Jump to content

Talk:D. Gary Young/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2018

Please change "Donald Gary Young is an American businessman who is the founder" to "Donald Gary Young was an American businessman who was the founder"

Also add to biographical data:

Death: May 12, 2018


Source: http://yl.youngliving.com/index.php/email/emailWebview?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWmpoalkyTmtZekEwWm1WaSIsInQiOiJKYWgreXp4aUszY2ZjRTZnUm5iMW0zT3FEK2Z1N25sMGVoMHY1Y3V0dzZRdDBSYURlNWIvdHZkK0NDWGxSOERnRUNSRG5iRnBmQUoyNlFEQkE1SzM1VHE3ZWtuWHFZeFBlVVdLZDQza3Jaa0p4SXZIWG1PZmxvejRLRmIrUzNieSJ9 Aotm345 (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done This was already done, but I have used version of the press release hosted on the company's website, instead of the Facebook post version. If an obituary is published in a reliable source, this should be used instead, for various reasons. Grayfell (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2018

Remove the citation [8] it is an opinion with no fact. The citation leads to a satirical article that has no source for the information of the coroner report. It is pure speculation. 2600:1011:B161:626A:E14C:D296:7D24:20E (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The article says: "The death was ruled an accident, but the county coroner said that the baby would likely have lived if she had been delivered under conventional conditions." The New Yorker is a reliable source according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Grayfell (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 Done. Nowhere in WP is TNY considered "news". — Wyliepedia @ 20:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea where you got that idea. The New Yorker has won multiple Pulitzer, Peabody, etc. awards for its journalism. It is a respectable outlet with a solid reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Grayfell (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes the OP and CAWylie's claims about the New Yorker are ludicrous. Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk page material removed per WP:BLP

Some material had been previously "moved here" to the Talk page from the article space because of BLP concerns. That was a bad decision: if WP:BLP might apply to material then it has no place anywhere on Wikipedia. Regardless of its sourcing, WP:BLP always mandates immediate removal upon its challenge. If that content has been restored or copied back to the article, then good: it is there now. If not, then we have the page history. In either case, there is no harm - and much to be gained - by removing it from this page. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

You would have to explain why this content, which is supported by reliable sources and is neutrally written, is a BLP violation. I did not agree to this description then, and I don't now. Simply calling it a violation isn't enough. BLP is not a "get out of consensus free" card. The content could potentially be included in the article, either now or in the future, depending on future discussions or potential new sources, and further, the talk page is the place to discuss whether or not content is appropriate for the article. Grayfell (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
We generally do not "hide" BLP material from talk pages, because the talk page is where we discuss the evidence of whether the material is in fact BLP, and explain why, for example, it may be unreliable or misleading. In this case, I think it is a moot point. The older (pre-2018) discussions are ripe for archiving, where they will likely not be stumbled upon by anyone who is not actively looking for them. I think that we can do that now, and have a cleaner talk page for postmortem discussions. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually this is untrue, per WP:BLPTALK. If an allegation or assertion is poorly-sourced or contentious then it cannot be written into a talk page discussion at all. WP:BLPTALK suggests discussing this kind of material via allusions to links. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Many, if not most, of the matters discussed were deemed to be sufficiently well-sourced to be included in the article; the primary thrust of the discussion was determining how to best word them and situate them within the article to present a well-rounded biography and avoid creating any incidental innuendo in Wikipedia's voice. bd2412 T 22:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you; that is more of a direct answer and helpful to the decision in question. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)`

Archiving

@Grayfell: set up talk page archiving. For some reason he has used a very granular monthly format, and this does not interface nicely with a navigation box that can be placed on this page so that editors may search and browse previous discussions. For all intents and purposes, the archived material has been hidden away. I am inclined to simply convert to numbered batches as I see it everywhere else. It is easy to automatically navigate and search these. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh hell! Sorry about that, it was a mistake. I used the wrong template. I really dislike the month format also. Yes, I will switch the formats myself, sorry about that. Grayfell (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, sir!! 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure. Again, sorry. It's now all at Talk:Donald Gary Young/Archive 1, and should start with Talk:Donald Gary Young/Archive 2 for the next batch. I'll keep an eye on it to make sure I didn't bungle it further. Grayfell (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, the monthly archive system would also work with a search box if I had remembered to include Template:Archives when I added the bot. There are plenty of other reasons not to use it in this particular case, though. Grayfell (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Protected again

