Talk:DoTerra/Archive 1

Archive 1

Updates

This page could use an update. The numbers cited in the introduction are out-of-date. Also, there was a ruling in the law suit cited that should be included. DoTERRA Comms (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources? Also, please be cautious of editing with a conflict of interest, and remember that Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request

I have a COI on this article, but would like to request some edits here on the Talk page. I have included a draft of my edits linked below for a neutral editor to take into consideration. My suggested edits aim to balance this article, as it is currently almost exclusively about a lawsuit. I would also like to bring to your attention that one of the current sources in the article is a very biased blog post entitled "Damning Evidence That Young Living and DoTERRA’s Essential Oils are Adulterated". I suggest using a more neutral source for that information. Thanks for your consideration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bcooper87/sandbox3 Bcooper87 (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That you for taking this to the talk page. I have made some of the changes suggested. I think any additional edits should be discussed on a case-by-case basis, rather than as a block. The article is almost exclusively about the lawsuit because that is the most substantial and notable thing about the company according to sources. You will need to be more specific about why the Utah Stories piece is not usable. Simply saying it's "biased" is too vague.

The "doTERRA to bring 330 new jobs to Utah County" article was almost entirely a rephrased press release, and so its value as a reliable source is somewhat limited.

The actual number of "Wellness Advocates" is hard to pin down. The company's own website gives contradictory info:[1] It says that there are over 1,000,000 distributors, but it also says that the offices support "hundreds of thousands" of distributors (which is very vague). This is probably because the company sometimes lists all distributors, including those who have dropped out. That's a common practice among MLMs, but it makes getting an accurate view of the size of the company difficult. If you know of a source that mentions the number of currently active distributors, and how "active" is defined, that would be very useful. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request

I have a COI on this article and I am requesting the edits below.

1)Wording change to be more specific:

Original: and others who were previously involved in Young Living

Change: other former executives and employees of Young Living

2) Added Content:

Content to add: Approximately 75% of the company’s products are sold in the United States.

Content to add: on the grounds that Young Living failed to prove that it had suffered more than negligible damages.

3) Wording change, richer content:

Original content: The company denied that they had made any claims of treatment, and had corrected the web content added by distributors.

Change: The company’s senior director of corporate marketing released a response stating that they do not claim to cure or treat disease, but do claim “profound health benefits,” and that they are working to correct their distributors marketing materials.

References

A couple of quick thoughts. Regarding point #2, the text in the 2013 source quotes someone from the company claiming that: "approximately 75 percent of the company's business is within the United States." That differs from the proposed text which refers to "75% of the company's products". It would also be important to state the relevant date (as of 2013) and the source for the claim (the company).

As for point #3, the FDA had determined that DoTerra did in fact make curative claims about their products on their website,[2] so I wouldn't feel comfortable expanding on the denial aspect or inserting promotional language about "profound health benefits". Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks again for using the talk page.

For 1) I've made the change you propose in a way which doesn't lean too hard on the fuzzy distinction between "employee" and "executive".

For 2) I've added the first sentence, but again (per above), it would be nice if you could finder a better source, since this is mostly a rephrased WP:PRIMARY press release of limited value. Don't be too surprised if it gets removed.

The second sentence you suggest misrepresents the source. It's not clear that was the primary reason the case was dismissed. The source also reports that the judge said that doTerra did retain and use confidential information from Young Living. I don't think the second change you suggest is appropriate.

For 3) I don't think anyone cares about the title of the person who issued the press release. "Profound health benefits" is too vague and too promotional.

Grayfell (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on DoTerra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140922072209/http://www.doterra.com/us/docs/doTERRACompanyFactSheet.pdf to http://www.doterra.com/us/docs/doTERRACompanyFactSheet.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141023035442/http://cdn.cymbeo.com/f/69rwmp3g/50c69ly3gzy/Dkt.pdf to http://cdn.cymbeo.com/f/69rwmp3g/50c69ly3gzy/Dkt.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The title

Look Grayfell, I don't know what kind of agenda you're following, but removing sources as you see fit and making up arbitrary new company names doesn't make you right. Indeed you're right: the MOS is clear about the trademarks: When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use by sources (not invent new ones). No matter how you put it, an overwhelming majority of sources render the company's name as doTERRA (one even renders it as dōTERRA), not doTerra. Why don't you just respect the sources? What do you have against the spelling? EDIT: Why do you prefer reverting over discussing? -- CoolKoon (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I get accused of having an "agenda" fairly often by new editors who don't agree with something I've done, and it has never been even the slightest bit persuasive. Please remember to assume good faith.

MOS:TM: ...choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner.

doTerra is used by some sources: "doTerra" "doTerra" "DoTerra"

See MOS:TMRULES. There are no recommended examples which use (almost) all capitals like this. Complicated capitalization are almost never used on Wikipedia, as they are non-neutral and overly accommodating to promotional interests. They are needlessly distracting while providing almost no meaningful information.

The article is titled doTerra, and the article's description should match its title. It was at DōTERRA, but it was moved by another editor minutes after the article was created. If you think this is wrong, you can start a discussion to have the article moved back. I don't think that's going succeed, per the above reasons, but I could be wrong.

Grayfell (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)