Talk:D. Gary Young

RfC: worker killed by pressure device designed by Young

Should Donald Gary Young's bio include the fact that a worker was killed at his facility by a device he designed? Proposed:

"On August 17, 2000, one of his distillers ruptured, 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."”

DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

References

• A while ago I suggested noting the possibility that Young was a bigamist based on innuendo from his multiple allegedly serial marriages. Was told that innuendo wasn't enough, we can't connect those dots. Don't see how this is any different. Seems its been "discussed to death" that there's no proof of who built the boiler or even designed that piece of equipment, and no kind of finding binding Young responsible for it. If he can't be deduced a bigamist by innuendo, surely nor can he be deduced a murderer by the same kind of innuendo. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• While I agree that we don't have evidence to effectively say "DGY built a thing that blew up and killed someone," I do think that the Young Living section on this article merits some expansion - it's half the lead and arguably what he's most well-known for, but the Young Living section here is four sentences long. Granted, it's got its own article and all the details are there, but I don't think a slight expansion here would be remiss. Maybe something like:

  "Multiple complaints and lawsuits have been lodged against Young Living, including seven safety violations noted following an inspection into an employee death in 2000, reports to the FDA of adverse product reactions from 2013 to 2014, federal misdemeanor charges for illegal trafficking of certain oils in 2017, and a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging that the company is an unlawful pyramid scheme in 2019."

How does that (with the appropriate sources) strike everyone? It makes mention of the boiler incident as a fact that happened to the company, avoids using Wikipedia's voice to say it was his fault, and allows the reader to check the Young Living page for more detail. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

User:NekoKatsun's solution looks right to me! NickCT (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I support this edit. I think it would improve this page and should also be added to the Young Living page. Thanks! However, it doesn't actually solve my problem. According to the source, DGY designed a device that killed a man. When you say we "don't have evidence" I have to say that we are not in the evidence business. We are in the notability and reliable source business, both of which support the inclusion of the quote. DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The source doesn't say that he designed the device. It says that the operation was designed by Young. Designing an operation and designing the devices used in the operation are not necessarily the same. - Bilby (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that! I agree with Bilby; the quote says that he designed "the operation," which could just refer to how things are laid out. I tracked down and read the citation, and it doesn't specify who actually designed the distillers. I agree with you that it's notable and reliably sourced, but the wording is juuust vague enough that we don't know exactly how responsible he was for the death. We know that it was his operation, and we know that there were $10k of fines levied afterwards for other safety breaches, and we know that he was approached as part of the investigation. The difficulty as I see it is that if he designed and built the distiller that blew up, it absolutely becomes his fault and should be included here, but if he didn't, then it belongs best on the Young Living page only. I'm looking at it a little like if a machine in the first Ford factory killed a worker, and someone described the incident in the same way, i.e. "The entire operation was designed by Henry Ford and built on site," I'd have no way of knowing if Ford designed the machine that killed someone or if he just designed the factory. Similarly, without knowing what "operation" specifically refers to, we can't know exactly how culpable DGY is, and therefore whether or not that quote specifically should be on his page. Have you been able to track down any other sources about the distiller's origin? If we can pin down who designed and/or manufactured it, that would help a great deal. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 00:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

We would be including verbatim what the source said. This is the full quote without edits: "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." Either this quote is worthy of inclusion or it is not. If not, why? DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I like the proposal as far as the wording but would actually think that would be a much better intro for the Young Living page since the current lede simply hammers a single issue with the US FDA. Having your wording above is a more accurate summary as there have been multiple issues that need to be summarized in the lede while the finer details can stay in the body. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with NickCT that NekoKatsun's proposal moves in the right direction. This being a WP:BLP article, we need to be careful to avoid fomenting guilt by association, even for a pseudoscience advocate. I would reword the proposed text to make the broader connection a bit more direct, while making the laundry list of allegations somewhat more minimal (and less potentially redundant to Young Living), something along the lines of:

"Throughout Young's tenure as CEO, Young Living faced various investigations, complaints, and lawsuits, including findings of safety violations and reports to the FDA of adverse product reactions."

