing about their inclusion. bd2412 T 22:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2019

page created to discredit Gary Young 46.97.170.136 (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• That is your request? Need to specify edits needed. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Death by DGY's distiller

I don't know what happened to the discussion of this. Was it deleted? I do not believe a legitimate consensus was ever reached on the matter of the death of a worker as a result of DGY's faulty design. There are both WP:RS and the original OSHA documentation available. I propose this material be added to the page. What say you?

On August 17, 2000, one of Young's homemade distillers exploded, fatally wounding a worker at Young Living Farms in Mona, Utah. Utah Occupational Safety and Health Division (UOSHD) fined Young Living Farms $10,280 for seven safety violations. UOSHD said: “The entire operation was designed by Gary Young, President and built on site. The vessels were not built under any consideration to ASME [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] code for pressure vessels. No type of pressure relief device was installed on any of the vessels.”

DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion was archived here, and there is a clear absence of consensus for the inclusion of this material, as it is WP:UNDUE. As noted, we have numerous articles on company heads who have designed mechanical operations, and we refrain from including deaths of employees working on such operations. BD2412 T 23:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Can't say one way or the other. Link is dead and can't find an archived copy. Could be a moot point. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is the current link which is also now archived. And here is the OSHA report [1]. https://web.archive.org/web/20130402040152/http:/www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/young_citation.pdf DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not letting me paste in the active link. Try this one. DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

My opinion is unchanged from the previous discussion. This would be inconsistent with treatment of comparable instances relating to subjects of other articles. Wikipedia is not in the business of singling out specific subjects for imposition of imbalances through WP:UNDUE content. BD2412 T 02:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Seeing now that it is properly sourced, I see no reason why it shouldn't be included, either here or in the Young Living article, or both. I also see no reason why WP:UNDUE would apply. Might have to solicit some outside opinions through RfC though as there tends to be resistance over this sort of thing from editors who seem to be staunch defenders of Young and Young Living. In the meantime this could be added to the YL article to start. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

My reply would be the same on any article in Wikipedia, we don't seek to indict by innuendo and overstatement. There isn't an operation of substantial size on the planet that hasn't had an industrial accident or something comparable, and we don't include these tragic but routine incidents in the articles on the company CEOs, even if (like Henry Ford) the CEO designed the physical operation where the incident occurred. The source itself doesn't make any statement of liability on Young's part. Whether this belongs in the Young Living article is the discussion to be had. BD2412 T 14:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

A device he designed killed a man. That is a neutral statement based on WP:RS. As to notability, that device was one of the pillars of his reputation and business. It wasn't some random event that happened on the weekend. As to impugning guilt, we can stick to the facts as stated in those sources. However, I see we are probably going to rehash our previous discussion, and I don't want to waste our time. So, is there a way to open this question up to more editors? Thanks for humoring me a second time. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I see no basis in policy or GLs for anything in BD2412's reply. As long as reliable sources are used and quoted in proper context, there is no reason why details couldn't be included, and the proposed text hews in exact alignment with what the source reported. It is in no conceivable way WP:UNDUE. As I said, this will probably have to go to RfC to get more objective input. Rhode Island Red (talk)

Can you show me any other article that we have on a CEO as an individual where we report an employee death that is only tertiarily attributed to the CEO, and where no charges were filed against the CEO? Can we find an actual decent news source reporting this event and making this connection? BD2412 T 21:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

That isn't remotely how WP works. The standard for inclusion of content in an article is based on policy, not by what may or may not have been done in another article. You are posing a fool's errand. The onus isn't on me to find other cases where the media pointed that a CEO designed equipment in his business and it killed someone. The suggestion is absurd. But again, as I said before, I don't expect to see a reasonable discussion here form the same set of entrenched POV editors. RfC is the best venue. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I would mirror BD's concerns with NPOV and WEIGHT. There is no way including this would meet Wikipedia:BLPBALANCE as I don't see how it can be "presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone" without making WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or given that at least one user wants to stress that "A device he designed killed a man." I think RfC would be an appropriate venue since it is a BLP and we should have a more widespread consensus either way. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not the least bit surprised that you would mirror the "concern", as you do always march in lockstep. It is however completely off base. It's not even remotely challenging to present this "responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone". The proposed text closely matches what the source says:

"On August 17, 2000, as documented by the Utah Occupational Safety and Health Division (UOSHD), one of his homemade distillers ruptured at the lid, fatally wounding a worker at Young Living Farms in Mona, Utah, a 1,000-acre farm where plants were cultivated for essential oil extraction using a steam distillation process. Young Living Farms was fined a total of $10,280 for seven safety violations. UOSHD reported: “The entire operation was designed by Gary Young President and built on site. The vessels were not built under any consideration to ASME [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] code for pressure vessels. No type of pressure relief device was installed on any of the vessels.”

There is no WP:SYNTH and no WP:OR, nor an issue with WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV. You seem to be just throwing out random policy links without an inkling of what they mean. More of the usual obfuscation, and the reason why RfC is needed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

It is interesting that you would assert that other editors "march in lockstep" when you have shown up on here almost immediately after DolyaIskrina, and very quickly came to agree with their position, even though it is merely rehashing a discussion on the exact same topic, and with the exact same sources, as has previously failed to establish a consensus for inclusion. The issues with this have actually been better explained before. A worker was killed when a specific piece of equipment exploded. A government report on the business noted in one place that the death had occurred, and on a separate page of the report states rather ambiguously that Young designed the "operation", without specifying anywhere that Young designed any piece of equipment used in the operation. There are no actual news sources reporting this event in any sort of connection with the article subject. The event does not rise to the level of being noteworthy. This is aptly demonstrated by comparison with articles such as Al Smith, president of the Empire State company responsible for constructing the Empire State Building, which makes no mention of the dozens of workers who died on that project; John A. Roebling, who oversaw construction of the Brooklyn Bridge, which makes no mention of the 27 men known to have died on that project; and William Clay Ford Sr., owner and CEO of Detroit Lions, which makes no mention of player Chuck Hughes who died during that tenure. In every case, these deaths received far more substantial actual news coverage. BD2412 T 02:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The source cited is WP:RS. The proposed text hews closely to the source, and it is also backed by an indisputable primary source. After already throwing pounds of spaghetti at the wall hoping something would stick (i.e., indiscriminately citing multiple policies that had been violated when in fact they had not been), the arguments above have devolved into arbitrary opinion (i.e., claiming it's not "noteworthy", claiming there are no "actual news" sources, comparisons with empire State Bldg, etc.) with no basis in policy. I suggested RfC because it seems the only way to generate a consensus in good faith and bypassing POV pushing/obstruction. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Your quote of that article is actually incomplete. The article refers to the subject's list of personal achievements on his webpage, and then says: However, the page didn’t mention that on August 17, 2000..." The source is not specifically faulting Young for the death, but for failing to mention it on a list of personal achievements on his webpage. If this article were to faithfully follow the source, it would say that According to the Skeptical Inquirer, Young failed to mention on his list of personal achievements that a worker died, or the like. The relevant policy on this topic is WP:UNDUE. The relevant passage of that policy is:

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.

Now, what is the treatment of this event in the body of reliable, published material on the subject? It's basically a throwaway line in a single source that appears to be dedicated to posting a laundry list of negative content about the subject. Granted, there are plenty of bad things worth reporting about the subject, and this article already reflects that. However, including this specific incident is clearly disproportionate to its treatment in the body of sources. The Business Insider piece appears to make no mention of it. Neither does the New Yorker piece. Neither does Quackwatch. In short, even sources that are seeking to highlight negative aspects of the subject pass on mentioning this specific incident. For us to include it would be to elevate its significance beyond that accorded by its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. BD2412 T 16:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

