Talk:People to People Student Ambassador Program/Archive 2

Lawsuit

The reversion by User:Nowthenews of the mention of the Hill lawsuit is not valid. It does not matter if the lawsuit is disputed, it is news, relevant to the claims of the organization. It merely needs unbiased and neutral mention. Just because it is "controversial", doesn't mean it isn't mentioned, just that the lawsuit should be mentioned neutrally. My treatment mentioned the allegations, and the relevance to the safety record of the group (2 in ~500k is not bad). It cross referenced the claims against the 10K (indeed they do use mailing lists despite the letters saying the student was nominated). To do otherwise makes this article more of an advertisement than a wikipedia article. I'm amenable to a "current event" tag being added to the article. I add to the weight of this that the group mentioned the lawsuit in its 10k filing. It can be said to be relevant by that mere event. The lawsuit became relevant as of this filing: http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/quotes/secarticle.asp?sid=1040970&symb=EPAX&guid=5922759&type=10003 . The earlier mentioned justification that "companies get sued" would be covered by the rest of the statements "ordinary routine litigation incidental to our business, the outcome of which we believe will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows or results of operations". This means that the suit is extraordinary enough to have a potential effect on the group and the program. Reboot (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Reboot, the topic of the Hill suit has been debated here and I encourage you to read through the entire discussion page before trumping the consensus achieved. The current thinking on this has been to wait and see how the trial turns out, and then make a judgement about its encyclopedic merit. For now, what we have are allegations from one side in a contested case that has not been decided. While I agree that it has been mentioned briefly in the SEC filings, I don't think that this necessarily means that it requires mentioning in a Wikipedia article. There are lots of other aspects about the company mentioned in the SEC filings that the editors have chosen to leave out. Also, if you check out Wiki articles on other public companies, you'll notice that almost all of those Wiki articles do not describe the complaints filed against the companies, even if the complaints are footnoted in the SEC filings. Other student groups like the Boy Scouts have had many lawsuits filed against them, and some of these suits have even resulted in judgments against the organization. You'll note, though, that the Wikipedia article on the Boy Scouts makes no mention of these suits. The editors have concluded, quite reasonably, that when an organization deals with thousands of students, lawsuits will unfortunately be a normal event. As you objectively mentioned, one or two incidents in 400k+ cases does not rise to the level of requiring mention. Let me propose that we preserve your Hill text here on the discussion page but temporarily leave it off the main article. I believe I read that the suit is headed to trial very soon. The editors can then make a judgment about what text to include or not include about the court's decision. This strikes me as a better balance than reproducing now the litigant's contested allegations. I think that will be more productive for the aritcle than continually re-inserting text that overrides the compromise reached by other editors who have spent some time debating this. I did not touch most of your other edits, including negative ones. I know you are just trying to improve the article (we all are). But I did want to avoid opening up another edit war on a topic that has already had too many edit wars. Nowthenews (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the text, moved from the main article so users can discuss.

"According to a 2008 wrongful death lawsuit , on June 29, 2007 a diabetic 16 year old participant on a trip to Tokyo was denied medical treatment by the delegation leaders on the trip and later died after being left alone. According to the allegations, the student's diabetes was well managed normally and Hill had previously participated in scuba diving and other athletic activities. Master Hill became ill after eating tainted food and participating in an unsupervised trip to a hot springs. After vomiting blood and fainting, the student hiked Mount Fuji with his group. The student requested medical treatment, but was told to "work through it" and was given water. He was left alone in his room over night, began vomiting more blood and was not given medical attention until his group leader discovered him unconscious in his hotel room at 6pm the next evening. Hill died 2 days later at a Red Cross Medical Center.

In addition to the allegations of wrongful death, the suit alleges to privacy violations regarding the groups methods of accessing the family's private medical records and misleading advertising. The allegations of deception include:

* People to People was not founded by President Eisenhower

* "Students are not nominated for this 'honor' (of going on a trip), but instead are solicited through mass mailing lists."

.

Regardless of the allegations in the lawsuit and the earlier noted death when a student stepped in front of a train, two deaths in approximately 439,736 (according to the 2006 and 2008 SEC filings) would constitute a lower fatality rate than motor vehicle accidents, firearms and drowning (for instance) ."

The above was transferred from a new section on the Hill suit. Nowthenews (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not see that consensus in here. I see 2 accounts that had a consensus and kept reverting it and a group who disagreed but gave up. There is no reason not to mention it. It is in the company's SEC filings. I'm fine with it if you wish to add other information (revenue, profit, marketing expenses, increases and decreases in "delegate attendance"), all of those seem perfectly relevant to the program, its popularity and profitability. Lawsuits are normal, but the allegations in this are relevant to the claims and advertising of a commercial organization. It is on one hand represented as affiliated with the organization started by President Eisenhower. This is disputed. This dispute is relevant. The group claims that the trips are extraordinarily safe, there is a lawsuit alleging otherwise and some evidence provided to that effect, BUT the statistics dispute these claims, both are relevant. The group uses marketing tactics that are misleading, relevant. The lawsuit (already readily associated with the group on Google, marketplace, etc) may affect the company, its profitability, attendance, etc. Very relevant. Not only is the BSA issue besides the point by issue (we're not talking social or political), but by nature (I'd accept something more in the line of Oracle_Corporation - a for profit company, but articles are independent and there is not a consensus. I'm fine with a "current events" tag, but it should be mentioned. Reboot (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I count at least four editors who have remarked on this Hill topic (excluding the litigant Sheryl Hill) and the related Consumer Affairs topic, and they have recommended a "wait and see" approach. I'll quote User: Robert Horning, as he has been a vocal opponent of the company: "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". Even if I add you to the other side of the tally, I certainly don't arrive at the consensus being *for inclusion* of the suit text. At present, you have chosen to re-insert the text despite reservations by a greater number of editors who have counseled waiting. I'd ask you to hold off for a bit and not force through your own edit over the reasonable, prior objections described on this discussion page.

The fact that it is in the SEC's filings is not a sufficient standard for inclusion into a Wikipedia article. I believe the solution is not, as you suggest, to include everything else in the SEC filings. The rational conclusion is to discard "it's in the SEC filings" as the standard to use. Whether or not it is in the SEC filings does not determine whether it belongs in an encyclopedia article.

If we adopt the rationale you've proposed, every lawsuit against any company would require inclusion in a Wikipedia article about the company. A suit filed by a car accident victim against State Farm would have to be included in a Wiki on State Farm if it alleged the company used deceptive marketing tactics and didn't pay its claims on time. A suit against the Boy Scouts would have to be included if the suit asserted that the organization did not watch out for the safety of their child and fostered the sexual abse of children. Suits like this have actually been filed but the fact is that none of the respective Wikipedia articles mention them because, even though they may be related to the subject, lawsuits like this are not unique and their allegations are not the sort of material that belongs in an encyclopedic article.

