Talk:John C. Maxwell

Arrest

This is about two-thirds of his "personal life". Is it really appropriate to put this much weight on one incident? Not saying there should be a mention of the incident. The weighting just seems inappropriate. More like someone has an axe to grind than true encyclopedic value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.93.198 (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with previous comment. I'm Maxwell's blog administrator. And no matter how many times we add in more info for his personal life, it gets deleted by someone, leaving just the arrest info. Also, the info is now out of date. All charges have been dropped and it has been expunged from his record. I would create a request for semi-protection if I could figure out how. -Stephanie

I totally agree with this Stephanie. Given that all charges have been dropped and expunged from his record... What is there left? I believe there is a Wikipedia rule regarding WP:Recentism 129.180.1.224 (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

@129.180.1.224: Semi-ironically, your comment about WP:Recentism is in response to a 3-year-old conversation. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I have updated the info on the article. Thanks for the update. However, you may want to post something related to the charges being dropped on his website - I couldn't find a thing about it. And though I certainly have no ill will towards Maxwell, it is a remarkable part of his life and is indeed notable on a Wikipedia biography section. Flavius Constantine (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about deleting part of the talk page, but there was a major coding problem and the only way I could fix it was by deleting and reposting.Flavius Constantine (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone add something about his involvement with WWDB (World Wide Dream Builders, World Wide Group)? He heavily supports it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.64.117 (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Too much hyping up of this person

I removed, now for the second time, that this individual's organisation has trained over 5 million of the world's managers. There is no evidence for this claim, in fact a simple bit of population maths shows there aren't that many manager and if he (or the organisation) trained this many then this would be the better part of the entire world's managers. PLEASE, do not make ridiculous claims that hype this person up. Similarly, where is the data that supports the sale of 19 million books? Nor is there any evidence that EQUIP has served 80 nations! How long does the tag 'citation needed' have to stay there before it is obvious there is no credibility to the claim? "Every year Maxwell speaks to Fortune 500 companies" Really? "Every year Maxwell speaks to international government leaders" Really? You might think this to be the case but without the evidence it's hype! Natural Homes (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2013 (GMT)

Try this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this ...I'm now replacing it for the second time and I'll pick one of the multitude of sources above, probably Newsweek or Success. Not the Toastmasters Golden Gavel award, it's already in the article and you've ignored it. I imagine that several others in the article also do, I just haven't read them all. There's evidence everywhere supporting this. You just need to read the sources that have already been posted that support the claims.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You have no substantiated PROOF for these claims! Such claims should be backed up by sales releases from publishers, not hype on websites. You also ignore the maths. It is NOT possible for the organisation to have trained so many managers, and if it were possible you still have to prove it's true. If you can show me reasonable mathematical deductions that support the plausibility that, "His organizations have trained more than five million leaders worldwide." then I will leave the statement. If not then I will yet again remove it to build integrity into the credibility of Wiki. Natural Homes (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2013 (GMT)

• [Comment redacted by User:EdJohnston]

Well, you are obviously an "anti-fan" with some kind of agenda, so your unsourced opinion is equally biased. Fortunately, the claim in question here is backed up through logic and common sense. He doesn't claim to have trained five million "managers" but five million "leaders". With all the training and workshops that he's done over the last decades, five million is probably a small number. I don't think we need to audit reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

So, you have confirmed your bias. I estimate, given statistics from world population, languages, employment, management ratio (higher than leader ratio) that the organisation would need 75% of the world's management/leader training market to have trained 'more than 5 million'. If you can confirm the organisation has this market share then I'm happy to let the claim stand. Natural Homes (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2013 (GMT)

Right now I'm more concerned you're going to look up my home address and knock on my door to continue the argument in person. But if it helps, the World population was estimated to exceed 7 billion ten days ago. So that's training 0.0714 % of the current population. Since Maxwell has been training for some 40 years, it would make sense that some of the people he has trained are now deceased. For just one example, he's been a trainer at the Willow Creek Association#Global Leadership Summit three times, and just one of those was reported to have 53,000 in attendance (the 2005 session). Just twenty such programs comes to over one million. If he's done a hundred programs, that's well over the five million. He could easily have achieved 100 such programs just by doing 10 a year for 10 years. Now, can you please explain why you think that there are only 6.6 million managers and leaders in the world today when the US Census Bureau reports that there were 7.2 million teachers in the US (clearly a leadership position over students) just in 2009 and just in the US?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

