Talk:People to People Student Ambassador Program

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the People to People Student Ambassador Program article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Article Expanded and POV Issue Addressed

I thought I would mention that I expanded the main article (changes made on Aug. 21, 2006) to include some of the information many people probably want to see when they come to this entry. I also altered the article to be neutral in its presentation of the material. Hopefully my changes are acceptable in how they took care of the biased way that the "Criticisms of the program" section was written, and hopefully I addressed the POV concerns you had about the program summary. Markovich292 09:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This appears to have resolved most of my concerns. Still, I think it is useful for people to know that this is still somewhat controversial and that there are other points of view. Thanks for the work on this article. --Robert Horning 20:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addressing Latest Revisions

I am revising the article further to incorporate the most recent revisions in a factual and unbiased manner. 209.175.23.2, I really am happy that you kept your contribution neutral when compared to others. I attempted to re-word and merge your mention of teacher commitment for improved continuity within the article. I omitted the part referencing "a Delegate who has little interest in the Program" because the teacher-leaders have full control over the students they will be traveling with. They are not obligated to accept any student that they feel will cause problems overseas. People can even be dropped from the program after acceptance if the leader(s) deem it necessary. First, nomination is open (as mentioned in the article, so teachers are not necissarily to blame for these nominations. Second, in the rare event this is the case, the type of student you mention are certainly not going to be accepted because of poor references and/or poor performance in the interview.

As far as commitment to students, you must remember that leaders are legally obligated to this responsibility, which is more stringent for them than the babysitters and school teachers that many parents entrust their children with.

To remind "67.185.130.255," a wikipedia article should be based in fact. Your changes were not factual and have no place in wikipedia. Therefore, I have changed back the main summary of the program to how it was before you edited it. Also, the article already mentions the concerns about selectivity of the program, so therefore your last paragraph is not only unnecessary, but also misleading and over-the-top.

Lastly, I altered the average price range to be more accurate than the current estimate. Alumni and Far East programs are just about the only ones around the upper limit of $6,000. With the median for the programs no higher than $5400, the old estimate was much too high. Unless the most recent price catalog can be produced to link to, it would be inappropriate to change this most recent estimate (in the article). Markovich292 02:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification of distinction between People to People Student Ambassador Programs and People to People International

I just received a letter from People to People Student Ambassador Programs on behalf of my child, and decided to investigate their legitimacy. After a web-search and some phone calls to both People to People Student Ambassador Programs and People to People International, it became clear to me that People to People Student Ambassador Programs frequently refers to both themselves and People to People International as simply "People to People", and thus people are confused into thinking that the famous people associated with People to People International have some association with People to People Student Ambassador Programs. I felt the distinction between the two organizations needed to be made explicit. In adding this new information I made every effort to keep the presentation entirely neutral. Specifically, I was very careful NOT to opine that People to People Student Ambassador Programs might be trying to benefit from the confusion. I simply stated the objective facts, as I know them.

If you have any more information about this, it would be appreciated. As far as I can tell, it is largely the same basic core people who are involved, and the "two" groups are closely related even if they are not currently exactly the same organization. In other words, I think the lack of distinction is deliberate, and both groups have legal claim to the "People to People" trademark.
I'm still not completely sure what the "Ambassadors International, Inc." has to do with either program, but it would be interesting to find out. --Robert Horning 19:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
To further clarify based on what I've found, I guess there is a technically non-profit shell called "People to People International" that has the honory chairmanships and such by Pres. Bush and other previous presidents, but they don't really manage anything in terms of the people you will meet or to whom you will be signing checks if you put your kids into this program. This is the distinction that has to be made, where the "People to People International" is the group that technically "owns" the People to People trademark but Ambassador's Group, Inc. is the part of the business that actually deals with the travel accomodations and anybody who you are likely to meet that is associated with the program. Ambassador's Group, Inc has a contractural relationship with People to People International to carry out the programs. The two groups are heavily intertwined, although I'm sure it could survive an IRS audit if really pushed. --Robert Horning 19:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I've done some digging on this and it is not a shell. The non-profit entity existed long before the Ambassadors Group organization did and it was apparently founded by Dwight Eisenhower. Guidestar confirms their 501(c)3 non-profit status and the executives at the non-profit entity are separate individuals from the management of the entity that coordinates the programs. The relationship between the two entities is apparently a licensor/licensee relationship. The non-profit is not involved in the coordination of the programs. That is handled by the Ambassadors Group entity. Bloombergy (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
That still doesn't change the fact that you are handing money over to a very much for-profit entity that has had several very good years recently. I suggest that there are some huge financial inter-twining between the two groups, as People to People International really is the much smaller organization and appears to be (from a fiscal standpoint) a subsidiary of Ambassadors Group, not the other way around. Like I said, I'm sure this would survive an IRS audit and that they are doing everything as required by the letter of the law here. But it is unusual that a Wall Street company has a (currently) exclusive arrangement to provide all of the services for non-profit like People to People International, and that an overwhelming majority of the revenue from Ambassadors Group is from activities related to People to People Ambassadors programs. They might as well be the same organization in terms of the fiscal relationship here. The activities that Ambassadors Group does that aren't directly related to People to People are very minor, even though it is nearly the same sort of activity as well and is still associated loosely with People to People and involves some sort of travel to different cities/countries. --Robert Horning (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
People to People International is not a subsidiary of Ambassadors Group, nor is it the other way around (fyi "subsidiary" means legal ownership of the other). I was trying to clarify that the non-profit has no ownership tie to the for-profit operator of the programs. Indeed, the non-profit predates the founding of Ambassadors Group. Also, the non-profit does have other significant activities that Ambassadors Group does not seem to be involved with. Their website describes other activiites such as educational & humanitarian missions, and conferences[1]. I think what we have here is a non-profit that has several activities, and at some point in the past decided to farm out the coordination of its exchange programs to Ambassadors Group.
Incidentally, I do not think the exact structure is so critical to the article. Several of us (including me) have been eager to play Woodward & Bernstein and "follow the money" in the People to People structure in the hopes of exposing some great scam in the program. The consumeraffairs.com allegations have only egged us on. But, stepping back, I think we all have to be careful about reining in our prejudgments here and consider that it may be a legitimate program that apparently the vast majority of its 300k past participants do not think is a scam. Otherwise, we will no be able to edit in NPOV fashion.
Additionally, the fact that someone is making a profit does not mean the consumer is not getting a good bargain(think Costco), and it certainly does not mean there is a scam. Whether the program is coordinated by a for-profit or a non-profit is just not that relevant to an article about the program (the non-profit used to coordinate it, now the for-profit does). The article should describe what happens in that program, what sorts of things are done, etc., all things that the current article lacks.Bloombergy (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Changes

Hi,

I have added back the section that deals with criticisms of the program, and merged the "Selection Process" section with it. Both sections cover the same type of issue, and the "criticisms" section is one that should be included given people's concerns about the program. Also included below is a side conversation that you should be aware of before any changes are made that refer to the programs themselves as "corporations" or "for-profit."


Hi. I wanted to discuss our respective changes to the People to People Student Ambassadors Program (PtP-SAP) page. The last thing in the world I want to do is get into an edit war. I'd much rather see if we can come to some common agreement on what information is accurate, and how to phrase it from a neutral point of view. I believed my information about which organization is a for-profit and which is a non-profit was accurate because it was what I was told in a telephone conversation with Roseanne Rosen, who's the Senior V.P. of Administration at People to People International (PtP-Int). As you observed in one of your edits, http://www.ptpi.org/about_us/history.jsp indicates that PtP-Int has a 501(c)(3) designation from the IRS - i.e. they are a non-profit. Based on what their V.P. told me, I wrote that PtP-SAP is a for-profit corporation. You changed that to say it's a non-profit organization, but added a note "[citation needed]". Given the statement near the bottom that it's "managed by Ambassadors Group, Inc." (AGI) which is publicly traded on NASDAQ, I couldn't see how PtP-SAP could be a non-profit. The fact that AGI is publicly traded is confirmed at http://www.ambassadorsgroup.com/EPAX/default.htm. To the best of my knowledge, non-profits are never listed on any stock exchange.
Finally, it dawned on me -- I think we're both wrong. Here's the explanation. PtP-SAP is not a for-profit corporation. But it's also not a non-profit corporation. It's not a corporation at all! It's a program. (Duh! Boy do I feel stupid! I knew they must have had some reason for calling it a program.) The program is connected to two different business entities: PtP-Int and AGI. A few minutes ago, I found a webpage that said that PtP-Int has an agreement with AGI to allow AGI to operate PtP-SAP. Unfortunately, I didn't save the URL, and now I need to search for it again. PtP-Int seems to have a number of other programs they run, but it seems that they've outsourced the running of this one to the for-profit AGI. So, what would you think of changing the sentence from:
"The People to People Student Ambassador Program is a non-profit organization[citation needed] based in Spokane, WA that offers international travel opportunities to elementary, middle, and high school students."
to:
"The People to People Student Ambassador Program, operated by Ambassadors Group, Inc. on behalf of People to People International, offers international travel opportunities to elementary, middle, and high school students."
Sorry about making that change without checking the talk page. I just added the new content and sources and thought you would change the "non-profit" part if you had a reliable source that I didn't. It did occur to me that people might read this and think "well if the program is run by a public company, how can they be non-profit?" I just added "non-profit organization" (I avoided corporation because I know they are not "free-standing" so to speak) because even though the Student Ambassador program is managed by AGI, it technically is still a subdivision of PTPI, which is itself non-profit.
Anyway, I'm glad you thought of something that sums up the arrangement in one good sentence. I am in full agreement that your new sentence is the best solution. I'll leave that change to you, and I will make a few additions/changes to the PTPI section to elaborate a little on what they do. I was hesitant to do this at first since the article is "People to People Student Ambassador Program," but I guess this is the best place for it. Markovich292 20:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Markovich292 20:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not accurate. According to the Securities and Exchange Commission filings on this company, the People to People non-profit is a separate entity from Ambassadors Group. One is not a subdivision of the other. Ambassadors Group was a separately founded company which later became the coordinator of the People to People programs through a license with the non-profit organization, after Eisenhower decided to move the management of the People to People programs from the government sector (as it was handled when it was founded) to the private sector. Bloombergy (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Reference to Ambassador's Group, Inc.