Moreover, these suits offer an unproven, one-sided presentation of the issues. I do not agree that your proposed text is balanced. It lists all of the allegations in the complaint yet does not contain any material from the company's answer to the complaint. We have no court decision to rely on yet. The bone you throw to the other side (about the incidence rate of 2 in 400k not being outside the norm) actually supports my argument for not including this.Nowthenews (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it appears that as I was writing this text on the discussion page, a full fledged edit war broke out between you and another user. An edit war is exactly what I was trying to prevent wit this discussion. Editors, please move the discussion here. Reboot, I think if you insert controversial text without first achieving consensus in the talk page, you're likely to burden this article with further edit wars. I beg you to change your approach with this article. Nowthenews (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that you are ignoring my appeals and bulling forward with your approach, I've taken it upon myself to revise the section into a more even-handed description. Wikipedia is not meant for relaying the litany of lawsuit allegations made by every plaintiff, particularly in a case that has yet to be decided and where the editor is relying exclusively on the arguments of one party! I essentially took the text from the SEC filing that you cited. I reserve the right to remove my own edit later, as I still think that Wiki is not the appropriate forum to be recycling the universe of suits.Nowthenews (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes you took a well referenced section and replaced it with a short statement. Nope. I reverted it. Reboot (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm now the second person you've decided to initiate an edit war with on this article. I am starting to see your modus operandi. Your "well-referenced" section is unbalanced and highly slanted, not to mention that a lawsuit's allegations are simply not encyclopedic. What is more troubling is that you insist on vetoing the consensus and are ignoring all civil attempts at compromise.Nowthenews (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've started to do some research on the appropriateness of lawsuit allegations as encyclopedic content in Wikipedia. I could not find any articles about other companies where one-sided allegations are relayed in detail in the main article (if you find any, please share). Failing to find that, I looked for articles about people who have been sued. There is a consensus on the talk page for Joseph Schlessinger that I think should guide us here [[1]]. Note that I am not an editor involved with that article so presumably, these are conclusions reached by objective persons. Please click on that link but I will quote some of the sections here:

"The complaint is quoted by the article that is cited by the various references used by Truthertruther, but they are most certainly unsubstantiated allegations. There was no verdict...it remains Garceau's word (in the suit) against Yale and Schlessinger's lack of word. I think it's prejudicial."

"Thus, it is inappropriate to give details of the allegations in an encyclopedia in my opinion"

(by a different editor) "I agree on the principle that quoting allegations from a suit that did not end up in findings of law, especially if that suit was settled out of court, is prejudicial. Anyone can allege anything about anyone in a lawsuit, and settlement is no admission that there was any substance whatsoever. . . the gory details IMO do not belong in an encyclopedia article"

(another editor) "I now agree with Coren on this, for the reason he has given"

To summarize, one-sided allegations in a complaint in a case where that has been no court decision, are unbalanced, prejudicial, and do not belong in an encyclopedia. Your section on the Hill suit is a non-neutral rehashing of the unsubstantiated allegations with the net effect of denigrating the program. I don't know your motivations but you've ignored entreaties to reach a consensus; you've reverted efforts to compromise summarily with responses like, "Nope. I'm reverting."; you're over-riding the consensus reached by previous editors of this article; and now you are also ignoring principles established by other, neutral Wikipedia editors regarding the encyclopedic appropriateness of lawsuit allegations. Nowthenews (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nowthenews. Allegations are simply allegations until they have been ruled upon by a court of law. Arthur Miller's play, The Crucible explores this topic in depth. If it must be mentioned, Notthenews's suggested text is a good compromise with one edit. Instead of stating "..from complications from diabetes" to "...from medical complications" as it does not imply blame to either party involved. After the lawsuit has been decided, this section should be updated to reflect the official findings. I await other's opinions before I make the change to the article. Fishnugget77 (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverts by 66.162.130.202

66.162.130.202 has a conflict of interest and should not participate in this article:

whois 66.162.130.202

OrgName: tw telecom holdings, inc. OrgID: TWTC Address: 10475 Park Meadows Drive City: Littleton StateProv: CO PostalCode: 80124 Country: US

ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.twtelecom.net:4321

NetRange: 66.162.0.0 - 66.162.255.255 CIDR: 66.162.0.0/16 NetName: TWTC-NETBLK-3 NetHandle: NET-66-162-0-0-1 Parent: NET-66-0-0-0-0 NetType: Direct Allocation NameServer: NS1.MILW.TWTELECOM.NET NameServer: NS1.IPLT.TWTELECOM.NET NameServer: NS1.ORNG.TWTELECOM.NET Comment: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE RegDate: 2001-08-24 Updated: 2001-10-26

RTechHandle: ZT87-ARIN RTechName: IP Manager RTechPhone: +1-800-829-0420 RTechEmail: ipmanager@twtelecom.net

OrgAbuseHandle: TWTAD-ARIN OrgAbuseName: tw telecom Abuse Desk OrgAbusePhone: +1-800-898-6473 OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@twtelecom.net

OrgNOCHandle: TDN1-ARIN OrgNOCName: TWTC Data NOC OrgNOCPhone: +1-800-898-6473 OrgNOCEmail: support@twtelecom.net

OrgTechHandle: NST12-ARIN OrgTechName: NOC SWIP Team OrgTechPhone: +1-800-898-6473 OrgTechEmail: swip@twtelecom.com

1. ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2009-02-17 19:10
2. Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

Found a referral to rwhois.twtelecom.net:4321.

%rwhois V-1.5:003AB6:00 rwhois.twtelecom.net (rwhois_ngd v0.9.0 by James Sella) network:Class-Name:network network:ID:433b67a4-ca6e-11db-a90f-0015c5e45005 network:Auth-Area:66.162.0.0/16 network:Network-Name:Ambassador-Programs-Inc-66-162-130-200 network:IP-Network:66.162.130.200/29 network:Organization;I:891cda86-20e1-11dc-9f8b-0015c5e45005 network:Org-Name:Ambassador Programs Inc network:Street-Address:2001 S Flint Rd network:City:Spokane network:State:WA network:Postal-Code:99224 network:Country-Code:us network:Phone:none network:Admin-Contact;I:none network:Tech-Contact;I:none network:Abuse-Contact;I:abuse@twtelecom.net network:Updated:20070917020949000

Real bad idea to do that from work guy... Reboot (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I know you're not insinuating this but for the record, that is not me. Nowthenews (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're pre-emptively stating that you have no relationship to PtP or SAG Inc? Reboot (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What is SAG? But, yes you are correct. Are you making the same unaffiliated claim? You've taken a very negative heavy bias to this program. It comes through in the article. What is driving that over the objections of numerous other editors (some of whom are also admittedly biased against the program?

I stated that I have no affiliation with either group or the parties in the lawsuit. I took a more negative look when challenged to find more references. I stated my only potential conflict was that my kid got one of the letters which is what caused me to find the article and the relevant controversies. You can look at my edit history. My interest is that the article serve as a resource for investors and the public generally. They can make up their own mind but no whitewashing in either direction. I'm all for more balance but that doesn't mean "flat earth theory" balance or "only what the company puts on their PR page" balance Reboot (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is a two way street

I'd be happy with a different treatment of the Hill lawsuit and the material claims that it makes (which have other sources wrt the groups history, practices, safety record), however I'm not fine with taking it out. I will bring it back however many times User:Nowthenews removes it. See my reasons above.

I am happy to see the nomination process suits area condensed but only if references and the list of states is preserved. The previous edit removed the legit N&O reference.

Reboot (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is actually a multi-way street. And right now you are are over-riding the preference of other editors so that you can re-insert the text. If you want to ignore my opinion, then at least read the conclusion by Robert Horning who advised waiting until the trial was over. Or, at least make an attempt to address the policy outlined by other wikipedia editors to leave out one-sided allegations before findings of fact are reached in a court of law. You are unilaterally over-riding all of these valid objections, and you are not really attempting to debate the logic.Nowthenews (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, saying that you will revert it as many times as I fix it is not really a debate on the merits. It's simply a brute force method that editors resort to when they cannot address the rational arguments of the other party. Let's leave it out for now, state the arguments on each side, and then let the editors of this article vote. I'm happy to go with whatever the group decides. I'm not ok with you just deciding and vetoing all others. Nowthenews (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No you are reverting it, I'm adding content. Let's leave it in for now and then reach a consensus on what things should be taken out and how it should be worded. And you're overriding the many people who thought much of this should be in there and then gave up because you and a couple other "new accounts" decided it should be out and they gave up... Reboot (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You're continually re-inserting disputed text over the objections of other editors. It's just another form of vandalism. I'm fairly certain the policy here is to remove the text to the talk page and engage in a discussion to try to build consensus. I'm happy to let the admins weigh in. Regarding 'new accounts', I don't think that Robert Horning is a new account, and he is even an opponent of the program here, but he sides with waiting until the trial outcome! I fail to see why you object to this.

