Talk:ElderTreks

Removed from article
Controversy In 2006, Consumer Affairs wrote up a report of people being scammed from ElderTreks.
 * This is inaccurate. The cited source is 2 complaints from consumers that were published without any investigation.  The site disclaims the content as user-contributed unverified.  This section of the article implies it was a government entity and that they wrote up a report.  It is a private website, not a government agency.  The text implies that the referenced source described people being scammed, that is not what is said there... the people complain about the cost, quality, and conveniences of their trips.  Please be more careful about making inaccurate and libelous statements. JERRY talk contribs 04:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again this has been posted as in entirely inaccurate. There is no mention of a scam however there are comments of dissatisfied customers on the consumer affairs site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.124.85 (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Consumer report is always right (well, 99% of the time), or are you trying to use Wikipedia as a spam site? Spam is not welcome here; in fact, ElderTreks would have been deleted, but you were able to find the cites in time. If you do remove that, I will have no choice but to report you to the Conflict of Interest noticeboard (in other words, please read this and this). &mdash;Bo L 05:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoah... why are you making accusations about spam and threatening to delete this? I'm just trying to solve this and put up the proper content. Obviously spam isn't welcome here or anywhere else. I'm just trying to get the facts straight. Consumer Affairs has a section on customer complaints. That's what you linked to. Customer complaints do in no way represent 'scams' or 'controversy'. Feel free to keep the link but at least label it for what it is, that's all. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.124.85 (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you on Wikibreak or something? &mdash;Bo L 05:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I looked up and read what the term Wikibreak means but have absolutely no idea how it pertains to myself. I'm just a newbie. I sent you an email. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerry toronto (talk • contribs) 05:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he was commenting on how you weren't signed in, so your comments here were signed with an IP address instead of a username. Signing in and signing your posts helps us keep track of who said what on talk pages. You can sign your posts by putting ~ at the end. --Icarus (Hi!) 23:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A third-party observer's input
An editor removed the controversy section again. I can understand the points of view of both sides on this, that it's a small number of unverified complaints on one hand, but that Wikipedia has to have a neutral point of view and it would be POV to intentionally exclude the negative. As a compromise that I hope both sides will accept, I have placed the link among the external links. That way it doesn't have its own section, but it isn't intentionally absent either.

Also, if I may comment... It looks like things are getting a bit tense here on the talk page. I've been involved in some tense editing disputes before, so I'd like to just remind everyone to stay cool and assume good faith. I think that both sides have raised some valid points, but both have gotten a little defensive. It looks like the key guidelines for this article in general are notability of companies, don't use Wikipedia for advertising, and avoid conflicts of interest. BoL, you're probably familiar with these already, but it never hurts to review them. Gerry, these ought to help you to understand why the article might raise some red flags to more experienced editors, and how you can improve it by demonstrating the company's notability. --Icarus (Hi!) 23:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with the CA site is that it fails both WP:RS and WP:EL as it's essentially a moderated forum. I would urge those who want the mention of criticism to find a better source (should be news stories someplace, rather than blog/forum logs/listings). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphan article message
JoeNMLC (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)