Talk:D. Gary Young/Archive 4

Excess detail about Stanley Burroughs
User:Rhode Island Red added the sentence:


 * In 1979, Young enrolled at the Burroughs Vita-Flex Institute, an unaccredited school dedicated to the teachings of Stanley Burroughs, who was convicted of second-degree murder (overturned on appeal) and practicing medicine without a license in 1981 after a cancer patient died from his treatment.

I removed the portion stating, "who was convicted of second-degree murder (overturned on appeal) and practicing medicine without a license in 1981 after a cancer patient died from his treatment", as a classic WP:COATRACK, as the sentence structure implies that Young's enrollment in the program, apparently from 1979 to 1980, either came after or was in some other way relates to Burroughs' conviction in 1981. My removal of this content was reverted on the grounds that it is covered in the cited source, but this has nothing to do with WP:COATRACK, since any source can include content that strays from the topic of the Wikipedia article. It is also a bit wordy to say that this other person was convicted of a crime, and the conviction was later overturned. If RIR wants to write an article on Stanley Burroughs (currently a redirect), and note there that Young was one of his students, that's fine, but this language should be fixed to avoid confusion and excessive discussion of another person. BD2412 T 15:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's clearly not a coat rack. It conforms exactly with the text of Business Insider's investigative piece on Young and the source's context should be respected. The dates are listed so there is no possibility of confusing the timeline as you suggest, and there is no reason to suggest that readers would be confused into thinking that Young was responsible. Also, his felony conviction for practicing medicine was not overturned, and it is obvious that the conviction was relevant to the authors (and to neutral WP editors) given Young's history of doing likewise. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Business Insider is not writing an encyclopedia. The fact that another person had a conviction overturned is surely not relevant to Young. BD2412  T 16:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not clear what point you are trying to make (remove the part about the murder conviction being overturned on appeal???) but it's moot. It's very clear (painfully obvious in fact) that the article draws the connection as stated in our article. It was mentioned no less that 4 separate times in the BI article (including in over-sized fonts and the upfront bullet point summary), so your argument to delete is tendentious to say the least. Rhode Island Red (talk)
 * It doesn't matter how many times BI mentions a point about someone else's biography. What was this article subject notable for? Certainly not for someone else have a murder conviction overturned. BD2412  T 17:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, it does matter and it is highly notable that he studied under someone who, shortly after, was convicted of murder (reversed on appeal) and a felony charge of practicing medicine without a license (not overturned), the same charge that Young was later convicted for. The BI article emphasizes that association repeatedly and makes it crystal clear. Please stop trying to overrule sources with your own personal POV. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The burden is yours to obtain consensus for including contested content in the article. Perhaps you can find someone who will agree with you. Until then, there is no consensus here. BD2412  T 19:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not tracking all the subtleties of your debate. As the DGY page stands right now, with RhodeIsland's additions from the BI article, it seems good to me. That he trained with someone who practiced medicine without a license seems very relevant. That Burroughs was convicted of murder also seems relevant, especially if it was someone Burroughs was treating. (Do we know that?) At a certain point, I think one has to admit that NPOV does not mean damning things are omitted. Multiple regulatory agencies from multiple states have found DGY to be making false and unethical claims. There is a strong theme in his life of disregard for other people's safety to the point of people dying. If he trained with and associated with people who engaged in similar activities, that is germane. Certainly the authors of the BI piece thought it was. I mean how many bodies are we supposed to ignore? DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case, why do we not just hunt down every instance of someone dying under shady circumstances and see if you can't put that in the article as well? At this point, I throw my hands up at the prospect that this article will ever conform to basic principles of encyclopedic content. BD2412  T 01:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If the point is to make the article about "disregard for other people's safety to the point of people dying" (which by the way shouldn't be the point of any Wikipedia article), it makes zero sense to reference someone else's conviction that was overturned on appeal, because that means that the exonerated person was not responsible for someone dying. The California Supreme Court overturned the conviction and said: "This clearly is a case in which conviction of felony murder is contrary to our settled law, as well as