Talk:Endeavor Academy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Page Protection

Because of the heated controversial nature regarding this article I would like to ask for page protection of the article until there is a good working relationship and some of the basic disputes have been resolved.--Who123 17:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Templates

I have changed the templates to try to more accurately reflect the activity here. Hopefully these will be acceptable to all.--Who123 14:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think these templates best serve this article now:

Citecheck ActiveDiscuss --Who123 17:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

I have read the the introduction in the article and the EA site as a primary source. I did not see anything about it being a vocational school. It is stated that they are a school of "Spiritual transformation." In addition, they appear to be selling their own version of ACIM. I think they should be considered a publisher of ACIM.

I believe the introduction needs to be changed to reflect this.--Who123 19:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing

Regarding the importance of this article, are there any headlines, or anything else of national recognition that show the dispute between this school and its student to be on the scale of perhaps Waco, or otherwise notorious? If not, then this page looks more like some sort of troll bait. I removed both the self-advertising link, as well as the unsourced anti-advertising link. This school may indeed exist, but it doesn't appear to be as notable as say, Columbine High School, or any other media breaking school. It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG either. Ste4k 01:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't answer your questions, but it is standard to include a link to the official website of any subject, be it a person or institution. So far as I can see, there's no reason to adopt a different standard for this article. -Will Beback 01:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever standard you are mentioning is news to me. It may be standard for people and/or organizations to add one without a sufficient review of policy, but that doesn't change policy at all. What could be the purpose for such a link, especially since anything on pages there couldn't be used for any content? Ste4k 01:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not think the WP policies were developed to destroy articles. According to Wikipedia:No_original_research primary sources are encouraged. I think we need to have the mindset of a reader coming to WP for information. If I were a reader coming to WP to find out information about EA I would hope to find information about EA. It would not matter if the information came from their website. I would expect to find a link to their website. As I think we all know, in many respects the internet is replacing traditional sources of information. WP itself is an example of this.--Who123 13:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL#What should be linked to, see item #1. The purpose is so that readers wishing to learn more have an authoritative link. It's not true that we can't use a subject for a source. They have just as much significance as a source as any other. We don't exclude autobiographies as sources, we just recognize that they are another POV. -Will Beback 08:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now in the Style Guide, however, according to the WP:SPAM guidelines: Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thanks. Ste4k 17:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note this in the WP:SPAM guidelines: "However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." I see no reason why our efforts are not directed into making this a more legitimate article instead of trying to destroy the article.--Who123 14:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding a link to the official website is not "spamming" Wikipedia. -Will Beback 18:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:VER primary sources cannot be used, except for information about themselves, and also only if the information pertains to the subject's notability. Ste4k 01:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be in conflict with this WP policy. Wikipedia:No_original_research. I point out these two paragraphs:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.

In this WP policy, primary sources are strongly encouraged.--Who123 13:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

possible copyright violation of Chuck-anderson's-ea-bldg.jpg

User:Ste4k has listed Chuck-anderson's-ea-bldg.jpg as a possible copyright violation. Reasons unknown. —Antireconciler 03:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you go to the listed source of the image, you will find nothing there at all except a test page. Images need to list their source as well as rationale for why they may be used as fair-use, etc. See WP:CV Ste4k 01:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

As this is an article about EA, has someone tried to contact EA so that they could present their input in this intense discussion? This seems only fair since this is an article about EA. If EA were contacted they could perhaps provide us with more information about the photograph and if it is theirs, post here that its use is permitted if they wish.--Who123 14:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability

As I believe we all know, much more information exchange is taking place on the Net as opposed to traditional sources. Much of the information about EA and ACIM is internet based. It appears to me that much of the discussion here should include members who are familiar with ACIM and EA. As a user who has years of experience with ACIM, I believe that EA is definitely notable to the ACIM community and should not be deleted. There seems to be a targeted attack going on here.--Who123 07:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Although EA may not be notable to the world at large, it is notable within the ACIM community. It is perhaps most notable in regards to its lawsuit with FACIM/FIP. It is also notable for those ACIM students who may wish to live in a community with other ACIM students. It appears that EA has recently released a new version of ACIM. I would like to know more about this version. It may be notable for this.--Who123 14:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In view of the above, which I consider to be common knowledge with those who are very familar with ACIM and its history, I believe the 'notability' tag should be removed.--Who123 15:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify "Those who are very familiar with ACIM" is not a source. However, the notability tag should be removed in light of the recent AfD decisions. JChap (Talk) 15:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability has not been established. The template reads that the notability is in question. The changes made did not supply any reliable resources, and they served to undermine the work already performed on quoting the sources. There is no book cited yet, for example. Ste4k 23:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Since when is CBS News an unreliable source? -Will Beback 23:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