No one has proposed giving the details undue weight; your argument (specious), is that mentioning it at all is WP:UNDUE. The aspersions about the intention of the author/tenor of the article ("laundry list of negative content") are equally off-base -- it's a WP:RS and your personal opinion about its perceived "negativity" is not germane (i.e., "I don't like it" is not an editorial principle that WP follows). Furthermore, one cannot conclude that a certain detail should be omitted simply because it is not mentioned by every source that has written about the topic (WP doesn't work that way and never has), or on the basis that is only mentioned by two sources -- which is quite sufficient for inclusion, and particularly so with a fringe subject like Young. It is reliably sourced (both primary and secondary) and verifiable (thus we have no cause to question the veracity), and highly relevant to the topic since it was Young that designed and built the homemade distillers, which he had boasted about in his CV. But again, I don't see a good faith discussion emerging here, so as I have said countless times already, RfC is the way to go. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not casting aspersions at all; Skeptical Inquirer is entitled to focus on criticizing pseudoscience, which is inherently means presenting people who press unscientific claims in a negative light. It serves a valuable function in doing so. However, your assertion that I seek to omit this detail "because it is not mentioned by every source that has written about the topic" is ridiculous, and disingenuous. I have stated quite clearly that this detail is not discussed in any other secondary source, and in fact is not even presented in the primary source this way. I would strongly recommend that you actually read the primary source to which you refer so that you can see this for yourself before going out on a limb to claim more than the source supports. BD2412 T 18:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

(1) You did cast aspersions by referring to it as a "source that appears to be dedicated to posting a laundry list of negative content about the subject" (but I assume now that you do not contest that the sources are WP:RS). Also, the source does not paint Young in a "negative light" per se. It is reality (and his own actions) that paints him in negative light, and the source merely reports the facts. (2) You specifically referred to sources such as BI, New Yorker, and Quackwatch not mentioning the incident as a reason to not include it in the article, which again, is an arbitrary benchmark not reflected by WP policy (i.e., multiple sources are not a requirement for inclusion and their are many single-source claims in this article which are uncontested). You argument is that giving it any weight is a violation of WP:UNDUE, which indicates that you didn't closely read the policy. Devoting scads of space to it might be undue, but a line or two would certainly not. Anyhow, for the nth time, the best place to resolve the issue is RfC. You can try to make the case about WP:UNDUE there. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

First, re: "I assume now that you do not contest that the sources", this is the logical fallacy of asserting that an uncontested point in a Gish gallop is thereby conceded. This source should not be the sole source used to support a claim that is this contestable. As for the negativity, I am not arguing that the source is wrong to focus on a negative light, but there is no question that its entire purpose is to report bad things about the subject, and omit anything good about the subject. There are, of course, charitable causes and the like that have been mentioned in previous versions of the article; although they were poorly sourced here, if SI was looking to write a thorough and balanced piece, nothing would prevent them from including that. Undoubtedly, they could have found numerous people who claimed, however delusionally, to have been helped by use of the subject's products, but only published accounts of people who claimed to have been harmed by them. The issue is not that a handful of other sources omit this incident, it is that there is not other mention of it in any secondary source, and the primary source cited does not draw the suggested connection between the subject and the incident. Even SI does not take the incident seriously. They make a joke of it not being listed in his personal achievements. WP:UNDUE does not state that it applies to "scads of discussion of isolated events"; it says that it applies to "discussion of isolated events", period. This is such an event that is so unimportant to the biographical importance to the subject that any discussion of it would be an unencyclopedic exercise in looking to hang innuendo on the subject. BD2412 T 23:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