I strongly object to the removal and dilution of the reference to Ambassador's Group from this article, and consider that to be a form of astroturfing at the moment. While I can appreciate people who are strongly supportive of this program to correct biases, this article has a strong POV bent to it at the moment. I admit I wrote a strongly worded statement linking this program to the Ambassador's Group which included profit projections for 2006, but the complete removal of any reference is simply over the top now.

This is not a non-profit organization, but rather a very much for profit publicly traded company on NASDAQ. If People to People International is indeed a non-profit company, I am going to personally start a petition to get their non-profit status removed particularly due to the way they are dealing with their "clients". Do not be fooled or told anything else. And Ambassador's Group is doing very, very well financially with the current arrangement, with millions of dollars worth of stock options that have been given to their senior employees. Hiding these facts is more proof in the pudding that this is indeed a scam and not some sort of worthy charitable organization. --Robert Horning 19:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I recognize that this group has its criticisms, but I am going to have to point out that wikipedia is not here to demonize organizations such as this one. The facts of the matter are that People to People programs are perfectly legitimate and have the guiding hand so to speak, of PTPI which is a highly reputable organization. As a prior edit described, AGI does manage the programs, but that in no way goes against the non-profit PTPIs wishes. It also does not make these programs "bad" or a "scam," or detract from the quality in any way.
I have to say, your POV on the matter is quite strong and unfortunately it is showing through in how you are editing. I daresay that the reason you feel the article (before your edits) seems to have "a strong POV bent to it at the moment," is because you want more said against the program. This is not consistant with the facts, nor the goals of wikipedia. I will soon be updating this page again, and I will try to address your concerns while using neutral wording from edits past. I will have to remove some material altogether though, as it is highly POV, and some other content is either not sourced (and probably never can be) or OR. Markovich292 21:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, please keep material about AGI on thier dedicated page. Markovich292 21:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
All I'm trying to add is factual information, although a section about "criticisms" is quite common on Wikipedia. BTW, how can possibly the cost of the program be POV? Frankly at this point, I'm going to be seeking some sort of arbitration on this article as it seems that you are deliberately "cleansing" this article to strongly support a pro-POV viewpoint here as well. As for some small bit of information about AGI... not only was this information edited completely out of the article before I added it in, I think it is very reasonable, factual, and verifiable that a rough indication of how large of a money maker this program has been for AGI and the People to People programs. Indeed, I see very little distinction (of course this is my POV) between AGI and People to People International. The current article doesn't even suggest that anybody may even be critical of the selection criteria, nor discusss the very factual information about the action of the Attorney General and State Supreme Court of Iowa. I don't know how removing all references to Iowa can possibly be considered POV.
Frankly, all of these edits to sanitize this article stike me as an attempt to further the marketing goals of People to People International, as were the previous attempts to remove references and links to websites that have strong criticisms of this program. As written currently, this is nothing but a POV propaganda piece for People to People. --Robert Horning 18:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess at this point I'm going to do as hard of a review as I can and make changes only that can be citable and verifiable. I wish you would do the same and not do wholesale deletion of content added to this article only to push your POV here. --Robert Horning 18:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I urge you to look at the edit history before making accusations of me trying to further any POV. For instance, I am not the one who removed the cost of the programs (the specific price quotes), and I am in fact the one that put back information that is critical of the selection criteria after it was removed. The "Program Costs" section you created really had nothing to do with actual program costs, and was actually all OR, POV, and/or unverifiable, so my removal of it was to meet wikipedia standards.
I agree that some of the recent edits remove important information, but please assume good faith on their part. Since the portions removed were not written directly from a single source word-for-word, it is a stretch for you to call that person's edits "cleansing." If that was directed only at me, then you are quite out of line considering I have done my best to incorporate your material into this article in a neutral manner. Since you went as far as to call PTPI a "shell," please do not make accusations about other editors actions just because you disagree with them. Markovich292 21:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I am indeed accusing you of pusing a POV here that the People to People Student Ambassadors are a most wonderful program without even a single flaw. Far from it. Of course I have a POV, but I have been able to write or at least collaboratively write articles jointly with other people in the past that have had very different points of view, and be able to do that responsibly and to at least a grudgingly common ground. I don't see that happening here at all, as you have done nearly wholesale reversions of what I wrote.
As for the program costs being "unverifiable", that is indeed a major criticism that I have about this program, and something that is indeed "verifiable": That the P2P folks don't want to have the cost of their program published. There are plenty of secondary sources of this information however, mainly from parents who have been involved with it in the past and had to write the checks. And those secondary sources are a legitimate source in terms of something that you can use with Wikipedia. Are you disagreeing with the figures, or are you trying to prepetuate the hard-sales marketing program that People to People is engaging in? From this, I claim that it is you who is removing a verifiable fact to perpetuate a POV.
And I don't see a single reason to completely delete the "Criticisms" secion that I added earlier. There are people who are critical of P2P, beyond just myself, and it is a very common and established process to list some of these criticisms. Particularly when they reach the level of a state supreme court and a state attorney general's office for explicit action and press releases written by the organization in question to address the issue. There is absolutely no reason to remove these sections unless you are trying to promote a POV, which I am claiming that you are doing here. You are not only not trying to incorporate this material into a NPOV, but removing something just because you don't like how it sounds. Suggesting that a child who died at seven weeks recieved a nomination to P2P is both verifiable and sourcable. And should be addressed explicitly, especially as it is in current news accounts.
And since when does content have to be written word for word from a single source? That is called plagurism and is illegal. It is a synthisis of information from several different sources, although admittedly I do need to add in formal citations of those sources. The reverts you did certainly didn't have any formal citations to contradict what I put in either, and most of what I added was at least verifiable or controvertable with facts that might suggest I was misleading. All that happened with my edits was you reverted them because you didn't like what I added personally. And it is you who is not assuming good faith here. --Robert Horning 18:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Obviously you did not listen to my suggestion that you should look at the edit history. I am not the one that has done many of the edits you are referring to! As a matter of fact, I expanded the criticisms section on more than one occasion. As an example, look here. You yourself have said that I "resolved most of [your] concerns" in the past, as I have made a good faith effort to include everything you have added that is allowed by policy, but you still seem to want this page to turn from a factual representation to a personal opinion page.
I never said content has to be written word for word to be included here, and I should point out that it is not plagiarism to use the words of a source if it is cited as coming from that source. What I said is that just because someone removed your "synthisis of information from several different sources" (i.e. not directly from a source just like I said), you can not go ahead and accuse her of "cleansing" the article because of it.
I also suggest that you brush of on some of wikipedia's content policies, because content in the "Pogram Costs" section you created violates those policies on more than one occasion. Markovich292 19:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
You should also know that I nominated People to People for deletion because it was created as a POV fork. Considering that article is much more of a "glowing official summary" of the program than this one, that has to tell you that I am not a party to any kind of POV editing that you are accusing.
Your comment is certainly welcome, and can be given here: People to People AfD page. Since you seem to resent the type of "glowing official summary" that is given on that page, I just thought you should know. Markovich292 19:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
BTW, the gripe here is that you did a near total reversion of everything I added, on the grounds that you felt the entire edit was POV biased, without even paying attention to what I added. And at the start of this thread, I noted that AGI in particular was removed from this article and felt it was very reasonable to add that fact back in. As for the "Program Costs" subsection that I added, yes, it needed quite a bit more work. But it is a legitimate criticism that has been raised in other forums and not just by myself. If you had removed that one section alone, I wouldn't be so upset about what else has transpired. I'm glad that you've "added back" some of the content I put in, but I still am not completely pleased with the tone of the article and still feel a POV bias at the moment. I will express further objections seperately. --Robert Horning 19:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breaking up article