I don't think that a misdemeanor or a proposed lawsuit necessarily merit mention here, but this gives readers enough to lead them to Young Living if they are interested in those details. Of course, the fact that a particular source phrases something in a way that creates an unstated implication certainly does not obligate us to quote that source, or otherwise convey that implication. BD2412 T 01:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I am liking the proposed changes, especially the latest by BD2412. I am contemplating doing a second RfC for my other issue, which is that the lead should include something like "arrested for and plead guilty to practicing medicine without a license." I'm new to RfC's though, so I don't want to do something untoward. Just, this page needs fresh eyes, and I have multiple issues that I don't want to lump together. Having said that, something like BD2412's proposed new text occurring in the lead, would potentially solve both of of my problems. 1) is a second RfC helpfull? 2)what do you think about adding something like that to the lead? Thanks for all the help folks. DolyaIskrina (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone intended to propose that this text should go in the lede, and it is certainly not the basis for which the subject is notable. It would be rather sloppy editing to mix up matters most relevant to the company as an entity with matters relevant to the individual. A second RfC on a proposition raised in an ongoing RfC seems a bit excessive. BD2412 T 02:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, then, I see we do need a second RfC, because otherwise we will just rehash the discussion we've already had about what belongs in a lead. This is not something that just came up in this discussion. It's from the previous discussion about the lead. To be clear, I support adding your proposed text. Why not go ahead and do that now? I hope that, unlike in the past, the process doesn't play out that, next someone says it should not be on this page, cause it much better belongs only on the Young Living page, and then eventually someone else deletes it from that page. Then poof it's no longer on wikipedia at all.DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Re: "it much better belongs only on the Young Living page, and then eventually someone else deletes it from that page", the problem, then, is the deletion of relevant content from Young Living. Putting content more relevant to the company on the page of an individual is not a solution. Nor is forum shopping through multiple discussions or multiple RfCs aimed at the same matter. BD2412 T 19:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with the wording. But now I wonder if the sentence about the FDA should be there since your proposal would better summarize that there have been numerous issues and not just that one. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I see your point, given that an FDA complaint would likely have referred to the company, not the individual. If that is not the case, then I would want to see the language of the complaint stating otherwise. BD2412 T 19:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I would need to revisit but I think the FDA complaint actually is for distributors who made the claims. There is a reference from the BI that says the company pushes them to make these claims but there is nothing about Mr. Young doing this. The Young Living page also needs some cleanup as there are many claims about Young that seem to have slipped in there which are already on his BLP page and not relevant to the company. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I tweaked the FDA information in the Young Living page to remove the WP:SYNTH. I think adding the wording you propose would be fine for DGY in place of the FDA information. I will take some time to do some other cleanup on Young Living and then likely clean up that lede to something along the lines that NekoKatsun proposed. Two birds, one stone. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• We don't want to conflate issues so this comment is strictly about the RfC. I would be opposed to the proposed text for many reasons which have already been stated by others above and discussed numerous times on the talk page (both recently and in the past). --CNMall41 (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @CNMall41: Just to be clear, do you mean to oppose to all of the proposals, or just the initial proposal? BD2412 T 19:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Just the initial proposal. The other comments seems to be going in the right direction but I wanted to make sure to bullet point a comment for the initial so that there isn't too much confusion. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: on closer review, the OSHA report cited by the OP specifically states at pages 13-14 (pages 47-48 of the PDF) that "Todd Rindlisbaker P.E., WHW Engineering, Inc. ... designed the pressure relief system to be installed on each of the vessels". In short, the document cited for the proposition that there was a "pressure device designed by Young" expressly states that the device was designed by someone else. BD2412 T 03:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The quote I've been wanting to add from SI also comes from page 47 of the PDF and says "no type of pressure valve was installed." So your interpretation of that particular section of the report can also be questioned. Who cares who designed the thing that wasn't installed? Why wasn't it installed? We aren't investigative journalists and it's not up to us to decide which part of the OSHA report is relevant. We are not supposed to be interpreting a primary source like this. WP:PRIMARY: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." The SI article is SECONDARY. The quote is the quote. If your reason for excluding it is that you've read the OSHA report and you have a different take on it than the SECONDARY, then that is OR. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

SI is not claiming that Young designed the device. Only you are. The OSHA report which you have yourself cited clearly states that the device was designed by an engineer named Todd Rindlisbaker. At this point you are seeking to introduce into the article an interpretation that you know to be factually incorrect. BD2412 T 05:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

These are the factual claims that I think should be in the article: 1. a worker died at his plant. 2. The OSHA inspector said the above quote. Neither of these things is in question. If you would like to then add your additional reading of the OSHA report to the article, that is a separate matter, and personally I wouldn't oppose that, even though I think it would be potential OR. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I think Someguy1221 said it best at WP:ORN: "If a secondary source says, "according to primary source, X", but the primary source clearly says, "not X", the policy-compliant resolution is simply to decide the secondary source isn't reliable on that point". We do not deceive our readers by putting things we know to be untrue in articles, and this includes adding false innuendo or false implications. Perhaps other editors will disagree and you will gain a consensus for some proposed wording along those lines, but that clearly is not the case at this time. BD2412 T 04:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You and I honestly disagree on whether or not the OSHA reports says "not X". I think we even disagree on what X is. This is why we shouldn't go down the rabbit hole of fact checking Secondary Sources, per WP:SECONDARY. You found a passage that says an engineer designed pressure valves. My quote which was quoted in WP:RS and Secondary says there were no pressure valves installed. So what do we make of that? We follow the WP:RS and include the quote and let the readers be adults and decide for themselves. Young was the president (and/or CEO) and he designed the facility. The inference that the death of a worker was a significant and notable event in his biography is really quite modest. DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, please provide a source stating that the pressure device was itself, in fact, designed by Young. Absent a source making this specific connection, the death of a worker in an industrial accident does not meet the test of relevance to the biography of the subject. BD2412 T 06:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact is, there isn't one. That should be the end of this RfC. Everything else discussed in this section is just noise and needs to be handled elsewhere.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Reaffirming first point. Didn't actually design it. Now that's made clear. One might think learning this would lead to reevaluating what other errors one might be pushing. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, since we've decided we should be reading the OSHA report, I went ahead and did that. BD is mistaken. The pressure relief system mentioned on page 48 of the PDF (14 by internal pagination) were additional added elements after the accident. That is why the quote that I'm trying to add, says "No type of pressure relief device was installed on any of the vessels." The valves BD mentioned that were designed by the engineer were the required fix after the accident. A man was just killed after all. Here is the quote that BD thinks is exculpatory (my typing so beware typos) "Mr Rindlisbaker also designed the press relief system to be installed on each of the vessels… new temperature gauges were also installed." This all took place after the accident. In other words, the entire system was designed by Young, then someone was killed, and changes were made. Now at this point in the argument you usually say "entire" doesn't mean the specific parts. Doesn't matter. Young is the CEO. He was an involved CEO who "designed" and he took great pride in pressure devices specifically. And those devices were the foundation of his business. It's not like a worker slipped on the way to the bathroom. It's not like a worker got run over by a forklift. The thing that makes Young notable killed someone. We don't have to prove that he was criminally negligent. We just have to state in a fairly neutral way that a worker was killed by a distiller in a "operation designed by Young". We have both RS and PRIMARY to support that. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you please provide a source that states unambiguously that Young designed the specific device that exploded? A half dozen editors in this discussion would like to see a source that says this before such a controversial accusation is made in the article. That was already the consensus before Rindlisbaker's role was explored, and the report does not make it clear that Rindlisbaker's modifications were not of his own earlier work. BD2412 T 05:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed, add this content from the Young Living page, which I think is very well done and solves all our issues. I'm not being intentionally thick, I know you have stated multiple times why you wouldn't want to do this, but I honestly don't understand the reasoning. Why can the Young Living page have all that bio stuff about Gary Young, but the Gary page can't also have significant events that happened while he was running his company?>>>>

