Jump to content

Talk:D. Gary Young/Archive 3

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

Young Life Research Clinic

I can understand covering the Young Life Research Clinic, but Sherman Johnson in particular seems to be a bit of a tangent. The only issue was that he had previously lost his license, but that had been reinstated and he was fully qualified to be hired. While his past is questionable, is it really significant that a clinic hired a fully qualified doctor, especially given that we have no knowledge as to whether or not Young was connected to the decision to hire him, and there is no reason to believe that anything untoward happened as a result of the decision to hire him? - Bilby (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

“seems to be a bit of a tangent” – A "tangent" as defined by what WP policy exactly? Regardless, it’s clearly not a tangent. It’s the core detail that The New Yorker focused on when they wrote about Young’s clinic. It stands as probably the only significant detail about Young's clinic that’s ever been covered by a reliable journalistic source.
“only issue was that he had previously lost his license” – Um, really? It’s not an “issue” that, prior to joining Young’s clinic, he had been convicted and jailed for manslaughter after killing a patient (and giving her cancer treatments when she didn’t have cancer)? To assert that the loss of his license was the “only issue” is indefensible. I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply didn't bother reading the coverage.
“is it really significant” – Yes. The New Yorker establishes that it is significant and fully explains why. That fully meets any and all WP policies that pertain to the fuzzy assertion about “significance”.
“no knowledge as to whether or not Young was connected to the decision to hire him” – The article doesn’t allege that Young was connected to the hiring of Sherman, so that’s a moot point. But, just to indulge that off-topic speculation for a moment, it’s hard to imagine that he wouldn’t have been connected given that it was Young’s clinic.
“no reason to believe that anything untoward happened as a result of the decision to hire him” – Again, irrelevant, as the WP article doesn’t say that anything untoward happened as a direct result of his hiring. It merely includes the basic facts as they were reported, including the fact that the clinic paid out a settlement to a patient who claimed that a vitamin C infusion she was given in 2005 almost killed her, and that Young subsequently closed the clinic. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
It comes across as a bit of guilt by association - Young created a clinic, the clinic hired a qualified doctor, that doctor had once had his license suspended but had it reinstated at least three years before being hired. It is accurate enough, but doesn't say much. There is no problem with a clinic hiring a qualified doctor, even if that doctor had previously lost and since regained his license. Reading the sources you added, it appears the Judge found that the Doctor was being manipulated by the patient, and while he was responsible, gave him what looks like a minimum sentence (extremely short jail time, no prison, allowed him to go home on evenings and weekends, and probation - instead of up to 15 years prison). The New Yorker article mentions a lot of things that we don't cover - this one is one of the less significant claims, and while of some passing interest, it would be more suitable to an article about the clinic than one about Young, assuming it would even be particularly relevant there. - Bilby (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
“…that doctor had once had his license suspended.”
That’s some back-bending trivialization/whitewashing. The doctor didn’t merely have his license suspended – he killed a patient and was convicted for manslaughter! He treated her for cancer without ever verifying that she had cancer. He was jailed and lost his license for 5 years! He faked her death certificate and the patient’s body had to be exhumed. He was ordered to pay a settlement to the victim’s family. The details of his background are stomach turning. But the WP article doesn’t even delve into any of that. And the article doesn’t imply “guilt”; it merely dispassionately states the facts about the doctor’s connection with Young’s clinic, and his background, in the same neutral journalistic context as the New Yorker and Consumer Reports.[1][2]
It’s perfectly reasonable that these sources would mention the fact that this doctor was hired at Young’s clinic, presenting it within the context (without making any explicit associations of guilt) of a discussion about Young’s long and well established history of malpractice/quackery.
“the Judge found that the Doctor was being manipulated by the patient”
It’s wildly off-topic to delve that deeply into the background of this story, since the WP article doesn’t go there. Nonetheless, that is a grossly inaccurate misinterpretation of the background details on the case. The patient was well known to be mentally ill. According to a nurse who had treated the victim, the doctor was having an affair with her. He treated the victim for cancer without verifying that she ever had cancer. He illegally prescribed Demerol and killed her. He faked her death certificate. He then had the gall to bill the LDS church $48,000 for the drugs.
“The New Yorker article mentions a lot of things that we don't cover - this one is one of the less significant claims.”''
Looks pretty significant to me. It was highlighted by two sources – New Yorker and Consumer Reports. It seems you repeatedly bend over backwards to sanitize relevant well-sourced details about Young’s background merely because they might seem unflattering. You have presented not a single remotely valid reason as to why it shouldn’t be included. The excuse that “the New Yorker mentions a lot of things” is not a remotely valid reason for whitewashing.
“There is no problem with a clinic hiring a qualified doctor, even if that doctor had previously lost his license.”
Yeah, I bet you’d have “no problem” if you were sent to a a doctor who killed his patient, illegally prescribed drugs, faked a death certificate, went to jail for manslaughter, lost his license for 5 years, and then went to work for a quack at a quack clinic a few years later.
“Would be more suitable to an article about the clinic than one about Young.”
The clinic is intimately associated with Young and isn’t widely covered enough beyond the context of its connection with Young to justify a separate article. The only things notable about the clinic was that it was Young’s clinic; that it hired a doc convicted in a high-profile grizzly manslaughter case; and that it shut down shortly after paying out a settlement to a patient who sued the clinic for nearly killing her with vitamin C infusions. So you won’t be able to POV fork your way out of this one. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like what you want is an article on the doctor. Write that, since all that doesn’t belong here. Also, why did you add all your comments above my comment already posted instead of after it. Create false impression that I was agreeing with you, not Bilby. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with User:Bilby (adding that specifically because Rhode Island Red has inserted his comments between Bilby’s point and my agreement, as if to create false impressions that I agreed with him instead) — there is a lot of effort to construct the most negative possible picture going on here, even where that requires WP:SYNTH to do. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Looks likes someone needs a refresher course on WP:CONSENSUS. "I agree with Bilby" is fluff and not an editorially relevant comment. Per WP:CON:
"In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight." Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)What a mess. Who are you agreeing with? Who is anyone even talking to?
Proposing an article for this clinic seems like a weird suggestion, and that's not really going to work. The clinic and Young are the same topic, as far as sources are concerned.
Based on the current article, coverage seems more-or-less proportional to its significant. Young's well-documented, long-term involvement with unlicensed medicine is significant to his professional history. I would exclude the names of the individual doctors and perhaps simplify a bit, per WP:BLP1E. Just by calling them "a clinic employee" and "a pediatrician" I don't see anything important being lost. Normally the use of sources not directly related to Young would be a red flag, but the New Yorker source is very significant, and clearly explains this significance of this one incident, so the other sources are appropriate for background and convenience. Grayfell (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I didn't expect quite this level of response from my suggestion. However, my concern is simply that yes, it is significant that a clinic established by Young employed someone who practiced medicine without a license, and yes, it is certainly significant that the clinic faced a lawsuit. However, doctors who have their license suspended and subsequently reinstated get hired. My concern is simply whether or not the fact that a clinic established by Young hired a doctor who had previously been suspended is significant for an article about Donald Gary Young. If he was unfit to be allowed to practice medicine, then presumably he would not have regained his license years earlier, so I'm not sure what this says about Young himself, as opposed to the clinic or the doctor. That said, I agree with removing the names - I'll take care of that. - Bilby (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
The article doesn’t even state that “ he was unfit to be allowed to practice medicine”, so that point is moot. You clearly seem to think it’s insignificant that he killed a patient and was convicted for manslaughter; that he treated the victim for cancer without ever verifying that she had cancer; that he not only lost his license for 5 years but was also jailed for the offense; that he faked a death certificate; and that he had to pay out a settlement to the victims family – because you repeatedly gloss over these facts and persist in narrowly focusing solely on the status of his license. As for “significance”, I don’t know what yardstick you are using to make this determination, but multiple WP:RS clearly establish the notability of the doctor’s connection with Young and his clinic and, therefore, the worthiness for the inclusion of the details based on WP policy and GLs. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you get the idea that there are multiple reliable sources making a connection between this doctor and Young - as far as I know, there is only one that mentions him in regard to this clinic. But no, I don't think that his actions were insignificant - I do think that raising his actions almost a decade before he was hired is trying to create guilt by association in regard to Young, and not relevant to a biography about Young. - Bilby (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I completely agree with Bilby based on their reasoning above and my previous comments. Saying below that you are looking for "neutral editors" is confusing. It makes it seem like you are looking for editors who agree with your contention as opposed to taking into account the discussion of the current and previous experienced neutral editors who have/are discussion the issue.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I think we need to be cautious on how we cover his companies. We need to cover his involvement in the companies, but rehashing things that are already on Young Living - such as the FDA warning information - shouldn't be done. As this is a BLP it needs to focus on him. By talking about unlicensed doctors in a facility he started invites WP:SYNTH. We don't know if he intentionally hire someone knowing they were not licensed and we also don't know if he was involved with any of the things that person did. What we do know is he opened a clinic that eventually closed. Summarizing that is absolutely appropriate as it is a summary of his career, but beyond that it is an attempt to paint him as a evil mastermind who only wants to hire unlicensed doctors so they can kill people in the clinic he started. Maybe he is and did, but it's not our job to create the synth around it. --CNMall41 (talk) Bilby (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
The doctor I'm concerned about was, as far as we know, fully licensed when hired and while working at the clinic. - 21:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Correct. The paragraph is currently synth and I would suggest starting with the removal of - "In 2004, the Utah Attorney General charged a clinic employee with practicing medicine without a license for conducting diagnostic tests and prescribing products to patients at Young’s clinic between 2000 to 2002.[11] The clinic had also employed a pediatrician whose medical license had previously been suspended by the state medical board following a manslaughter conviction in connection with the improper treatment and death of a cancer patient under his care" - as this is not about Young. It's about an employee who used to work for him. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
When were cover Young’s companies, our editorial obligation is to include what is notable about them based on published sources. The New Yorker article[3] establishes the notability of The Young Life Research Clinic in the context of Young’s background, and it highlights the connection with Dr. Sherman Johnson (who was convicted of manslaughter) and goes into considerable depth about Johnson’s background. It is not WP:SYNTH to summarize this information in the article nor, as Grayfell already pointed out, to supplement it with additional citations that back up details about Johnson that The New Yorker reported. There is really nothing notable about Young’s clinic other than: (a) it is intimately associated with Young (b) its sketchy employees; and (c) the fact that Young shut it down, 5 years after opening it, subsequent to settling a patient lawsuit for causing a near fatal injury and opening a new clinic in Ecuador.
Also noteworthy is the fact the clinic is listed on Quackwatch’s list of Questionable Organizations[4]. Of further passing interest is this source which shows Sherman Johnson's affiliation with Young’s clinic but he had a Young Living e-mail address,[5]
BTW, it’s absurdly hyperbolic to assert the current information in the article “is an attempt to paint him as a evil mastermind who only wants to hire unlicensed doctors so they can kill people in the clinic he started”. The article says nothing of the kind. It merely presents the facts, neutrally, as reported by the sources. If the inference that one makes from reading the facts is that Young showed poor judgment in having a doctor work at his eponymous clinic who had previously been convicted and jailed for killing a patient, then so be it. It’s not our job as editors to police the conclusions that a reader might draw from reading accurately reported facts. If editors here keep pushing the envelope by resorting to such dishonest histrionics, the remedy will be to escalate to a more stringent form of dispute resolution and shine a light on this and other questionable conduct (i.e., POV pushing/whitewashing). Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Then please do as your accusations and WP:BLUDGEONing is becoming tiring. You don't get to say what is/isn't consensus, especially when you are so involved. Also, no one has to WP:SATISFY you or your points as it is a community discussion, not a one-way street. You have come here and reversed a consensus (saying that its not), then continue to be WP:POINTy with reverts and accusations. I am not sure why you are so worked up about a Wikipedia page but there is no need to get [[stressed about other editors opining in a discussion. Discussions are meant to be civil. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