I would like to propose that all of the information about People to People International specifically be moved to a completely seperate and independent article. Clearly PPI is more than just the Student Ambassador Program, and as this article is written there seems to be a blending and melding of the two ideas and concepts. This article ought to be about the program itself (clearly the "flagship" program of PPI). By doing this, I think it will help this article out as well by removing the contentious issue, the relationship between PPI and AGI, and allow this article to get on with the issue of simply describing the program and who is involved. Information such as the awards that PPI have recieved are irrelevant to describing this program, as is invoking the name of Mother Teresa in a fallacious honor by association. --Robert Horning 19:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I originally mentioned before that I was hesitant to add PTPI info to this article because it is technically the Student Ambasador page, so I agree with splitting this into two articles. There seems to be enough information now for PTPI to warrant a standalone article, so I created that and removed the content from this article. A reference has been given in the atricle to PTPI, so please let me know what you think. Markovich292 01:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the two paragraphs that I previously transferred to the dedicated PTPI article are really the only ones that can be taken out completely without sacrificing the quality of this article, but let me know what you think. Also, I want to point out that the assosciation with Mother Teresa was originally made in the source (and I'll also just point out I did not add that to the article). Markovich292 02:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Listing of countries visited by P2PSA groups

This list is seemingly getting longer and longer. Unless it is intended to be an exaustive list of countries that have been countries visited by this program, it needs to be cut down to just a few examples, perhaps just one country per continent or from diverse areas of the world? --Robert Horning 19:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That list has had about that many countries listed for over a year, so I don't think it is necessary to change it now. Since there are even "diverse areas of the world" within a continent, it would not be representative of the all the cultures that students visit if you pare it down to the extent you suggest. Maybe two countries in Europe that are very similar can be removed, but beyond that doesn't really give the whole picture. Markovich292 03:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I just don't want this list to get much larger. It has already grown quite a bit over the past month or so to the point that it is starting to look absurd. Thanks for at least considering this issue. --Robert Horning 13:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I just want to make sure we are talking about the same list:
Some of the places visited include Australia, Canada, China, England, Fiji, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malta, New Zealand, Scotland, South Africa, and Wales.
This is the list you are referring to, is it not? It seems to be the only listing of countries that you could be talking about, but it hasn't really grown quite a bit; a year ago it had 13 or so, and now it is only at 15. Markovich292 20:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I still think this list is far too long and needs to be trimmed down considerably. I admit this is more of an editorial question rather than something POV/NPOV, but if it were an exaustive list, it might be reasonable to have this many countries listed. Instead, it should be just 4-5 countries given as key examples of the kinds of countries visited by these students. Instead, it appears as an exaustive list but it really isn't. That was the point I was trying to make. --Robert Horning 09:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources mentioned in the letter

I removed the part about national academic listings being mentioned in the letter because this information has historically not been mentioned, which is why this letter has been criticised. I also re-ordered the section so the reference to national academic listings follows immediately after the reference to nominations (instead of after the Iowa Supreme court info). Also, speculation/generalization about the nominate a student portion doesn't pass wikipedia policy on verification so I removed that as well. Markovich292 21:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Removal of {{npov}} markup tag

I noticed that the NPOV tag was removed from this article. While I would admit that the POV has improved considerably over the past couple of months, with some real factual information being added instead of something lifted directly from the P2P brochures, the quality of this article is hardly A-class. And that people aren't complaining about the POV of this article is more because of the relatively obscure nature of the topic rather than substantial attention that it is recieving. Comments like this "article seems to have stood the test of time" (see my talk page) is hardly justified in any sense of the word, although POV edits have seemed to have calmed down considerably as of late. The test of time on Wikipedia is not just a couple of months without major changes to the content.

I will admit that I have chosen to not engage in explicit edit warring (I could have here), and instead have chosen to wait and see what might happen here. And added a few minor edits every now and again. I still believe that the portrayal of this program as anything but a for-profit travel business is being a part of the P.R. deception that has been part of my "campaign" to air all of the facts about this program. And there are criticism about other aspects of the program beyond just the student nominations, although that does seem to be the one point that can be verified independently from a large number of sources.

I think we are getting closer to a NPOV article here, but it needs some considerable improvement both in terms of writing quality as well as much better citations. And as suggested by the section immediately above this, the PPI article needs some substantial help as well even if in terms of just some raw content alone and adding some information about other programs that are done by PPI. --Robert Horning 09:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{TotallyDisputed}} tags are not appropriate

I've just reverted a bunch of {{TotallyDisputed-section}} tags added by User:67.110.12.100.

  • Adding a tag after every critical link in the External Links section was poor form. If the section really is disputed, once is enough.
  • There doesn't seem to be any doubt that the events described (in the articles critical of People to People) really occurred. There is no dispute about factual accuracy.
  • No explanation of the new tags has been given here in the talk page (despite a link here on each of the tags).

Cheers, Ngio 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walt Disney and the People to People influence on "Its a Small, Small, World"

I apologize right now to the anonymous user who I slapped up as a troll. I'm going to revert my reversion here, but whenever I see the words "Walt Disney" in something completely unrelated to a Disney production, I get very suspicious. And wild and crazy statements like this are far too often from trolls.

In all truthfulness, I would like to find a hard reference to any of these comments about Disney and what he thought of this program, from a historical context. This sounds like something very interesting, and perhaps even something to reference in the articles about this particular song here on Wikipedia as well. If these statements can't be verified, they ought to be removed completely, although hard source of citation about this program would be useful. --Robert Horning 16:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Critcisims

Allforhim2276 keeps reverting my edits. My edits are SOURCED with legit sources and I do believe the scam side of the company is important enough to be up in the top. May I cite the Amway page (which I have never edited)? Allforhim2276 said in it's last edit quote The changes I made were fair and did not eliminate legitimate crisms of marketing techniques. The invitations say people are invited, not "specially chosen." This program is legit.) I disagree. First off that doesnt explain why the first paragraph is removed. The criticims there are just as valid. And no the invitations say 'specially chosen' as in my REFERENCES. This user has done nothing to prove elsewise and on that note their user history shows they've only edited THIS page making me suspect they work with the company. I havent even used the program myself; a friend of mine asked me about it and I went to wikipedia then did further research which I felt it necessary to edit this page. Im not trying to break the 3 revert edit Id like an impartial editor to come and edit this page...--Thegingerone 22:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


My daughter has been invited on this program for the last two years – both of her letters say she was invited, not “specially chosen.” Nowhere in the Consumer Affairs articles you cite does it say the company ever said people were “specially chosen.” Even Consumer Affairs quotes the letters as saying the children were nominated from a teacher, friend or academic listing. The changes I made were not biased. I did not remove your citations nor did I eliminate the references to the past problems this company has had. It is standard Wikipedia practice to contain criticsms within a criticsim section. I, too, would welcome 3rd party editing.Allforhim2276 00:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


Why do criticisms appear on this page? This seems to add little value and is not consistent with most entries in Wikipedia. For example, I went to the Notre Dame Football page on Wiki. No where in the introduction of the article nor in the main body do I find criticism of coach Charlie Weis. I can site no less that 100 articles on the web that say very unflattering things about the coach Weis. Does this mean that if I were a USC fan I can edit the opening paragraph on the ND football page and insert a sentence saying "Coach Weis has been criticized for its poor performance lately"?

I think this type of editing would be damaging to what Wikipedia is trying to create, yet it is happening here. I edited out the criticisms section in the opening paragraph yet my edits were reverted back because someone said they were citable? Is all that it takes? Using the ND football example, the page would quickly deteriorate into a negative bashing campaign by opposing fans. I think: (Thegingerone) is the USC fan on this website to use that analogy.

It has become increasingly clear that these “consumer report” citations are little more than websites generated by trial lawyers to help generate leads for lawsuits. These are not articles from major newspapers or magazines with journalistic integrity. These sites generate articles for the sole purpose of sourcing internet traffic for lawsuits.

I think this is wrong and I would like to better understand why his/her comments are consistently held up but mine are reverted back. If citing a website is all that it takes then the bar is extremely low.

I am new to Wikipedia and am really just trying to understand the process.

Thank you for the help.