We were discussing notability. Ste4k 00:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why did you assert, "The changes made did not supply any reliable resources,"? There are relaible sources, such as CBS. When there are reliable sources covering a topic, that is a good indication of notability. In this case, a major network has done two primetime news stories on this subject. Unless you can provide some legitimate reason to doubt the notability of this topic, I'm removing the tag. -Will Beback 00:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Several users here agree that the notability tag should come down, and no specific issues have been raised. -Will Beback 04:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• The consensus is that the article should not have a notability tag. I am removing it again.--Who123 18:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No notability for this organization has been established. The notability tag is per the AfD. Coming along at a late date and declaring the entire question now in consensus does not include opinions of all who participated in that discussion. Read the tag carefully. If there is a dispute, which there is, over the notability of "Endeavor Academy" then it is up to you to establish that, not up to the editors that question it. Starting an edit war in an already controversial topic is not amusing. Ste4k 00:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to be crytal clear about this, the template reads: "An editor has expressed a concern". If you can establish that you are the only editor that is allowed a concern on WP, then I will remove it myself. Ste4k 00:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you consider to tbe the standard of notability for schools? -Will Beback 01:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that the subject meets the threshold of notability proposed in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations), to wit:

• Notability can be asserted for organizations through: Inclusion in third party published materials.

Since the article has surivived an AfD, the purpose of which is to decide notability, this request does not appear to be in good faith. -Will Beback 01:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The article survived AfD and was the subject of a report on 48 Hours. In addition it's controversial because there are claims that it is a cult. It's notable. It will be kept. Let's accept that and move on to improve it. JChap (talk • contribs) 02:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The result of this particular AfD was no consensus. I think it's apparent that the central issue of notability needs to be addressed. Removing that template removes the article from the category that editors at large use to find such articles. Removing the template is just another way of pushing a particular POV and preventing other editors from a random pool of POV to be aware that this article needs attention. I haven't yet seen any of the editing of late providing resources that address the notability of the article. Pulling down the template is an effort to do the opposite of what you are suggesting. See WP:CORP. Ste4k 02:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The relevant guildeline is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations), which says:

• Notability can be asserted for organizations through: Inclusion in third party published materials.

We have 3rd party sources, including a major network news show. -Will Beback 02:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The recent fundraising page says, "Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity. "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper" (from Wikipedia:Importance). [[1]] It seems that WP should honor its fundraising page.

Although "There is no official policy on notability.", the reasons for notability have been given. Ste, why are you so hell bent on destroying this article and its information?--Who123 02:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Relevence

About the two external links on this page. What is the relevence? Ste4k 01:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If I were a reader coming to WP for information about EA, I would hope to find a link to the organization. The reader may not know much about ACIM so the second link seems appropriate as well.--Who123 14:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

Does this article have any sources? Ste4k 01:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it has: zero + however many are in it, and will be added in response to your request for citations. :) Sethie 03:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are a number of sources in the article including the link to their website. I have not reviewed all of the references to try to make a judgement call on their usefulness. Perhaps we can help the article by finding additional sources?--Who123 14:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

copied from Talk:Charles Buell Anderson

I was looking over the final results of this article's AfD, and I didn't see anyone that explicitly had a problem with merging this into Endeavor Academy. I don't think it would be hard to put together a short, well-referenced article at Endeavor Academy that included all of the verifiable info here. I'll leave this open for discussion for a while, but if no one objects I'm going to be bold and merge it myself. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 08:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Be bold. The objection took the form of those who specifically voted to delete after a merge had been proposed. I haven't any objection to a merge at all. I do, on the other hand, have an objection to extremely thick conversations over umpteen individual issues that get bogged down into long talk pages which are difficult to traverse and lead toward a standstill rather than any consensus. If you think that we can discuss the newly merged article with that in mind, I would certainly appreciate it. Thanks. Ste4k 11:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Antireconciler 20:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

nice job. Ste4k 04:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article needs to be factually verified, cleaned up in general after the recent merge. Ste4k 04:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Original Research #2