I have had it with these IPs adding unsupported claims to the article. bd2412 T 21:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Young Living Information

Was wondering why the page includes this from the Young Living article:

"In 2014 while Young was chief executive officer (CEO) of Young Living, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned him and his company about illegally marketing products that had not been FDA approved as possible treatments or cures for Ebola virus,[10] and other conditions,[11] after they identified multiple instances of such claims being made by Young Living's distributors on social media and other websites.[12][11][13][14][11] In 2015, he stepped down as CEO with his wife assuming the role.[15]"

I understand the reason to document he is the founder of Young Living but placing this seems like it tilts the WP:NPOV scale. Also going to start a discussion on Young Living and doTerra as while the warning absolutely needs documented, I am not sure that listing every single disease from the letter is appropriate. I mean, why not just list the entire warning letter? --CNMall41 (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

"Skeptical Inquirer" materials.

I have reworked some of the recently added "Skeptical Inquirer" materials to conform with previous consensus regarding the structure of this page, and to associate the materials regarding the distillery explosion to Young Living, which seems to be the more relevant article for housing these materials. The fine discussed with respect to that incident was assessed against the company, and there is no indication that Young was personally investigated for any crime or civil wrongdoing in connection with this. I remain dubious of "Skeptical Inquirer" as an encyclopedic source, since this article is clearly presenting a certain point of view. Since that piece references other sources, why not look into the sources that it cites (to the extent that they are not already reflected in the article)? Also, as we have no articles on the Aromatherapy Registration Council or the Alliance of International Aromatherapists, I have no sense of the legitimacy or aims of these organizations, given that trade organizations may seek to promote their members and diminish competitors who are not members of the organization. bd2412 T 00:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with this move. His claim to fame is essential oils distillery. It was his device that he designed that killed a man. How is that not a significant part of his bio? @BD2412:DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
That is a synthesis of materials discussed in the SI piece, but is not directly stated in that source, and is definitely not stated in the report on which the SI piece relies. Nowhere in the Utah Labor Commission Report (which is the only thing the SI piece points to with respect to this incident) does it identify the person who designed the device at issue in this specific incident. If we are going to say that a person designed a device that killed someone, we need a source that specifically states that connection, not one that merely implies it. bd2412 T 20:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@BD2412: It is directly stated in the SI piece [1] if you search for "ASME" it will take you right to it. And it's drawn directly from the primary source. It's on page 13 (by their pagination) of the Utah Labor Commission Report You'll find it bordered with pen marks. It reads "The entire operation was designed by Gary Young President and built on site. The vessels were not built under any consideration to ASME code for pressure vessels. No type of pressure relief device was installed on any of the vessels." It really seems to me that this should be part of his biography. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a significant difference between "designing an operation" and "designing a pressure boiler". There is no reason to assume that a person with presumably no engineering background had designed the pressure boilers used on site. - Bilby (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Bilby. We would have to surmise that he designed it and that it was his fault. This is WP:SYNTH and definitely not something that will pass WP:BLP. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
We would be quoting an official government report verbatim with primary and secondary RS. So I'll just write it in a way that doesn't criminally impugn him. The question has always been whether or not the death of a worker in his facility of which he was both president and designer is a significant event in his life. It happened, he was involved, we have quality sources.DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
That is the discussion that we are having right now. I don't see a consensus for such an outcome. I do note, however, that the government report in this case seems to indicate on page three that the fatality was directly the responsibility of whoever was supervising the equipment at the time that it happened. I can find no information about who that was, specifically. bd2412 T 23:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
There is some basic thing I'm not understanding I guess. I didn't think we were supposed to function as investigative journalists private detectives or defense attorneys. There were multiple safety violations and a fine charged. He was president. By most common sense notions of culpability he was responsible for what happened at his company. Surely there is a NPOV way to explain that. To omit it seems to me to be an act of whitewashing. How do we go about getting outside opinions on this?DolyaIskrina (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The fact that we are writing articles at all often has us doing work comparable to that of investigative journalists, who in fact typically spend a good deal of their time finding and vetting reports published by other journalists on their subject. The fact that we have WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE policies means that we have to be scrupulous in avoiding creating our own inferences about a subject merely to suit a narrative. You could say that in so doing, we are acting as defense attorneys for Wikipedia itself. In this case, however, no reasonable person could read this article, which begins by describing the subject as a practitioner of pseudomedicine, and from there recounts arrests, investigations, and accusations made against the subject, and conclude that it was an effort to paint a rosy picture of the subject. To the contrary, it appears to place an unusually strong emphasis on matters that paint the subject in fairly harsh light. However, as a matter of practice, it is incorrect to say that because he was president of the company, events (including tragedies) that are notable in the history of the company are notable for the individual subject. Compare, e.g., Asa Griggs Candler, who was president of the Coca-Cola Company from 1892 to 1919, when it was going through a similar phase of growth. Newspaper accounts can be found indicating that Coca-Cola plant workers were injured or killed in mishaps during his tenure, but we don't make his article a laundry list of such events precisely because that would be synthesis on our part, in the absence of an account stating that Candler was supervising the worker at the time, and was personally at fault for the injury. bd2412 T 13:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@BD2412:Thanks for taking the time to respond. I really like your idea that we are defense attorneys for wikipedia. You motivated me to read those policy pages yet again. Man it's slow going. Anyway, my reading of WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTH and WP:OR leads me to believe we aren't supposed to sift through primary sources and interpret them. Especially to contradict reputable secondary source. WP:PRIMARY:"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Am I wrong about that? (Honest question. I find those pages hard to parse. It seems like there are so many ways to interpret them.)
