Talk:Envision EMI

message: Portions of this article has been merged from articles on four former subsidiary organizations. For old talk-pages, see Congressional Youth Leadership Council,  Global Young Leaders Conference, Junior National Young Leaders Conference, and National Youth Leadership Forum . -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 14:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge results

message: It would be nice to include the funding sources for your activities as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.41.112.1 (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Funding

message: Removed statement regarding events in an employee's personal life during a time period in which he was not employed by Envision. This is not relevant in an article about the company. --Each1teach1 (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your contribution. All edits are welcome as long as they they are verifiable. You just need to be especially careful to cite your sources because of your potential conflict of interest. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits made on 8/17/09

message: A number of edits to the article have been made by Each1Teach1 talk contributions who sent me an email using an email address that contains the domain name CYLC.ORG, referring to the Congressional Youth Leadership Conference, which Envision owns. This obviously puts the user in a potential conflict of interest. I asked him or her to disclose his or her possible COI and they have not yet responded, so I am posting this information here for the benefit of any other potential contributors and editors. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 17:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits made by employee of Envision

message: FavreIsGod, who is an employee of a public relations/advertising firm that has been or is currently retained by Envision EMI, added the section "Recognition and survey results." This section cites a survey commissioned by the company. The first source is a self-published reply by a company representative to a forum posting about the company, and the second source is a news release issued by the company. The standards for reliable sources say that self-published information may be used as long "as the material is not unduly self-serving." The survey and its sources do not qualify and I have removed them. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-published sources

message: The articles about Envision EMI LLC's subsidiary organizations and events these organizations administer are not sufficient as standalone articles. The two articles about Envision's "Congressional Youth Leadership Council" and the "National Youth Leadership Forum" are both relatively brief. Once combined and the redundant information is eliminated, they will be even smaller.  Both organizations are shell organizations with no employees. The events put on under these shell companies are actually administered and led by Envision EMI LLC. The Congressional Youth Leadership Council article links to two separate and also very brief articles about events put on by that council, the Global Young Leaders Conference and Junior National Young Leaders Conference. In addition to these two events, Envision also puts on the National Young Leaders State Conference and five separate forums under the National Youth Leadership Forum brand for which no articles exist.
There is insufficient public, third-party information about both the subsidiary organizations and their events to support separate articles. Furthermore, it is confusing to present the subsidiary organizations separately and results in redundant content that makes it hard to keep the content both current and accurate. There is no advantage to continuing to preserve this artificial separation and I suggest the four articles be merged into this one.-- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has posted any objections to merging the related articles. I will leave the discussion open for another couple of weeks. If no one has any objections by then, I will close the discussion and complete the merge. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 09:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since no one has posted any objections or comments about the proposed merger, I am completing it now. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge discussion

message: After reviewing this section I noticed it is only about the 2009 Inaugural conference, each part of the section is too.  I feel it would be more accurate if the section was called "2009 Inaugural conference criticism and legal action” any objection?? Ladyj40781 (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism and legal action section 

message: Ladyj40781 continues to advocate for a non-neutral point-of-view, posting information that is consistently full of praise for the organization. Alawhat  removed this content, and Ladyj40781 undid this edit, as outlined above. I have previously asked Ladyj40781 if she has a current or prior association with the organization, which she has declined to reveal.
I have never attended any of Envision's programs, though I am (an unpaid) webmaster for a very small non-profit organization that teaches leadership to about 300 kids each year. Other users and admins have weighed in on my contributions to this article about Envision in the past and have not found a COI on my part. I ask again that Ladyj40781 reveal her past or current association with Envision, if any, that we might know whether or not she may have such a conflict of interest. If she has never or doesn't currently have an association or relationship  with the organization, that is worth knowing as well. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ladyj40781 appears to have answered this above, when she wrote, "No I don't belive I do, My only connection (to nylf) is that while having lunch at at the university of Chicago I met about 5 students who had just finished listoning to a guest speaker, these kids couldn't stop talking about how much they enjoyed this program and all the thoughts they now had for the future." -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Contributor possible point of view and conflict of interest

message: I’m not sure if the edit I would like to make is more than just a minor change so I felt it best to leave note of it here on the TALK page first. I’d like to create a new section called ‘Criticism’ and move sections 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 under that new section. My edit is NOT removing any of the information/content currently displayed on the page but merely reordering the sections so it reads easier for someone looking for information. If any other editors feel this edit does not make sense on this article, please let me know so we can discuss further. Thank you for your time. Each1teach1 (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging a couple sections  

message: I really don't think we need all the separate sections describing the various "programs".  Mostly the sources are limited to EMI's own website.  People can go to that website to learn about the different programs, but an encyclopaedia article doesn't need to provide all this detail.  Thoughts?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me for being bold (just got done reading 2 hours of reddit including /tifu & /mrw & /hybrid animals) so with that said let's just state the obvious and start with glaringly visible fact that this article previously served as an inextricably, unmistakably giant advertisement for EMI. With that said, I respect the progress made by the editors who have worked on the article, including Nomoskedasticity. I definitely am in full agreement here and also in high hopes of improving the quality of information (and how it is presented) in this article. 71.55.26.200 (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I agree. Most of the article appears to be an egregious example of marketing puffery and self-promotion. I am of a mind to axe entire sections lacking notable sources, especially those describing programs in detail as if the article were a marketing brochure. To improve the quality of the article requires mainly removing content to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Baltakatei 23:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  too much [[WP:SELFPUB]] here