In 2000, the Utah Occupational Safety and Health Division (UOSHD) investigated an August 17, 2000, explosion of a distiller, that fatally wounded a worker at Young Living Farms in Mona, Utah. UOSHD fined Young Living Farms $10,280 for seven safety violations, stating that "no consideration was given in the design and construction of distillation vessels with respect to American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) pertaining to design and construction of pressure vessels", and that "none of the pressure vessels are equipped with any type of pressure relieving device". According to the UOSHD, "the entire operation had been designed by Young Living founder Donald Gary Young and built onsite". DolyaIskrina (talk) 09:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

You are correct. However, the logic is somewhat misguided. The information about DGY on the Young Living page is a WP:COATRACK and I am going to tone it down. It shouldn't exist there anyways since it is more about him and not the company. This is one of many things for both articles that have been left to remain as a compromise (despite not being inline with Wikipedia policy) from people WP:BLUD both pages which is why there are some of us keeping a close eye and trying to ensure that we adhere to NPOV and not feelings or wants of what feel should be included.

• The issue is that companies are not identical to individuals. We have had this specific discussion before—we have numerous instances where employee deaths, even in larger numbers, are noted in the article on the company, but not on the article of the founder or owner or CEO. The OSHA report we keep going back to is an investigation of the company, not of this article subject. The report indicates that a number of employees were interviewed regarding safety issues, but was the article subject even interviewed by the agency? BD2412 T 16:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Per the report, if I recall correctly from when I last read it, yes he was interviewed, but the "operation had been designed by DGY and built onsite" quote is the closest it gets to explicitly dinging him for wrongdoing. If we have evidence that he designed the vessel that exploded - "the entire operation" isn't quite enough - then I'd be all in favor of including this death in DGY's article. Without that, though, since this is an article about a person, I lean towards leaving it on only the Young Living page. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Based on my revision of the Young Living section on the DGY page, it is there (both pages). I used partial wording you had proposed so that we have a summary of major events instead of just the FDA warning. I would agree with you about including it in further without express language saying he was the one who did it. Anything else would be SYNTH. DolaIskrina has been asked numerous times for a reference that expressly states DGY is responsible and has so far failed to provide one. As such, I am afraid this RfC has sizzled out. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

CNMa1141 I like the way you worded it on the YL page! Thanks. I would like it on this page too, and then I'd be very happy. If that's a sizzle, then let's sizzle. NekoKatsun, yes Young does appear in the OSHA report as having been present at at least one of the meetings. And there is plenty of evidence that he has designed distillers, and he calls the process proprietary, and was hands-on with the onsite manufacture of the devices. I think the way it is written above is the perfect solution to all our problems. DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Quick question. Is there any reason not to include the victim's name? He was Juan Gomez. DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Why on earth would we include the name of the person killed, in a BLP where we cannot even decide (and there is currently more dissent than agreement) to include the incident at all? Also as stated above, it IS on the DGY page in the Young Living section. The only issue is that you want it in the lede and you still have not shown ANY reference that says he designed it. This is for Young Living, not DGY. It shouldn't be on the page at all but since we have a section for YL it is fine to include a quick summary which is there (both positive and negative). All you are doing with your arguments above is exactly the definition of WP:SYNTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that I want the death of Juan Gomez in the lead? I don't. The lead stuff is in the other RfC I opened (I opened two in hopes of avoiding exactly this sort of confusion). And even there, I never wanted the death in the lead. I just want the death mentioned in this article the same way it is mentioned in the YL article (some changes would be required). Wherever it's mentioned, why not name the victim? DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