From what you describe, the intent is to connect Young to "sketchy employees" hired by a clinic he founded. I can understand making a connection between the clinic and events that happened at the clinic. I remain unconvinced that adding details about a person hired by the clinic where those details happened close to a decade before he was hired, and where nothing untoward occurred as a result of that hire, is anything other than attempted guilt by association . However, I'm also aware that we are not going to change each other's positions, so I'll wait to see what the eventual consensus is. - Bilby (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Vague inferences about "intent" are irrelevant. We just report the facts neutrally, as I stated above. When sound arguments fail to persuade, then the issue is one of not respecting NPOV. For that reason, I suspect that it will not be possible to reach a valid consensus without more a more formal dispute resolution mechanism and the scrutiny of experienced neutral editors who have no personal stake in running interference for Young Living. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Intent is absolutely relevant. If someone's intent is to promote DGY, then it would be relevant. Also, someone's intent for WP:ADVOCACY is relevant as well. And before you get defensive, no one has yet accused you of either so please don't go there. The intent of references is also relevant as some references are written to simply promote the subject while others are written to disparage the subject. This is the reason for my comment the other day about competitors and distributors. Also, please stop with the many accusations. "Experienced neutral editors who have no personal stake in running interference for Young Living" is a direct accusation. This has crossed the line of WP:CIVIL. If you feel that someone has a COI with respect to this article, please bring it up at COIN. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
No, not at all. We don’t care if someone’s intent is to promote DGY or any other subject on WP as long as they abide by WP policies and GLs. Advocacy is not an issue of intent; it is an issue of actions that violate NPOV. I accused no one of COI. I made it clear that a personal stake can be as simple as having an emotional connection with the subject matter that clouds NPOV. If I had a strong suspicion and evidence of a COI violation, I most assuredly would have reported it already. So how about sticking to the editorial issues at hand? No need for puffed-up displays of indignation.
As far as I am aware, none of the current editors have a "personal stake in running interference for Young Living". If you know differently, you should raise it at WP:COIN. Otherwise, this is all about respecting NPOV - we just have different understandings of where this issue fits within that policy. - Bilby (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
A personal stake is not the same as a COI. It refers to any personal connection (e.g., emotional) with the subject matter that overrides that ability to have a WP:NPOV. I think there are many vivid examples. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Your core position is that the fact that Dr. Sherman worked at Young’s clinic isn’t a “problem”. However, the article doesn’t state that it was a “problem”, it merely relays the facts that the The New Yorker and CSIOP reported. If it’s truly not a problem, then you should have no issue with presenting the facts as they were reported. You also expressed concerns about inferences that the reader might make about those facts, but that overreaches your role as an editor. We let the facts speaks for themselves; we don’t police the conclusions that readers might draw from the facts. You also presented us with a canard that “the Judge found that the Doctor was being manipulated by the patient” which was patently false. So yes, that leads to questions about respecting NPOV. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
My core position is that there is insufficient evidence that the clinic hiring a qualified doctor who was once suspended is an issue worth raising in a biography about Young. Raising it suggests that it is noteworthy in regard to Young's life without sufficient evidence that this is the case - just because it was mentioned in regard to the clinic in a much broader secondary source is not, in my view, enough, although clearly you feel that it is. Disputes happen, and it seems to me that we simply disagree on whether or not including such a point is NPOV. In regard to the second issue, I was simply referring to one of the sources which we used in the article, which states: "Second District Judge Douglas Cornaby portrayed Jones as a manipulator who tried to hurt those who helped her and refused to impose any prison time for the convicted felon. Johnson could have served up to 15 years for the crime. Instead, Cornaby imposed probation and a 90-day jail sentence. He allowed Johnson to go home evenings and weekends after 30 days." [6] I suspect you read it differently, but I think the issue is moot either way. - Bilby (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
But you cannot isolate policies to satisfy your contention. You also have to take WP:UNDUE into consideration. The guy is by no means perfect and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. But, we have to maintain neutrality and give specific topics undue weight. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Was that directed at me or Bilby? There is no issue here with WP:UNDUE, which states: “neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources…articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views.” Undue weight would be giving special prominence to a minority view that runs counter the majority view. That’s not the case here. The viewpoints of the New Yorker and CSIOP (i.e., viewpoints published by reliable sources) are uncontested. So the fact is that excluding the detail would be a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
My stake is with Wikipedia. I strive for a WP:NPOV. I work to get rid of both promotion and advocacy and keep articles balanced if possible. Also, people not agreeing with you or your contention doesn't mean they have a personal connection. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I don’’t interpret simple disagreement as indicative of a personal connection. I consider showing blatant disregard for NPOV and making spurious arguments to be suggestive of a personal connection that clouds editorial judgement. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
That's subjective and simply asserting it doesn't make it true. In fact, looking at those who have weighed in here and during the last consensus, that would be quite a few people who have a personal connection. It clouds the discussion when you make such accusations as it is attack on editor's competency. Just because you don't agree with their opinions doesn't make them wrong. It would be great to have a discussion without you making them (or not, you can do as you wish). --CNMall41 (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's an assertion. No, it doesn't cloud the discussion. At least not as much as this bloviaiting does. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