Word27 (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Word27 makes some good points here. There is little value in retaining these citations. We need a more reputable source, or else the article will continue to devolve into a chat-board style war zone. It's unclear why consumeraffairs.com is being used as a source for this article.Bloombergy (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning Talk Page

Via the talk header 'non article discussions' should not be placed here; so Im deleting them.--Thegingerone (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

While I generally support this action, perhaps you went a bit too far. There was some legitimate discussion about the program happening, and some perhaps misplaced comments. I would have preferred a consensus before action in this case. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to take out what was just the recommendations or 'forum type questions' since this isnt a forum. I may have removed a few of my own replies LOL! The talk page should be about the article; not the subject per se` (like the Marilyn Monroe talk page shouldnt be asking opinions on her etc, should be for discussing matters about her article.) --Thegingerone (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree as I still believe the first page does not accurately present People to People and in a NPOV. There are facts that are not correct and important information that has been left out. I will continue though to work with the student ambassadors in communicating the message of "Peace Through Understanding" to people throughout the world.
~~imalady1951~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imalady1951 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
(This comment by Imalady1951 overwrote the preceding by Thegingerone, and then a was accidentally overwritten in turn -- Ngio)

I don't like the testimonials campaign that the P2P supporters are organising either. But I think we should assume that they're doing it in good faith, and don't realize that it's not appropriate. It might have been better to refactor the talk page, and toss them all into a Talk:People to People Student Ambassador Program/Testimonials subpage. -- Ngio (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a slippery slope here. I certainly don't want to encourage any more of these testimonials to be added either, and providing a place for them rationalizes them as having a legitimate place for them on Wikipedia. This is not a free web hosting service, and in the long run such testimonials don't really help in developing the article. Still, your point on assuming good faith is well founded. This is why I was hoping to have a discussion about the topic before acting upon it, rather than assuming bad faith and removing these comments before deciding on how to proceed. And I certainly don't want to get into an edit war with Thegingerone to add back comments that I ultimately want to see removed. I was hoping to educate Imalady a little bit about how Wikipedia works before killing the thread... as it would be useful to have somebody with a pro-P2PSA viewpoint to help review the article. And to let this individual know that there exist people with radically different opinions about the organization.
More to the point, it is better to make small changes and only until you see consensus should major changes be made. These testimonial comments were on this talk page for nearly a year before I raised the question, and there is apparently a dissenting opinion on the topic, even if it is from a relatively new contributor to Wikipedia. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding I did not post this information to start a testimonal campaign, but rather to attempt to make sure that this article accurately reflects the organization. If there is a section on criticism, then any comments related to that should be moved to that section and not filtered throughout the article. The facts also need to be accurate.Imalady1951 (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)imalady1951Imalady1951 (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
We are not giving equal treatment here. The positive testimonials have been deleted and you say you "don't want to encourage any more of these testimonaials". I agree with that. However, in the article we are giving prominent display to the 'negative testimonials' in the links that criticize the program. I've read through those links and many of them are posts that slam the program, or they are articles that cite testimonies from angry parents. They seem to be all testimonies, but because of our predisposition to fight for truth justice and the American way, certain editors have taken it upon themselves to incorporate negative testimonies as a way to warn others off. My personal view is that neither the positive or negative testimonies belong in Wikipedia. We should just link to the criticism and let the Better Business Bureaus of the world inform the world of the uprightness of the program. Bloombergy (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] =More info needed

Criticism sections are something that are surprisingly discouraged (see Wikipedia:Criticism) and IMHO I would love to see the content of this section somehow diffused into something a bit more topically specific. Concerns about the quality and/or legitimacy of the nomination process are certainly something that has multiple points of view that should be worked into this article in some way. That dead cats and deceased children have been given nominations, in some cases years after their deaths, is something that is factual, can be verified, and can be cited from trustworthy sources. On the other hand, program costs and how students are expected to pay for trips through the program are incredibly difficult to find, and certainly aren't documented on the official website of the program. The only way I've been able to find this information is from blogs, web forums, and other highly disreputable sources even though they are more or less consistent on the subject across multiple forii.
Some considerable confusion also exists in trying to understand where the role of Ambassadors Group fits into the program and what People to People International has to do with anything most participants are involved with. An even more common source of confusion is if this program is somehow related to the U.S. Federal Government in some fashion or another (other than being governed by the Securities and Exchange Commission). There is also some additional confusion on the part of parents as to the tax-exempt status of the program both in terms of if payments made by parents to the program and with suggested fundraisers which have been performed by students who have been nominated for the trips. Based upon some local newspaper accounts I've read, there are students who do imply some sort of tax-exempt charitable fundraising status when performing bake sales and car washes to help raise money for these trips if their parents can't afford to pay for it directly. Based on what I've read and my non-CPA knowledge of tax laws, I don't think these qualify as tax-exempt activities... nor does Ambassadors Group directly suggest that they are.
All of these issues (and others) I would like to see somehow addressed in this article, and I'm not really here to gore P2PSA or even the organizations involved. But I would like to see something factual and hopefully truthful be derived from the information provided. Unfortunately, Ambassadors Group and People to People International are not really forthcoming on detailed information about the program, even if hard-core critics of the program are able to provide details from their admittedly biased perspective. Personal testimonials, unfortunately, can't be used as a citable reference (see Wikipedia:Verifiability), even if nearly every person who has been involved with the program has had an outstanding experience.
If you can help us out here and provide some information to address these topics, particularly from "official sources" or defenders of P2PSA, it would be appreciated. There are some issues about the program that make me question the honesty of those involved... or at least strongly question the use of the term "ambassador", connections to former and current Presidents of the United States, and the degree that this is an "honor" for students who are nominated to the program. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Robert I agree with you. Unfortanitly that may be beyond my scope of sources so feel free to do as you can. The thing it seems from good sources is this: People to People International IS non profit; while this program, People to People Student Ambassador, is NOT non profit. The nominations seem to be pretty well cited but I dont think taking it just off their official site is well...factual (otherwise dead cats, the Supreme Court of Iowa, etc wouldnt have complaints). The thing with this company seems to be it is to their ADVANTAGE to be presented as 'non profit, charitable, goverment sponsored, academic trips' when in reality non of those things (minus a small goverment link of ancient history) are true and that is well documented. I think a lot of us have said before and will say again that overall its not a 'scam scam' (as in your ripped off and get nothing) but more an expensive tourist trip for children. The company doesnt want that out, but it is encyclopediac enough to their history. --Thegingerone (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It is strange that there remains a dedicated Criticisms section despite Wikipedia's policy cited above by Robert. I do not work for this company nor have I traveled on it but it seems that there are multiple POVs on the claims made in the Criticisms section. Some have claimed the program is a scam while it appears that past travelers have said it is not. The company of course says it is not, and my search on infractions with the Securities and Exchange Commission turns up no citations of People to People or the operator of the programs whose shares trade on the stock exchange. I do not know whose POVs are more accurate but more importantly, I think it's beyond the scope of this article to pick a POV on the statements in the Criticisms. I have tried to make edits that present the Criticisms in a more objective tone, while keeping the links to the critcizing sources, although Thegingerone, you seem to be Undoing most of my revisions of that nature (as a matter of fact, all of my revisions for some reason). I think we need to keep the presentation of the Criticisms in NPOV, or remove them entirely, or balance them with the rebuttal points of view that have appeared in response to the criticisms.Bloombergy (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
There are no "legal infractions" on the part of Ambassador's Group.... so far as I can see. I do think they try to keep within the letter of the law, but for a publicly traded company to keep a public face of being a private "non-profit quasi-government agency" should raise some eyebrows. If you look at the quarterly filings and annual report by Ambassadors Group, that should give you some extra pause to think about where the money from the program is going... not that I'm necessarily complaining about people making millions of dollars as a CEO of a successful company. They've had some pretty good years recently, from a strictly fiscal/securities perspective.
BTW, the elimination of a criticism section isn't really so much as a policy but an editorial suggestion.... but one made by some individuals who have written some incredible articles here on Wikipedia. I do think the better written articles don't have to resort to a criticism section... but that doesn't mean you eliminate bona fide criticism or negative comments regarding topic. What I'm suggesting here is that we deal with each of the issues such as student selection, non-profit status of P2PSA, and the ambassadorial status of participants as separate topics and try to maintain a neutral tone. But I'll say it again, Ambassadors Group isn't being transparent here and the lack of citeable information that doesn't rely upon hard-core critics of the program is very hard to find. This is the real problem, and why it has been difficult to try and put a more positive spin on this article. BTW, spin is something we try to avoid all together, but NPOV is a goal and a process... and can't always be achieved in one leap. --Robert Horning (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I may agree with you except that I do not feel it's my role here to raise eyebrows or not. Incidentally, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are well-respected for-profit organizations that have a quasi-governmental veneer. I personally wonder about the healthiness of that but my skepticism about Fannie Mae should not filter into an objective NPOV article on Fannie Mae. Simply because an organization is for-profit does not mean that the Wiki article should be slanted to present it as a scam.

I think the suggestion to not use a separate criticism section is a very good one, and that it is worth trying to preserve the links to those critiques and address each of the issues of student selection, etc as separate topics to try to present a neutral feel to this article. As it reads now, with the overall entry dominated by the large Criticism section, this article looks more like an arm of the Consumer Affairs site than it does an encylopedia.

[edit] Thegingerone

Thegingerone, please cease engaging in wholesale reversions of other people's editing efforts. You seem to be undoing editing contributions from many different editors (not just mine) over the last year when they do not fit your point of view. Most of my edits in this article have been to try to modify tone and presentation to keep the article NPOV. I have even had simple spelling corrections undone by you, as here (reverting the entire edit, including the spelling correction of "non-profit" [2]), and other non-objectionable information, such as prices, deleted by you. I understand that you want to portray the program as a potential scam that potential students should be warned of, and I truly do respect that, but I increasingly feel that this Wikipedia article is not the forum to wage that war. That effort is already being conducted at sites like Consumer Affairs. We should link to those articles but not introduce the POV of those criticisms into an article meant to be neutral, especially since we are blocking and removing the positive testimonials (as I believe we should). In order to be truly NPOV and balanced, I think the Wikipedia article would either have to (1) contain both a Criticisms section and an Accolades section, which I do not think any of us want, or (2) be as free as possible from points of view that would go into a Criticisms or Accolades section. Bloombergy (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


This program has been around for over fifty years and has so, many positive components and it is not reflected in this article as I have stated several times. It seems that any time someone wishes to improve the article and present the information in a NPOV it is deleted. If you are going to provide a link to the Consumer Affairs site (which is a questionable site, make sure you also acknowledge the consumer compliments that are located on that site. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/travel/people_to_people_fans.html

The criticism section in this article needs to be removed. In the criticism section it doesn't mention People to People's response to the concern expressed by the Iowa Attorney General's office People to People acknowledged the situaton, revised the letter of invitation, and donated to the hospitaol and SIDS Foundation Charities. This was not an intentional act to do harm to anyone. With all the positive things that have happened with students over the years, it is biased to just present a couple of negative things that occurred and create the impression that this is not an excellent educational opportunity for students.