It’s not our place to impute the "purpose" of authors of WP:RS, obviously, since we have no way of knowing one way or the other. I gather that this WP:UNDUE argument is the one you want to take to RfC, or do you have anything more to add -- a suggested edit to make the proposed text more amenable to you perhaps? If you do, please try to be concise and on-point with respect to policy and GLs. If not, we can wrap this up and move on to RfC and you can try to defend your argument there. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I lean towards Red's viewpoint on this. BD2412, please take create an RfC to get further community input if necessary. I don't see how this discussion is converging on anything. tedder (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I had assumed that RIR was proposing to start one. It is the burden of the editor proposing a contentious change to the status quo to obtain consensus for that change. I would think that where the change proposed is to accuse the article's subject of killing a man, the support for this would need to be particularly strong. BD2412 T 00:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

No one proposed adding text accusing him of "killing a man"; the proposed text, which conforms with the two WP:RS cited, was "one of Young's homemade distillers exploded, fatally wounding a worker at Young Living Farms". Misrepresentations like that undermine reasonable editorial discussion and won't fly in RfC. This is a slam dunk as far as I'm concerned, and you represent a dissenting minority. Before RfC, I'm waiting to see if you have anything else to add to your case so that you don't try to move the goalposts later. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Just commenting here, it wasn't "homemade" - according to the report it was constructed in the fabrication workshop on site, and that is standard for manufacturing plants, by people employed for the task. - Bilby (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Protocol would dictate that we show some degree of respect to the author's choice of terms (unless there is good reason not to), which included "homemade" (not unreasonable for equipment he designed and built) but didn't include "constructed in fabrication workshop onsite". Either way, its a minor issue. I'd be fine with saying "distiller that Young designed and built onsite" instead of "homemade". Trivial really. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rhode Island Red: That's the whole point of adding it, then, isn't it? To create an incorrect impression that the subject, through some bad act, is responsible for an employee's death (even though there is no record of any fact-finding body actually finding the subject liable for this)? Bilby's point here is important. The ambiguity of the language proposed could easily misinform readers rather than informing them. The OSHA report specifically states that the business had a fabrication shop, and employed engineers. Although it does indeed say at page 47 that the subject designed "the operation", and that the operation was "built on site", nowhere does any source state that the subject either designed or built the distiller used in the operation. So the question is, if we were to include the proposed content, how would we clarify that there is no assertion in any source that the subject actually designed or built the specific piece of equipment that malfunctioned, and that the subject was assigned no personal fault for the employee's death? How do we clarify this without it becoming an excessive portion of the article? BD2412 T 02:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm done with addressing your tendentious arguments; good luck throwing that spaghetti at the RfC wall in front of neutral editors. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Is the RfC going to be made soon? I see many mentions of you going to do it but have yet to see anything. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

References

YL Discussion

Main page: Talk:Young Living § Controversial figure previously convicted for the unlicensed practice of medicine

I also started a discussion on the Young Living page for a topic that has been bugging me. I figure since people are active here I would put it up now so we have more than just a couple people discussing. I am sure this may have to go to RfC as well given the divide between editors. Just wanted to put a note here so everyone was aware and could comment if they like. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@CNMall41: "go to AfC", I presume you mean RfC? BD2412 T 22:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I just corrected it. I spend too much time at AfC and my fingers seem to just type it. lol --CNMall41 (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I can relate. BD2412 T 23:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Excess detail about Stanley Burroughs

User:Rhode Island Red added the sentence:

In 1979, Young enrolled at the Burroughs Vita-Flex Institute, an unaccredited school dedicated to the teachings of Stanley Burroughs, who was convicted of second-degree murder (overturned on appeal) and practicing medicine without a license in 1981 after a cancer patient died from his treatment.