It look like a more formal mechanism for dispute resolution will have to be invoked to put this to rest. Upon sifting through the comments here, looking for any argument with substance, it appears that Bilby’s position is that the material is “insignificant” and CNMall41’s is that it’s WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. Both of those positions have been addressed and, IMO, clearly shown to be invalid. Conceding to that would be prudent, but if not, I look forward to seeing you both try to defend those weak assertions in DR. If you are both game, I'll file the request. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
You can do as you wish, but there is no need to make things an ultimatum. I am still scratching my head here because I cannot fathom how others need to concede and how you are right and others are wrong simply because you feel your opinion is correct. It is a difference of interpretation, not incompetency as you have eluded to. I also don't think we are there yet, but again, you are free to do as you feel right. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Formal dispute resolution is neither a threat nor an ultimatum. It is an effective means for resolving editorial disputes when they reach an impasse as we have here. One should welcome the opportunity to plead their case before a group of experienced editors who have no stake in the subject matter. The discussion here has devolved to the point of being useless but I’m quite confident that the scrutiny of unbiased editors in DR will generate a meaningful consensus. So you can concede the tendentious argument or we can escalate to DR. Your call. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
"Concede the tendentious argument or we can escalate to DR" is a perfect example of an ultimatum, which you continue to make while talking down to other editors. The only person who seems to disagree in this thread is you, yet you seem to think your argument is gold because you assert it as so. This fallacy, accompanied by your continued condescension has turned this into anything bet a civil discussion.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Vague complaints that do not consider the specific editorial details at hand and the validity of the underlying arguments are not helpful. WP:EXHAUST and WP:TE are leading this discussion nowhere productive so rather than continue dithering on the TPG, DR would be the obvious logical next step. Odd that anyone would suggest that invoking the recommended procedures is anything less than civil. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Insignificant and UNDUE are the same idea here. Seems like negative advertising in politics— can’t find something bad enough in your opponent’s past look into their families, then friends, then employees. Can’t find anything bad enough in any of those, look into the paste of those people until you find something bad, then tie it to the opponent. Were this common practice here Wikipedia would be a collection of reports of bad things done by friends and business relations of notables. Restating agreement with Bilbly as before, and with CNMall’s similar review. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