The students in grades 9-12 are able to earn high school credit and service-learning credit through the Washington School of World Studies which is an accredited educational institution or university credit through Eastern Washington Univeristy Eisenhower Center so there is an academic component. Students in grades 5-8 are able to earn a Certificate of Completion. ~~--Imalady1951 (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)imalady1951--Imalady1951 (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you get a citable reference to this "fact" about earning high school credit? I'm not questioning if it happens, but we do need to get a reliable source for information like this. You are asking here that standards be raised in terms of the quality of this article, and I couldn't agree with you more... at least on the point that standards do need to be raised.
As far as the issue of an invitation sent to a student who died as an infant.... I do think that is a legitimate criticism, and I've seen other similar incidents that have happened elsewhere. That this particular incident did involve not only the Iowa Attorney General's office but the Iowa Supreme Court as well (look up the full background on this issue before you start to throw stones at it) is a documented fact. That this reference is weak and only mentions the Iowa AG's reply on the subject should be improved. Yes, People to People International did apologize for this mistake, and as a part of the specific settlement between the parents of this child and People to People International (I don't know if Ambassadors Group was involved here) did involve a donation to a children's related charity that had no other relation to People to People. That this incident could be explained in better detail and presented in a more neutral tone, I would have to agree. But it shouldn't be removed as it is a part of the history of this organization.... good or bad.
In terms of positive comments, editorial opinion is something that shouldn't be in this article at all. But the 50 year history of this organization is something worth mentioning... and not just the simple fact that it is 50 years old. Quite a bit has happened in those 50 years, including changes in the structure and general organization of the program that IMHO should be documented.... whether it is viewed favorably or unfavorably by the current leadership of the organization. --Robert Horning (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


I am glad I am not the only one to note that it appears that multiple attempts to edit for NPOV and to improve the article have been deleted. I think that this inappropriate reversion campaign over the last year has discouraged several potential contributors (I see from the History page that numerous editors have made contributions, only to have their efforts completely removed rather than making any attempt at a more collaborative effort to incorporate). The quality of this article has suffered as a result.

Thegingerone, I think it is unbalanced to take for granted that the links critiquing the program are NPOV while deleting all sources related to the company as POV. This is akin to taking as objective fact the complaints made by McDonald's critics while dismissing as propaganda any facts supplied by McDonald's. The operator of the programs is a publicly traded company regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission and it has apparently operated free of citation or complaint for many years. I think we need to consider the fact that there may be two legitimate sides to this debate and try to incorporate a balanced presentation in a NPOV manner. Please stop deleting all citations except for the consumer complaints ones.

I agree with lmaladay1951 and Robert Horning that the Iowa AG reference is weak and the subject could be improved. This incident could be explained in better detail and presented in a more neutral tone.

There is a reference in this SEC filing to the Washington School of World Studies (search "washington school" within the document) . Bloombergy (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thegingerone, I had to again revert your last edit because your edits are simply complete reversions of all subsequent contributions to the article except your own. You are engaging in a non-constructive practice and elimination a lot of hard work and additional information that has been added to the article. You are even eliminating not-controversial edits such as spelling corrections and additional citations of figures. If some of this "is okay" as you say then please take the time to work on the document and polish it up, as the other editors have done, rather than doing a complete reversion that goes back 10 versions ago to your last edit. You should be editing with an exacto-knife, not a guillotine.Bloombergy (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Im reverting because though you had a few good sourced edits most of it (including a lot of elimination of info) was just a poor mess. I dont have time to argue or clean the whole dang thing today. Feel free to put back in some info you had sourced (like the number of students). You took out half the history section (including better buisness buearu info) and a lot of other good sourced stuff. Why I reverted to my edits is because there was an edit war between two users, then your edits since my last edit. All pointless. I stand by my edits and yes it is an edit war but I would be HAPPY to have a third party person step in and say what needs done. --Thegingerone (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
History section looks intact to me. It actually expanded by one sentence, and was not halved. Better Business Bureau information seems to also be intact. Edit war is not appropriate. Reverting all edits back to a stale version and then telling other editors to "put back some info" seems inefficient to me and somewhat territorial.Nowthenews (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Newspaper articles

While researching this, I've come across numerous newspaper articles about People to People. (See for example here[3] and here [4] and here [5]. The reviews seem to be extremely positive and the treatment in these disparate, independent newspapers is favorable. Facts from these newspaper reports could be incorporated. I'm almost certain that if the articles were negative, they would have already been cited and incorporated into the Criticisms section. So, we have apparently drifted towards an unbalanced selection criteria for incorporation: negative accusations are judged encylcopedic while positive compliments are not. I do not know the resolution for this. I don't think we want this to become a turf war over a pro/con debate. At the same time, I think the quality of this Wiki article has suffered as it has gradually shifted from previous versions towards a more slanted entry, partially because of editors' admitted bias (see above discussion on this page) in suspecting these programs are a scam when that seems to be far from clear, and potentially a severe mischaracterization. In fact, perusing dozens of these newspaper articles makes me feel this is a reasonable student exchange program that happens to be operated on a for-profit basis. Bloombergy (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I just read from the SEC filings that state 344,000 program participants since 1983 and 43,000 in 2006 alone.[1] Considering the relative magnitude of past travelers (344,000) versus the complainers (40, most of whom apparently did not experience the program first-hand) I wonder if we are giving representative treatment on the scam/legitimate debate. I have left the Criticisms section intact (and actually expanded it a bit). However, editors have deleted alumni reports rebutting the criticisms, and the Wikipedia article does not mention that the criticisms are disputed, perhaps by very large numbers of people. I think we need to provide a little more balance here in NPOV fashion to improve the article. Bloombergy (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree we need to provide more balance in NPOV fashion to improve this article.

--Imalady1951 (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral Point of View

According to Wikipedia an article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints and should not give minority views as much or more description as popular views. At present, this article is biased towards criticism which is a minority view, and does not give description of the majority view of People to People as evidenced in many articles that have been written in support of this program. These need to be incorporated into this article as well. --Imalady1951 (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that certain cited sources are "supported by lawyers"? Or other evidence that cited sources are biased? Please explain. Nowthenews (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)\\
It seems that the site that is being referenced by many in this article and used in the criticism section (which should not be in the article as this is the minority view) has class action attorneys review all the information that is considered for publication. That makes it questionable right there. This same organization functions through advertising and takes money from organizations they don't support. This type of documentation should not be used in an article that is supposed to be neutral. Read through their FAQ's

--Imalady1951 (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I did some research on consumeraffairs.com after reading Imalady1951's comment. Consumeraffairs.com is actually a for-profit enterprise, not a non-profit consumer agency[6]. The for-profit status is also mentioned on Consumer Affairs' site.[7] Wikipedia's own entry on them notes an affiliation with Horwitz, Horwitz & Association, a personal injury law firm, which would not be a NPOV party. This article[8] quotes an assertion that consumeraffairs.com is a scam. While I think that is perhaps an overly strong description, the source does seem conflicted. The article[9] quotes the site owner as saying the Horwitz firm does give money to Consumer Affairs, and the Horwitz law firm also apparently uses Consumer Affairs to generate class-action suits. If the Horwitz firm is using Consumer Affairs as a breeding ground for class-action suits then I question NPOV of the Consumer Affairs source. There is a strong incentive for their "reporters" to generate slanted articles to drum up business. Bloombergy (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

Formatting in the criticism section seems to have gone haywire. Half of the 2nd paragraph does not show up on my screen. I looked at the history page and it appears to be phantom text from an old version that was eliminated? Nowthenews (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consumeraffairs.com

We need a better source than consumeraffairs.com. Can anyone else provide one? The current article seems to rely heavily on that site as a source. Please see discussion above on "Neutral Point of View" for consumeraffairs.com's links to a personal injury law firm. This is highly questionable NPOV. I am hoping for a Consumer Reports, or BBB, or other true non-profit or governmental agency for the complaints section. I have added a BBB section but was hoping for other sources. The current entry features consumeraffairs.com complaints prominently, where they seem to be in dispute, and potentially represents a fringe view of a for-profit site that is in dispute itself.Bloombergy (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The site mentioned above does not support Wikipedia's policy of neutrality or verifiability and any information referenced by this site should be removed. If we are going to present a neutral article we need to present the information accurately.

