Talk:Envision EMI

Merge results

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)

Funding

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)

Edits made on 8/17/09

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)

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)

Edits made by employee of Envision

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)

--Each1teach1 (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC): I responded to Btphelps on June 29. I told him I was new to Wikipedia and am trying to learn the ropes regarding updates, sources, transparency, etc. and that his feedback had been very helpful. In response to his suggestion, I updated the "each1teach1" user profile to state it is an Envision EMI account (not something ever intended to be hidden) and asked for guidance as to any further steps that might need to be taken.

Edits removing well-sourced content

User FavreisGod has made a number of extensive edits over the past two weeks removing negative information from the article and adding new information sourced from the company's web site. Those edits appear to show a possible conflict of interest which he has not acknowledged. I have asked the user to discuss substantive edits that removed well-sourced information here before making further changes, which the user has ignored. I restored the following edits and have requested that the user discuss these and other changes here before making such edits again.

• Inaugural conference in lede: The lede should summarize all relevant points in the body of the article, including controversial ones.
• New Jersey Senator: it is customary to mark a dead link as such and give contributors a chance to find an alternative source before the content is deleted
• Recruitment practices: this information correlates with information found in the 1993 Common Cause article. Since it goes to establish a pattern of corporate behavior, it should be retained.
• Criticism and legal action: This information is about the company's accountability from the point of view of an employee. It is well-sourced and clearly demonstrates that the company knew in advance that there would a large number of attendees.
• Black-tie Gala: This well-sourced information again illustrates the disparity between what attendees thought they were promised and what they actually got.

The article needs more information from reputable third party sources (not the company's web site) to balance out the information on the Inaugural Conference lawsuit. I did a brief search and found mostly job listings.

-- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Btphelps,

I am a Wikipedia neophyte, but I have two decades of experience as a professional journalist. I appreciate the importance of good sourcing and editing.

The Envision EMI article, as you’ve edited it, focuses narrowly on three out of nearly 300 programs run annually. The net effect of this editing portrays the company in a negative light. I believe this narrow focus constitutes undue weight.

Your edits to this article repeatedly cite material that appears to exclusively reflect plaintiff’s counsel’s perspective in an on-going lawsuit – failing to distinguish facts from allegations. Plus, some of your recent edits have served to add duplicative material – including whole paragraphs – in places where that type of information does not belong.

My interest as an editor here is to develop a more accurate and balanced article. I am not an employee of the company and my personal experience with their programs has been positive.

Has your experience with Envision EMI or their programs been otherwise? Do you have personal knowledge or experience here? Do you have a conflict of interest in editing articles about youth leadership organizations? Do you work in this field professionally?

My apologies for not responding sooner on this forum.

-- FavreisGod —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for taking the time to discuss edits first. I know it's a bit cumbersome. Contributing effectively to Wikipedia can be a bit of a learning curve, but stick with it, it grows on you.

I have no knowledge or experience with Envision EMI. I agree the article is unbalanced as it is. Please add relevant information from third-party sources that boost the overall information about the company and the programs it runs, that would be great. Yes, I have an interest in leadership development as a Scouter.

I was perched on the bottom rung of a career as a journalist during the summer of Watergate in 1972 as a copy clerk at a local newspaper. When Ralph Nader visited a nearby town, the publisher decreed that the paper would not cover his presence because the publisher didn't like Ralph Nader. That kicked me out of journalism. I have friends who are and were journalists and many like you are fleeing a sinking ship.

If you can point out the sections that you think are redundant, I'd be happy to reduce them. If you feel information cited should be couched as "allegations" more clearly, feel free to make those edits. If you think information needs to be reorganized, go ahead and make those changes. Your prior edits did not merely reduce the overall quantity of information, but did so in a skewed way, eliminating many less favorable facts in preference for more positive facts. For example, the edits to the Common Cause article that turned the article into a positive statement. Admittedly stale date-wise, the article is still relevant given the connections between Congressional concerns then and now, and continued concerns in the public press about the company's recruitment practices.

I noticed your use of the phrase "plaintiff's counsel" as if you are the defendant. I also saw one of your edits of the R&R Partners article which stated without attribution that "R&R Partners is one of the fastest growing independent agencies in the nation." This is a peacock phrase that ought to be modified IMO, and is a direct quote from the R&R Partners web site as well as repeated verbatim on other sites linked to the same company and its employees. I also see that you signed a Wikipedia Commons comment with "Sal". Given that there is a person named Sal working for R&R partners in Las Vegas, am I correct to assume that you are employed by R&R Partners? You stated that your agency represents Stacy Keibler whose article you also edited. Aside from these two articles, the only other edits you've made are to the Envision article. That leads me to ask, does your agency represent Envision EMI? If so, as previously outlined on your talk page, you ought to disclose this because of the potential conflict of interest.

"Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit..."

Failing to do so can have negative consequences for you, your company, and the client.

Thanks for your comments, and I would like to see this article balanced with more content about the many other programs the company offers. Surely with the company's long history there must be some good third-party press out there too. Regards, -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Btphelps-

The article is now more balanced in content and sourcing and has fewer redundancies.

Re: Stacy Keibler -- she is a personal friend and I represent her on my own.

Re: this line in the recruitment practices section: "...and sent out more than 100,000 invitation letters to students." The sourcing does not support the assertion. Notation on the edit page says that this information, "...goes to establish a pattern of corporate behavior... [and] should be retained." As an editor, I disagree. The cited article is 17 years old and is not sufficient "to establish a pattern of corporate behavior." Without current sourcing this is speculation at best and should be struck.

I see that you are active in the leadership of the youth leadership organization, White Stag. It appears that you've extensively edited that article as well as the Envision EMI article. To date, you have not disclosed anything on this talk page about this apparent conflict of interest.

Thanks,

---

FavreIsGod —Preceding unsigned comment added by FavreisGod (talk • contribs) 15:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The White Stag organization that I am a member is in no way competitive with Envision. I have referred your possible COI to an administrator for review. Thanks. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You are extremely involved in the youth leadership space. You are extensively editing the articles of another youth leadership organization that you admit you know little or nothing about.

In your post above, you cite this: "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit..."

You have made frequent edits over an extended period of time that IMO have not helped to create a neutral point of view, but rather an overtly and aggressively negative one. Brian, it is not enough for you just to say you don’t have a COI here. I believe a neutral administrator will agree that your edits to the White Stag article and the Envision EMI articles demonstrate a clear conflict of interest.

Thanks,

FavreIsGod —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.120.32.66 (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

We'll just let the administrator have their input. If they think I have a COI, I'll readily admit it. How about you? -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You guys aren't far from editing warring. While I really don't have time to do an indepth look at this, a quick look tells me this: I don't think that Btphelps' editing White Stag perforce means he has a COI. If FisG has no connection to this organization, then he appears on the face of things not to have a COI. What I see is a difference in philosophy about how this article should be shaped and laid out. If you can't settle this yourselves, see WP:MEDIATION. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

FavreIsGod, I really don't want to get into a big dispute over this. Either reveal you have a COI or that you don't. If you don't say one way or another, then I'll refer this to mediation within a couple of days. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not have a COI. I agree that edit warring benefits nobody. FavreisGod (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Since R&R Partners, the company that employs FavreIsGod, has performed or is performing work for Envision EMI, which can be confirmed with a simple phone call to the company's offices, I don't see how FavreIsGod can assert that he does not have a conflict of interest. I will work with FavreIsGod to create a balance article. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that the results of a customer satisfaction survey conducted by a reputable, independent third-party represents an “unduly self-serving” source even if it is reported in self-published press release. However, in the spirit of compromise, I will not revert this deletion.

I also continue to believe the extensive focus on the inaugural conferences to the exclusion of all others in the Criticism and Legal Action section represents “undue weight” in violation of the neutral point of view standard. However, again in the spirit of compromise, I will accept the version of that section as it reads as of the date and time of this post until such time as circumstances materially change.

At the earlier suggestion of btphelps, I intend to add information about the company’s other programs to the History and Programs section. -- FavreisGod (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not the survey itself that does not qualify. As with all Wikipedia content, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Self-published sources

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)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Envision EMI, LLC. -- -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

---

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)

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)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moving a few paragraphs.

I noticed that this artical is all over the place, probably due to a lot of of editing and new catagories being added all the time. So I moved a few paragraphs that seemed out of place to me. One was on criticism, and the other was about the Better Business Bureau rating. It is easiest for people to look up what they want to know if it is in the right catagory. If you feel I did this in error feel free to contact me. Ladyj40781 (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The lead section is supposed to summarize the entire article. Please take a few minutes to study some of the high-level guidelines as outlined on your talk page. Happy editing! -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Your right, I am new to this, but learning more everyday. I researched the "lead section" and see what you are talking about. I feel that to start this page off with the critizism is not fair. This page has been ambushed over 1 event, meanwhile in 2009 alone there were 272 other confences that students attended and had a positive experience. So why should this 1 event get so much spotlight? I am trying to replace this paragraph with something more important about "Envision" any idea's or comments welcome. Ladyj40781 (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The lede per guidelines reflects the article's contents. Please add the information you feel is relevant then modify the lede accordingly. You cannot remove content because you don't think it is "fair". That's a personal opinion. The information you replaced it with is not included elsewhere in the article nor is it supported by a third-party source. Both of these violate the Manual of Style. Additionally, the survey results you cited are from a press release from Envision. As previously stated above, information provided by the company may be used if it is not "unduly self-serving." I don't think this press release (also found on PRweb qualifies.