None of the griping above is relevant to this editorial discussion. I already addressed the baseless claim regarding WP:UNDUE[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADonald_Gary_Young&type=revision&diff=893972871&oldid=893971741], and no one made the slightest attempt to provide a rebuttal – complete silence. Achieving consensus does not involve simply parroting policy names. You actually have to read what the policies say and explain how they apply or not. Undue simply doesn’t apply here, as I explained. The goal in achieving consensus is not to conduct superficial straw polls but to provide actual explanations that are valid according to policies and GLs. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Undue reads "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject". The question is whether or not the decision of a clinic founded by Young to hire a doctor who was fully qualified, but had previously had his license suspended, is a minor aspect in regards to a biography about Young. That it is covered in a source means that we can reference it; that it is only covered in that source, and is arguably not clearly about Young, raises questions of whether or not it is undue in this particular article. There is a case for saying that it is relevant, and I can see that, but I'd be much happier with something stronger connecting this to Young and showing that it was issue for him. The other material - that he founded a clinic that faced court action over a possible overdose of vitamin C, or that it employed a person who practiced medicine without a license - seem more relevant to the topic, as they are issues for the clinic. Was the doctor they hired an issue for the clinic? Is there any evidence that something happened as a result of the decision? As far as I know, we don't have evidence of either. - Bilby (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
“The question is whether or not the decision of a clinic founded by Young to hire a doctor who was fully qualified, but had previously had his license suspended, is a minor aspect in regards to a biography about Young.”
The question is irrelevant. Neither the article nor the underlying sources say anything about the decision to hire the doctor. The reporting on the clinic is more than sufficient to satisfy the criteria for WP:RS, which states: “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered.” Nothing “stronger” is needed for “connecting this to Young”.
The WP:UNDUE argument doesn’t apply because the material in question was not given “undue” weight – it was given one sentence. Your argument, oddly, is that the details shouldn’t be mentioned at all, but that would clearly violate WP:RS, as quoted above, as well as WP:NPOV, which requires “representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.”
It continues to be baffling that you repeatedly try to trivialize the significance of the reporting by saying that this was “a doctor who was fully qualified, but had previously had his license suspended”, while glossing over the fact that the doctor was convicted and jailed for manslaughter for killing a patient, faked a death certificate, and had to pay restitution to the victim’s family. These details (not all of which are included in the WP article), are clearly much more significant than you make them out to be, and they provide ample basis for the source to have considered the connection noteworthy.
The purpose of this bio article is to cover significant newsworthy events in Young’s life as reported by reliable independent sources, and particularly those events that do not significantly overlap with his role at Young Living, since there is already an article for that. Young’s establishment of each of his various clinics, as covered by WP:RS, are noteworthy events, as are the background details reported about them.
The questions “Was the doctor they hired an issue for the clinic? Is there any evidence that something happened as a result of the decision?” are speculative and completely irrelevant.
Doubling down on specious arguments as a justification for purging obviously significant details from the article highlights yet again the need for a more formal dispute resolution mechanism and the input of experienced unbiased editors. I have offered to file a DR case several times now, so if you still want to cling to this tendentious arguments line of argumentation, perhaps you would prefer to defend it in that venue. Just let me know. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Your disagreement is noted, but I don't share your views. Ultimately, I disagree that this is a significant issue for a biography about Young, as I don't see that the connection between the Doctor's actions almost a decade before he was hired and Young as being sufficiently established, hence my original concern. But it is clear that we won't make any progress on this - I'll leave it to see what happens over time. Bilby (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Wives and children