"CNMa1141 I like the way you worded it on the YL page! Thanks. I would like it on this page too, and then I'd be very happy. If that's a sizzle, then let's sizzle." - Now I am confused. That is a quote from you yet you say that "some changes would be required?" Either you like it or you don't. As far as confusing, I don't think people opining are causing it. When you add more information into your RfC such as including the name of the person who died it certainly does widen the goal posts of the RfC and should be dealt with in another thread. Note, I said another thread, not RfC. Finally, you still refuse to provide a source about DGY designing or building the distiller (a source that says it directly, not OR or SYNTH). Are you planing to do so or are you conceding that one doesn't exist? --CNMall41 (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I think minimal changes, such as my strike through, would make it fit just fine. I'll make another proposal in a second to be more clear. As to proof that Young designed the device, it seems like you think I want to put "Young murdered a man with a distiller" into the article. If you look at all of the actual text I have proposed, every version is very close to what is already in the Young Living passage. If whatever level of proof got us to that text is enough for you then it's certainly enough for me. And if naming the victim is too... sad? then we don't have to do that. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

PROPOSED (edits for brevity and framed as a moment in the biography of Gary Young): In 2000, when Young was president, a Young Living Farms distiller had a pressure failure that fatally wounded a worker. Utah Occupational Safety and Health Division fined Young Living Farms $10,280 for seven safety violations, stating that "no consideration was given in the design and construction of distillation vessels with respect to American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) pertaining to design and construction of pressure vessels", and that "none of the pressure vessels are equipped with any type of pressure relieving device". According to the UOSHD, "the entire operation had been designed by Young Living founder Donald Gary Young and built onsite." I wish I could shorten the first quote by paraphrasing, like UOSHD said the distiller had not been designed to code for pressure vessels, but given how contentious this is, I worry people would find that to be SYNTH. DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. It ultimately comes down to there being a proposal on the table that is clearly describing a matter relating to the company, and not clearly relating to (or being of importance to) the individual. Per Bilby above, "Designing an operation and designing the devices used in the operation are not necessarily the same". The same reasoning applies to the distinction between the relationship between the company and the employee (without assigning blame for a work-incident to any specific person in the company). I also note the comparison by NekoKatsun to Henry Ford's design of the "entire operation" of his assembly line. Workers died in accidents on that assembly line. We don't mention them in Henry Ford. The amount of text that would be needed to qualify the inclusion of this context would be entirely disproportionate to its significance to the life of the article subject. BD2412 T 15:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - The proposal IS WP:SYNTH, it is already detailed in the company page which is where it belongs, and is already part of the summary under Young Living on this page which is more than amble for NPOV. Getting into more details on this page is WP:COAT. OP has been asked many times and failed to answer about a source saying that DGY is the one who is directly responsible for making the device. Since there isn't such a source, this continues to feel like a push to put SYNTH from an OSHA report into a BLP and frankly is starting to border on WP:ADVOCACY. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. We can definitely shorten the above text. Unlike Harry Ford, Young's claim to fame is the distiller. It wasn't an unfortunate accident on the line, it was the device that, to this day, is all over the promotional material for the company. Here is Young with one of his first distillers in '91.

Gary’s first distillation experiment was welding two pressure cookers together and placing it on top of the kitchen stove. He cut holes on the bottom of the top container to allow water to be poured in.

And this...

Gary continued to experiment with the distillation process and to modify his equipment. He even climbed into one of the extraction chambers with a flashlight and had them turn the steam on so that he could see how it moved against the dome lid of the distiller. He got the information he wanted, but needless to say, he didn’t stay long in the chamber. From what he saw, he immediately designed a new lid and again climbed back inside the cooker to how it worked, but this time he poured water over his head to reduce the chance for burns. As he watched what happened with the steam, he was able to modify the lid for even better oil recovery.(Page 94)

And this is him designing the very distiller that exploded.

Gary built a small 4,500-liter extraction chamber to distill the first harvest. In 1997 he added larger chambers of 6,500 liters and every year continued to build more chambers to meet the needs of his expanding crops. The last two 12,000-liter chambers were built in 1999, totaling 12 extraction chambers in which 10 to 15 crops have been distilled over the years, depending on the wildcrafting and what was planted.(Page 91)

Juan Gomez was killed by that distiller in 2000. I'd like to hear from the other editors. Shall I ping them? DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You can ping as you wish, but you still haven't provided any source stating that the device that killed the company's employee was a device built by this article subject. In fact, all the quotes you cite above (none of which make this specific connection) come from sources that fail WP:INDEPENDENT. They are productions of the company and its supporters making unsubstantiated public relations claims. BD2412 T 04:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not my sources deserve to be in the article, they defeat the argument that "entire" doesn't mean "particular", and the argument that as president and CEO he actually had nothing to do with the production. The specific connection was made by the OSHA inspector who said the entire production was designed by Young. If young's PR also agrees that he designed everything including the distillers in particular, it seems like very tortured logic to say we can't quote the OSHA inspector for fear that it concurs with an iffy source. Just because a liar agrees with you, doesn't mean you're a liar. DolyaIskrina (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