inappropriate as a matter of sound judicial policy. The instruction regarding felony murder was erroneous." If we mention that Burroughs was convicted at all we should give the full story, which is that the California Supreme Court found the conviction was completely erroneous. If we're not going to have that language then we can't include the non-event of a person being convicted and the conviction overturned with a misleading lack of context. Of course, mention of anything to do with Burroughs other than Young taking his class before this event is WP:UNDUE. If Burroughs is notable, write an article. If he's not, then his life story doesn't need to be told here. CNMall41 (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The conviction being overturned is mentioned because that's what the source reported. We follow what the sources actually write (which was accurate); not what you think they should have written. What you are proposing to add sounds about the SOC decision sounds like a coat rack and WP:SYNTH. Invoking WP:UNDUE just seems bizarre and desperate. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, are you suggesting that the context be added, or that reference to the conviction and reversal should not be added at all? BD2412  T 15:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Another person's non-conviction should not be in the article at all. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Overly close paraphrasing
I've tagged part of the article as having overly close paraphrasing. I did try to fix it, but was reverted. The text in question is:

The text the the article is virtually identical to the wording in the original, creating a problem with overly close paraphrasing, and because of the length and the word choice is not simply a matter of WP:LIMITED. It will need to be modifed in order to be compatible with the copyright policy. - Bilby (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Resolved. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not really a solution. While extensive quotations are better than simply copying the text, they should be limited to cases where the exact wording is necessary. Where alternative text would get the same ideas across we should be using that approach instead. - Bilby (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * After the issue above is resolved, we can redact the copyvio from the edit history. BD2412  T 16:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a perfectly reasonable solution since the quotations are not "extensive". The exact wording was necessitated because you nitpicked the paraphrasing, which was fine to begin with per WP:LIMITED. The addition of quotes was no different than your last edit involving the addition of quotes. You can always try RfC. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the previous discussion. BD2412  T 17:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:LIMITED is for cases of simple claims where there is only one way to express them, such as "Born in Montana". It doesn't apply to statements such as "after completing a home-study course in nutrition and herbology, he went back to work as a part-time trucker in British Columbia and pursued odd jobs over the next few years, hauling cargo and working on a pipeline in Fairbanks, Alaska". In regard to quotes, their use should be limited to cases where the exact wording is significant, not to long phrases were the precise words are not relevent. I'll take another stab at rewriting the text, as it seems that is the best solution, and it would be good if you avoided adding copy-and-paste text from sources. - Bilby (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:LIMITED obviously applies to factual details. There are in fact a limited number of ways to say that he "completed a home study course in nutrition and herbology"; the key details being "home-study course", "completed", and "nutrition and herbology'. You could swap "finished" for completed but that's about it. Anyhow, the use of quotations eliminated any potential issues concern about WP:CLOSE. The edits you made subsequently distorted key details, introduced facts not mentioned by the source, and omitted details unnecessarily. It was reverted on that basis. I strongly suggest you leave it as is as there are no issues with the current text with respect to WP:CLOSE and it requires no further substantial editing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Overuse of quotations is an issue - we don't need to use extensive quotes, and the policy is clear: "Quotation should not, however, be treated as an alternative to extracting facts and presenting them in plain language". Anyway, let's try and address the rewrite: what issues do you have with:
 * In late 1973 Young had recovered sufficiently that he was able to return part-time to his job as a truck driver. He worked in British Columbia and Fairbanks, Alaska for several years, until another accident led to a change in direction. Prior to returning to work in 1973 Young had studied nutrition and herbology, and he had retained an interest in alternative health. This led to Young enrolling at the Burroughs Vita-Flex Institute where he studied between 1979 and 1981. The institute was based on the teachings of Stanley Burroughs, who in 1981 was convicted of second-degree murder and practising medicine without a license. Although the murder charge was overturned, Burroughs had been accused of causing the death of a cancer patient through his treatments.
