Talk:Young Living

Archives (Index)

2014 2016 2017 2020 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it has already been to AfD once, and been kept - which unless I've misunderstood policy makes it ineligible for speedy deletion under CSD A7. There may well be good arguments for deletion (I'd probably !vote for it myself if another AfD was started), but summary deletion of an article in such circumstances would seem inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus in 1 year. Only supporting editor withdrew support. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

---

This section is to discuss User:Rhode Island Red's proposed merger of Donald Gary Young to here.

• Support There is much info about Young out there, but he doesn't quite seem to meet WP:BIO to me, so merging seems like the best solution. As discussed above, his past legal troubles make this a WP:BLP minefield. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what is being proposed here - I don't see how we can 'merge' a biography of an individual with an article on a company without creating an unfocussed hybrid. Which is supposed to be notable, the individual, or the company? I'm not convinced that either are independently, and notability is an attribute of article topics, rather than being something that can be concocted by running together not-quite-notable subject matter. And yes, biographical material on Young is problematic - and will remain so, if added to an article on the company. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

If the legal problems are worth mentioning at all, and I honestly don't know if they are, then maybe the bio should remain as an article. After Young Living was founded, most sources (out of the few reliable ones) cover them as closely related topics. From the Daily Beast article: "It must be noted that in the company's literature, there appears to be an uncomfortable cult of personality around Young..."[1] If there's no article on Young, then a brief summary of his personal history seems like it would make sense here. How brief that summary should be is debatable, but the article seems incomplete without mentioning something about him. Grayfell (talk) 01:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The article about Donald Gary Young has expanded with enough content unrelated to this company that I no longer think a merger is appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2015 Sales report is not credible

CoolKoon inserted this source as evidence that Young Living had $1 billion in 2015 sales. However distinguished (or not) the Utah Daily Herald may be, this report is not journalism providing convincing follow up and secondary confirmation by an independent source, but rather extracts quotes and accepts the dubious claim of billion dollar performance from a press release by Young Living itself here. The Daily Herald report is just a blog repeat, as is evident from the thin reporting of two other events on the same page. One would have to be quite gullible to believe that Young Living sales number, but in the interests of an objective WP article on the company, we need a secondary financial source that meets WP:RS. Consequently, I reverted the content and source as simply not credible until supported adequately and independently. --Zefr (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Young Living Therapeutic Grade

Can we discuss the "Therapeutic Grade" claims made on Young Living essential oils? According to the YL website, they make a claim that their oils are Therapeutic Grade. The FDA and any other governing body does not recognize this as a real grading method. According to these sources [1] [2] the term "Therapeutic Grade" is a made up marketing trick. I suggest we add some language that clarifies this since Young Living prints "Therapeutic Grade" on the front label of each essential oil bottle they sell. Thanks. --H McCringleberry (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I recommend we don't address this. Their information can't be trusted. This company is well-known for quackery. Any discussion about their products is not encyclopedic per WP:PROMO. --Zefr (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, for now. It does indeed appear that "Therapeutic Grade" is marketing nonsense. If it were used in the article it would likely have to be removed. Since it's not currently used in this article, mentioning it would require reliable, independent sources specifically linking it to Young Living.

I don't know if the National Association of Holistic Aromatherapy is a reliable source, but that would have to be determined before citing them. Likewise, Aromaweb appears to be a blog source, which is of limited use. It's commendable that the author calls on the site's advertisers to stop using the term "grade", but that's not enough to make this reliable by Wikipedia's standards.

While I have no doubt that Young Living coined the phrase, neither of those other sources actually call-out Young Living by name (for some reason). We need to be cautious of original research, specifically synthesis of sources. Without a reliable, independent source specifically linking Young Living to this misleading phrase, it's difficult to add to the article in a neutral way. Grayfell (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Requesting edits

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

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

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

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

Request Edit

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

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

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

References

Reply 04-DEC-2018

  Already implemented  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

New structure

Hi all,

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

The current structure is:

• 1 Company
• 2 Prohibited marketing claims
• 3 Litigation

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

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

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

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

What are your thoughts?