So it's not "trained" but rather 'spoken to' and even that refinement of the audience would require substantiation. Not only have you lost credibility as an editor due to your accepted bias but you have diminished it further by implying I am a danger to you. This is NOT acceptable Wiki behavior. You are required to prove claims such as 'more than 5 million' or reference credible sources like CNN, New York Times etc who do not take Wiki articles as their data source. If you cannot do that then the statement has no place in this article. Natural Homes (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2013 (GMT)

Group training is a valid form of training and is very common. As for reliable sources, there are many listed above--Success Magazine, Business Week, and Gwinnett Business Journal are specific news sources that are nestled in among the other common websites.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Please add a credible reference for the 5 million statement to the article. If it stands up to scrutiny I will leave it. Natural Homes (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2013 (GMT)

Some of the language in this article strikes me as resume-speak/peacock terms. Ex: "famous Crystal Cathedral", "internationally recognized", "noted evangelical pastors", and "organizations as diverse as". Also, the use of the word "leaders" seems weirdly nonspecific to me in the disputed section: "his organizations have trained more than five million leaders worldwide." Is everybody who attends his training a leader? In the interest of NPOV, wouldn't it be less presumptive to refer to people who attend the training as attendees? Is everyone who attends a Celine Dion concert de facto a fan? If I go to a plumbing seminar, am I a plumber?

I also looked at some of the references cited at the top of this discussion section and I'm having difficulty seeing how any of them conform to WP:RS or WP:SELFSOURCE. Some are just clearly insufficient for obvious conflicts of interest (the subject's own blog, Amazon.com, any site that is also selling one of his books, and BigSpeak, a booking agency for speakers.) Most of the other references have simply reprinted the subject's official bio in one form or another, and repetition doesn't by itself prove a fact. But more importantly, do any of the sites that have reprinted this information even pretend to have an editorial policy or any kind of fact-checking process? I doubt Ohio Christian University's upcoming events page does much fact-checking. The anonymously-penned Gwinnet Business Journal article is an obvious press-release rife with flowery language, the purpose of which is ultimately to sell tickets to a speaking event, and to sell books. "In an unprecedented live event..." "Plan to be in the audience..." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian responding to a request made at the Third Opinion project in regard to this dispute. When unsourced removed material is restored, the burden under the Verifiability policy is on the person restoring the material to provide an inline citation to a reliable source justifying the existence of the material. There is no inline citation provided for the "five million" material, so it should not be restored or retained until one is provided. An inline citation allows other editors and, especially, ordinary users to confirm that what is being said in that particular chunk-o-text is verifiable. Consider the definition of reliable sources when choosing the citation and remember that the source must not only be reliable but must substantiate the text in a direct and explicit manner without the need to engage in synthesis or interpretation. I express no opinion about whether any of the proffered sources in the laundry list, above, is sufficient. Throwing them all out at one time and expecting other editors to sift through them shifts the burden to the wrong party. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• That's all? I added the Gwinnett Business Journal source inline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry this, "says Mark Cole, CEO of The John Maxwell Company." referring to 5 million, is not a credible citation, nor is http://gbj.com a credible source. It is in the interest of Mark Cole to hype up the company. Natural Homes (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2013 (GMT)

My bad. I looked at the wrong version of the page and didn't see the citation. If I had, then I would have declined to give a 3O at all because the dispute had not yet come to a standstill, there being a new citation to be evaluated and discussed by the editors working on the article. If you come to a standstill working out the adequacy of the citation, then feel free to apply for a new 3O or go to the Reliable Sources noticeboard, but you're not at that point, yet. With apologies for the false start, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It's come to a standstill all right. I think "A" and he thinks "B" and we're stuck in WP:WABBITSEASON.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Question Why do you say the Gwinnett Business Journal is not a reliable source? It seems to be a bona fide news organization to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It is a tiny provincial organisation with a tiny online audience. That aside the reference at the source is a quote from the CEO of the Maxwell company, hardly objective and independent. Natural Homes (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2013 (GMT)