As to your hypothetical, I get your point, but if Asa Griggs Candler had been named in an OSHA report, I would probably disagree with your counterfactual. (At least I hope I would. I don't claim to be unbiased I just claim to want to be unbiased.)
Do you think there is any possible way to reference the incident that works?DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I would think the way to reference the incident would be to mention it at Young Living. The OSHA citation (pages 1-34 of the PDF) is directed to "Young Living Farms", and makes no mention of Donald Gary Young whatsoever. A separate "Information Worksheet" later in the PDF lists Young as one of the people notified of the report, listing him fifth (after the company's insurance representative, safety director, general farms manager, and distillation unit supervisor). However, nothing in the citation indicates any finding with respect to Young individually. As it happens, the incident is already mentioned in Young Living#Litigaton. I added it to that page myself, a few months ago. bd2412 T 17:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@BD2412:@Bilby:Sorry to be redundant, but I want to be sure you (bd2412) saw the quote in the OSHA document on page 13: "The entire operation was designed by Gary Young President and built on site. The vessels were not built under any consideration to ASME code for pressure vessels. No type of pressure relief device was installed on any of the vessels." To argue as Bilby does, that "entire operation was designed" doesn't also entail the boiler, is to assume the person who wrote that didn't know what the word "entire" means. The inspector who wrote that sure seems (to me) to be blaming Young for the event. It's not a criminal matter, so the fact that the company (and not Young personally) was charged is to be expected and isn't exculpatory. His company did this under his direct supervision. I agree that if we were to write something like "he is directly responsible for the death of a worker" we'd be not NPOV and probably guilty of libel. However, to not mention it seems also biased. This wasn't some freak accident that happened on holiday. It was a death in his factory that was doing the thing for which he is notable. Don't you think the president should have noticed that "the vessels were not built under any consideration" for safety code? Especially if the president designed it? Unlike your Coke Industries example, this was a death at a small operation that Young designed.DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The citation is the legally significant document, as it is the actual determination of liability. I can find no record whatsoever of any civil or criminal action asserting any liability to Young personally, nor can I find any contemporaneous news articles indicating the notability of this event with respect to Young. As callous as it may seem, people do die in work-related accidents that are not notable with respect to the biography of the owner, operator, or designer. A more salient example would be Henry Ford, who personally oversaw the introduction of assembly lines into his plants, but whose article makes no mention of injuries to assembly line workers. As to whether Young Living Farms was a "small operation", how many employees did Young Living Farms have at the time of this incident? A dozen? Twenty? Forty? bd2412 T 21:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
:@BD2412: What percentage of employees of a company do you think should die before it becomes a significant event in the bio of the president?DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
That is an interesting question. For example, Al Smith#Business life and later years indicates that Smith was president of the Empire State company responsible for constructing the Empire State Building, but makes no mention of the workers who died on that project (reports range from 5 to 42 deaths). The article on John A. Roebling, who oversaw construction of the Brooklyn Bridge, makes no mention of the 27 men known to have died on that project. The notorious death of Detroit Lions player Chuck Hughes is not mentioned in the article of the team owner and CEO at the time, William Clay Ford Sr. At the opposite extreme, of course, Warren Anderson (American businessman) discusses the Bhopal disaster, where over 500,000 people died, including many employees of the company. Based on these examples, it seems likely that the floor would be somewhere in the dozens. If we can find some examples of articles on individual company presidents that mention the death of company employees, we can determine the standard of the community with respect to such matters. I'll keep looking for one. bd2412 T 19:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@BD2412: Ok, I'll look too. This is going to be a grim process. I would propose that the issue not be total numbers but some sort of culpability standard. OSHA, by the way, is the agency that is tasked with exactly that -- setting acceptable business safety practices -- and they have already ruled that DGY's company was in multiple violations. It's only the corporate veil that protects him from being directly fined. We at Wikipedia, however, don't have to honor the corporate veil, as we aren't determining criminal or civil culpability. We are supposed to neutrally report what RS secondary sources say (with a bunch of mind boggling exceptions) DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you have a source for the proposition that the subject in this case was only protected from being fined due to the corporate veil? I have certainly seen courts and agencies pierce the corporate veil where there was individual culpability to assess. Also, of course, we are not supposed to report everything RS secondary sources have to say. If we did that, our articles on people at the higher end of notability would run hundreds, in some cases thousands of pages! bd2412 T 20:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Of course I don't have sources to show that he was "only protected from being fined" by the corporate veil. How could there be such a source? You keep acting like DYG's defense attorney. This is not a court of law. We use different standards of evidence than that. The burden of proof is on you to show that the death is an unimportant, uninteresting moment in this man's life. There is a NPOV to include it in his bio.DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
As far as the content is concerned, this is becoming a WP:DEADHORSE discussion. Wikipedia works on consensus and so far the consensus is that this is WP:SYNTH and should not be added. It is not up to Wikipedia users to determine if it was "uninteresting moment in this man's life," but it is to ensure that any content added meets guidelines. I understand that it can be difficult as a new user to understand all the rules surrounding this, but the history of this and Young Living show that very experienced editors such as Bilby, Zefr, BD2412, and Jytdog have worked extensively on both to keep out both advocacy and promotion to ensure a neutral point of view. On a side note, one policy to become familiar with is as a newer editor is WP:NPA. Just because a user does not agree with your contention does not allow anyone else to discuss that editor's behavior. We have notice boards for behavioral discussions but talk pages are for content. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Raindrop method