The main issue being debated here is whether unsubstantiated lawsuit allegations constitute encyclopedic material. I've cited text for you elsehwere in Wikipedia where editors reached the conclusion that such allegations were prejudicial, unbalanced, and not encyclopedic enough to warrant mentioning in elaborate detail as you have here. It is disappointing that an editor who is new to this article would decide to show up one day and bull over all previous discussion by re-inserting his own text.Nowthenews (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You're continually farting and then challenging me to create content you like even when I give you guidance on how you could instead edit the content in a way we could agree on. I even explained how it could be condensed in an acceptable way, instead you just keep reverting wholesale. Your edit is of poor quality as it would need citations. The edit that is there I agree is too long, but I'm fine with MORE content than is needed. So you keep putting all the burden on me. The consensus didn't exist. You and a couple other new accounts that have a strangely focused interest in this article reached a consensus and chased everyone out. YOU CAN reach a consensus with me, but you WON'T by reverting and telling me I'm biased. That for some reason I decided that one student travel service needed to be taken out for no particular reason. Reboot (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll repaste here what I wrote on your talk page so that other editors can get the balance of the discussion here. I've actually made a few attempts to introduce compromise text, which you have reverted. You are actually the one who is trying to chase me out by reverting and telling me how you want me to re-edit to try to force the burden on me. I will go ahead and try to make another edit with your suggestion but let me ask that if you are unhappy with that edit, you should refashion it to the way you like but not by reverting it wholesale. Ok, let's step back here a bit and try to reach some agreement. I understand that you are arriving new to this article and that you are suspicious of the other editors. There was an employee which you correctly ferreted out but that user was not a primary contributor to this article, however. Importantly, I am not an employee. I got involved in this article because I noticed there was heavy bashing of this program, which I noticed was generated almost exclusively by an involved party, Sheryl Hill (who is litigating and seeking damages no less!). That strikes me as extremely wrong and I've taken it upon myself to moderate that person's efforts to use Wikipedia to publicize her suit and slander. Despite my efforts to moderate and offer balance, the Hills unsubstantiated allegations reappear in this article periodically. Innocent-minded editors, who come new to this, "discover" the Hill allegations and re-insert them in the text. This has the same effect of rehashing the conflicted party's allegations before a judge has weighed in, or indeed without giving any treatment to the opposing argument! I've noted for you several times that if you go through the article discussion history, you'll see there are several editors, who are not "new", who clearly don't work for the company, who are even harsh critics of the company, and yet they come to the opposite conclusion as you: they think that the Hill allegations should be left out until a court has rendered its decision. I welcome a debate of this notion. I don't appreciate you bullying your text into the article and then claiming that I am the one bullying you! This is laughable, particularly since the discussion history shows that I have repeatedly requested a discussion, and you ignoring my entreaties and simply declaring "Nope" and re-inserting. It is only after your repeated re-insertions have been reverted that you have now made an effort to seek consensus. Check the history of this article, you'll note that I've tried to re-incorporate text where possible both negative and positive for the article. You, on the other hand seemed determined to reintroduce only the negative elements. I recommend the policy of moving the controversial text to the discussion page, debating the merits there, and then letting the various editors weigh in. To insist on the inclusion of your text is over-stepping in my opinion.Nowthenews (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nowthenews (talk • contribs)

You're just repeating yourself. Wikipedia isn't here to give the company a fair trial, it is here to make sure that you can find out what you need to know about the company and its program.. Or if we can't have a fair non-advertisement then deleting it so as to not have a deceptive article that implies by omission that there is no controversy regarding the safety or that your kid really was nominated (rather than sent an advertisement in the mail). I cannot believe that if a student travel program is encyclopedic, that the tactics they use in advertising, 2 students have died on their trips in suspicious accidents and that a parent had to go pick their kid up from austrailia and that the company is engaged in a lawsuit that might affect its earnings and future performance -- if properly referenced -- ISN'T relevant or ONLINE-encyclopedic...SERIOUSLY??? If a student travel service company IS relevant than these issues about it and its marketing tactics are certainly relevant.. I can be convinced that this travel service is not relevant enough for mention. Reboot (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Reboot all the information should be here on Wikipedia this article is already tagged for deletion due to the relevance of the information being put on the article.Also this can reflect on advertising on the company which will also be a result in the article being deleted.

Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 03:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Reboot, look, I would agree that those things WOULD be relevant if they were PROVEN FACTS or if they were findings of law in an actual court decision. But as of now, almost everything you have written is an unsubstantiated allegation that is disputed. Your text gives a one-sided treatment to those disputes. It is the unsubstantiated nature that I find to be not encyclopedic. If I file a lawsuit tomorrow that says this program is really a child sex ring, then I would not expect Wikipedia to include those allegations. But, the minute those allegations are confirmed in a court decision, then I agree, by all means, those things you assert would be encyclopedic. I've said my piece, and now I will get out of the way so other editors can weigh in.Nowthenews (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Section break

Although I agree with the protection of the article so that no one can edit it, shouldn't the CSD be removed? The article clearly doesn't fall under CSD as it has many outside references listed. It is a bit spammy, but not speedy deletion spammy. The359 (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sheryl Hill - proud mother of Tyler Hill, and plaintiff in his wrongful death lawsuit.

Apparently defendants are very anxious about Wikipedia reporting factual events of Tyler's death. It came up in my second deposition. Interestingly, I was accused of writing the section. I did not. I commend the author on a very thorough attempt. For accuracy please edit the following:

Change: In our Opinion, Tyler was left alone in his room over night, began vomiting and was not given medical attention until his group leader discovered him unconscious in his hotel room at 6pm the next evening.

To: In Tyler's Parent's opinion, Tyler's request for healthcare was denied. Tyler was left alone in his room overnight, vomited for hours and was not given medical attention until his group leader discovered him collapsed in his hotel room at 6pm the next evening. Tyler's heart stopped 5 min. after arrival in ER. He was resusitated and pronounced brain dead.

Hello Mrs Hill, I'm very sorry for your loss and can't even imagine what you must be going through. It makes it very hard for me to deal with your editing suggestions. Taking the content out of hand would be a clear WP:COI (which I can't imagine you care about right now), but on the other hand if it is factually inaccurate it should be corrected provided we can find references for it. We can't use your statements on the talk page as source material. I've changed the part regarding vomited blood (which was a result of my misunderstanding of what was stated in the cited source) to vomited which seems to be the key factual discrepancy. I don't understand a key difference between "collapsed" and "unconscious" so I've left it as that for now. We are in the mean time trying to come up with a consensus redraft (linked below) that analyzes the factual history of the program and the legal issues in a fair and NPOV way. Hopefully we'll get there and be able to replace the article with one that is factual, NPOV and gives fair mention to both positive and negative material.