 * I'm happy to try and fix the issues rather than reverting to a version which is not compliant with our guidelines. - Bilby (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If it ain't broke, it doesn't need fixing -- i.e., it is already fully compliant. The edits you are proposing, needlessly, are woefully substandard: (1) The source says nothing about "recovering sufficiently" (2) the alt text needlessly deletes what the source said about the other jobs he took in BC (hauling cargo and working on a pipeline); (3) the source mentions nothing about "a change in direction" (which aside from WP:OR is vague and meaningless cruft); (4) the alt text needlessly deletes the part about the herbology/nutrition being "home study" (thus opening the possibility that it will be misinterpreted as some form of legitimate study of nutrition); (4) it draws a casual relationship as to what led Young to enroll in Vita-Flex that was not stated by the source; (5) it adds an end date to his study at Vita-Flex (1981) that was not mentioned by the source; (6) it needlessly breaks apart the sentence describing what he was convicted and delicensed for (needlessly deviating from how the source presented the detail); (7) it takes a 2-sentence entry and turns it into 6 sentences (poor editing and a potential WP:UNDUE issue). So in summary, the alt text needlessly omits key details, deviates from what the source actually wrote, introduces WP:OR, and triples the length from 2 sentences to 6. The proposal is a bad solution in search of a problem that simply does not exist. So please, don't do us anymore of these favors. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As an addendum, 2 short quotes is not "Overuse of quotations" nor is it "an issue" in any conceivable way. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. So let's try:
 * In late 1973 Young had returned part-time to his job as a truck driver. He worked in British Columbia and on a pipeline in Fairbanks, Alaska for several years until he suffered another accident. Prior to returning to work Young had studied nutrition and herbology via home study, and he had retained an interest in alternative health. Young enrolled at the Burroughs Vita-Flex Institute in 1979. The institute was based on the teachings of Stanley Burroughs, who in 1981 was convicted of second-degree murder and practising medicine without a license - although the murder charge was overturned, Burroughs had been accused of causing the death of a cancer patient through his treatments.
 * That seems to address your concerns. - Bilby (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't say that he returned in 1973; it doesn't say he that he worked on a pipeline for several years per se; it doesn't say anything about "retaining" interest; it editorializes with the use of "although"; and it still needlessly disconnects the reason for the charge; just to name a few issues. This is bending over backwards to remedy a non-existent problem with a half-assed solution.. My concern at this point is refusal to get the point and that we are still eating up time over an issue that simply doesn't exist. At this point I suggest you try RfC to gain some insight as to what is and what isn't a problem with respect to copyright, WP:CLOSE, and WP:LIMITED. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem seems to be that you do not see the issue, in spite of the policy and guideleines. The text is easily fixed, but the correct fix is not to simply use extensive quotations, but to rewrite the text incorporating the facts in our own words. That is what we are asked to do under the copyright policy. As to your points:
 * The source says "In February 1973 ... he suffered a near-fatal logging accident. ... That December, the same year as his accident, after completing a home-study course in nutrition and herbology, he went back to work as a part-time trucker", so yes, it does say that he returned to work in 1973. Or, more specifcially, December 1973. Oddly enough, your text says the same thing "In December 1973, after completing a home-study course in nutrition and herbology, he went back to work as a part-time trucker in British Columbia"
 * The source says that "Over the next few years, he pursued odd jobs: hauling cargo from Seattle to Alaska, working on the pipeline in Fairbanks, Alaska, and driving along the Alberta-British Columbia trucking route", which seems consistent with "He worked in British Columbia and on a pipeline in Fairbanks, Alaska for several years", but I'm open to rewording.
 * In regard to retaining interest in alternative health, the source says "During that time, Young grew increasingly drawn to the burgeoning alternative-health world". I think that was a reasonable interpretation, but how about "he had a growing interest in alternative health".
 * I'm not seeing an issue with "although", but I'm happy to drop it.
 * That gives us:
 * In late 1973 Young had returned part-time to his job as a truck driver. He worked in British Columbia and on various jobs including a pipeline in Fairbanks, Alaska until he suffered another accident. Prior to returning to work Young had studied nutrition and herbology via home study. He had a growing interest in alternative health, and Young enrolled at the Burroughs Vita-Flex Institute in 1979. The institute was based on the teachings of Stanley Burroughs, who in 1981 was convicted of second-degree murder (which was later overturned) after the death of a cancer patient through his treatments, and of practising medicine without a license.