Removing this edit which has no significance to the personal article on Young (WP:UNDUE), is promotional quackery, and is supported by a non-WP:RS, commercial subscription source - The Skeptical Inquirer - which is not WP:SECONDARY. Warning editor DolyaIskrina to discuss here and gain consensus per WP:BRD. --Zefr (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zefr:Hi Zefr. It's my understanding that SI is in fact both RS and SECONDARY. What am I missing? Are you saying that you don't find the SI article to be properly researched and sourced? The raindrop technique is also in my opinion quackery. That's the whole point. That's an argument for including not deleting it. DYG developed and trademarked it (or calls it "proprietary" at least). I would say that's a significant part of his bio. He certainly thought it was. The promotional material is cited to prove that he claimed to invent it and that it is still being sold. I'm having a similar argument about this article with Bilby and BD2412. On one level the argument might be about whether or not SI is a RS. I don't know how to resolve that question. On the other hand, the argument might be about whether or not we are supposed to trace a Secondary article back to its sources and then reinterpret those sources. For instance, the argument from Bilby that the Essential Oil professional organizations who criticize Raindrop Technique might have bad motives. That seems like an unwarranted hypothetical, and there is plenty of evidence that DYG has a pattern of promoting quackery. So to assume these self regulatory organizations have bad motives absence a reason to assume that seems wrong.DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
It's not worth mentioning here for Young or in the Young Living article. The man Young and his company are all about quackery. Highlighting one quackery concept opens the door to others being added. Per WP:UNDUE, it is a minor sidebar to his history. And, no, I don't feel SI is a good secondary source; it's more a primary opinion about Young and the method. If there was a rigorous newspaper article or biography about Young specifically concerning the raindrop method, then that would be acceptable, imo. --Zefr (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
SI may or may not be a reliable source. I would say everything from the source needs to be weighed carefully as it is highly biased towards specific subjects. Adding information from a source that isn't neutral would leave to the page not being neutral. In addition, the "raindrop technique" is covered in other similar type sources which support essential oils so why are we looking at only the negative aspect of this? Doing so is more WP:ADVOCACY than WP:NPOV. I would agree with Zefr's removal. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