I agree with Natural Homes. A RS is a source, per WP:SOURCES with "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It's the reputation for fact-checking part that's the problem. Gwinnett Business Journal is more like a chamber of commerce newsletter than a full-fledged newspaper. And the fact that it is published by, per its web site, Tillman, Allen, Greer, a marketing firm, rather than by a news organization or it's own professional news staff, doesn't help the matter any. It's not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay then how about Busienss Week -- this one is a bit out of date and only shows 2 million, but I'd be done there and go home. Unless you are saying that Business Week is not reliable too. Oh, since you feel so strongly about Gwinnett Business Journal, you should probably follow up with the other articles that use it as a source here on Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not an article about Maxwell, it's a bio, which was presumably penned by Maxwell (a contributor at BusinessWeek) or his publicist. It is not necessarily covered by the editorial policies and fact-checking they perform at BusinessWeek. More info: WP:BIO and this essay on what constitutes an independent source. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

If that's true, it's been re-printed by BusinessWeek. I see no reason to consider it unreliable, certainly nothing in WP:BIO or independent source points to that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The reprinting of self-promotional prose doesn't prove that the claims are factual, and it doesn't make the entity that reprints it a reliable secondary source. Please also keep in mind that the burden is on you to argue for the inclusion of the reference, not for me to argue for the exclusion.

* From WP:BIO - "All biographies of living individuals must comply with the policy on biographies of living individuals, being supported by sufficient reliable independent sources to ensure neutrality."

* From WP:INDY - "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective. An interest in a topic is vested where the source holds a financial or legal relationship with the topic, for example." Maxwell wrote articles for BusinessWeek, and thus held a financial/legal relationship with BusinessWeek.

* From WP:INDY - "Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication)." and "For example, in the case of a website, an independent source would be newspaper coverage of the site rather than the site itself; for a recording artist, an independent source would be a professional review of the artist rather than album sleeve notes or a press release." Substitute "recording artist" for "leadership expert". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Question what articles did he write for Business Week? If that's not in the article, it should be.--!!!!

Citation Audit

Since this article is now on my radar and there has been a lengthy discussion today about what constitutes a quality reliable source, I'm going to go through the references and see how many, if any, adhere to WP standards. Sooo, heads-up. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this fall in here, but the first two source links don't work, and the third one forwards to the source's main page, not the article being referenced. Juicebox87 (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Wonderful, it's long overdue. Natural Homes (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2013 (GMT)

Here's the list and my opinions about the appropriateness of these references. No edict here, only an opinion.

• Schultz, Jason. "Airport Screener Finds Gun in Bag of Author, Speaker", Palm Beach Post (2009-03-14).

Citation doesn't support the line that precedes it. Also, there's no mention of the arrest in the article. I noticed that a single-edit burner account, Ibuprofen1, was last responsible for deleting any reference to this event, an event that may actually be notable, considering it received coverage in actual news articles, and that the event is still referenced on Maxwell's official site.

• "Hardcover Business Bestsellers", New York Times (2006-05-06).
• "Hardcover Business Bestsellers", New York Times (1999-04-11).

Both answer the question, "was he a NYT best-selling author?", though they don't support the claim that Maxwell's books have been translated into 50 languages.

• "Detailes del libro que Nicanor le regaló a Fernando Lugo", Ultima Hora (2008-04-28)

Need a better citation. It's the same reprinted bio/press-release, but in a different language.

• "Crystal Cathedral Ministries : Welcome". Crystalcathedral.com. Retrieved 2011-11-15.

Need a better citation. There is zero information on the main page that claims a viewership of 20 million even if it did, that is a viewership figure that the ministry itself serves to benefit from inflating. In fact, I found a source that implied a one-time HIGH viewership of 1.3 million, and an AVERAGE viewership of 230,000. That is a massive and significant difference from 20 million, and it raises big concerns about NPOV, and the purpose of this article.