"The last two 12,000-liter chambers were built in 1999". The unreliable source to which you point seems careful to say that Young built various previous distillers, but in the final passage merely says "chambers were built". BD2412 T 06:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I've got to agree with BD2412 on this. The OSHA source doesn't specify who built the devices, and the YL source is unreliable to the point where I wouldn't even trust it to get the dude's birthday right (of course it's doing to say he designed everything, it probably also says that every non-YL essential oil is inferior and that proper application of oils can cure literally anything (whether or not it actually says those specific things isn't my point, it's a YL source that puffs up their founder)). We need a reliable source that says DGY personally designed and built that distiller specifically to even start to consider having it on this page. I'm 100% in agreement that it belongs on the YL page, but based on the available sources I feel it doesn't need to be here too. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I will mirror what was said by both BD2412 and NekoKatsun. Despite being asked for a "specific" source supporting your claim, you have failed to do so, instead introducing yet more WP:SYNTH. Please stop. Now, as far as the source, we cannot cherry pick. If you consider a book by his wife reliable, then Let's use it to make the Young Living Wikipedia page one of the most impressive pages here in Wikipedia since it makes claims that make YL seem like the savior of the world. On a separate note, can you provide something other than SYNTH that backs up your comment ("this is him designing the very distiller that exploded")? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Having read all of the above stuff -- I laughed, I cried, I thought one thing, I read more comments, I began to think another -- what a roller coaster ride -- my personal opinion is that I'd bet money he was the one who put this specific pressure vessel together. But the fact remains that, given all the stuff that's been posted so far, there is no RS that says he put this one together. No source, no inclusion, especially since this is a BLP, and especially especially given that it's basically accusing him of killing a guy. jp×g 17:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Great to have new eyes on this! I actually am less sure than you that he designed the particular distiller. However, per WP:ABOUTSELF it is beyond doubt that he wanted to be considered the designer of the distiller. That is enough to include it. We are not saying he killed the man. We are saying a thing he wanted credit for killed a man. That passes notability, because it was the thing on which he built his empire. To exclude his false claims because they are false is to miss the whole point of NPOV and WP:ABOUTSELF. We are not snopes, we are an encyclopedia, and if a liar tells lies, we are allowed to say what the liar said. Because we have WP:RS, namely Scientific American Skeptical Inquirer, quoting the OSHA inspector, and because young is dead and there are no legal issues pending, all the reasons for excluding the information given above (WP:BLP, drawing into question what "entire" and "design" mean) are defeated. By the exact same reasoning, we have included in the article the claim that he suffered a "near fatal logging accident" this is unsubstantiated and probably false, but we include it. Cheers DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF applies to material written by the subject themselves. This does not appear to be that. This isn't a court of law where we would use a statement against interests to impeach a defendant's credibility. We still have no source specifying that the subject built the specific device that exploded. BD2412 T 18:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It applies to self promotion. Are you arguing that a book written by his wife and published by his company is not self promotion?DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It's promotion of Young Living, but I would definitely not consider it a reliable source for that article, much less this one. BD2412 T 21:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Even if WP:ABOUTSELF applied here (which it doesn't), you are still falling within WP:SYNTH. You want to say that he built a distiller, then you want to say a distiller killed someone, even though we don't even know if it the same distiller. That draws a conclusion for readers where there is no reliable source that says he designed the distiller that killed the individual. Despite many requests, you have still failed to provide a reliable secondary source. The only logical step here is WP:RFCL. It's time to WP:DTS and WP:LETITGO.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose just to make official, I suppose. No "there" there. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

References

RfC: does this lead reflect the body of the article?

The following discussion 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.

---

Should any of this from the body appear in the lead: He was arrested and plead guilty to practicing medicine without a license and years later was warned by the FDA for illegally marketing products unapproved by the FDA as treatments or cures for Ebola and other conditions. Honestly, I would be satisfied for even a hint of this in the lead, which currently reads like a linkedin profile. DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• There appear to be multiple controversies that constitute the majority of the "Career" section, including the RfC quote. The lead should mention these to some degree. Some of it does not have the strongest sourcing, but some parts are pretty well-referenced.
  Feel free to ping me with other arguments / discussion, I haven't completely reviewed the previous discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• I'd leave out the marketing issue - that is complex, and the oversimpifion could be misleading. It is better discussed in the Young Living article. I do think a mention of controversies is worth doing - perhaps a variation of the previous suggestion: "During his career Young courted contraversy related to the unlicensed practice of medicing, and during his tenure as CEO of Young Living, the company faced various investigations, complaints, and lawsuits, including findings of safety violations and reports to the FDA of adverse product reactions". - Bilby (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• I love Bilby's text. DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• We discussed this extensively over the last few years. "He" wasn't warned by the FDA. His arrest was in 1983. He didn't do anything notable to be included for Wikipedia until he founded Young Living in 2000 (probably became notable a few years later once there were plenty of WP:RSes). So putting his arrest from 17 years prior to notability, 38 years after it happened, is about as significant as putting in the lede that he used to work for the US Forest Service as previously stated by other commenters in other threads.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Bilby's text is fine with me; Young's career was marked by an honestly hilarious number of incidents, and to leave all mention of it out of the lede entirely feels dishonest. The arrest is old for sure, but considering that it was for practicing medicine without a license speaks to a pattern in his life of doing exactly that - in my opinion, even though it's old, it's relevant. Bilby's text incorporates his history of controversy quite elegantly and neutrally.