PLEASE NOTE, Ambassadors Group Inc. dba Ambassador Programs/People to People et al is not 50 years old. AGI branched off from Ambassadors Inc. in 2002. Even if the securities exchange counts their parent affiliation, 1967 is not a 50 year history thus their 'logo' is inaccurate. Most teachers and students believe they are traveling with People to People International.

further, US Presidents did not give their permission for the for-profit companies to fly their honorary PTPI chairmanships on their website, advertising materials and letterhead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.179.110 (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a good point that as "honorary chairman" are they "honorary chairman" of PTPI or the student ambassador program? If they are of PPTI and we're maintaining separate articles then they should go in that article PTPI and be removed from this article. I still think all three should be combined. Reboot (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Position 1, Student Ambassador's Group, People to People International and the People to People Student Ambassador Program should be combined and controversies mentioned

...and the articles generally restructured.

Let's 'start over'

First there are 2 stub articles and this article. First this article, second Ambassadors_Group and third People to People International should all be combined.

0. The article should state clearly that this is a student travel service (which is in the company's annual reports) and not some special award. Ideally it should contain a bottom link banner thingy so you can find similar services for comparison (like game systems Playstation 3, processors, search engines Google_search, etc)

1. The company/organization's version of history should not be recited in verbatim form but either omitted (since it appears to be of dubious relevance and possibly not factual) or modified to note that it may be self-serving Historical revisionism (negationism).

2. The marketing tactics should be made clear such that anyone finding the article because they got a letter in the mail should clearly realize that the company uses mail lists for the majority of its "nominations" (this is sourced to BBB, the 10k filings from the company itself, and the press).

3. That there are two lawsuits regarding the safety of the program needs mention and that there have been a number of complaints regarding safety including incidents where parents had to fly abroad to pick up their kids and deceptive marketing practices. Only where well referenced (besides just that admittedly dubious consumer advocate site and the families themselves except for the material content of the lawsuit where posted) sources of course.

4. Well sourced (not from the company's website), Accreditation should be there, as well as which schools and bodies recognize the credit (a parent/student should be able to see if going on the program will count).

5. Other Factual information: Attendance CEO Administrators of PTPI (not honorary chairs as these are advertising and have no real relevance to the program, the company just names each president an honorary chair) Financial reporting (from the annual SEC reports etc)

6. structural information

The relationship between PTPI and AGI

7. Program information - The enumerated types of programs offered and a non-exhaustive basic overview (ie Student Ambassador is a travel service which is stated clearly in the company's filings which goes to over xx countries, Student Leaders is a seminar program which ... )

I do not find PTPI relevant outside of this program as it is virtually unlinked except for this and does not appear to do much else. Any search on it almost immediately links to AGI.

If we can't include any negatives than I think all three articles should be deleted as I think they damage the public good by misrepresenting an advertisement as an encyclopedia page. Omitting key content about its safety record is a misrepresentation by omission. Omitting key information on its advertising practices is misleading. I could join a position that a student travel service run by a pretty smallcap company is just not encyclopedic enough to mention....

So what parts of the above are disputed? How do we come to an agreement?

Reboot (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I like this general outline. BTW, in regards to the honorary chairs, I do think it is somewhat relevant so far as they do have to ask the current U.S. President for explicit permission in order to use his name as the honorary chairman. I have no idea if Barack Obama has agreed to this yet for P2PSAs, and I should note that other organizations like the Boy Scouts and Girls Scouts do a similar kind of honorary chairman offer as well. The ties to Dwight Eisenhower are legitimate and should be mentioned in a little more depth. On this issue about all it deserves is something like "The current U.S. President is usually recognized as the honorary chairman of this organization." More than a brief sentence on the topic is too much.

Talk of deleting content here is not helpful, however. We need to maintain a neutral point of view and attempt to gather sources of information that can help remove as much bias from the article as possible. This is something that I consider noteworthy and deserving an encyclopedia article.... heck, I think it would deserve notability in conventional dead-tree encyclopedias given its history. Many individuals have read this article, and I believe a great many more will be reading this in the future.... attempting to find information that is presented using standards typical of the better written Wikipedia articles. I think this article could become such an article (well, perhaps B-class is what I would want to push for at the moment).

What we don't need is an edit war. This needs to stop and it isn't helpful to keep reverting content between one another. I've kept a hands-off approach to this article mainly because I haven't wanted to engage in this sort of action, but perhaps I need to wade a little more into this as well. Assume good faith and show a little respect here.... and I'm not talking just to Reboot here on this issue either. The article needs to be focused on the topic, which is the People to People Student Ambassador program, not Lawsuits involving People to People Student Ambassadors. Frankly, I don't think that article should ever be written either, but that is preferable to contorting this article to something it is not. Certainly WP:UNDUE should be followed in regards to the lawsuit. --Robert Horning (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed merger of People to People International, Ambassadors Group, and this article, I would recommend against it for a number of reasons. All three are separate organizations, with independent histories.... even though the boundaries between each of these organizations is somewhat fuzzy (IMHO worthy of a criminal investigation even by a state attorney general's office, but that is a political issue and not a Wikipedia issue). Ambassadors Group also has other programs which, while similar to P2PSAs, are distinctly different.... including a couple of programs which have no affiliation at all with People to People International. That perhaps the Ambassadors Group article should go into more depth about those other programs and clarify what the difference is between them and P2PSAs, I would have to agree. At the moment, that article is strictly a stub.

Ambassadors Group and People to People International also have completely independent boards of directors and separate headquarters. As to what role the article Operation Iraqi Children ought to have in all of this can be questioned, but there should be some note that all of these programs are inter-related. A navigation box between these articles? --Robert Horning (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The existence of the lawsuits goes to the safety claims in the company's advertising and certainly the claims are unusual enough for a student travel company to be noteworthy especially combined with the type and number of complaints. They've been widely covered in the media so they pass WP:UNDUE provided reasonable sources are used. I do not see how this particular student travel company is relevant at all outside of PTPI. The "minority" doesn't apply. Only a small number of Thomas_and_Friends_merchandise had lead (despite the number recalled) and yet it is mentioned. There is a large amount of evidence (including reputable sources) that dispute the company's marketing claims. I think it should be merged into a PTPI article and only diverged if and when the article is large enough. At the moment we have 2 stub articles and a partial. Regarding separate boards, I think PTPI should be the article containing this and the other content. Whether they run other programs or not, their other programs are obscure with regards to notability. It is also not obvious to me from third-party reputable sources that any of them are active (but I can be convinced). Ambassador's Group is a tiny company (according to their filings) with no notability outside of their association with P2PI and this program (which is actually listed as a risk within their annual report). I'm fine with an abbreviated mention of the lawsuits. Anyone reading the article should come away clear that 1. this is a student travel service 2. the safety claims are in dispute and there are notable legal proceedings and state investigations against the company which expose it to liability (something notable enough for their SEC filings) 3. the company/organization's narrative of the program's history is somewhat tenuous (there was a program, its name was lent to the travel service). Separating the articles bothers me because I worry that it could lead to deception, if someone receives the advertising from this company they should be very clear when coming across a wikipedia article as to who it came from and how they were selected. The article should not give credence to the company's marketing techniques (the original articles seemed like part of them). I'm fine with mentioning that all presidents from Eisenhower to Bush with the exception of Jimmy Carter have been honorary chairs, but I don't think it belongs in the info box. When someone is given the "keys to the city" they don't appear in that city's infobox. Reboot (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of collaboration, let me try to focus on where we are on common ground. I actually agree with Reboot that if we cannot refashion this article so that it does not read like an advertisement then it should be deleted. I also agree that there is a sound argument that a travel program administered by a smallcap company is not worthy of an article, let alone the lengthy article that it seems like it might become. I believe this is Staffwaterboy's position, too. I also agree that splintering off and creating a Lawsuits involving People to People Student Ambassadors would also be counterproductive. I think we need to reach a consensus on how to handle the lawsuits/Hill incident here and apply that policy to the articles. I think that PTPI and Ambassadors are distinct entities from the program with activities that don't completely overlap, so I agree with Robert Horning against collapsing them (let's solve the issues here first before we embroil additional articles). If this article continues to become a forum for promoting the litigant's lawsuit allegations while a trial is still underway, that also makes the article unworthy of retaining.