Will, I'm reverting your insertion because it is unsourced. A + B does not equal C. There isn't any mention of anyone at the Endeavor Website named Anderson. "Master Teacher", yes. Anderson? no. By the way, there isn't anything on that site, nor in the articles about anyone writing a book. Ste4k 07:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to contact EA?--Who123 14:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous references to the fact that the head of the Endeavor Academy is called the "master teacher", and many references to Anderson as the master teacher. If it isn't him, then who do you think runs the place? -Will Beback 17:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, A + B does not equal C. It is not up to me to think who runs the place. That is original research. Comparing two different sources for making that assumption is synthesis. About your recent addition, using the source "Sects on the beach". Do you have that resource handy? I do. Here is what is added to the article: "advertises branch centers in Germany, Spain and Columbia. A former residential community in Byron Bay, Australia, however, has closed after facing many legal and financial difficulties." and cited to "Sects on the beach". There isn't any of the words "advertise" or "advertises" anywhere in that article, not even the prefix "adver". There isn't any mention of either Germany, Spain, nor Columbia in that article either. So that leaves us with: "A former residential community in Byron Bay, Australia, however, has closed after facing many legal and financial difficulties." The only mention of any "residence" pertains only to Byron Bay, Austrailia, and here is the quote:

"Business at the Miracle Centre would seem to be booming. 
The church is exercising its option to buy the adjoining Epicentre complex, a 
Byron landmark, and has a development application lodged with the local council 
for a 40-room motel for the site. If approved, Poppe 
intends handing the project over to a developer and using the proceeds to 
dramatically improve the church and its facilities. His 
devoted supporters insist much good has been accomplished under him, so much so 
that a number of acolytes have moved into the compound behind the church or 
taken up residence in nearby units on the Belongil Spit."

... also notice that there isn't any mention of Anderson there. None of the information in the predicate of that statement can be included citing the resource "Sects on the beach". Ste4k 20:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's break this down. Do you deny that the leader of the Endeavor Academy is the "master teacher"? -Will Beback 20:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not up to me to deny anything. It is up to whomever includes the information to supply a reliable resource. Per WP:VER, "2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." As an administrator, I am surprised to see that you aren't familiar with that. Ste4k 20:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Second, if Anderson is not connected to the academy then why did we merge his biography? -Will Beback 20:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not propose a merge, I proposed a delete. The merge was proposed by three other people in the AfD. All of those people were contacted in regard to the matter being a "disputed merge" or not. Another editor suggested being bold. I agreed that I hadn't any contest with that idea, and a third editor performed the merge. You might contact them individually in that regard. Ste4k 20:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If Anderson is not connected to the Endeavor Academy then we should undo the merge. It's senseless to have a biography of an unconnected individual in this article. -Will Beback 20:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: Adding merge tags to an article is tantamount to proposing a merge.[2][3]. Also, you wrote that you didn't object to a merge, and told another editor to go ahead and do it.[4] I don't understand why an editor would endorse a merge, then delete the material once it was merged on the basis that a merge shouldn't have occurred. -Will Beback 21:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned, you should speak to those that proposed the merge. Applying merge tags to correctly without bias express the wishes of three other editors made in an AfD is a matter of simple maintenance. Should their viewpoints have been ignored?

1. Merge bio (with much trimming) to the school article --KillerChihuahua?!? 11:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Strong Keep or Strong Merge to Endeavor Academy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Strong Merge with Endeavor Academy. --Nscheffey(T/C) 00:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
4. my comments
5. the merge