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

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

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

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

“Top earners in the "Diamond" ranks earn a median average is $27,000 per month and up.”[2]

“The 2017 disclosure reports earnings ranging from $15 per month to upwards of $20,000 per month.” [3]

“According to 2017 public records, 33% of active Young Living distributors made $15 per month and 41% made $58 a month, with smaller percentages earning more.”[4]

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

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

The edit in question, which was improper WP:SYNTH, was reverted.[5] Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

References

That's the exact same WP:SYNTH by the anon IP that was reverted.[6] Clearly not a viable option. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Also conspicuous that a WP:SLEEPER[7] would suddenly awaken from a 5-year hibernation to support the whitewashing proposed by a product advocate[8] and an anon IP WP:SPA.[9] All sorts of concerns here: WP:TAGTEAM, WP:SOCK, etc. That's a warning. Rhode Island Red (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The Distributor level, Young Living’s lowest rank, comprises about 94% of the company’s members. The Royal Crown Diamond tier — the level, bluntly, that makes bank — accounts for less than 0.1% of participants. Distributors have to buy about $100 worth of merchandise per month in order to receive commissions on their Young Living sales, according to the New Yorker, and 94% of the company’s two million active members made less than $1 each in all of 2016. That makes quite a pyramid…”[10]

“According to a public income statement, more than ninety-four per cent of Young Living’s two million active members made less than a dollar in 2016, while less than one-tenth of one per cent—that is, about a thousand Royal Crown Diamonds—earned more than a million dollars. Everyone in the industry studiously avoids any comparison to pyramid schemes, which are illegal, but the structural similarities are hard to ignore.“[11]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prohibited marketing claims

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

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

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

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

Are you even reading the sources? The FDA letter said: "FDA also reviewed a 2012-2013 product guide found on your website http://www.youngliving.com. Based on our review, FDA has determined..." More importantly, one of secondary sources stated: "But the FDA issued the company a bureaucratic fatwa, noting that the health claims for their products “cause(s) them [the essential oils] to be drugs under section 201(g)(1)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. § 321(g)(1)(B)], because they are intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.”[12] In fact, the FDA did accuse Young Living of directly marketing their products as a cure for Ebola and other illnesses. And there was nothing indiscriminate about it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The other thing we need to do is respect WP:WEIGHT, which means allocating coverage of the event in proportion to the attention it received in reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, and the plain fact is that this incident was inarguably the most widely reported event in the company’s history, being covered by respectable sources across the media spectrum (WaPo, New Yorker, Reuters, CNN, Popular Science, Pharmacy Times, Daily Herald, etc.).[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But what we care about is reliable, independent sources. A legal document from a government agency is a great example of a WP:PRIMARY source. We should summarize this according to secondary sources. We, as editors, are not qualified to interpret a primary source, especially one which has legal implications. We should look at how secondary sources describe this, and summarize the ways it reflects on the company. This article isn't about Young Living's oil-selling-acolytes, it's about the company as a whole. Sources linked by RIR above seem very clear on this to me, and we have to follow the sources. The FDA said both doTERRA and Young Living advertised some of their oils as "cures" for viral infections, including Ebola.[22] No mention of "contractors" here, This one is interesting, because it says A post on Young Living’s website states, “Ebola Virus cannot live in the presence of cinnamon bark (this is in Thieves) nor Oregano.” and it goes on to quote Young Living who imply that this was the work of "members". It seems clear to me that sources are treating the distinction as irrelevant, or at least weak. A company which allows paid representatives to post misleading (or false) claims on that company's website for promotional gain... well, the FDA doesn't really care how that representative's pay-check is processed, and neither do sources, and neither should we. The company acted to fix the problem, which is functionally an admission that it was a problem they had the ability to fix it, so they have already taken (limited) responsibility for it. We don't need to pad this out with PR, do we? Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aside from specifying which products the FDA was referring to, We don't quote the primary sources (i.e., FDA). We are quoting from a secondary source.[23] Your "concern" has been thoroughly addressed already here on the Talk page. You are suggesting a change that is inconsistent with the secondary sources. Beating a dead horse is counterproductive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sleeper

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

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

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

Dawn Papple source

Dawn Papple, writing for the Inquisitr, wrote [24]:

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

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

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

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

Yes, of course there is a problem with what you're suggesting. It has been explained numerous times already. I previously listed numerous examples of coverage from "respectable sources across the media spectrum (WaPo, New Yorker, Reuters, CNN, Popular Science, Pharmacy Times, Daily Herald, etc.).[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]" and they do not support the text you are insisting on jamming into the article. You managed to find/cherry-pick one additional source (inarguably the least compelling source among the entire list) that might support the POV you're pushing, but that POV is not reflected in the bulk of sources that covered the event. So obviously that's not appropriate with respect to WP:PROPORTION or NPOV. The source you dug up (Inquisitr) might not even meet WP:RS, but in either case, it is the lowest quality source among the list (one with virtually no reputation for reliability/editorial quality; certainly not matching that of the other sources).