In general I am all in favor of a more balanced presentation. However, I am not in favor of editors taking a biased approach that involves solely including the negative aspects that they can dig up. For some reason, this article attracts "crusaders" who think they have uncovered some kind of scam and feel the need to discredit the program. I believe that this is what has been happening in the last 24 hours.

I agree that omitting key content about safety is misrepresentation by omission. However, we must balance this with the principle that over-representation of isolated incidents is a misrepresentation as well. If there have been 400k satisfied program participants and we devote one-third of the article to the <0.1% of those participants who have complained about things like mis-addressed letters and picking up their kids then it's a gross distortion. We would not take that approach with State Farm Insurance or any other organization, so let's not do it here. This article is not meant to be a Consumer Reports or BBB type forum that relays the entire litany of complaints incidents.

I think the principal area where discord in this article has erupted is the Hill suit/incident. I suggest that we focus on this first before we exhaust a lot of effort on other aspects of the article. My position on this, in one sentence, is that unsubstantiated lawsuit allegations are not encyclopedic material, particularly when they are presented without the other side's arguments, especially when a trial is underway and there have been no pronouncements by the court. I understand that Reboot disagrees with me on this and so I am interested in hearing what other editors have to say on this matter. Robert Horning, you have had a critical but fair attitude towards the program, and I am glad someone else has joined the discussion. Do you want to weigh in on this? Nowthenews (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the Thomas_and_Friends_merchandise article that Reboot mentions is instructive. In that situation, there was an actual recall by a US governmental agency that cited actual test discoveries of lead, leading to a 1.5 million affected products. That article devotes 3 sentences to the incident, focused solely on the facts (not allegations), and the text represents perhaps <5% of the total article. Thomas_and_Friends_merchandise makes no mention of the numerous related lawsuits, nor the Attorney General reviews, nor does it go into any detail on complaint allegations made by parties seeking damages. In contrast, in the People to People article, we have a lawsuit by a private party, an incident count of perhaps 1 to 25 out of 400k, and no findings by a court or governmental body. Yet, our article devotes several paragraphs to enumerate unsubstantiated allegations, dead cats, and other consumer complaints. Nowthenews (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The key issue here is that the edit war simply must end. Period. The page protection was legitimate (although IMHO heavy handed and technically against Wikipedia policy). Clearly other users have been involved with developing the content of this article, and not all of them have had the same viewpoint. Other viewpoints must be addressed in some manner.... although I stand by my assertion that the lawsuits shouldn't be more than a single section and at most a paragraph or two... or about 200-300 words. If the meat of the lawsuit can't be summarized that cleanly and succinctly, it really doesn't belong in this article at all. Even that can be questioned, but I'd be willing to relent to a compromise of this nature. You would be surprised what a year or so might do here.

What issue do you really have with this section about the lawsuit, Nowthenews, as it is written at the moment? The POV tone could be paired down a little bit, but it really doesn't sound all that awful. It does include legitimate references (not entirely self-published), it is factual and verifiable.... and has been verified for accuracy from several reputable 3rd party sources of information. That Ambassador's Group did decide to mention this incident in their SEC filings does indicate that this incident is noteworthy for potential investors in their company, and it is for good or ill going to be a part of the history of this program. I understand you are trying to remove this section and suggest it simply doesn't belong in this article at all. I'm just trying to suggest we can move onto other areas of discussion and simply leave this section alone for now, and let time takes its course here... improving other areas of this article that really do need attention first. It shouldn't dominate the article, but in its current form I don't see that as the case. Some compromise is needed here and it isn't the end of the world (or the end of Wikipedia) if this section is allowed to remain for awhile.

As for you, Reboot, can we concentrate on discussing this program and not get caught up into the other programs of People to People International and Ambassdors Group? Wikipedia is filled with article stubs.... and if they annoy you that is intentional: stubs are supposed to be something to encourage people to write articles. That is why Wikipedia has over 2 million articles and how most of them got started in the first place. I agree with you that this program is being marketed in a number of ways that seem deceptive, and those issues need to be researched and brought forward with reason. Still, it is important to objectively discuss what exactly this program really is about... and apparently a great many people do participate with this program in spite of all of the problems you or I may see and seem to have a fairly positive experience. This article needs to be about the experience these people enjoy as well. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the last statement, Cheerios isn't about how delicious they are, but mostly agree with the last paragraph. The best way to address how good or bad the program is lies in its general success. Testimonials belong in marketing material not wikipedia. Stubs are not intended to stay that way and neither stub is notable outside of the program. The rationale for the stub is the problem. It sounds like we're centering in on some agreement on the legal issues (not just THAT lawsuit, but there is another one and multiple state attorney issues), so now explain why a small cap company and mostly inactive non-profit that gave its name to a smallcap company deserve MORE mention than other student travel services? Non-notability or legal structure isn't a reason to have a stub. If the boundaries between them are as was noted "fuzzy" then they should have one article that describes these fuzzy boundaries. Can we start drafting in maybe a subpage including only the agreed to parts? Reboot (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Robert, my problem with the section about the lawsuit is that we appear to be the only article in Wikipedia that has decided to incorporate unsubstantiated lawsuit allegations in an encyclopedic entry. If there were an actual court decision, I would be the first to want to enter this. Our current section is a one-sided retelling of disputed facts. Wikipedia has no sections detailing similar suits in the Thomas and Friends article, it has no mention of the wrongful death suits against State Farm, it has no abuse allegations reprinted in the Boy Scouts article. I don't know why this article needs to break from that standard of avoiding allegations until they appear in a court's findings of fact.

I admit my antenna is up because of the history of this article, where Sheryl Hill herself has attempted to promote her suit on Wikipedia and use this article as a forum to recast the program in a way that serves her campaign. While we editors have been somewhat capable of moderating her direct attempts to color this article, I think by reprinting her lawsuit allegations (or by reprinting other web references that are essentially just reprinting her lawsuit allegations) we are unwittingly cooperating in her campaign to distort.

I am also pushing back here because I think Reboot intends to use the section as a stepping stone to reprint other allegations and complaints. I am against turning this article into a detailed forum for allegations that have not been adjudicated and I am against transforming this article into a BBB consumer complaints center.

My first recommendation would be to wait until there is an actual court decision. After there is a court decision, I won't object to anyone who wants to incorporate a section on the findings of fact by the court. This seems to be what other articles do and I'm not sure I understand the urgency for an encyclopedia to incorporate unproven allegations before a court has determined the matter. Robert, I think before today you weighed in similarly and suggested deferring until the trial. I bet within a few months we'll have trial results and our current editing dispute disappears.