As an aside, CNMall41, I feel like comparing a his arrest to his working for the Forest Service isn't a fair comparison - if he'd had a lifelong fascination with forestry, the comparison would make sense. Regarding the Forest Service, he had a job, and then moved on. Regarding the arrest, he pled guilty to practicing medicine without a license, and then went on to keep doing more or less exactly that (1986 in Tijuana, 1988 in Chula Vista, 2000 in Springville, 2014 related to Young Living). I agree with you that the age of the arrest makes it unsuitable for the lede (another reason I like Bilby's text), but wanted to share my two cents regarding the arrest-forestry comparison. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Your logic about the Forest Service is good and makes sense. Thanks for that. I still don't see how the other is relevant for the lede. Relevant for the body? Absolutely, but these happened prior to his time with Young Living and its only related through SYNTH which is what it would be if its put into the lede. And for the company, would you also include that it is the largest MLM company? I wouldn't as that is something for the company page, just like the FDA claim. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

My pleasure, and thank you! I agree with you that the arrest specifically doesn't belong in the lede (neither does the 'largest MLM' claim), but I do think that at least some mention of DGY's 'I know better than modern medicine and you can't stop me' proclivities belongs there. Giving the article in its current state a quick skim, 7/12 paragraphs (not counting the lede) have at least some mention of something similar. It's a major theme of his career and I feel that leaving it out of the lede entirely is... well, not quite whitewashing or dishonest, but it just feels icky not having it there. Out of curiosity, what do you think of Bilby's proposed text? It doesn't mention the arrest, and points out that the issues with YL were with the company, but during his tenure. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

DGY does have a shady past. There is no denying that. There is probably more that we dont even know about that he has done which makes it even worse. My point is that we don't need to point out things in the lede that are minor compared to his overall career. The page being 7/12's negative does not mean that the page is accurate so I leave out that rationale. Much of what is there is a compromise from other people hammering the article in an attempt to disparage more than necessary. If anything, it should be more balanced. As Wikipedians, we know he was shady and can conclude that by reading the article and what it says in reliable sources. Other people reading the article can deduce the same. We are telling people our conclusion by including such proposed wording in the lede which is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and not allowing them to come to their own conclusions by reading the article or the reliable sources. That's why sticking to what the reliable sources say and including that in the body is sufficient, but that's just my opinion.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@NekoKatsun:, on a side note, I can opine on Bilby or other proposals but it appears there are quite a few at this point. Let me know which exact points from any of them and I can speak to those. Thanks again for the civility. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that the lede is meant to summarize the article in its entirety, no? I would say a significant portion of the article deals with Young's many (many) run-ins with the law and complaints and malpractice. I wouldn't call that minor compared to his overall career; indeed, it seems to be the bulk of his career. Leaving such a major theme out of the lede seems disingenuous. I see your point about hammering the article to disparage more than necessary and wonder if a rewrite is necessary to help work some of that out, but as the article stands now, the lede doesn't accurately reflect the contents. Do you have any suggestions for phrasing that more accurately reflects the article's current contents while avoiding OR and SYNTH? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 22:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I think THAT is exactly where we need to start. In fact, I have been references on Young Living as I think we can get a more accurate summary in the lede with an update of the body (instead of just having the FDA complaint in the lede as there are more than just that). Once that happens, we will have an accurate summary to include in the YL section of the DGY page and then see what's best for the lede. I just don't think basing a lede on an article that has been hammered and left with compromises is something we would want to do as Wikipedians. Let me take a closer look at everything in the next few days and I will ping interested parties with an answer to your last question. Since WP:TIND, I don't believe we need to rush into a change prior to then. I am retired but work as a contractor and unfortunately have been hit and miss with Wikipedia the last month. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Bilby, NekoKatsun, and CNMall41 above that the 1983 arrest does not belong in the lede. Frankly, it concerns me that the edit history of this article is rife with, for example, anonymous IP edits seeking to paint the subject in the worst possible light. The subject has (or had) "enemies" out in the world pushing a narrative to that end, and I am specifically concerned that some of that may come from competitors in the rather lucrative essential oils market. That said, it is clear that at times Young has stepped on ethical lines, and has at times rather cavalierly associated with others doing so, and I like language to the effect that "During his career Young courted controversy related to the unlicensed practice of medicine, and during his tenure as CEO of Young Living, the company faced various investigations, and complaints, and lawsuits". I would leave it at that; as per CNMall41, I would avoid mentioning regulatory matters that were directed to the company rather than to Young as an individual. BD2412 T 22:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC) Note: striking "and lawsuits" from my proposal, as no lawsuits against Young in his capacity as CEO of Young Living are discussed in the article. BD2412 T 06:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Great, this looks like a consensus to me. I'll put the text in the lead and close the RfC in a day if no one objects. If someone else wants to put the text in, have at it. DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • An RfC should be closed by an uninvolved party, preferably an uninvolved administrator or experienced discussion closer. BD2412 T 05:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
    • No need for a closure if there is consensus. Do you feel there is not consensus? DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Clearly there is a consensus against referencing specific incidents in the lede. Otherwise, there are some different proposals for specific language. For what language do you think there is consensus? BD2412 T 06:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Ah, I thought we were just hammering out the specifics for the addition. I'll make a proposal and people can chime in. DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• PROPOSED TEXT (BD's version of Bilby plus one addition by me): During his career Young courted controversy related to the unlicensed practice of medicine, and during his tenure as CEO of Young Living, the company faced various investigations by the FDA. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • That lede would not reflect the contents of the article, which does not reference plural investigations by the FDA. Those are properly covered in the Young Living article, and include time frames outside of Young's role with the company. BD2412 T 20:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Proposed text: "During his career Young courted controversy related to the unlicensed practice of medicine, and during his tenure as CEO of Young Living, the company faced various complaints and investigations, including findings of safety violations and an FDA reprimand."