Your approach to this is backwards. You're starting with a conclusion that you wish to make (one that erroneously attempts to diffuse responsibility from the company) and searching for that needle in a haystack to support your preferred conclusion, whereas the approach should be to base our coverage on a broad survey of the media sources that reported on the event. I'll repeat once again, the qualifier you are trying to add in is unnecessary (and misleading) because the current text in the article ("In September 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned Young Living against marketing its products as treatments or cures for Ebola virus,[5][6] and other conditions") is 100% accurate, supported by the bulk of sources, and entirely non-controversial. You are not solving a problem but rather creating one de novo. Furthermore, ignoring the explanations here on the Talk page, bypassing WP:CONSENSUS, and inserting your favored text into the article anyway[34] is WP:TE and completely unacceptable. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

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

The FDA letter reads [35]:

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

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

The FDA made a very similar complaint regarding doTerra, which is significant in both cases because it is placing the burden on each MLM to police the advertising made by their distributors. This has been an issue for doTerra in particular, as they have had to invest in doing so but have had issues with making this work (see [36][37]).

So let's look at your sources.

• "According to the agency, Young Living essential oils products were being sold on various websites with claims including, 'Viruses (including Ebola) ..." [38] (This is correct, the FDA noted various websites, made by consultants, with these claims).
• "Utah-based companies doTERRA and Young Living have received warnings from the Food and Drug Administration after representatives from both companies reportedly made false claims that their essential oils can cure more than just stress and fatigue." [39] (Yes, the representatives are the consultants/distributors).
• "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration sent letters to three companies this week, warning them against marketing their products as possible treatments or cures for Ebola. The letters, posted online on Wednesday, document multiple claims from the companies or their paid representatives that essential oils and other natural remedies can "help prevent your contracting the Ebola virus" and in at least one instance, "effectively kill the Ebola virus."" [40] (Yes, the FDA accused the paid representatives of Young Living - the consulants/distributors - of doing this).
• "With more than 600,000 distributors across the globe working for Young living, COO Travis Ogden says it's hard to police these ads." [41] (This is why it is a problem)
• "It’s much harder to police the millions of independent distributors. In September, 2014, the F.D.A. sent a sternly worded letter to doTerra, scolding the company for distributors’ claims about oils and conditions including cancer, brain injury, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, and A.D.H.D. ... (Young Living received a similar letter.)" [42] (Exactly what I've been saying)

Yes, there are four sources you listed which don't mention the consultants/representatives in regard to Ebola and other viruses [43][44][45], but five do, as does the FDA letter and the Inquisitr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response

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

"In the coming days we will be contacting all our membership to ensure that they understand how to best use our products and remain compliant with regulatory directives. We have already contacted each of the Members cited in the FDA letter to help get them into compliance." [46]

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

It's not a mere accusation. The FDA is judge, jury, and executioner in these matters. The response adds no value and it's misleading for the reasons already discussed, as it attempts to diffuse responsibility from the company to its distributors, which is a distinction without a difference in law. Furthermore, the improvised wording that you added[47] was not directly supported by either of the sources that were cited. You have active participants in a discussion here already so it's not cool to subvert the TPG and jam in your preferred version despite the objections raised. If you can't get consensus, don't proceed. It also bears repeating yet again that the central premise of your argument was specious/flawed; i.e., that the current version contained "incorrect claims", which was a patently false assertion. The original text was unobjectionable and in need of no alteration or qualification. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

"In the coming days we will be contacting all our membership to ensure that they understand how to best use our products and remain compliant with regulatory directives. We have already contacted each of the Members cited in the FDA letter to help get them into compliance." [48][49]

"Young Living said that the company was 'cooperating fully with the FDA regarding its inquiry.' Young Living 'members,' the statement continued, 'are provided specific instructions on how to promote our products to their customers. In the coming days we will be contacting all our membership to ensure that they understand how to best use our products and remain compliant with regulatory directives.' 'We have already contacted each of the Members cited in the FDA letter to help get them into compliance.' [50]

"'Our legal team has already reached out to them and are talking to them to make sure that they know how to properly share the products,' Ogden said. 'We are going to make sure that all of their actions are in compliance.' Consultants that refuse to abide by the policies will be dropped as an independent distributor, Ogden added. 'We're already coordinating with them to make sure that within those 15 days we're going to meet every request that they have in their letter,' he said." [51]

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

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

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