This page is covered by WikiProject Skepticism

@CNMall41: The skepticism project covers pseudoscience: health and healing, such as herbalism, and the people who promote it. DGY is such a person. Please put the banner back.DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion DolyaIskrina. As with everything on Wikipedia, consensus would govern so I have no problem adding it back if we can reach that here. I understand your contention but I am not sure how DGY can promote anything since he is dead. The company, Young Living is also a pusher of essential oils which I don't think would fall under skepticism (even Essential oil isn't in that project). Alternative medicine I would agree with but not skepticism. I don't believe in the claims for essential oils but its not snake oil or the government would shut them down. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with DolyaIskrina that this should be covered by project skepticism; this guy is listed as specializing in essential oils and pseudomedicine, which is noted as reliant on pseudoscience. You'll note that the project page does cover holistic and alternative medicine, and as Young participated in this (promoted himself as a naturopathic doctor, marketed oils as Ebola cures, etc.) it seems pretty clear-cut to me. Essential oils themselves would not fall under project skepticism, I agree, but their promotion as cure-alls definitely should. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 19:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Makes sense if we are going to keep the one for Young Living. Being that they were warned of the claims, that would make sense. However, I don't see anything about DGY making these claims about them beings cures for Ebola. There is warning letter that has been heavily debated on both of these pages and I don't think there was ever a consensus that DGY was making those claims, only some of the company's distributors (I could be wrong of course). For the alternative medicine front, it appears this was from 1986 and a small portion of his career. Not sure how it would be relative to skepticism and it is already listed under the project for alternative medicine. Tying this in would mean we should also list this under projects "Plants", "Food and Drink", and "Fashion" since the company, which he founded, also sells these products. Again, just my opinion but I see your point. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Unless I'm grossly misreading the article, he was involved in alternative medicine from at least the 1970s-2014, which appears to be the majority of his career (1973-ish, studied alternative medicine and oil use to relieve pain after logging accident; 1982, unlicensed medical services at a clinic; 1986, naturopathic doctor offering 'detox'; 1989, started distilling his own oils; 1993, Young Living founded; 2014, DGY and YL warned by FDA about marketing claims).
If I may also say, the project has been readded by two separate editors, and while I haven't readded it I do support its inclusion, while I see no other support for its removal. Would you be willing to call this consensus for its inclusion at the moment, while keeping this topic open for further discussion? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
That seems reasonable compared to the edit war an editor is attempting to incite. Although, just becuase an editor attempts to add it back doesn't make it a consensus. Feel free to restore while the discussion is going. As far as the discussion, why would we put it in skepticism if it is already part of alternative medicine? That goes to my point of needing to add this to many others include fashion, food and drink, and plants. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I thought my reversion of the deletion -- twice -- was a clear enough indication of where I stood on the issue. There is a lone dissenter who keeps reverting. Just to make the consensus official, I concur fully with the rationale laid out by the two editors above who support the project skepticism designation. I see no valid reason why it shouldn't be. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
"I thought my reversion of the deletion -- twice -- was a clear enough indication of where I stood on the issue" - Actually, no one is going to guess where you stand on the issue. That is why this is called a discussion. Discussing means actually interacting and opining. Reverting something contrary to BRD is simply edit warring. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Removing the label in the first place was WP:TE, but anyhow, the overwhelming consensus against your position resolves the issue decisively. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing their circles of interest, it looks to me like the Alternative Medicine and Skepticism projects work hand-in-hand, and that there are articles that have some overlap. Alternative medicine can cover legitimate topics, notably complementary methods to be used in conjunction with mainstream medicine (aromatherapy for stress reduction; meditation for pain relief; etc.). Skepticism, however, also covers the overlap where the alternative medicine is meant to replace the mainstream treatment (raindrop treatment for scoliosis; anti-Ebola oils; etc.). Both projects seem warranted to me.