--Imalady1951 (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been reading over the pages on Consumeraffairs.com. I admit I am no expert on Wikipedia and have much more to learn but I would be very surprised if this website should be so frequently referenced if at all. It doesn’t appear to be an unbiased news source. I would not even characterize it as a news source. By all accounts it appears to be a for profit web site used by class action lawyers to generate leads.

I recommend readers look over the FAQ section. Some of these comments ring of a supposed government conspiracy. I question if references from such a website are truly NPOV.

In response to one question, the website basically admits it’s not a legitimate NPOV news source:

How do I know I can trust you? You need to read through our site and see if we seem to be brave, courageous, bold, etc., just as you would any other information source you might run across. OK, we're not The New York Times but we're not an infomercial either.

Swissmiss321 (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the use of Consumeraffairs.com as a reliable source as well as the RipOff Report (check their history and you will see how biased they are)and brendastardom.com and want all references to these sources to be removed from this article. Wikipedia is supposed to be a a free online encyclopedia and should be "factual, notable, verifiable with external sources, and neutrally presented, with external sources cited." This quote was taken directly from the section in Wikipedia that addresses this topic. As I have stated several times if we are going to present a neutral article we need to present the information accurately, honestly and reliable.

--Imalady1951 (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC) --Imalady1951 (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If we stick to governmental consumer protection agencies and non-profit organizations like Consumer Reports, we'll have less controversy. I have already added a Better Business Bureau section, which I believe is NPOV, and we do have the Iowa AG. Consumeraffairs.com does not seem to meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources.[10] We need to curb usage of consumeraffairs.com as a primary source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloombergy (talk • contribs) 16:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
We don't have to maintain NPOV standards in terms of source neutrality. Indeed, we expect that many source of information are going to be biased in one direction or another. All the WP:NPOV guideline requires is that the article itself should try to conform to NPOV standards of some sort or another. And no, Consumer Affairs is not some sort of fly-by-night weblog (aka "blog") either. I do not see any reason at all to remove references from this source. BTW, there is hardly anything that could be called an unbiased news source. There are naturally biases in any sort of story telling, and most news reporters are no exception... in spite of what they "teach" in a typical journalism class.
What is needed here is not a culling of the article to remove references of this nature, but to help us to find additional legitimate sources of factual information that can be used to verify what is being said here. If Consumer Affairs is the only source of information about many of these topics, it unfortunately is going to present biases into the article itself, regardless of what you think of the program.
BTW, I have strong doubts about the biases of the Better Business Bureau as well. It is definitely a pro-business POV, and I've heard some significant criticisms of that organization as well... including some first-hand experiences. As their fees are paid for by the businesses they are reporting on, some neutrality can be questioned.
I know that for those who have spent time and money with their involvement with this program have certain opinions about what they think about it. Please note that this is just a point of view, just like a POV that P2PSA stinks as a program. Please don't remove one article bias at the expense of introducing another bias more favorable to your own POV. That just creates a massive edit war, which is precisely what is happening right now with this article. Stop that please, and help to write a quality article that discusses the program in a rational manner. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the warring on this needs to stop. I think there have been improvements in this article and it will continue to improve, as long as wholesale reversions don't become the practice.
There are two separate Wiki policies here and we may be mixing them up. One is Wikipedia's Neutrality Policy[11] which says "All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them." I would classify Consumer Affairs' view that the program scams students into signing up as close to fringe, and certainly in the minority. Why do I think it is the fringe/minority view? Because I have one website that is selling leads to trial lawyers on one hand, and on the other hand, I have dozens and dozens of newspaper articles and student testimonies that seem to say they don't feel scammed. I do not think that the current article fairly represents the majority and minority viewpoints "in rough proportion to the prominence of each view". I encourage editors to take a fresh read of the entire article to judge for themselves if there is a balanced presentation. As it is now, I come away with the impression that the program is a heavily-criticized scam, with few supporters.
The second policy is that articles should rely on reliable sources[12]. Wikipedia lists a hierarchy of reliable sources, with peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses near the top of the pyramid, and mainstream newspapers a bit lower. I would judge government consumer protection agencies and non-profit organizations like Consumer Reports as middle of the pack. Low on the totem pole would be BBB, which as you say has some flaws. However, the BBB is still leagues more reputable than something like Consumeraffairs.com. The BBB has a much longer track-record, is non-profit (check guidestar.org), has a more comprehensive database of companies, is widely-accepted by consumers, and has a dispute and resolution process regarding complaints. The consumeraffairs.com site appears to be quite new, seems to have only a database of companies that it has written negative articles on, is not regarded as a neutral source, has no resolution process, and most alarmingly, appears to exist for the purpose of providing raw material for class-action suits. So if BBB barely qualifies for the totem pole of reliable sources, I think consumeraffairs is hanging on by a bare thread. Note also that Wiki's policy on reliable sources says "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". When you consider what I have said above about these scam claims being potentially fringe, and you combine it with the poor quality of the source, I think it indicates we need to find a better source for the consumeraffairs.com claims, or else the article is better off without it.Bloombergy (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to add that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who is adding or restoring material.[13]. The material in the criticisms section needs a more reliable source than consumeraffairs.com, otherwise it becomes harder and harder to justify restoring it when people keep culling because of the unbalanced presentation and poorly-sourced potentially-fringe view.Bloombergy (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just making a post here to notify editors of the plan to temporarily remove consumeraffairs.com-sourced material from the article while we look for a more reputable source for the material. As discussed, consumeraffairs.com does not meet Wikipedia's standard for "reputable source" and is of extremely questionable encyclopedic quality. We have over a half a dozen consumeraffairs.com links in the article as a result of slightly overzealous critics. I've already removed one consumeraffairs.com sentence that appears to be indisputably false but I will leave the other links in there for now to give editors some additioanl time to find a replacement source for the material and to comment on this discussion page.Bloombergy (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I came across this article 'Consumers Beware of ConsumerAffairs.com' that criticizes Consumeraffairs.com as itself a scam. It may or may not be a scam but it really is looking like the farthest thing from a reputable source for Wikipedia.Bloombergy (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Before you get to upset over a critical site like Consumer Affairs, be extra careful to not include things like the People to People Alumni site that you cited as a source... as it was merely a community board posting that shows to be among the lowest of reputable sources. All I'm asking is to try and second source anything that comes from Consumer Affairs... not to necessarily treat it as the most untrustworthy source ever added to Wikipedia. Your efforts to expand the article are appreciated, and I would strongly suggest that you keep it up as long as you stick with solid sources of information. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You are right. That board posting is a poor source. I meant to use that as a placeholder while I tried to confirm that but really, that has no business being in this article. I'm going to delete that now. Just shows that as editors, we all need someone to look over our shoulder.Bloombergy (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Bloombergy..I am relatively new to this Wiki stuff and don't know how to show where sources come from but here is something on Malcolm David Kelley..http://www.movietome.com/people/89452/malcolm-david-kelley/index.html If you click on bio it mentions his involvement with People to People. --Imalady1951 (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


To cite a source include the < r e f > markers before and after the link (but without the extra spaces I put in there). For example do this to cite guidestar.org: < r e f > http://www.guidestar.org< / r e f > Bloombergy (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to enter the information several times and put down the reference source but each time it copied the next topic as well. If someone wishes to use the information I found and put it in the article that would be great! --Imalady1951 (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have trimmed back the article's reliance on Consumer Affairs. However, I left the main reference and criticism so that the article readers can learn more. The site's qualification as a Wikipedia reliable source[14] has had a thorough discussion on this talk page and there appear to be additional articles disputing its reliability.[15] We've left the multiple references to Consumer Affairs in the article for 5 months, hoping for corroborating information from better sources, but in the absence of finding anything I think we are better off for now reducing the reliance on the source until we get a more reliable one. Before any editors new to this article jump the gun and start an edit war over this, I would encourage review of this talk page regarding Consumer Affairs, including the cited articles regarding that source itself (there are others you can find in Wikipedia's article on Consumer Affairs, although that organization's employees seem to have deleted most of them), and please keep in mind that we are still prominently retaining the main argument and reference to that site in this article, despite its status as an unreliable source. Bloombergy (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Locations, locations, and locations

I have been critical in the past, and have tried to cut down on the list of destinations that students have traveled to in the program. The primary objection I have to such an extensive list is that it appears to be an exhaustive list of all of the destinations where P2PSA have sent students, when in fact I know clearly that it isn't. The criteria I used in selecting the names of the countries was mainly to show a variety of different continents and showing world-wide opportunities. Antarctica certainly is a destination of special note, although I do wonder why South Africa is considered something special... like you were traveling to Mars or some place really unique.

Nothing personal about this list, but I do think that if a list of destinations is listed in this article, it should either be just a small representation of possible destinations, or a genuinely exhaustive list of all of the countries including currently non-existent countries (like the USSR) that have been destinations. I've cut names of countries out of this list before, only to see it grow again as people come in and see an already large list, adding the destination "they" went to onto the list.