 * Hopefully that is closer to what we need. - Bilby (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not yet resolved that there is consensus to mention the overturned conviction at all, since the overturning means that there was never properly a conviction in the first place. I would suggest: "The institute was based on the teachings of Stanley Burroughs, who in 1981 was convicted of practicing medicine without a license after the death of a cancer patient treated by Burroughs". Anything more detailed about Burroughs should be in an article on Burroughs. BD2412  T 16:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As stated above, another person's non-conviction should not be in the article at all. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with that. How about:
 * In late 1973 Young had returned part-time to his job as a truck driver. He worked in British Columbia and on various jobs including a pipeline in Fairbanks, Alaska until he suffered another accident. Prior to returning to work Young had studied nutrition and herbology via home study. He had a growing interest in alternative health, and Young enrolled at the Burroughs Vita-Flex Institute in 1979. The institute was based on the teachings of Stanley Burroughs, who in 1981 was convicted of practicing medicine without a license after the death of a cancer patient treated by Burrough.
 * - Bilby (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Having looked into that subject more deeply, I agree with CNMall41's removal of everything after "based on the teachings of Stanley Burroughs". In fact, I find no evidence whatsoever of any formal connection between Stanley Burroughs and the referenced "Vita-Flex Institute". It is entirely possible that it was literally just "based on the teachings" with no such formal affiliation, and there is certainly no evidence that Young ever had any personal contact or connection with Stanley Burroughs himself. I can't think of a circumstance where we would have an article that mentions that the subject attended in institution that ideologically followed a third party, and then mention a crime of the third party wholly unrelated to the subject. BD2412  T 22:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I like the flow of what you propose. I just have an issue with the wording "who in 1981 was convicted of practicing medicine without a license after the death of a cancer patient treated by Burrough." It is an attempt to paint DGY as someone who does the same simply because one of his teachers did. DGY has his own legal issues that are documented on the page and there is no need to document Burrough's unless it is done in an article about him.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have looked into the issue thoroughly now, and there is no indication whatsoever that Burroughs was "one of his teachers"; so far as I can tell, the Vita-Flex Institute was, in the words of the source being used, "based on the teachings of Stanley Burroughs" in the same way that a church established these days is "based on the teachings of Jesus". The original figure never shows up in connection with the operation. BD2412  T 15:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Your thoroughness leaves much to be desired. The entry doesn't include any quote saying that Burroughs was "one of his teachers" so your statement is misleading and tendentious. Rhode Island Red (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: upon further review, I find that an article on Stanley Burroughs was deleted per Articles for deletion/Stanley Burroughs; I have restored the content of that article to Draft:Stanley Burroughs. Anyone who is genuinely interested in discussing issues regarding Burroughs can do so with respect to that draft. However, the fact that Burroughs was previously determined to be non-notable for purposes of inclusion in Wikipedia at all suggests that he should not receive more than minimal reference in an article on another subject. BD2412 T 17:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I noticed the content under discussion was removed today without sufficient reason. I reverted the edit and it if the WP:DE continues, this will go not to RfC but straight to WP:DR. The tactics being used here are unacceptable. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any evidence that this article subject ever had any personal contact or communication with Burroughs, at all? In fact, can you provide any evidence that the "Burroughs Vita-Flex Institute" described as being "based on the teachings of" Burroughs had any direct relationship with Burroughs during the relevant time period? BD2412  T 15:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The text in our article describing this makes no mention of any direct relationship with Burroughs so your question is moot and tendentious. We simply describe it as the source did, which makes no factually unsupported claims. Rhode Island Red (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If the source said Burroughs had a cousin whose ex-girlfriend's co-worker's barber knew a guy that was once mistaken for a murderer, would we include that? It is obvious beyond cavil that we not every tangential detail from every source must be included in every article. Here, this specific point has been rejected by multiple editors, and you have failed to gain consensus to include this tangential detail, which is not about the subject. BD2412  T 14:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also note that per Reliable sources/Perennial sources, multiple discussions have concluded, "There is no consensus on the reliability of Business Insider. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher". It would therefore be appropriate to remove this as a source from the article entirely, and to admonish editors working on articles with BLP implications to use sources with a higher degree of reliability. BD2412  T 14:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree with removing source. BI is in the yellow category which means its articles can be used as references on a case-by-case basis. This is an extensive research article by BI which includes multiple interviews and sources. DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It's a great example of how tendentious this discussion has gotten. Further, BD2412, it's passive-aggressive to say "admonish editors..BLP". tedder (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I am not proposing to remove the source, merely pointing out that it is not a green-light source, and that removing it as a source would be appropriate. It would be great if the claims made here were also reflected in a green-light source. I gather, however, that we are beyond discussing whether we should paraphrase details reported in this source that are tertiary to the subject of the article at bar. BD2412  T 16:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Whitewashing the lead