YL does produce fashion and food (didn't know about plants; are they for home distillation or something?), but they are best known for their oils - the fashion seems designed to promote the oils, and the foodstuffs are full of them. If people associated with those projects wanted to keep tabs on DGY, I suppose I see no real trouble with that, but it does seem to be a tertiary arm of the company as a whole, and one that only really got going after DGY stepped down. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 22:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I would not advocate adding those projects. It was an extreme example to make a point about overreaching into projects where things may not belong. Here, I would say that alternative medicine project is enough, but looks like there is going to be a consensus to the contrary. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I'll add a !vote to say that this topic should be covered by both projects. Essential oils are (usually) alternative medicine, but Young's history practicing medicine without valid credentials goes far beyond that into overt and dangerous pseudoscience. I'm guessing the case has already been made multiple times for moving alternative medicine to be a sub-project of skepticism, but this isn't the place to debate that, so for now, both should be included. Grayfell (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

It appears that with the !vote from Grayfell there is a consensus. With all due respect to those taking part in the discussion, their opinion holds a little more weight with me since their edits here in the past have been balanced as opposed to advocacy vs. promotion. As such, this can be closed out with the addition of the skepticism project.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there a credible source for his claim that he he suffered a near-fatal logging accident?

As far as I can tell, this all sources back to his promotional bio written by his second wife. The story is repeated without any source in several other places, but given that he pleaded guilty of fraud, I don't think we should reprint this story without some sort of qualifications. "He claims that he was near death" etc. DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on previous consensus

This is a discussion on previous consensus. This page has been used as an attack page by a lot of IPs in the past, with some suspicion that this may come from business competitors doing so for profit. Let’s have very careful discussion of whether there is consensus to overturn past points of consensus. Unless somebody can point to pressing needs, I suggest closing it for editing for two weeks for time for thorough discussion of all contested changes from prior state. Let’s begin. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the reversion of my edit here[2], the justification given for moving this material to a "personal life" section was that it was supported by "previous consensus" "at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Gary_Young/Archive_1". This assertion is plainly false as there was no earnest discussion about it, let alone a consensus supporting it. Notably, there was one proponent pushing for exclusion of this information altogether and it was a sock puppet account.[3]