I'd also be comfortable removing the note about the safety violations, as they're only on the Young Living page and not actually on this one. The FDA reprimand is on this page and applies to both him and the company, so I feel it should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NekoKatsun (talk • contribs)

I think for the lede it is sufficient to say "the company faced various complaints and investigations", and leave it at that. It's a short article overall, and it is not surprising for a business in this space to receive such a reprimand (the big pharma companies get them more frequently than this). The more significant point is the controversy relating to medical practices, already addressed. BD2412 T 22:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick question. Would it be sufficient to say that the company is also one of the largest distributors of essential oils? The reason I ask is because of your comment about people using this page as a way to vent about the company. The company page says everything the OP wants to include the lede. This page also says everything about the company that the OP wants to put in the lede. I just feel that expanding on the company in the lede should not be done one way or another, especially since we are dealing with a BLP. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. Not to put too fine a point on it, but every company in this space, up to the largest pharmaceutical companies (Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Roche, etc.) receives complaints, gets sued, and occasionally gets an FDA investigation or warning. Looking into it more deeply, we do not seem to include reference to these in the ledes of their corresponding CEOs (Albert Bourla, Alex Gorsky, Christoph Franz). I think the tricky part here is coming up with language that concisely reflects that Young courted controversy in his earlier years, and later established a company that ran into issues fairly typical for companies of that size and in that field. BD2412 T 20:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Correct. A good example is Mark Zuckerberg and the controversy surrounding the founding of the company that made him notable for Wikipedia. This is only partially covered on his Wikipedia page (watered down) and ample weight is given to it on the page History of Facebook, but is not in the lede of his Wikipedia page. People can make up their own minds from what is in the body of those pages and don't need us as Wikipedians to call it out in the lede of Mark's page.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Seems like we can agree on: "During his career Young courted controversy related to the unlicensed practice of medicine, and during his tenure as CEO of Young Living, the company faced various complaints and investigations." How's this for everyone, then? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

My comments above are the opposite. Yes, he was controversial, but that's we can deduce from the reliable sources, not what they say. As such, it would be original research. Anything about the company other than he founded it (both the fact it is the largest distributor and faced complaints) is for the YL page, not the DGY page. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I find this to be a persuasive point, given comparable practices with respect to other CEOs of companies with comparable issues. We could give a more complete picture by saying something like "during his tenure as CEO of Young Living, the company faced various complaints and investigations comparable to those faced by other companies of similar size in the field", but that would be quite a bit for the lede. BD2412 T 23:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes I would agree to that text. The rest of these arguments are exactly how we got here in the first place. The lead needs to reflect the actual article. Your arguments failed to get the information removed from the page, so they should not work to get the information removed from the lead. MOS:LEAD DolyaIskrina (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't. Seems gratuitious unless balanced by proportionate info on the positives. There's one perspective that Young skirted the line of what was allowed, and another entirely that the line is there to perpetuate powerful industries or interests in their control of the flow of a big business. "Courted controversy," yes, but "related to the unlicensed practice of medicine" makes it sound as if he personally was dinged repeatedly for that, which isn't quite the truth. Put it simply and encompassingly: "On some occasions Young's efforts to provide medicinal services and products courted controversy." Hyperbolick (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

As the article stands currently (and I understand that CNMall41 is planning to have a look at that), there really aren't proportional positives. Regardless as to why the line is there, reliable sources in this article point out that he did skirt it - the article doesn't say that he was a health pioneer being persecuted by Big Pharma, it says that "He was... arrested and charged with practicing medicine without a license" and that "Young also founded and operated the Young Life Wellness Center... which in 1988 was ordered by a court judge to be shut down" and that "In 2014, while Young was chief executive officer (CEO) of Young Living, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning letter reprimanding him and Young Living for illegally marketing products unapproved by the FDA as treatments or cures for Ebola virus, and other medical conditions". I understand the desire to present a balanced picture of the man, but the balance here doesn't seem to be between 'bad' and 'good', it's 'bad' and 'worse'.