• "John C. Maxwell". Bloomberg BusinessWeek. Retrieved March 10, 2013.

Need a better citation as previously discussed. Self-promotional bio/press-release. Book sales figures should probably be supported by independent secondary source. For example, when citing TV viewership ratings, information must come from established, reliable reporters of that information.

• "EQUIP, Johns Creek, Georgia". Retrieved March 10, 2013.

If EQUIP's mission statement relevant to this article? I dunno. Maybe it is. The mission statement seems in conflict with the line before it. Is it EQUIP's mission to help leaders or to fulfill the "great commission"? Both? Also, "the great commission" is lingo that not everyone would understand.

• Jacket notes, inside back flap "The Difference Maker". He is also the recipient of the Go Giver Lifetime Achievement Award in 2011
  

Need better citation for the WP:INDY reasons I argued in an earlier talk section. Self-promotion: "album sleeve".

• "John Maxwell LOVES Andy Albright & NAA!". http://www.youtube.com. Retrieved 2010-05-06.

Where does the reference say that Maxwell was a keynote speaker? I didn't watch the entire video. Is this personal interp?

• "Golden Gavel Award". Toastmasters International. Retrieved February 10, 2013.

No quarrel. The article confirms that Maxwell received an award.

Overall, I'm concerned at the glaring lack of independent, reliable sources for a subject who is considered to be notable. I'm also uncomfortable that all these numbers are being thrown out with no hard data. 5 million leaders, 20 million viewers. How do we know he's sold 20 million books? I think most of these references should be tossed. Vague terminology should be fixed. Peacock terms should be removed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree and must say I'm impressed by your diligence and experience. Is it appropriate, given the level of intervention in this article, that I now remove the unsubstantiated claims? Natural Homes (talk) 06:38, 24 March 2013 (GMT)

Hey, thanks for the acknowledgement! It is my hope that you, Paulmcdonald and I, (and anybody else) can work together to achieve a reasonable and balanced article, with minimal negativity. :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No objection.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

internationally recognized leadership expert

The term 'internationally recognized leadership expert' lacks credibility since if you Google the phrase the ONLY results returned relate to Maxwell. There is no way to test this claim so I believe it should not be made and propose to remove it but would like to take opinion of other editors first. Natural Homes (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2013 (GMT)

I'm of the opinion that ALL of those peacock terms should be re-worded. If Maxwell is notable for being an author of XX books that have made the NYT best sellers list several times, and have been distributed globally, I can dig that. "Internationally recognized" can definitely be described in a less fluffy way. Maxwell, for example, could be described as "an author who heralds himself an expert in leadership and management, and whose books have made a number of best sellers lists, and have achieved notable success in X, Y, and Z countries" (with references). And while I'm aware that some schools offer PhD programs in "leadership", it's not clear what makes Maxwell an expert in this field apart from self-proclamation and his prolific release of books on the subject. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Career

Really briefly, the introductory sentence in this section is bothering me, because it's written in a quintessential press-release style. "For over 30 years, Maxwell has led churches in..." It's sort of like saying "Cyphoidbomb's contributions to Wikipedia have spanned two decades," even though I've only had an account since 2008. The statement is technically true, but without the right context, it could be deceptive.

A better encyclopedic introduction (methinks) would be more along the lines of "In 19NN, Maxwell entered the Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA and graduated with a Doctor of Ministry degree in 19NN. In 19NN, Maxwell began serving as a pastor at ABC church in DEF state, where he served until 19NN. In 19NN he served as pastor at GHI church in JKL state, and he served as Senior Pastor in MNO and PQR states between 19NN and 19NN."