It also makes no sense to have a "Personal life" section in this case because it is redundant with and non-differentiated from the "early life and education" section -- the latter already includes details from his personal life and from the same time period as the drowning death of his daughter (which incidentally also pertains to the narrative of the subject's pseudo-scientific medical practices/beliefs). The revert is unjustified and makes no sense. I don't mind if a discussion begins, but until such time, there is no basis for reverting my edit. Accordingly, the reversion has now been reverted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • This is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Extensive discussion on this point with multiple editors agreeing to the outcome. If you are wrong? What’s the rush to have it your way, in danger of going against past consensus? Hyperbolick (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
    • It's not IDHT, It's that you did not provide an adequate explanation. I saw no evidence of anything remotely resembling consensus at the archived talk page you linked to. You'll have to clarify more specifically what it is that you are claiming constituted a consensus at that time and why it would even be applicable now, given that the existence of two overlapping sections makes no sense on several levels: i.e., "Early life" -- which includes details about his personal life; and then adding "Personal life" which would contain details about his his early life and, as I pointed out, overlap chronologically with the material in the "Early life" section. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Entire bottom 2/3 of the archive is discussion of matters of inclusion and placement of what's contentious or controversial. Doesn't honestly seem you possibly had time to read through it before deeming what there's consensus for. Principle is that death of a child, like having a child, or getting married, is personal life. Not the source of notability or relevant to career. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
        • I'm an extraordinarily fast reader, and yes, I did read it and there was no consensus about having this aspect of his early life being permanently offloaded into an duplication/redundant personal life section. Several editors strongly opposed the idea in fact. It's irrelevant whether it pertains to his career per se, as the section it was in did not directly pertain to his career; the section is titled "Early life and education". The drowning death of his daughter is unequivocally part of his early life and it would make no sense at all to have it quarantined in a new redundant section that refers to only that and his death. If you think you can get a consensus to support that odd suggestion, have at it, but I predict you'll get no traction -- because it makes no sense. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
          • It's also misleading to trivialize this event as being merely about the death of his daughter. His daughter apparently died as a result of Young choosing to deliver in a tub at his health club -- the coroner's report indicated that the child would have survived had he not done that. This context is also consistent with the general narrative of quackery that infuses Young's life story at every stage, and fits with the context presented by the sources that discussed the event. They didn't wall it off as some inconsequential detail of Young's personal life. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
            • That by itself is the defining line between career quackery and personal tragedy. Are we contending Young was a pseudoscientist selling treatments and cures he knew to be fraudulent? Or that Young honestly believed he was doing good? Death of his own daughter it’s not consistent with being a fraudster, or who was he defrauding? Himself? Hyperbolick (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
              • I don't consider those kind of questions and speculations to be at all relevant. The sources that refer to the event have already established the context within his life story and it fits perfectly (contextually and chronologically) within the exiting "Early life and education" section. You also seem to be ignoring the issue that it makes no sense to add a second overlapping/duplicative section heading (Personal life), for the sole purpose of quarantining that single event. Rhode Island Red (talk)
                • Relevant insofar as we weigh whether it is elemental to his notability. As to the other, it is very common for articles to have a separate personal life section for family matters including marriages and children and family tragedies. Body of the article ought to be on what Young is notable for, which is his quack essential oils business. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
                  • That assertion has no basis in WP policy or guidelines. WP bio policy states: “Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects…summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources.” In other words, we let the sources determine what is and is not notable, and the article's coverage of the drowning fully adheres to that guiding policy. It’s just that simple.
Oddly, you are still continuing to ignore the issue of redundancy and unnecessary duplication that adding a new section entitled “Personal life” would create in this particular case (since there is already a section entitled “Early life and education”, where this incident fits perfectly with respect to context and chronology). The suggestion to artificially cordon off the drowning death in a separate Personal life section is nonsensical. It was not merely an unfortunate "personal" tragedy that befell Young – he was directly involved in what the coroner ruled to be a preventable death, and per sources, the incident sparked both a homicide investigation and a subsequent follow-up investigation that led to Young being convicted of practicing medicine without a license. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Nobody claims it shouldn’t be in the article, but it presents the exact misleading impression you spell out in your last sentence. What source specifies this “led to Young being convicted of practicing medicine without a license”? I’d really like to see that source if it exists, so please pointed out. Without one, this becomes WP:SYNTH. Exactly the sort of reason there is prior consensus that this is personal life, consensus defined as a discussion where the multiple participants agreed on this outcome. Can’t unilaterally overturn consensus by claiming you can’t see where it came about. It is there. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

"Nobody claims it shouldn’t be in the article, but it presents the exact misleading impression you spell out in your last sentence. What source specifies this “led to Young being convicted of practicing medicine without a license”?"

The article doesn’t state “led to Young being convicted of practicing medicine without a license,” so your SYNTH argument is off-topic and WP:TE -- WP:SYNTH obviously doesn’t apply to TPG discussions and it’s not pertinent to the article. However, sources already cited in the article do in fact back up what I wrote above:
"No criminal charges resulted from the death, but it did prompt an investigation into Young’s practices. In early 1983 an undercover policewoman approached Young…he was arrested March 7, 1983 and later pleaded guilty.”[4]

“Can’t unilaterally overturn consensus”