The various times that state regulatory agencies, local police and professional organizations have arrested, censured and place DGY on probation make no appearance in the lead. This is not NPOV. DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not the point. Not whitewashing any more than leaving out that he was once a logger. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * His is notable because of the health claims associated with his product. That he has a history of fraud specifically about health claims of his product is absolutely relevant. DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Everybody knows what "alternative medicine" means. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, they don't. It's a multibillion dollar industry built on the fact that people do not know what it means. But that's not what our task is here on this page. Our task is to present the man in a neutral light, given the facts of his life. To shunt the critical facts I've already mentioned (arrest, fraud, multiple sanctions) to below the lead, and onto a linked term, is to neglect our responsibility for a NPOV and in violation of the WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS policy. There are plenty of practitioners of alternative medicine who have not pleaded guilty to practicing medicine without a license. So the fact that Young has done so is lead worthy. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Think you conflate knowing with caring. World's full of cults. Those outside the cult know cults are nonsense. Those inside the cult won't ever be persuaded, certainly not by long-ago governmental actions against the now-dead leader. Article covers these right, as biographic incidents. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand your argument. He is known for building a business that makes health claims, yet you argue "arrested for and plead guilty to practicing medicine without a license" does not belong in the lead because: 1) It happened a long time ago, 2) he's dead, and 3) the term "alternative medicine" already implies practicing medicine without a license. This is why you reverted my edit twice? DolyaIskrina (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think the issue is with 's argument as much as it is with yours. Your points are basically stating that alternative medicine is bad (and it is), and that people need to know that it is (they do as there is a Wikilink to such). However, the main point here is what should go into the lead of a biography. According to WP:BLPLEAD, the lead must give "WP:DUE weight." Here, it is undue to talk about a conviction that happened more than 40 years ago when it is only a portion of his bio and already covered in the body. As Hyperbolick stated with him being a logger, that would be about the same weight and isn't proportionate enough to give weight in the lede. As I have argued before, DGY wasn't the most respectable of businesspeople, but we have to maintain Wikipedia guidelines on weight when it comes to BLPs. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about alternative medicine, I'm talking about the man and what he did. UNDUE doesn't mean you don't mention the bad stuff he did. We have WP:RS for those things and they are related to his notability, not merely biographical details. Can you really not think of any way that these facts could appear in some form in the lead? Or do we have to only say in the lead that he was a businessman? DolyaIskrina (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no way anyone reading this article is going to think it is whitewashed. It actually has a lot more content about accusations and investigations of Young than it does explaining how Young built up a financially highly successful business. An accurate picture would be adding more of the latter.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the lead, which should reflect the body of the article, because it is often the only part that people read. So if you feel the body, which has been edited exhaustively does not match the lead, then we do, in fact, have a problem with the lead per MOS:LEAD "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." So we need to come up with a way to include the fact that he has been reprimanded, warned, sanctioned arrested and plead guilty. Do you or have any suggestions? Proposal: add "arrested and pleaded guilty to practicing medicine without a license" and "reprimanded for marketing products unapproved by the FDA as treatments or cures for Ebola virus" DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand and I think we can all agree that he has a shady past, but we need to keep in mind WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE. He was not reprimanded for his marketing practices, the company was and it accurately reflects that in that page. In addition, it was distributors who were doing the marketing so that's even another degree distance from DGY so it wouldn't belong here anyways. What you are proposing to add is something that happened years ago and is not the main thing he is known for. I propose keeping it the same as the body includes this arrest but it is not something that would be an important point to summarize. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing special to add. Just priorities. How he got from where he was in the 90s to the level of success when he died is the puzzle piece missing. Fill the obvious hole first. When that is done, we are in a better position to see what the opening needs. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)