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

You could try looking. Speculating about polygamy is inappropriate. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Official bio lists two sons, but seems controlled by current family. What’s inappropriate about speculating about polygamy? Young apparently descended from Brigham Young’s family, who were polygamist. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Claims by David Stirling

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

  • I tend to agree that we need to be very careful about how we present one-off claims from readily impeachable sources. bd2412 T 21:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I had previously removed this for SYNTH and UNDUE but seems it was returned. This is a competitor of Young and someone who was fired so I am not sure how their opinion is relevant, especially for a BLP. We wouldn't include a statement from Young in the biography of Stirling. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Your edit was reverted because the text in question was neither WP:SYNTH (it is a direct pickup from the source with no synth whatsoever) nor WP:UNDUE. Per WP:RS and WP:NPOV, it is not your role as en editor to make an arbitrary decision about "relevancy" when the relevancy has been clearly established by the secondary sources' coverage. Stirling was a former senior executive at Young's company and is thus well positioned and imminently qualified to comment on Young. Accordingly, removal has been reverted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Neither is it your role to reinstate it because of your disagreement. That is what the talk page is for. Consensus is one of the foundations of Wikipedia and I until there is one for this, it was originally reverted per BRD. Discussion is necessary and until one is reached, it has been reverted again. Please stop the edit warring and discussing. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Stirling was certainly well positioned, but he is also extremely far from a neutral observer, given that he was fired, started Young's main rival, and then faced long-running and messy litigation from Young Living. - Bilby (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
No evidence has been presented to back up the claim that the text in question is WP:SYNTH. As I pointed out, it is clearly not synth as it closely follows what the source wrote and is entirely devoid of anything remotely resembling synth. A mere assertion of WP:SYNTH in the absence of supportive evidence is not a sufficient reason to whitewash the content. Neither does the threadbare WP:UNDUE argument apply -- i.e., the "undue weight" argument being made is not that it is given too much weight but that merely mentioning at all is undue weight, and that's clearly not the case nor consistent with the details of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, or WP:RS. This is a case of throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping that something will stick, as though an editor decided that they didn't like the information and then subsequently struggled to provide a justification for whitewashing it, no matter how flimsy.
The material is presented in its proper context based on an impeccable source -- the New Yorker. Stirling is not the source per se, and the speculation being made here about Stirling is essentially that he lied. That speculation is not based on any reporting whatsoever, from the New Yorker or any other source, and is WP:OR. Reverting this edit over such tendentious arguments will not be tolerated. Once again, this disruptive conduct will have to go to DR if it continues. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Further to my comments above, I am not opposed in principle to the inclusion of material of this nature, so long as it is properly placed in a context reflecting the credibility of those making a claim. In this case, the New Yorker itself is careful to provide a substantial number of points of information to call into question the credibility of the claimant. The problem, then, becomes that there are so many pieces of information about the claimant that are relevant to this question of credibility that we would have little choice but to spend an outsized piece of real estate in this article explaining all the reasons why the claimant's word is questionable. Taking what might be called the encyclopedic long view, I can't say that this would make for the best narrative flow here. In any case, with a subject having supporters and detractors out in the world looking to paint either an overly positive picture or an overly negative picture I do think that it is important to obtain a consensus regarding the inclusion of controversial claims. It is generally the proper procedure here to exclude contentious claims while discussion is ongoing about their inclusion. bd2412 T 22:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2019