As I already indicated, your claim of prior consensus is untrue. And you are still unable to present a single remotely cogent reason to justify the tendentious argument you are making for cordoning off this information into a redundant new section (Personal life) when it clearly fits under the existing heading "Early life" both contextually and chronologically. None of your arguments to date have come close to holding water; they are illogical and make no sense. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Have you considered that it was arranged so for over two years, representing the stable state of the article? I or any editor could revert your alternative, and whether you believe there was previous consensus or no, it would still be on you to build consensus to change from the previous state. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I am traveling at the moment so will have more time to opine tomorrow. In the meantime I will note that Young is a controversial figure, and it is easy to find people on the Internet who thinks that he is either a complete hero or a complete villain, the latter probably including his former business associates who are now competitors for his business. Previous edits by IP’s and SPA’s have tried to insert these views into the article. The state of the article before the WP:BLUDGEONing the last day or so, although painting a negative picture overall, was the result of efforts to carefully balance all of these concerns. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Also pinging those who were involved in the prior editing and consensus of much of this - Jytdog, BD2412, Zefr, A Train --CNMall41 (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Rhode Island Red. I appreciate your want to discuss this as yes, WP:CCC. However, editing the page to your preferred version and then saying that you don't agree with the prior consensus can be troubling. Other editors have already engaged in a back and forth where a consensus was reached on much of the page. I realize you don't consider that discussion a consensus, but it resulted in a stable version of this page for quite some time now. While Young doesn't seem like a great person, we still have to look at policies and guidelines such as WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH when it comes to this BLP. I would say that until we come to a resolution for the arguments you have raised, restoring to a WP:STABLE version is appropriate. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
It’s good that you pinged other editors for input. That notwithstanding, I reviewed the archived discussion and saw no consensus whatsoever concerning the “Personal history” section. In fact, I saw most editors disagreeing with the idea. Furthermore, a 2-year old discussion does not lock the content of the article in perpetuity. So when you say “restoring a stable version” what you are suggesting is deleting massive amounts of reliably sourced non-disputed text that have been added since 2017, which would be wholly inappropriate and WP:DE. Again, there is no justification for why we would quarantine the content about the drowning death into a redundant "Personal life" section given that it overlaps with the "Early life" section and the event was far from being a mere personal background factoid. There is no consensus nor logical reason for doing so. You have already taken the best course of action, which was notifying other editors for input, so we’d best wait for the outcome. Rhode Island Red (talk)
Also, I see you reached out to all editors above except BD2412. I will do that for you now but looks like they are on a Wikibreak until May. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Saying that you didn't see a consensus doesn't mean one doesn't exist. I also don't see moving it to personal life section would be quarantining the subject. I do however see it being put into the early life or career as WP:SYNTH. It is trying to say that Young is so vile with his career that he killed his daughter. It draws an inference which isn't what should be done in Wikipedia IMHO. I don't think it would belong at all but consensus has it different, although editors have agreed it is more for the personal life section. An example would be how Mike Tyson left his seven year old unattended long enough for her to die on a treadmill. We don't paint that in a way that infers he is a bad parent for not watching his kid or that it was likely because he was high on cocaine. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
“It is easy to find people on the Internet who thinks that he is either a complete hero or a complete villain, the latter probably including his former business associates who are now competitors for his business. Previous edits by IP’s and SPA’s have tried to insert these views into the article.”
Whatever edits IPs and SPAs may have made in the past has no bearing whatsoever on the current discussion, and there are certainly no IPs or SPAs currently involved. There isn’t a scintilla of evidence nor any reason to think that anyone involved in the current discussion has any kind of business COI (e.g., the phantom “competitors” as you have labelled them). That strikes me as is a reckless and inflammatory assertion that has no place in the current editorial dispute. I have added nothing but well supported reliably sourced content that fits logically into the article and complies with policy and GLs. Your implication of a COI strikes me as a thinly veiled accusation bordering on an a slur. It could more easily be argued that some of the editors here, who have shown a very warped sense of WP:NPOV, are water-bearers for Young Living. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't an accusation, veiled or otherwise. If you take it that way, I cannot control that. Your response however is borderline un-WP:CIVIL. Stating people have a very warped sense of understanding of guidelines is saying you don't like their comments or the discussion. I don't see how anyone is being uncivil at the moment but you seem to be worked up about the content of a Wikipedia page. It's just Wikipedia so no need to get upset. If I wanted to accuse you of COI, I would have done so or taken it to COIN. As far as saying that I have slurred you, please take it to ANI as I would rather be judged than simply accused. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Glad you’re amenable to waiting to hear from pinged editors before going forward with changes. Pre-change state restores pending that, but do note that “personal life” contains more than just the family tragedy, also Young’s remarriage and own death, as is standard. Note, nobody is calling to undo all changes since 2017; just to maintain what has already been stable from 2017 up to this month. That is what is contested, so needs consensus to change. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I have been pinged to respond to this discussion. However, I see that after some back and forth in the article, it has returned to the prior state of including the information at issue in the section on the subject's personal life, which I agree is the appropriate resolution. Therefore, there is nothing for me to comment on here. I will note, however, that prior consensus is not merely a statement summarizing the outcome of a formal !vote with participants specifying bold-faced positions in support or opposition to a proposal. It can also come about through discussion and compromise. In this case, there were some editors who believed the information at issue here should not be included in the article at all, and some who thought that it should, and the result that was achieved and agreed upon through lengthy consideration of various options was the current presentation of the information. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:D._Gary_Young/Archive_2&oldid=1061544392"