I will say that the references in the article currently are from sources almost universally critical of Young, which does make me wary, but I'll add that the supportive sources strike me as less reliable and more reliant on emotional manipulation (which is par for the course with alternative medicine). At this point I'm a little concerned that a desire for a balanced portrayal of Young will lead us towards WP:FALSEBALANCE. If we can find reliable sources with positives, though, I'd be more than happy to see and incorporate them. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with this. I am not particularly sympathetic the "persecution" argument suggested above, that actions against Young were intended to protect the big bad pharmaceutical industry. Rules governing the qualifications and conduct of medical practitioners exist for a reason, and it generally isn't for the protection of vested interests (although some of that does go on at the edges). I do, however, see merit in making any summary in the lede concise. I suppose the absolute minimum would be something like: "During his career, Young had several controversies". I think we can strike a balance between that and a version including a broader recitation of transgressions indicated in the article, and avoid giving too much weight to any specific issue, or conflating issues that the company had with issues of the individual subject. BD2412 T 18:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I changed the Young Living section of this page to reflect the more prominent complaints, using the majority of the version originally presented by NekoKatsun. I didn't do anything with the lede since it is still under RfC. It is more inline with what I did for the YL page and incorporates more instead of just having a single paragraph about the FDA complaint. I am thinking that there is something potentially to include in the lede here but thinking of how we can do so without conflating the issues or creating original research. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be a reasonable direction to go. BD2412 T 22:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@CNMall41: I'd like to hear your idea about "something poetentially to include in the lede". We keep getting close to consensus and then goal posts get moved. Maybe your idea would get us closer again.DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me clarify. I didn't mean I have an idea for specific wording. I said there potentially something we can put in the lede (positive and/or negative) but I don't have a specific idea on what yet. And, I may conclude that there isn't anything. As opposed to trying to shove somethign down people's throat to satisfy my personal POV, I am looking at everything as a whole to see what can be included under Wikipedia NPOV. As it stands, I am against all proposals so far since they would be OR and/or SYNTH. I am trying to see if there is something we can include without OR/SYNTH which can be proposed. Right now, there isn't. Also, I don't see anything close to a consensus. There are proposals and discussions at this point but nothing close to a consensus. Also, keep in mind that canvassing won't help and isn't appropriate since this is already posted on the RfC noticeboard.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I've added the RfC to the "maths, science, and technology" section since medicine is a scientific field. (Summoned by bot) I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 10:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Prioritzation ought to be balancing the body by explaining how he ultimately became a success. But "At times, Young courted controversy through his work" in the lead would do to sum up. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Sums it up, but is original research as stated numerous times. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

see what you mean. I continue to espouse that fixing deficiencies in explaining how this person became a success are the priority over adding 'controversy' language. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Mildly oppose, I’d suggest leaving as is. The body seems flawed and those parts needing fix rather than adding summary of them to lead. The NekoKatsun proposal seems reasonable as summary of them, though I would change the wording “courted” controversy as the article did not show he had sought confrontations, but I just don’t see it as better than the current lead or the way to go. It seems more that the body has too much that is UNDUE and CRITICISM, within vague criticisms and the start of allegations that are inappropriate — particularly for a bio page. For example, it mentions “proposed class-action lawsuit alleging that the company is an unlawful pyramid scheme in 2019” — I don’t see how “proposed” but never actual was at all affecting his life, and if it was then the conclusion (dropped?) should also be present. I’d suggest pruning the body a bit to focus on major items actually affecting his life and see what there is to summarize afterwards. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I requested closure

This is my first time doing this, so I hope I did all the notifications properly. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Normally an RfC can be closed by anyone when there isn't a consensus, but given that this is contentious, a request for closure is the right thing to do. Thanks for doing so, and I believe anyone watching this page can see it was done so not sure if additional notification would be needed. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2021 (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.

Is a Christian source permitted?

This source -- https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2018/june/d-gary-young-leader-of-the-modern-day-essential-oil-movement-passed-away-in-may -- seems a good source on the balancing side, but it is Christian, and we all know how that is received by some. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with religious sources, but the content of this one makes me a little leery - it directly quotes the Young Living news release about DGY's death without anything to clarify that it's a quote (the entire "modern pioneer" paragraph), sources Wikipedia (which feels circular to me, although admittedly I don't know if that's actually a problem or just me being weird), is plain wrong about his age at death, and I think the only thing included that isn't already covered is the establishment of the D. Gary Young Living Foundation. Is there something I'm missing? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 20:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thought a nice balance could be struck with noting the volume of charitable work later in life, which this article notes. Not the sort of thing that would turn up in the hit-pieces. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I think something for balance would be fine but I wouldn't go in-depth with anything unless there is a reference that talks about his specific work with the foundation. Otherwise we would be venturing back into the OR rabbit hole. I did find quite a few references that talks about the company and the foundation so putting in something more in-depth about the foundation on the company page would be appropriate. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I added a snippet to the Young Living page. I will do some searching now to see if we can find how DGY is tied to the foundation. It is obviously named after him so maybe there is a reference that says that instead of him "founding" the organization???--CNMall41 (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Alternative medicine navbox

I have removed {{Alternative medicine sidebar}}, which was just added to this article, per WP:NAVBOX, which states that "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional". In this case, the alternative medicine sidebar lists practices, not people, so it would not appear to conform to WP:NAVBOX. However, if there is some countervailing principle, I would be open to hearing it. BD2412 T 01:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Biased Opinions

The writer of this article was obviously biased against D. Gary Young. I find it disgusting that the writer diminished all of the good that D. Gary Young did for humanity. Autarchicx (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no "the writer". The article is based on reliable sources. If you have reliable sources who mention all of the good, bring them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.youngliving.com/us/en/company/media/announcements/d-gary-young-father-of-the-modern-day-essential-oil-moment. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. NotAGenious (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)