I removed the portion stating, "who was convicted of second-degree murder (overturned on appeal) and practicing medicine without a license in 1981 after a cancer patient died from his treatment", as a classic WP:COATRACK, as the sentence structure implies that Young's enrollment in the program, apparently from 1979 to 1980, either came after or was in some other way relates to Burroughs' conviction in 1981. My removal of this content was reverted on the grounds that it is covered in the cited source, but this has nothing to do with WP:COATRACK, since any source can include content that strays from the topic of the Wikipedia article. It is also a bit wordy to say that this other person was convicted of a crime, and the conviction was later overturned. If RIR wants to write an article on Stanley Burroughs (currently a redirect), and note there that Young was one of his students, that's fine, but this language should be fixed to avoid confusion and excessive discussion of another person. BD2412 T 15:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

It's clearly not a coat rack. It conforms exactly with the text of Business Insider's investigative piece on Young and the source's context should be respected. The dates are listed so there is no possibility of confusing the timeline as you suggest, and there is no reason to suggest that readers would be confused into thinking that Young was responsible. Also, his felony conviction for practicing medicine was not overturned, and it is obvious that the conviction was relevant to the authors (and to neutral WP editors) given Young's history of doing likewise. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Business Insider is not writing an encyclopedia. The fact that another person had a conviction overturned is surely not relevant to Young. BD2412 T 16:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear what point you are trying to make (remove the part about the murder conviction being overturned on appeal???) but it's moot. It's very clear (painfully obvious in fact) that the article draws the connection as stated in our article. It was mentioned no less that 4 separate times in the BI article (including in over-sized fonts and the upfront bullet point summary), so your argument to delete is tendentious to say the least. Rhode Island Red (talk)

It doesn't matter how many times BI mentions a point about someone else's biography. What was this article subject notable for? Certainly not for someone else have a murder conviction overturned. BD2412 T 17:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes, it does matter and it is highly notable that he studied under someone who, shortly after, was convicted of murder (reversed on appeal) and a felony charge of practicing medicine without a license (not overturned), the same charge that Young was later convicted for. The BI article emphasizes that association repeatedly and makes it crystal clear. Please stop trying to overrule sources with your own personal POV. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The burden is yours to obtain consensus for including contested content in the article. Perhaps you can find someone who will agree with you. Until then, there is no consensus here. BD2412 T 19:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not tracking all the subtleties of your debate. As the DGY page stands right now, with RhodeIsland's additions from the BI article, it seems good to me. That he trained with someone who practiced medicine without a license seems very relevant. That Burroughs was convicted of murder also seems relevant, especially if it was someone Burroughs was treating. (Do we know that?) At a certain point, I think one has to admit that NPOV does not mean damning things are omitted. Multiple regulatory agencies from multiple states have found DGY to be making false and unethical claims. There is a strong theme in his life of disregard for other people's safety to the point of people dying. If he trained with and associated with people who engaged in similar activities, that is germane. Certainly the authors of the BI piece thought it was. I mean how many bodies are we supposed to ignore? DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

In that case, why do we not just hunt down every instance of someone dying under shady circumstances and see if you can't put that in the article as well? At this point, I throw my hands up at the prospect that this article will ever conform to basic principles of encyclopedic content. BD2412 T 01:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

If the point is to make the article about "disregard for other people's safety to the point of people dying" (which by the way shouldn't be the point of any Wikipedia article), it makes zero sense to reference someone else's conviction that was overturned on appeal, because that means that the exonerated person was not responsible for someone dying. The California Supreme Court overturned the conviction and said: "This clearly is a case in which conviction of felony murder is contrary to our settled law, as well as inappropriate as a matter of sound judicial policy. The instruction regarding felony murder was erroneous." If we mention that Burroughs was convicted at all we should give the full story, which is that the California Supreme Court found the conviction was completely erroneous. If we're not going to have that language then we can't include the non-event of a person being convicted and the conviction overturned with a misleading lack of context. Of course, mention of anything to do with Burroughs other than Young taking his class before this event is WP:UNDUE. If Burroughs is notable, write an article. If he's not, then his life story doesn't need to be told here. CNMall41 (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The conviction being overturned is mentioned because that's what the source reported. We follow what the sources actually write (which was accurate); not what you think they should have written. What you are proposing to add sounds about the SOC decision sounds like a coat rack and WP:SYNTH. Invoking WP:UNDUE just seems bizarre and desperate. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)