This is also being done to improve readability here, as the larger list of countries just simply overwhelms the reader... but this is an editorial issue that I hope will be supported. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no particular opinion on this. Please cut or add to the list as you see fit. I don't think it hurts or helps the article too much. However, if we are going out of our way to pare down a harmless, certainly-NPOV list of destinations, though, I think we need to be a little more vigilant about reining in the tendency to list every complaint that Consumer Affairs has made about this program. I am not convinced that it produces a balanced presentation, and I have noted above that it does not seem to be the predominant view. I would also say (to use your standard) it "overwhelms the reader" as well as the article. I recommend finding a better source than consumeraffairs.com, which should not be hard to do if the failings of the program are as prevalent as portrayed by that site.Bloombergy (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I just want to get to a point we can agree on something, and work from there. Thanks for word of encouragement. BTW, I haven't reverted your edits you have recently made, and I'm not interested in getting into an edit war with you. This is a poorly written article on the whole, regardless of the POV one way or the other. I'm hoping that we can expand well beyond the criticisms and add some real meat to describe the activities of the program, but so far I'm finding mainly very small-town newspapers and what are essentially blogs about the topic. Consumer Affairs seems to be (from perhaps my little humble and ignorant perspective) the only "major" news outlet that is really even covering this program in any depth at all.
And again, I'm not really finding much in the way of "official" documentation about the program either from People to People International or Ambassador's Group. Yes, even official information is biased, but at least it can be cited and referenced with a high degree of accuracy. Statements about student selection based on interviews of the students don't really inspire me as being highly reliable factual information. I suppose it is better than no information at all. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Better Business Bureau

In an attempt to not perform wholesale reversions, I'm trying to address each "issue" independently... that is why I'm adding more sections onto this talk page than trying to get into an argument about the program itself. We have differences of opinion on the topic, and let's try to work on common ground.

In reference to the Better Business Bureau... as I said above, I do question the neutrality of this organization. In addition, this article isn't about the Better Business Bureau, as that organization has its own article. As a side reference in terms of a list of accreditation may be reasonable, but let's not over-do this accreditation any more than it really is. Perhaps something listed on an infobox?

I'm not saying that this reference should be completely eliminated, but I question the prominence of giving it a separate section in the article that is more about the BBB than P2PSA. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it may not deserve its own section. Perhaps it can be worked in under the Criticisms section? The BBB link does reference some complaints, including the Iowa AG matter. And, I do think it represents a more neutral source than consumeraffairs.com, which seems to be drumming up complaints to support class-action suits. In any case, I support trying to incorporate the BBB section elsewhere, much as I support trying to incorporate the Criticisms section into the rest of the article. By the way, some of the BBB text is probably more necessary than it first appears. I think saying that the program is BBB accredited without defining what "accredited" means tends to give the Program more legitimacy than "accredited" was intended to mean. Bloombergy (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading advertising

Criticisms section currently says People to People is advertised as an exclusive, nomination-based program. It does not appear the program is actually advertised that way. The People to People web site seems to make clear that some are from recommendations from teachers or alumni, some are also from academic listings.[16]. It does not look like they are hiding that. The site also prominently mentions that a student can nominate themselves[17] so it is unclear why someone would think nominations are exclusive. The claim in the criticisms section that the program misrepresents itself as an exclusive nomination program is dubious.Bloombergy (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Description of how are students invited is here.[18]Bloombergy (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections so far, I am going to temporarily remove this sentence in the article that says People to People is advertised as an exclusive nomination-based program. The program does not appear to be exclusive, and the program's own website makes it clear that the program is not exclusively nomination-based (see the links above), even though teacher nominations do appear to account for a percentage of the participants.

Also, the original sentence is derived from Consumeraffairs.com. There's already been a fair amount of discussion on this page and in the linked sources about the dubious status of consumeraffairs.com as a reputable source appropriate for Wikipedia. I propose to remove consumeraffairs.com from the article and then re-insert when we can find a more reputable corroborating source.Bloombergy (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I support Bloombergy in the removal of consumeraffairs.com from this article to include references and external links for all the reasons previously discussed.--Imalady1951 (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, All I ask is that something resembling some legitimate source is used to replace this... if you think this is a questionable reference. I do find the articles on this website to be well written... even though they do have a very clear bias and point of view. So far as the factual points made in the Consumer Affairs articles perhaps ought to be addressed in some manner, and as a reference to suggest specific quotes made by the authors of the Consumer Affairs articles.... to note legitimate "hard print" references.
I don't think Consumer Affairs should be singled out as the chief or leading critic of the program, nor does it deserve any additional advertising to be singled out beyond simply what it is... a reference to criticisms about the program. I also don't think this should be the only source for criticisms about the program even if they are mentioned. Good scholarly writing would strongly suggest that you back up any such claim with additional sources to confirm the information... and make extra sure that they aren't all quoting from the same source unless that source is the topic of the article itself.
But singling out Consumer Affairs as WP:UNDUE and removing all references is just as biased as constructing the entire article from Consumer Affairs references. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we're asking for the similar things. I would like a reputable source to replace it. I have looked through a lot of materials on this program over the last few weeks and so far have not found a reputable source that makes the claims that consumeraffairs.com does. The closest I came was the NY Times article, which I incorporated into the main body of the article yesterday (where it states that the program is not exclusive). We do have other critical sources like the Iowa AG that capture the some of the same negatives so it is not as if removing consumeraffairs.com is going to suddenly transform the article into something free of criticism.
I have already noted elsewhere on this discussion page that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who wishes to restore material.[19] I'm actually taking a more lenient approach here by serving up the disputed consumeraffairs.com material for comment, and even looking for alternative reputable sources myself, rather than simply deleting consumeraffairs.com and then leaving editors with the burden of finding a reputable source if they want to reinsert text.
To address one of your other comments, I will note that I am not singling out Consumeraffairs.com. There have been plenty of other sources eliminated from the article in an attempt to make it an entry worthy of an encylopedia. In addition, I have had some of my edits removed by other editors (e.g. my text about how the application process works, because I have not yet been able to go back and cite where I got that.) so this is not a turf war either. Bloombergy (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Death of P2PSA student while on program activity

Link to story on family suing People to People (Someone want to edit this in properly?) http://www.kare11.com/news/ts_article.aspx?storyid=494700 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.174.89 (talk • contribs)