If for some reason we absolutely cannot wait a few months, then an alternative recommendation would be to include a brief reference to the suit until there is a court decision. The mention of the lawsuit should be done in a neutral way (something like the three sentence Thomas and Friends mention of the lead paint recall). It should NOT be an enumeration of one party's side of the story, which is what we currently have (e.g. "The student requested medical treatment, but was told to "work through it" and was given water.") I would be willing to compromise on a paraphrase of the text that appears in the SEC filings. I'll note that I attempted to insert the following compromise text based on those SEC filings but it was summarily reverted. I will offer it again here --

"On January 28, 2008, Allen Hill and Sheryl Hill brought an action against Ambassadors Group Inc, the coordinator of the program, seeking damages in connection with the death of their son resulting from complications from diabetes, while participating in one of the student programs during the summer of 2007. Defense counsel has filed an answer denying any liability and raising various affirmative defenses. The outcome of the case is still pending." [7] Nowthenews (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that the current section on the lawsuit should be expanded at all, and if your concern here is that it will expand and invite more content of a similar nature, I would have to agree that it shouldn't be encouraged. All I'm trying to suggest is to simply compromise a little bit at the moment and let's try to improve the rest of the article first.... giving this issue a bit of time to develop. Lawsuits are slow and complicated processes that simply take time to work out.

BTW, this isn't the only Wikipedia article that has content about pending lawsuits. Indeed, if you look at SCO-Linux controversies, you will find several articles that are exclusively about pending lawsuits and allegations that have been made in those lawsuits. The real question that can be raised here is notability, and to stick to the facts. Is there any reason to suggest this lawsuit didn't get filed and is not actually in the process of litigation? Is there any challenge as to the basic details of what is being asserted by the plaintiff?

What shouldn't be happening here is the edit war to add and then remove this section, and reverting each other's changes to that text. Some sort of compromise must be made here, and there certainly are many other problems with this article as it is written. If we need to deal with the content one paragraph at a time, we can do that.... and try to come to a compromise in terms of the wording of the content. The reason this article has been put into protection mode is that constant reversion of this nature is not healthy to the development of the article. There is also the "3R" Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. This is particularly difficult to deal with when additional editors try to add legitimate content only to get it reverted by the warring parties with non-controversial edits getting swallowed up and lost in the fight. This must stop.

One of my problems with this article originally was due to it sounding like a marketing brochure, and editors taking aggressive steps to remove "embarrassing" content such as even the existence of AGI or even how much these trips cost. Trying to get a middle ground between those who want to vilify People to People Student Ambassadors and those who want to write glowing testimonials about this program has been difficult to achieve, and generally doesn't work out in spite of good intentions on the part of some participants. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

To address your question, "Is there any challenge as to the basic details of what is being asserted by the plaintiff?" the answer is absolutely YES. Even the articles cited by Reboot make it clear that the program officials dispute the basic story ("our review of the incident does not match the allegations and the lawsuit brought forth by the Hill family"). After Sheryl Hill first surfaced on Wikipedia here, I recall searching and reading the company's answer filed with the court, and it denied each of the line items in her complaint, including the basic details we have outlined in our article. In any lawsuit, the two parties typically do not agree on even the basic "facts" and one party's version of the story can be dramatically different from the other's. Rather than printing the Hill's disputed version, I have suggested that we either (1) table this completely until the court tells us what is fact, or (2) we go with a brief UNDISPUTED factual mention of the suit without elaborating on either side's detailed version of the events, at least until the court tells us which version is correct.

I agree that the edit warring must stop, and if you read the history here, you'll see that I've offered several compromises, and before the edit wars broke out with Reboot, I made several entreaties to discuss the controversial text before his unilateral repeated reversions.

I strongly believe the proper approach here is to wait until there is a court's findings of fact before including the lawsuit allegations. I am not the only editor who has expressed this view in the past. Reboot, on the other hand, will not settle for anything less than inclusion of his complete text. The current version of the article continues to retain his complete text. How is that a compromise???Nowthenews (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me reflect your question back to you. Is there any challenge as to the basic details of this compromise text?

"On January 28, 2008, Allen Hill and Sheryl Hill brought an action against Ambassadors Group Inc, the coordinator of the program, seeking damages in connection with the death of their son resulting from complications from diabetes, while participating in one of the student programs during the summer of 2007. Defense counsel has filed an answer denying any liability and raising various affirmative defenses. The outcome of the case is still pending."

This is a summary mention which gives the reader enough information to search for more details if they desire, and it does not put Wikipedia in the position of deciding which side's version of the story is accurate, and it does not force us to include disputed allegations into an encyclopedic entry.Nowthenews (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with it except for the "complications from diabetes" which assumes something that you can't automatically conclude and if we're leaving out other details (like the allegations of neglect and stuff). The Spiotta lawsuit should also be mentioned. (http://www.krem.com/topstories/stories/krem2_072908_ambassadors_lawsuit.14b86014.html). Reboot (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree about including the Spiotta lawsuit. Just as this article should not be a marketing brochure, it should also not be the complaints forum of your local department of consumer affairs. That Spiotta suit, which alleges (among other things) failure to "make well-balanced and nutritious food available" is far far less noteworthy than a controversy like the SCO-Linux legal dispute, which was the precedent cited earlier. As I feared, incorporating a section on non-adjudicated customer allegations is going to be an invitation to add the laundry list of dissatisfied customer complaints (notably, with no counter-balancing mention of positive testimonials). Robert Horning, I'll ask you to elaborate on the thoughts you expressed earlier on this subject, ". . .if your concern here is that it will expand and invite more content of a similar nature, I would have to agree that it shouldn't be encouraged." If this legal section is going to develop into a litany of customer complaint cases then I go back to my position that we should wait until courts have entered decisions, and then include only those legal cases in the main article. That seems to be the widely followed standard in other wikipedia articles, anyway.Nowthenews (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The history section needs to explicitly mention that PTPI does not administer the program but that it licenses the branding to Student Ambassador Group, Inc.

this section "From the Eisenhower Presidential Library, a pamphlet on the 1970 People to People Student Ambassador Program indicates that four letters of recommendation used to be required with the application. Qualifications for the 1970 program were described as: "High School Students recommended by the principal or a teacher, who are capable of properly representing and speaking for our country abroad, thus becoming 'Ambassadors,' will be carefully selected through a written application, health examination certificate and personal screening interviews. To qualify you must have a good school record and interest in people and international affairs."[4] The program has undergone various changes since 1970, generally becoming more open to a wide array of students interested in the People to People international programs and more recent domestic leadership programs." should be taken out. It is historical and is unrelated to the present nomination process. The present process is the only part relevant to that section. Reboot (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If your concern is that it is less related to the Nominations section and more related to the History section, we can move the text over to the History section.Nowthenews (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Several state attorney generals, including those in North Carolina, Minnesota, Virginia, and Washington. Iowa, Florida have file suits or conducted investigation [regarding the company's marketing practices]. In the Iowa and Florida cases, the program's operator accidentally sent an invitation to a family's long-deceased child. To address the problem, the operator of the programs modified the invitations and presentations that relate to the "Student Ambassador" travel program. People to People also donated $20,000 to Blank Children's Hospital and $5,000 to the Iowa SIDS Foundation -- charities supported by the family of the child. According to the Iowa Attorney General's news release, the AG did not take issue with the merits of the Student Ambassador trips.[6]. [9] [10]. [11]" should be moved to a section called "legal issues" along with the other lawsuits.