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

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

YL Discussion

Main page: Talk:Young Living/Archives/2020 § Controversial figure previously convicted for the unlicensed practice of medicine

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

@CNMall41: "go to AfC", I presume you mean RfC? BD2412 T 22:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I just corrected it. I spend too much time at AfC and my fingers seem to just type it. lol --CNMall41 (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I can relate. BD2412 T 23:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Death by DGY's distiller

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

On August 17, 2000, one of Young's homemade distillers exploded, fatally wounding a worker at Young Living Farms in Mona, Utah. Utah Occupational Safety and Health Division (UOSHD) fined Young Living Farms $10,280 for seven safety violations. UOSHD said: “The entire operation was designed by Gary Young, President and built on site. The vessels were not built under any consideration to ASME [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] code for pressure vessels. No type of pressure relief device was installed on any of the vessels.”[1]

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

The discussion was archived here, and there is a clear absence of consensus for the inclusion of this material, as it is WP:UNDUE. As noted, we have numerous articles on company heads who have designed mechanical operations, and we refrain from including deaths of employees working on such operations. BD2412 T 23:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Can't say one way or the other. Link is dead and can't find an archived copy. Could be a moot point. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Here is the current link which is also now archived.[1] And here is the OSHA report [7]. https://web.archive.org/web/20130402040152/http:/www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/young_citation.pdf DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
It's not letting me paste in the active link. Try this one. DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
My opinion is unchanged from the previous discussion. This would be inconsistent with treatment of comparable instances relating to subjects of other articles. Wikipedia is not in the business of singling out specific subjects for imposition of imbalances through WP:UNDUE content. BD2412 T 02:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Seeing now that it is properly sourced, I see no reason why it shouldn't be included, either here or in the Young Living article, or both. I also see no reason why WP:UNDUE would apply. Might have to solicit some outside opinions through RfC though as there tends to be resistance over this sort of thing from editors who seem to be staunch defenders of Young and Young Living. In the meantime this could be added to the YL article to start. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
My reply would be the same on any article in Wikipedia, we don't seek to indict by innuendo and overstatement. There isn't an operation of substantial size on the planet that hasn't had an industrial accident or something comparable, and we don't include these tragic but routine incidents in the articles on the company CEOs, even if (like Henry Ford) the CEO designed the physical operation where the incident occurred. The source itself doesn't make any statement of liability on Young's part. Whether this belongs in the Young Living article is the discussion to be had. BD2412 T 14:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
A device he designed killed a man. That is a neutral statement based on WP:RS. As to notability, that device was one of the pillars of his reputation and business. It wasn't some random event that happened on the weekend. As to impugning guilt, we can stick to the facts as stated in those sources. However, I see we are probably going to rehash our previous discussion, and I don't want to waste our time. So, is there a way to open this question up to more editors? Thanks for humoring me a second time. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I see no basis in policy or GLs for anything in BD2412's reply. As long as reliable sources are used and quoted in proper context, there is no reason why details couldn't be included, and the proposed text hews in exact alignment with what the source reported. It is in no conceivable way WP:UNDUE. As I said, this will probably have to go to RfC to get more objective input. Rhode Island Red (talk)
Can you show me any other article that we have on a CEO as an individual where we report an employee death that is only tertiarily attributed to the CEO, and where no charges were filed against the CEO? Can we find an actual decent news source reporting this event and making this connection? BD2412 T 21:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
That isn't remotely how WP works. The standard for inclusion of content in an article is based on policy, not by what may or may not have been done in another article. You are posing a fool's errand. The onus isn't on me to find other cases where the media pointed that a CEO designed equipment in his business and it killed someone. The suggestion is absurd. But again, as I said before, I don't expect to see a reasonable discussion here form the same set of entrenched POV editors. RfC is the best venue. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I would mirror BD's concerns with NPOV and WEIGHT. There is no way including this would meet Wikipedia:BLPBALANCE as I don't see how it can be "presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone" without making WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or given that at least one user wants to stress that "A device he designed killed a man." I think RfC would be an appropriate venue since it is a BLP and we should have a more widespread consensus either way. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not the least bit surprised that you would mirror the "concern", as you do always march in lockstep. It is however completely off base. It's not even remotely challenging to present this "responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone". The proposed text closely matches what the source says:
"On August 17, 2000, as documented by the Utah Occupational Safety and Health Division (UOSHD), one of his homemade distillers ruptured at the lid, fatally wounding a worker at Young Living Farms in Mona, Utah, a 1,000-acre farm where plants were cultivated for essential oil extraction using a steam distillation process. Young Living Farms was fined a total of $10,280 for seven safety violations. UOSHD reported: “The entire operation was designed by Gary Young President and built on site. The vessels were not built under any consideration to ASME [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] code for pressure vessels. No type of pressure relief device was installed on any of the vessels.”
There is no WP:SYNTH and no WP:OR, nor an issue with WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV. You seem to be just throwing out random policy links without an inkling of what they mean. More of the usual obfuscation, and the reason why RfC is needed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
It is interesting that you would assert that other editors "march in lockstep" when you have shown up on here almost immediately after DolyaIskrina, and very quickly came to agree with their position, even though it is merely rehashing a discussion on the exact same topic, and with the exact same sources, as has previously failed to establish a consensus for inclusion. The issues with this have actually been better explained before. A worker was killed when a specific piece of equipment exploded. A government report on the business noted in one place that the death had occurred, and on a separate page of the report states rather ambiguously that Young designed the "operation", without specifying anywhere that Young designed any piece of equipment used in the operation. There are no actual news sources reporting this event in any sort of connection with the article subject. The event does not rise to the level of being noteworthy. This is aptly demonstrated by comparison with articles such as Al Smith, president of the Empire State company responsible for constructing the Empire State Building, which makes no mention of the dozens of workers who died on that project; John A. Roebling, who oversaw construction of the Brooklyn Bridge, which makes no mention of the 27 men known to have died on that project; and William Clay Ford Sr., owner and CEO of Detroit Lions, which makes no mention of player Chuck Hughes who died during that tenure. In every case, these deaths received far more substantial actual news coverage. BD2412 T 02:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Your quote of that article is actually incomplete. The article refers to the subject's list of personal achievements on his webpage, and then says: However, the page didn’t mention that on August 17, 2000..." The source is not specifically faulting Young for the death, but for failing to mention it on a list of personal achievements on his webpage. If this article were to faithfully follow the source, it would say that According to the Skeptical Inquirer, Young failed to mention on his list of personal achievements that a worker died, or the like. The relevant policy on this topic is WP:UNDUE. The relevant passage of that policy is:
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.
Now, what is the treatment of this event in the body of reliable, published material on the subject? It's basically a throwaway line in a single source that appears to be dedicated to posting a laundry list of negative content about the subject. Granted, there are plenty of bad things worth reporting about the subject, and this article already reflects that. However, including this specific incident is clearly disproportionate to its treatment in the body of sources. The Business Insider piece appears to make no mention of it. Neither does the New Yorker piece. Neither does Quackwatch. In short, even sources that are seeking to highlight negative aspects of the subject pass on mentioning this specific incident. For us to include it would be to elevate its significance beyond that accorded by its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. BD2412 T 16:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
No one has proposed giving the details undue weight; your argument (specious), is that mentioning it at all is WP:UNDUE. The aspersions about the intention of the author/tenor of the article ("laundry list of negative content") are equally off-base -- it's a WP:RS and your personal opinion about its perceived "negativity" is not germane (i.e., "I don't like it" is not an editorial principle that WP follows). Furthermore, one cannot conclude that a certain detail should be omitted simply because it is not mentioned by every source that has written about the topic (WP doesn't work that way and never has), or on the basis that is only mentioned by two sources -- which is quite sufficient for inclusion, and particularly so with a fringe subject like Young. It is reliably sourced (both primary and secondary) and verifiable (thus we have no cause to question the veracity), and highly relevant to the topic since it was Young that designed and built the homemade distillers, which he had boasted about in his CV. But again, I don't see a good faith discussion emerging here, so as I have said countless times already, RfC is the way to go. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I am not casting aspersions at all; Skeptical Inquirer is entitled to focus on criticizing pseudoscience, which is inherently means presenting people who press unscientific claims in a negative light. It serves a valuable function in doing so. However, your assertion that I seek to omit this detail "because it is not mentioned by every source that has written about the topic" is ridiculous, and disingenuous. I have stated quite clearly that this detail is not discussed in any other secondary source, and in fact is not even presented in the primary source this way. I would strongly recommend that you actually read the primary source to which you refer so that you can see this for yourself before going out on a limb to claim more than the source supports. BD2412 T 18:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
(1) You did cast aspersions by referring to it as a "source that appears to be dedicated to posting a laundry list of negative content about the subject" (but I assume now that you do not contest that the sources are WP:RS). Also, the source does not paint Young in a "negative light" per se. It is reality (and his own actions) that paints him in negative light, and the source merely reports the facts. (2) You specifically referred to sources such as BI, New Yorker, and Quackwatch not mentioning the incident as a reason to not include it in the article, which again, is an arbitrary benchmark not reflected by WP policy (i.e., multiple sources are not a requirement for inclusion and their are many single-source claims in this article which are uncontested). You argument is that giving it any weight is a violation of WP:UNDUE, which indicates that you didn't closely read the policy. Devoting scads of space to it might be undue, but a line or two would certainly not. Anyhow, for the nth time, the best place to resolve the issue is RfC. You can try to make the case about WP:UNDUE there. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
First, re: "I assume now that you do not contest that the sources", this is the logical fallacy of asserting that an uncontested point in a Gish gallop is thereby conceded. This source should not be the sole source used to support a claim that is this contestable. As for the negativity, I am not arguing that the source is wrong to focus on a negative light, but there is no question that its entire purpose is to report bad things about the subject, and omit anything good about the subject. There are, of course, charitable causes and the like that have been mentioned in previous versions of the article; although they were poorly sourced here, if SI was looking to write a thorough and balanced piece, nothing would prevent them from including that. Undoubtedly, they could have found numerous people who claimed, however delusionally, to have been helped by use of the subject's products, but only published accounts of people who claimed to have been harmed by them. The issue is not that a handful of other sources omit this incident, it is that there is not other mention of it in any secondary source, and the primary source cited does not draw the suggested connection between the subject and the incident. Even SI does not take the incident seriously. They make a joke of it not being listed in his personal achievements. WP:UNDUE does not state that it applies to "scads of discussion of isolated events"; it says that it applies to "discussion of isolated events", period. This is such an event that is so unimportant to the biographical importance to the subject that any discussion of it would be an unencyclopedic exercise in looking to hang innuendo on the subject. BD2412 T 23:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
It’s not our place to impute the "purpose" of authors of WP:RS, obviously, since we have no way of knowing one way or the other. I gather that this WP:UNDUE argument is the one you want to take to RfC, or do you have anything more to add -- a suggested edit to make the proposed text more amenable to you perhaps? If you do, please try to be concise and on-point with respect to policy and GLs. If not, we can wrap this up and move on to RfC and you can try to defend your argument there. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