This looks like a nightmare of a situation for the parents and the leaders of the specific tour group that led this group to Japan. This appears to be factual and comes from a bona fide news source... and is relevant to this article even though I don't think this should be a dominating section of the article.
I'm a registered volunteer Scouter, and I've seen similar kinds of situations happen with the Boy Scouts of America. It breaks your heart to see this happen, and as a leader you try just about everything you can to do and keep kids like this safe. If you have enough kids go through your program, unfortunate situations like this will happen, and there may even be some neglect on the part of the leaders involved that helped to contribute to the situation. In nearly every situation I've seen like this, it will result in some changes of policies for future activities but that still doesn't help this one boy who died.
I moved this link from the main article space to this location on the talk page, as it really isn't formatted to be included in its current form. With the criticisms section already being reworked, this is something that perhaps should be done as something different from just a criticism. Since this is breaking news, I don't know what the reaction of the leaders of P2PSA will be... and as with a lawsuit the typical response is "no comment" or "we don't discuss legal matters until they are resolved". --Robert Horning (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
That does look like a nightmare for all of those parties, particularly the family.
How does Wikipedia usually handle lawsuits like this? Do we go into the details of the allegations in the suit? Assuming the allegations are disputed (because it is a lawsuit), how would we balance it? Are we supposed to wait until the court has made a decision on the allegations?
I went to the Boy Scouts of America article to look for some guidance but I did not find anything on deaths or suits (although I did turn up quite a few wrongful death suits against the BSA on google) [20][21] I did not go through the Scouts discussion page yet because their talk page is several archives long. If someone does go through it or has a comparable other roadmap, please inform.Bloombergy (talk) 07:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I hate to say this because it makes it sound worse than it really is, but there are so many deaths of scouts and scouters that adding a section about the death of a scout simply wouldn't be noteworthy... other than perhaps addressing explicit safety policies that have been adopted by the BSA. The number of people involved in that program is so large that several deaths happen every year by participants engaged in program activities. I'm not saying that leaders need to be callous to this idea, but it wouldn't be something brought up in the article because it isn't even news. In relation to this specific death, what would be noteworthy would be the reaction of People to People International (and/or Ambassadors Group) to this event, and what changes to the program resulted from this experience. I'm not trying to blow this incident out of proportion by any means, which is again why I haven't added anything about it into the article (yet). But it is something factual and verifiable about the program. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Adding one more point here, you may have been looking for controversial issues related to Boy Scouts... I'd suggest that you look at this article. It isn't exactly hidden, and there have certainly been multiple controversies about that youth program as well. Don't feel as though P2PSAs have been singled out on Wikipedia in this regard. In terms of how controversial issues can be incorporated into the flow of an article, I'd also suggest looking at History of the Boy Scouts of America. I can only wish we had this level and detail of People to People information. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure I follow your argument for why a wrongful death isn't newsworthy for the Boy Scouts but it would be for People to People. If our test is "does this happen all the time to Program X?" then it leads to some strange conclusions. For example, if there started to be wrongful death suits every year for People to People, would the editors feel that with multiple deaths it would no longer be worth mentioning? The illogical result would be that we would include this first death in the article but then once the 2nd and 3rd one occurs (and with enough time, there probably will eventually be a 2nd and 3rd one) we would delete all of them from the article.
Alternatively, if our test is, "do wrongful deaths occur more frequently than would be expected given how many people have participated?" then I can understand why even 100 cumulative deaths would not be noteworthy for the Boy Scouts. But, if that is the test, then I would say that 1 death out of 300,000+ participants in People to People also does not seem out of the norm (I am just grabbing the 300k figure from the article). Let's keep in mind that, like the Boy Scouts, this program has been in operation for a long time, apparently over 50 years.
So, I struggle to reconcile the following: for the Boy Scouts the reaction would be "situations like this will happen" and "it isn't even news", whereas for People to People the reaction seems to be that this is worth incorporating. As strange as it sounds, I find the marketing controversy more worthy (and I have said that we should try to find a better source for it) for this article because it seems to be particular to People to People. While the death is more tragic, I think there are similar tragedies and ensuing lawsuits for probably every sizable program in America that has involved kids. My mind is still open to counterarguments but at this point I feel like this wrongful death suit is something that would interest me if I were the producer for Nightline but not if I were the editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
I checked out the Controversy links in the Boy scouts. They have done good work on that article. I note a couple things: (1) they have organized the article so that it is not dominated by the discussion on controversy. The main Boy Scouts of America article has 12 sections with 3 of those subdivided further into 12 subsections. One of those subsections addresses the "membership controversies" and it is actually a one-sentence subsection that links to a separate article. In the History of the Boy Scouts article, there are 19 sections with 1 dedicated to Early Controversies. The current People to People article on the other hand is heavily weighted towards (I would even say dominated by) the marketing controversy and as a result the quality of the article has been weighed down. (2) The Boy Scouts Controversies article is written in a much more balanced and NPOV tone than we have had here. (3) The sources used in the Boy Scouts Controversies article are leagues more reputable than the consumeraffairs.com site we have been using in People to People. The Boy Scouts article references Supreme Court decisions, law school journals, and university presses. There is no reason we cannot match the effort of the editors over there and find more reputable sources.Bloombergy (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, I'm not trying to minimize the deaths of these boys. For crying out loud, it is certainly a controversial issue that was even addressed explicitly by formal policy changes that have required all scouts at every activity to use the "buddy system" where a scout by themselves shouldn't happen at all (it does happen on occasion, but boys are chewed out if they are found by themselves). This is the direct result of having a couple of boys get lost in wilderness areas... a couple of which have still to be found years later. Some other issues the Boy Scouts are dealing with include sexual abuse by scout leaders and issues of program like Order of the Arrow and cultural insensitivity toward native American tribal groups. These are just a few current controversial issues I'm aware of, and not all of them have been addressed by Wikipedia.
I'm just asking you to not be so sensitive to controversy, and I would have to agree that it does need to be written in NPOV tones. Better sources than consumeraffairs.com can certainly be sought after in regards to People to People Student Ambassadors, and I hope that they can be found. Again, a major part of the problem here is that People to People isn't really providing "official" sources of information to gather factual data either, which does add to the problems of this article.
This is not an issue of should deaths of program participants be covered in the article, but rather how does the program leadership respond to such a death or accident. And this is a current event (note the date of the article starting this thread). Being a current event, this certainly is newsworthy after a fashion. This death shouldn't dominate the whole article, but are you honestly saying that it shouldn't even be mentioned at all? Frankly it does surprise me a little bit that deaths of scouts aren't mentioned with the BSA articles. --Robert Horning (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I hope I am not coming across as being sensitive to controversy. There is a general predisposition among editors here to assume that anything controversial/negative is encyclopedic. What I am doing is asking us to question that assumption. More importantly, I have asked us to define a general rule for deciding what is encyclopedic for this article in the hopes that the editors can come to a consensus, and then we can refer to the rule in the future without sparking rounds of debate over each new item.
In our discussion above, when we considered the neutral Boy Scouts example, we agreed that a death "wouldn't be something brought up in the article because it isn't even news". Your reasoning (which I agree with) was that the program is so large that deaths are sadly expected to occur now and then in programs like that. To that I would add: occasional accidental deaths in these programs are not unique to the Boy Scouts, while encyclopedic articles tend to focus on the particular characteristics of the Boy Scouts and what is unique to them. If we were to apply these decision rules to this People to People incident, it would lead us to conclude that it is not encyclopedic enough to mention here any more than it would be in the Boy Scouts article.
Despite this, you seem inclined to mention it anyway because it is a current event. I am not sure I agree that "current" is a sufficient standard for inclusion. After all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news site. We certainly would not feel compelled to include any news stories about a People to People ambassador visiting all 7 continents or surviving the London terrorist bombing without incident. I've come across newspaper articles like those those and although they struck me as newsworthy, they did not strike me as encyclopedic. The other problem with using "current news" as the standard is that we would have to regularly prune the article of these news stories once a certain amount of time passed and they were no longer "current".
By the way, I do agree with you that if there is an overhaul of the program or changes are made as a result of this death, then yes it would be worth noting what led to those changes, specifically the death. However, I have not yet seen a response from the program, much less an overhaul. Let's see what develops here. After all, there is no deadline for additions and we can always add this incident in if it demarks a significant point in this organization's history.Bloombergy (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there is a guerrilla campaign to get the death inserted in the article somewhere. The incident is sad and it is appropriate for a newspaper, but it does not seem too appropriate for Wikipedia. There was a murder/suicide at Harvard a few years back that made all of the newspapers. It's not in Wikipedia's Harvard article even though Harvard had a related wrongful death suit filed against it, probably because the Wikipedia editors decided it was not so different than the wrongful death claims that have been filed over the years against other educational institutions.Nowthenews (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news source, although wikipedia is also not paper either... with the idea that current newsworthy events can be described in a Wikipedia article. The main issue here, at least to me, is not so much the death but rather the reaction that People to People International will do here in response to the lawsuit and the death. In this case, there may be a rationale for inclusion in the article as there was some alleged neglect by People to People staff... which is the basis of the lawsuit. But I would also have to agree that it is a bit early to add much more than a mere reference to the incident, which by itself isn't noteworthy enough for an independent Wikipedia article. I'm willing to give this some time for this story to develop before its inclusion into this article, and I do think there are going to be some program changes that come from this incident... but that hasn't happened yet.
I do ask you and others to Assume Good Faith and try to work with what may be well meaning individuals who do want to add something of value to this article. Not everybody trying to put the information about this death is trying to write a smear piece about People to People. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MOMSY

Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I had to revert your last edit. I am hoping we can discuss here so that we can incorporate the encyclopedic elements of your work in the right Wiki format. I saw that you made similar edits on the People to People International article and I was going to revert those for the same reasons, but it looks like Robert Hornung already made the same observation that I did.

I would suggest reviewing the Wikipedia guidelines first, including the pages on Neutral Point of View[22] and No Original Research[23]. I think there is some material here that we can incorporate but here are some initial comments . . .

-the CORRECTIONS style of introducing content does not flow into the article and should be corrected.
-If you are citing sources, please provide links to your sources. You have done this in a few places but in most you have not or you make unsourced statements. Review the policy on Verifiability for reference.[24]
-You may want to read this talk page first. There are several topics that have already been covered here, including Consumeraffairs.com and the lawsuit.
-The Iowa AG issue is already addressed in the current article. In my initial read, it seemed you were making a duplicate discussion of this matter.
-In certain cases you are quoting what appear to be your conversations with archivists at libraries or Deputy Asst Secretaries at the State Department. While this is good independent work, I think the Verifiability and No Original Research policies apply here.
-I believe the articles state that People to People was founded by Eisenhower over 50 years ago. This appears to be well documented. There were many initiatives under the People to People umbrella including the Student Ambassador program, which appears to have originally administered by the government but then later by the non-profit and for-profit organizations. You've made some statements disputing the history of the program and I thought that this might help to clarify that while the administering organizations may not be 50 years old, the Eisenhower's People to People program certainly is. The article does not appear to say that the administering organizations are 50 years old, nor does it say that they are government sanctioned. Where appropriate, the article has tried to emphasize that the company managing the program is for profit.
-I could not access the Michael & Belinda Wellner suit that you provided a link to but it appears to be an injury suit against the non-profit. Discussion of that suit, if it is appropriate anywhere, should go in the article on the non-profit.

All of your edits were in the direction of discrediting the article or the program. While we need a variety of editors to build a quality article, I would ask you to respect the NPOV policy and to craft your work in a balanced, objective manner. Also, I could not help but notice that you seem to be an involved party in the wrongful death suit or the consumeraffairs.com article. I am as sympathetic as someone can be who has not experienced a similar tragedy, but please consider whether Wikipedia is an appropriate forum for a negative advocacy campaign. Wiki is designed to be an encyclopedia. Sites like consumeraffairs.com can be your spear for a POV campaign but please keep Wiki as free of biased opinion as possible.Bloombergy (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)