"The People to People Student Ambassador Program is an organization based in Spokane, Washington, that offers educational international travel opportunities to elementary, middle, and high school students. The program is administered by Ambassadors Group Inc, a publicly traded corporation[1], however it is one of the sponsored programs of People to People International which is a non-profit organization.[2] The mission of such programs is to "promote peace through understanding," in the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, who the group claims founded the program in 1956. The group that administers the program's SEC filing states the group was founded in 1967 and reincorporated in 1995 [3]." needs rewording the program is not an organization nor is it administered by PtPI. The eisenhower quote can be moved to the historical section, but is not relevant to a discussion of the modern travel service, but is part of the marketing and history of the PTPI organization. "sponsored" is irrelevant to the factual discussion that this is a student travel service licensed by PTPI to AGI Reboot (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree (hallelujah!) with you that that section needs rewording. The section is also confusing about when the program itself started, versus when the non-profit started, versus when the for-profit administrator entity started. I am not clear on it myself but I've noticed that throughout the history of this article, these founding dates often get used interchangeably, when they should not be.Nowthenews (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

verbiage: "The People to People Student Ambassador Program is an student travel service administered by Ambassadors Group Inc, a publicly traded corporation[1], however it is one of the licensed programs of People to People International which is a non-profit organization.[2] The group that administers the program's SEC filing states the group was founded in 1967 and reincorporated in 1995 [3]." Reboot (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

the notable people section should be completely removed. "Notable people who ate cheerios" isn't part of the cheerios article. This is not encyclopedic or even relevant and is simple marketing material. Reboot (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree here. There are numerous examples of Notable Alumni sections in Wikipedia. For example, List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America), List of Delta Tau Delta members, even notable alumni who attended David H. Hickman High School[2].Nowthenews (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Draft Article

Here: Talk:People to People Student Ambassador Program/ReDraft

It still needs some work, for instance, it psychotically mentions over and over that Ambassador's Group is a publicly traded company with the symbol... over and over again. I still think it is fuzzy about Presidential Organization-->crickets-->PTP Int'l--->crickets-->Ambassadors Intl--->Ambassador's Group, Inc. and the relationship between, but it cleanly separates "here's what it is" and "here's how it works" to "here are the legal troubles" and is clearer that this is a travel service licensed under a name etc etc..Reboot (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I will tackle this redraft later but I do agree the article does not need to repeat the ticker and public company status. Those repeated mentions have seeped in over time as different editors have tacked on that factual, although probably irrelevant, information to various parts of the article. If readers are interested in the administrator of the program, they should click through to an article about Ambassadors Group. This article is about the program.Nowthenews (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

it should have one mention, the nonprofit which is less connected gets repeated mention Reboot (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

THREE LAWSUIT IN 9 MONTHS

There are actually 3 not 2 lawsuits pending. Hill vs; Spiotta vs; Wellner vs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.179.110 (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wellner doesn't get mention because

Notoriety - There are nearly no third or even first party resources that I can find aside from a few forum post mentions by name - and this is the most important reason.

Extraordinary nature of the Claims - the claims can't be analyzed because there are no references.

Reboot (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

neutrality

why is the neutrality disputed? it seems like an ok article to me!! 98.226.79.168 (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

WHY PUBLIC TRADED SHOULD BE AMPLIFIED

For Profit Ambassadors Group and Ambassador Programs hide behind the veil of President Eisenhower for profit. The public has the right to be informed. For example, the following information is inaccurate beneath the PTP logo: [[Formation 1956 Type Youth Peace Ambassador/Travel Headquarters Spokane, Washington Official languages English President Mary Jean Eisenhower Key people George W. Bush (Current Honorary Chairman)]]

It should read: Formation 2002 (PTPI was formed in 1963 - The People to People Initiative was founded in 1956 - no organization; AGI in 2002) President - Peg Thomas; CEO - Jeff Thomas Mary Eisenhower is CEO of People to People International the non profit. Key People - George W. Bush is not the honorary chairman of AGI/AP or PTPSA the for profit. Only PTPI the non profit. Rumor has it that he has withdrawn his honorary chairmanship pending misuse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.179.110 (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

locked article

This page is locked for a reason as yet unknown to me. I know I am not logged on now, but even when I am, the page is still locked...why? 98.226.79.168 (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The Proposed Model: Center for Talented Youth

As we now find ourselves faced with completely refashioning the article after the imposed freeze, I think it would be useful to find a similar program with a Wikipedia article that can serve as our model here. This will (hopefully) help avoid future wars over content relevancy and curb bias.

One summer program that I have had personal experience with (as a camper a long, long time ago) strikes me as similar to People to People: CTY, or the Center for Talented Youth program. The CTY program does a "talent search" which involves a combination of nominations, advertisements and mailings to identify students "with exceptional mathematical and/or verbal reasoning abilities". Parents can also "nominate" their own children, so in reality, I think almost anyone can be identified in the "talent search". The students are invited to apply and submit a non-refundable application fee and $600-$1300 deposit towards tuition. The program appears to have a historical association with Johns Hopkins but the wording is ambiguous enough that I personally wonder if CTY generates a decent profit for whoever is the ultimate owner/administrator of the program (maybe for Hopkins).

Not surprisingly, CTY draws the typical number of individuals who question whether it's a scam [3] or whether it is misleading, but over decades it seems there have been thousands of program attendees and parents who have participated in the program, left satisfied (or at least have not sued), and speak positively about the program. Wikipedia does not try to wade into this debate in the CTY article. Appropriately, the CTY article does not publish testimonials, nor does it reference scam assertions or customer complaints. Most notably, the CTY article is free from the editorial bias that seems to creep into our article. For some reason, the People to People article occasionally attracts editors who, after discovering the Hill suit or a news report reproducing the suit content, take it upon themselves to "expose" the program. This usually results in a slow drift from an encyclopedic article to a complaints forum. The article should really focus on the program itself in the way that the Center for Talented Youth article does.

I find this phenomenon fascinating -- there are evidently hundreds of thousands of People to People alumni who have participated in the program and who have left satisified (or at least have NOT sued), and there seem to be dozens of local newspaper reports of alumni who speak in enthusiastic terms (at least in my google searches), yet editors here continue to ignore this in their crusade to slant the article to fit their own belief that this program must somehow be a scam. The CTY article does not have this problem and I wonder why it is such a persistent issue here. Nowthenews (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to this article. Reboot (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Center for Talented Youth is a model for an unbiased Wikipedia article about a student program, and editors like you, in particular, can improve by observing its factual, unbiased style. I have noted that all of your edits and efforts here in this article have served to color the program in a negative light, much in the same way that Sheryl Hill has attempted to do.70.121.12.97 (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Even More Employee Edits

I don't outright disagree with the last run of employee generated edits, except that they are that and the referenced links don't seem to work. I suggest that the proper procedure is to discuss them on this page (preferably in reference to the DRAFT version that we're working on) and allow someone without a WP:COI to do the edit. I guess if they just can't control themselves we can ask for semi-protection. I'd like to finish the draft this week if at all possible. Reboot (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There have been even more employee edits. I've been reverting them as well as sections that on review were completely added by them that are of an advertising quality. Reboot (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Archiving old discussions

I have archived the years-old conversations to bring the more current discussions to the top. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 21:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Tyler Hill Wrongful Death Lawsuit is Ended

Dear Wikipedia

I am relieved to tell you that our wrongful death lawsuit has ended. However, as part of the settelement agreement, both parties have agreed that they will not characterize, impune, or make disparaging remarks. Therefore, please remove any remarks on your website that would compromise the settlement agreement.

Tyler Hill's parents "civil" wrongful death settlement agreement was made weeks after the Hennepin County Court, Judge Charles Porter, residing issued the following order:

... The above entitled matter came before Judge Charles A. Porter, Jr. on April 23, 2009 for a hearing on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement and Plaintiff's Motion to Add a Claim for Punitive Damages. Charles T. Hvass, Jr. Esq. appeard for the Plaintiffs. Peter VanBergen Esq. and Christopher Liijima Esq. appeared for Defendants Ambassadors Group, Susan Stahr, Pat Veum-Smith, Josh Aberle, and Angela Hanson. Thomas Nelson, Esq. appeared for Defendants docleaf Limited, David Perl, and Larry McGonnell.