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

I had assumed that RIR was proposing to start one. It is the burden of the editor proposing a contentious change to the status quo to obtain consensus for that change. I would think that where the change proposed is to accuse the article's subject of killing a man, the support for this would need to be particularly strong. BD2412 T 00:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
No one proposed adding text accusing him of "killing a man"; the proposed text, which conforms with the two WP:RS cited, was "one of Young's homemade distillers exploded, fatally wounding a worker at Young Living Farms". Misrepresentations like that undermine reasonable editorial discussion and won't fly in RfC. This is a slam dunk as far as I'm concerned, and you represent a dissenting minority. Before RfC, I'm waiting to see if you have anything else to add to your case so that you don't try to move the goalposts later. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Just commenting here, it wasn't "homemade" - according to the report it was constructed in the fabrication workshop on site, and that is standard for manufacturing plants, by people employed for the task. - Bilby (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Protocol would dictate that we show some degree of respect to the author's choice of terms (unless there is good reason not to), which included "homemade" (not unreasonable for equipment he designed and built) but didn't include "constructed in fabrication workshop onsite". Either way, its a minor issue. I'd be fine with saying "distiller that Young designed and built onsite" instead of "homemade". Trivial really. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
@Rhode Island Red: That's the whole point of adding it, then, isn't it? To create an incorrect impression that the subject, through some bad act, is responsible for an employee's death (even though there is no record of any fact-finding body actually finding the subject liable for this)? Bilby's point here is important. The ambiguity of the language proposed could easily misinform readers rather than informing them. The OSHA report specifically states that the business had a fabrication shop, and employed engineers. Although it does indeed say at page 47 that the subject designed "the operation", and that the operation was "built on site", nowhere does any source state that the subject either designed or built the distiller used in the operation. So the question is, if we were to include the proposed content, how would we clarify that there is no assertion in any source that the subject actually designed or built the specific piece of equipment that malfunctioned, and that the subject was assigned no personal fault for the employee's death? How do we clarify this without it becoming an excessive portion of the article? BD2412 T 02:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm done with addressing your tendentious arguments; good luck throwing that spaghetti at the RfC wall in front of neutral editors. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Is the RfC going to be made soon? I see many mentions of you going to do it but have yet to see anything. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b London, William. "D. Gary Young (1949–2018), Diploma Mill Naturopath and Promoter of Essential Oils". CSICIP.ORG. Center for Inquiry. Retrieved 18 January 2019. Cite error: The named reference "London" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:D._Gary_Young/Archive_3&oldid=1061544393"