Please try to format your sources minimally with a URL followed by a title, like the following:

<ref>[http://newsguide.us/index.php?path=/education/Customer-Satisfaction-Survey-Gives-High-Marks-to-Envision-EMI-Programs/ Customer Satisfaction Survey Gives High Marks to Envision EMI Programs]</ref>

I question the reliability of ArticleSnatch.com as a source. I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source and lacks verifiability. Anyone can pretty much publish anything there. The article uses poor grammar ("These is...") and contains phrases like, "Young minds are like surging waves which if properly directed can render any pasture green. Energy, enthusiasm and excitement always accompany the youths; they eagerly jump to new challenges and put their mind, body and soul in it. Such tremendous potential needs to be properly channelised." These mistakes do not lend to the article's credibility. And, "the "National Youth Leadership forum exposes the eager young minds", which doesn't give the impression of a dispassionate third-party source. I am submitting the issue for input by other editors. I will hold off reverting any of your changes until we get input.

Given your statement above, you seem very familiar with details of the organization and offer the blanket, unsourced statement, "there were 272 other confences that students attended and had a positive experience." If you are close to the organization, attended their conferences, are or were employed by them or any agency retained by them, you may have a conflict of interest, which per Wikipedia guidelines, you should disclose here.

Thanks for your desire to improve the article. What do you think about combining the various articles into one? -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

We received input on the articlesnatch.com site as a source (below), which was negative. Given the other problems with the changes you made as described above, I am going to revert them all. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Given my statement above, I have read this wiki artical, since those numbers are all on the page... As for having a "conflict of interest" 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. I was simply exploring this Wiki sight, so that I could learn how to start a page for an organization I am close too. This Envision page I found while looking up nylf. To see all the negative remarks about this program was crazy I thought, so I tried to edit the recongnition part so people looking would know how much kids enjoyed it. I made a few changes and then out of no where you take everything off!! I didn't plan on doing all these edits but I love a challenge and that is what you are giving me. How about you, you edit this page like it is your job, what is your connection?? Keep up the good teaching!! HAPPY EDITING!!Ladyj40781 (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Selection

Among college students, Susan Garrity Ardizzoni, director of undergraduate admissions at Tufts University, reported that some students who receive invitations are not what she would consider "leadership material." Many high school students believe that attending one of Envision's conferences is an honor and that their participation will positively affect their chances for college admission. "Too many students are invited to take part to make this a truly selective organization, and so many college candidates do take part—especially those from the more well-heeled families—that college-admission officials usually just yawn when they spot NYLC on an application." I removed this section because not only could I not find anything in the reference about these kids not being leadership material, but also to say they are not selective because too many kids were invited, is like saying too many kids in this world have too high of a GPA. If you can find an artical about a student who says they went and did not fit the criteria then I could understand but not just someones opinion on there selection process.Ladyj40781 (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia places high value on reliable third-party sources. In that context, Susan Garrity Ardizzoni, Director of Undergraduate Admissions at Tufts University, is not "just someone". Unlike a press release from Envision or a self-published ezine, she is an authority in the field of college admissions. Her evaluation of what qualifies as useful experience on a college admissions application is perfectly germane to the subject of a student attending an Envision program. The reference for her quote is found here.

I will hold off making any changes until we receive input from other editors on the use of ezine as a source. Please do the same. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on input from another editor, who reviewed the editorial guidelines for articlesnatch.com, I will revert the content citing articlesnatch.com as a source. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I will be looking over all of your changes but already I see some problems, also you put "we" recieved feedback, where do I find that feedback "we" recieved??And does a blog count as a third party source? also what does this mean?: Please try to format your sources minimally with a URL followed by a title, like the following: Ladyj40781 (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I linked to the feedback in my prior comment. A blog, as a self-published source, usually does not qualify as an authoritative source, unless the author is an established, recognized authority. Hope that helps. If you have issues with my edits, please take a minute to write about them here, so we can resolve them without unnecessary revisions to the article. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

References

criticism and legal action section

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)