Based upon the evidence adduced, the argument of counsel, and all of hte files, records, and proceedings herein,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

 a.  Plaintiff's wrongful death, breach of contract, invasion of privacy, MInnesota Health Records Act, and fraud claims remain active for trial.

 b.  Plaintiff's Consumer Fraud and False Advertising claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

2. Plaintiffs' Motion to Add a Claim for Punitive Damages is GRANTED. Plaintiffs may claim punitive damages as discussed in the memorandum.

3. The attached CONFIDENTIAL memorandum is Incorporated herein.

LET JUDGEMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

ON June 22, 2009 Jeff Thomas CEO of Ambassadors Group the for profit parent of People to People Student Ambassadors released the following statement:

“Through hindsight we can see that there are steps that all of the leaders should have taken that could have prevented Tyler's death on June 29, 2007, during a trip to Tokyo, Japan, and regret that they were not taken,” said Thomas, who is also chief executive officer of Ambassador Programs, Inc. “We are very sorry for Tyler's death and the Hill Family's loss and the impact it has had on many. We continue to review all policies surrounding students with pre-existing conditions, including diabetes protocols, to refine our procedures.”

[http://www.www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/06/p2p_hill.html#ixzz0O76eY3bL ]

Recently, Tyler's Family Released the following press release:

Wrongful Death Lawsuit for Tyler R. Hill Against Ambassadors Group, docleaf, et al., Officially Settled

MOUND, Minn., Aug. 6 /PRNewswire/ -- Allen and Sheryl Hill of Mound, Minn., today announced the official settlement of their civil action for wrongful death of their 16-year-old son, Tyler Hill; invasion of privacy; and fraud against Ambassadors Group Inc., People to People International, docleaf Ltd. and other individuals. The Hills signed the release on July 30. The terms of the settlement are confidential. Tyler died on a People to People Student Ambassador Trip to Japan on June 29, 2007. Since Tyler's death, the Hill's have been on a passionate mission to protect other traveling youth and have sought accountability, justice, restitution and reform.

REFORM: Traveling Youth's Standards of Safety Legislation

The Hill's mission for the safety of kids participating in travel programs is far from over. They seek reform through a bi-partisan federal law and the Traveling Youth's Standards of Safety (TY's SOS legislation), and have engaged Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Congressman Erik Paulsen (R-MN). The pursued legislation is to ensure safety measures, sanctions and penalties are in place to protect traveling youth. No safety standards, sanctions or penalties exist to protect children's health and safety rights while entrusted to third parties, especially during travel programs. Children have been denied health care, died, hurt, abandoned, raped and suffered severe illnesses, while traveling with some student travel programs. There is currently no oversight committee watch dogging the student travel industry.

Danielle Grijalva, director for the Committee for Safety of Foreign Exchange Students, applauds the Hill's advocacy for safety and sanctions during travel abroad programs. She said, "I receive numerous complaints about other travel agencies from children and their parents about supervisors being intoxicated, molestations, children being denied health care when they are sick, unsanitary living quarters and 'unaccounted for' children. Parents need to inform themselves of the safety record of agencies and supervisors they are entrusting their kids to." Grijalva recommends parents contact foreign police authorities to report abuse and then contact local, state and federal agencies to report child endangerment. Until laws are passed to impose sanctions and potential imprisonment, Grijalva believes that egregious stories like Tyler's will remain all too common.

ACCOUNTABILITY & RESTITUTION: Judge Porter's Order

On June 10, 2009, Judge Charles Porter granted a motion permitting the Hills to amend their complaint to add claims for punitive damages against Ambassadors Group Inc.; Ambassador Programs; People to People Student Ambassadors; docleaf Ltd.; Dr. David Perl and Larry McGonnell, both in England; and teacher leaders Sue Stahr, Pat Veum-Smith, Angela Hanson and Josh Aberle of Minnesota. The court's order is public but its memorandum is confidential.

The Hills have achieved accountability and restitution. Ambassadors Group Inc. CEO Jeff Thomas released a public apology on June 22, 2009. The apology stated, " ... there are steps that all of the leaders should have taken that could have prevented Tyler's death ... "

Evidence before Hennepin County Court

Sheryl Hill was told by one of the leaders, that on June 26, 2007, Tyler thought he had altitude sickness after climbing Mt. Fuji, and he wanted to go to the doctor. The leader gave him water, and told him to go to his room and work through it. Afterward, Veum-Smith, Hanson and Stahr joined Aberle in his room, where all of the leaders drank beer until sometime between 12:30 and 12:45 a.m. Reiko Tanaka, who was employed as an English-speaking Japanese guide for the People to People trip in June of 2007, testified that she did not notice anything different in the appearance, demeanor or energy of Stahr the next day.

Stahr was a student ambassador leader on a trip to New Zealand where another student died. The Hills were not informed of her prior safety record. While Tyler was dying in the hospital, Aberle and Hanson went through Tyler's personal belongings and took photographs of his medications and insulin. All four leaders had training on dehydration. Tyler had been vomiting for hours and asked for enough water to feed a family. He was held back for the day's activities; his heart stopped less than 10 hours later. Despite specific training to contact the parents or seek medical attention when a child shows 'moderate' signs of dehydration, no phone calls were made to the Hills until Tyler's heart had stopped for more than an hour.

Ambassadors Group; David Perl, MB; Larry McGonnell; and docleaf were sued for invasion of privacy and for violating Minnesota Statutes concerning privacy of medical records. Judge Porter ruled that the violations of the Minnesota Health Records Act and the claims for invasion of privacy were active for trial and denied defendants' motion for summary judgment.

About Tyler Hill

Tyler Hill was born on June 6, 1991, on the anniversary of D-Day, in Edina, Minn. A natural athlete and honor roll student, Tyler was a first year MVP for rugby, a tight end in football, a winger in hockey and an advanced scuba diver. He was a junior officer of the Mound Westonka High School DECA club, and he discovered and reported a bomb threat to school authorities and was recognized for his actions. Ty will be remembered for his big smile and tender heart. He passed away on June 29, 2007, while on a People to People Student Ambassadors trip to Tokyo, Japan, apparently from severe dehydration. For more of Tyler's story, visit www.tylerhill.org.

SOURCE Hill family —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.156.29 (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some of this ought to be move to Wikisource? Thank you for the information. As far as removing or editing parts of this article due to judicial order, I don't feel that neither I nor any other Wikipedia editor is bound by this agreement, although it is nice to see that the issue is resolved and that astroturfing Wikipedia about this issue may be at an end.

The standards of Wikipedia should be followed in this article, including the 5 pillars and other related concepts. So far as the neutrality of this article is concerned, perhaps it could be reviewed and dealt with accordingly, and this information could be properly incorporated into this article with the proper weight that it deserves for this topic. That could be a point of contention, but enough has already been written about that topic that I don't need to belabor the point. Again, thanks for the information. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is still half advertisement and counter-advertisement, way too long and probably doesn't deserve its own separate article. I agree, we're not bound by a court order incorporating a settlement agreement between two other parties. Nor are we obliged to whitewash their previous statements here. Including the attempts of both sides to write their side into it. If we are now left with genuinely unaffiliated parties we might actually get somewhere... Reboot (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)