I think this format hits more on the facts and less on vague information and potential fluff. And in keeping with prior objections (some of them possibly from me) it allows us to establish the framework for Maxwell's notability. Once again, these are merely opinions, and I'm interested in getting the team's input here. And I'm sure my prose can use improvement too. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree entirely. The article needs a complete overhaul both removing the unsubstantiated claims and the hyped up fluff around this person. I have written to the academic institutions asking them to verify Maxwell's degrees. I also find that if you search for Maxwell on non-USA sites like the BBC he is not to be found which suggests that he is not 'an internationally recognized leadership expert' as is claimed. Natural Homes (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2013 (GMT)

I found this press release, which indicates a Chinese company contracted with him for lectures. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

With quotes from WIKI in the statement! Natural Homes (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2013 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.205.252.163 (talk)

Education

I have tried to verify with Fuller Theological Seminary the claim that Maxwell holds a 'Doctor of Ministry degree at Fuller Theological Seminary'. Fuller Theological Seminary were very helpful saying, "... we do not provide degree verification without a signed release form from the student". Which means that unless someone is going to ask Maxwell for a signed release this claim cannot be substantiated and should, I propose, be removed from the article. Comments please. Natural Homes (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2013 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.205.252.163 (talk)

I'm not sure that removing all unsupported claims is the best approach just yet, because we might find this information elsewhere. Since we're not in a hurry to edit, I think we should go slowly and see if we can't find solid sources for some of these claims. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think some of this is going beyond reasonable measures--try applying the assume good faith guideline from time to time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Wait, who, me? Or did you mean Natural Homes? And correct me if I'm wrong, but AGF refers to how we should treat other editors, not the content, doesn't it? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, just trying to avoid the pointing of fingers. I think that Natural Homes could extend some good faith to the editors who have put in information that is readily available and would be universally accepted on virtually any other article here on Wikipedia for basic facts such as degrees earned. For example, when the editor that originally put in the information about the degrees earned, there should be some sense of acceptance of the data. The infiormation is verifiable but it doesn't necessarily have to be verified. Do we have any reason to believe that the information about the degrees would be false and the sources are either incorrect or outright lying on that point?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. Yes, the integrity and the intentions of the individual who contributes the information should be assumed to be good, until there's clear evidence otherwise. And this applies to both sides. There's been a lot of excitement around these parts lately. Yes, scrutinizing every claim in the article will probably result in the article being deleted for violating one WP policy or another. On the other hand, premature complaints at WP:AN3 will do little but invite the scrutiny. As an outsider, I can see how you would perceive your integrity was called into question just as I can see how Natural Homes' might perceive his integrity was called into question. Since you're both essentially even-steven now, maybe we can start fresh? Mistakes were made.

That said, if we look at President Barack Obama's article, there is a link to his curriculum vitae, which is posted on the University of Chicago Law School's website (via Archive.org). The President's educational history is verifiable, but that doesn't mean that this information shouldn't be linked. Now, I don't think it's reasonable to demand references for every fact we have on Maxwell. I don't need to see his marriage certificate to believe that he's married. I don't need to see an affidavit from his dad that swears his kid followed in his footsteps. It would be fantastic if we could find quality references that bolster any of the the information we have, rather than relying on that pesky bio! Can we get references on the big-ticket items, like his book-sales figures, his international notoriety, and all of that "Billions of burgers sold" stuff first? If not, is there a way to say that stuff in a more neutral way? If not, maybe we should chop that stuff first, then flesh out the areas we can support? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree there is no hurry but would say if the article turns out to be predominantly fluffy hype then it calls in to question the more commonly unchallenged claims. Natural Homes (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2013 (GMT)

72 Books

With regard to this edit by single purpose account Ryanpetetit which I reverted for being improperly sourced, and which was partially re-introduced in this edit by Paulmcdonald, aren't we still in the same boat we were in months ago, which is that most of the claims of notability, and success, and audience, etc., are coming directly from sources connected with the subject, via press releases and the guy's own website bio, etc? I still don't understand why this is being perpetuated, and why other, independent sources aren't being provided if the guy is so widely notable. Even if you phrase it such that Maxwell "claims" to have written 71 books, we can't base the bulk of an article on what Maxwell claims. What am I missing, and why shouldn't this new data be removed? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John C. Maxwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.toastmasters.org/goldengavel
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131028083055/http://yourfrisco.dallasnews.com/2013/07/02/local-businessman-conducts-transformational-leadership-training-with-the-john-maxwell-team-in-guatemala/ to http://yourfrisco.dallasnews.com/2013/07/02/local-businessman-conducts-transformational-leadership-training-with-the-john-maxwell-team-in-guatemala/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)