Parent and student praise

Normally when we make major changes such as the one made to this section, we discuss it, so please do so before you make such a big change again. As far as this section being "advertising and not encyclopaedic" it wasn't meant to be.It is however content from news articals and very relevant to this artical concidering all the negative things (one guy) has to contribute, this section is to show that kids enjoy the experience they get when they attent one of these youth leadership programs, and there is nothing wrong with that...Ladyj40781 (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Alawhat that the content containing student and parent praise is not encyclopedic, i.e., not what you would expect to find in a encyclopedia. The content appears, as user Ladyj708 781 does, to advocate a point of view. This violates Wikipedia policy as explained in Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. I support his decision to delete the material. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I have to say it is funny BtPhelps that you agree with Alawhat since if I remember correctly you were the one that added this section... Also I do remember sharing my small connection with NYLF a while back when you asked me, I'm not sure who you want me to "reveal I am" This is online, who I am as a person is private. Like I said before, I felt this page was crowded with negative so I added some positive, nothing wrong with that. you say I'm not neutral, neutral on what? I think it's a good program, you appearently don't. I don't see you adding anything nice, so does that make you not neutral either?? This "Wiki" is a place for people to go and find out facts about a topic/place/people ect, ect from real point of views. What is the harm in sharing how real people who attended these leadership programs feel? Everything added meets the Wiki guide lines so why not add it. Ladyj40781 (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ladyj40781, you seem a bit emotional or frustrated. Nobody is trying to upset you. To clarify, you created the content referencing student and parent praise, I merely created a section for it, as it was inappropriately buried in among other content. This had the effect of raising the visibility of this content. I did this partly in deference to your wishes and to avoid polarizing you as a new editor on Wikipedia. That Alawhat should independently conclude that the section of student/parent praise was not encyclopedic confirmed my feelings.

Envision is not without its detractors, including among former employees. From the NYLF talk page, "I am a former employee of these greedy co-founders...it's nothing but a summer camp...it's all about the marketing."

I am pretty well agnostic to Envision. I have spent a considerable amount of time improving the article, as you can see by the recent merge of the various subsidiary programs containing overlapping content. I've also added well-sourced, third-party content about the Inaugural Conference that I felt was relevant, as the article has tended in the past to be full of praise from individuals with an association with Envision. You can see the comments posted by others about this in the JNYLC talk page for example, where someone commented that "This article reads pretty much like a brochure." Some editors have on a number of occasions attempted to delete all negative information about the company, including, for example, even the very mild and rather objective statement made by a former employee about the Inaugural Conference: A former employee of Envision, Angie Peltzer, returned as a faculty adviser during the Presidential Youth Inaugural Conferences and said she believed the company was unprepared to handle the number of students. "It's hard to do 15,000 people when you've only done 500 before," Peltzer said." There are a number of advocates for Envision who desire to add positive content, but often this content veers into advertising and does not meet Wikpedia's standards for reliable sources. I believe I have maintained a balance.

If you are unwilling to remove the section full of student/parent praise, I suggest we request arbitration. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Having not received a response for more than a week, I am going to refer the student/parent praise section for arbitration. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Contributor possible point of view and conflict of interest

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)

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)

Merging a couple sections

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)

too much WP:SELFPUB here

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)

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)

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)

Edit request

Dear Wikipedia Editor:

I am the content consultant with Envision EMI. My client has asked that Wikipedia editors consider updating the company information box and recent information boxes of our article as they are several years out of date. The information there currently is from 2012 at the latest, and the company has been under new ownership for more than five years. The company's offerings have changed, the approach to working with students has changed, and the ethos has changed within the culture under new management. Some examples with third party links are below.

An example of a different offering: In 2016 Envision has a group of students reporting on the presidential election via its Chase the Race initiative: Students will continue their coverage through both the Democratic and Republican Conventions The effort is partnership with Discovery Education.

Here is a detailed review of the NYLF Security program, which also includes updated numbers on the amount of students the company has served. The article details how the programs now offer experiential learning:

On the criticisms of the 2000s business model in 2012 and again by podcast in 2015, Megan Dorsey reviewed the program, and said it was legitimate, and not a scam. (2012) (2015)

Please help get the entry updated to reflect Envision's current business.

Geoffliving (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Geoffliving, and thank for alerting Wikipedia with your edit request. Please see the comments below:

• • You have to give me or other editors specific wordings and changes in an edit request. For example, you didn't describe how you would specifically like the information box to be changed. Please present the updated infobox you would like to be included in the article exactly as it should be written below.
  • I added the example of the student reporting initiative, but condensed for neutrality.
  • Same issue with the NYLF security program: you must provide us with the sentences you wish to add to the article. Please make sure your text adheres to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Avoid phrases that are frequently used in press releases, but are not appropriate for an encyclopedia, such as "world leader", "pursues a mission of...", etc. Just as importantly, watch out for sentences that sound vaguely positive, but don't actually tell the reader anything specific. They should be condensed and written more tersely.
  • Two issues with Megan Dorsey's review. First, to claim Dorsey called the program "legitimate" implies that she endorsed the program, which misrepresents the thrust of the interview. To the contrary, Dorsey says, "the marketing materials overstate the prestige." Second, the review is from a self-published website, which is not admissible as a reliable source.

Thanks, Altamel (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

References