Ste4k 01:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a really hard time assuming good faith from Ste4k at this point. We already had this conversation on the Talk:Charles Buell Anderson page. She was referred to the 48 hours hours article, which identifies Charles Anderson as the leader of Endeavor Academy and the Master Teacher. That she continues to debate this is (Personal attack removed). --Nscheffey^(T/C) 20:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me provide a brief recap as I understand it. Some time ago, Ste4k proposes deletion of Endeavor Academy and Charles Buell Anderson. Since it turns out that most information at Charles Buell Anderson is redundant with Endeavor Academy, I copy any information at Charles Buell Anderson that isn't at Endeavor Academy, and I vote to delete Charles Buell Anderson and keep Endeavor Academy. The articles are essentially merged at this point. After the nomination concludes no consensus, Nsheffey recommends merging the articles, and this involves me moving only a references tag from Charles Buell Anderson and then converting it to a redirect page. Now Ste4k wants to remove information relating to Charles Buell Anderson, quoting WP policy to back it up. This essentially deletes Charles Buell Anderson per her previous nomination. It's not that Ste4k contests the merge. Actually, she embraces it because now she can WP:Verify Charles Buell Anderson out of existence. Now we should wonder if she will use this same tactic to reduce Endeavor Academy to another article, perhaps A Course in Miracles. There is no reason for her to find offense in what I say. If she resorts to finding offense, it can be yet one more tactic. Everyone should be forewarned of this. Do not let your minds me numbed by buying into WP policy without thinking critically, or by buying into accusations against you as if they had any meaning. —Antireconciler 04:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I was mistaken, and admit I may be further mistaken still. Naturally we should come to agreement on a bigger picture, for that is what is lacking in our constant talk on isolated events. The isolated events mean nothing without an understanding of the whole picture. It is here we must focus our efforts. What is the big picture? Quoting WP policy has limited depth, and this is a fallacy of explanation. —Antireconciler 05:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Ste4k asked me to come here and provide some comments on sourcing. I've read the discussion on this talk page and I think the problem is that policy is not being applied with common sense, a common trap for new users. Is there any real doubt in anybody's mind that Anderson is the Master Teacher and is the leader of this Academy? Get off this topic (which seems to take up most of the talk page, even though it is the easiest thing to verify in the whole article) and source the rest of the article. Ste4k's AfD noms (which were the first time I ever heard of ACIM) helped WP by cleaning out a walled garden of preachy, POV articles, but now it is time to stop being so adversarial and work together on improving the articles that were kept. JChap (Talk) 04:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. She has dramatically improved this article and many related ones. I don't think anyone doubts this. I think everyone concerned means to do exactly as you say. I'm glad for your help, —Antireconciler 05:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I may be completely wrong but I am beginning to doubt the sincerity of Ste4k. She states that until recently she knew nothing about ACIM. The last time I saw the ACIM article was about a month ago and it seemed reasonable. When I recently returned all references to EA were removed and replaced by a long section on FACIM. The revised article read like an ad for FACIM. As most here probably know, EA and FACIM/FIP were recently in a major lawsuit that resulted in the loss of the primary copyright by FACIM/FIP as well as their Service-mark on "A Course in Miracles" and their Trademark on "ACIM".

I now read this page and see what appears to be an abusive use of WP policies to eliminate the article on Anderson and now perhaps on EA. On the ACIM article she did everything she possibly could to try to prevent the use of ACIM as an abbreviation. Why is Ste4k so fiercely working on these two specific articles?

I have read many WP articles and they have been very useful to me as an introduction to material I was not familiar with. If Ste4k applied the same very strict standards to all of WP articles there would be few left.

It appears to me that Ste4k is working on behalf of FACIM/FIP perhaps because of the loss that FACIM/FIP incurred at the hands of EA. I know little about EA but I do know that many ACIM students applaud EA for the lawsuit. After the death of Helen and Bill FACIM/FIP ruled The Course community with an iron fist. If I am wrong, I apologize. This is all pure speculation but would not be unusual for what I have seen in The Course community.--Who123 05:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out it appears to me that Ste4k may be acting on behalf of FACIM/FIP. This may be entirely false. On the other hand, if someone were acting for FACIM/FIP the behavior here and at A_course_in_miracles of Ste4k is an example of exactly how to go about it.--Who123 14:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

From Ste4k's edit history, it seems that she is working on much more than just ACIM-related articles and I don't think her comments on these articles are in bad faith. She is just over-zealous at times. JChap (Talk) 15:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Leadership

About this section and its references:

Endeavor Academy is headed by its primary teacher and founder, Charles Buell Anderson. He is referred to by his students as "Master Teacher," and writes and publishes books under this name.

• Endeavor Academy. "Meet The Master Teacher". Retrieved 2006-07-15.
• FACTNet. "A comparison of FACTNet's criteria with Endeavor Academy". Retrieved 2006-07-15.

There isn't any mention of either authoring or books in either of these sources. The first source (primary) mentions nothing about students referring to anyone. In itself, its claims are very POV, a little far fetched, i.e. as reliable resources coming from a primary source speaking about itself, they are both contentious and self-serving or self-aggrandizing. There is no mention whatsover in the first reference of anyone named "Anderson", nor is there any mention that "Master Teacher" founded and/or heads the Academy. For all we know, it could be run by a board of directors and sell private shares of stock. The second source never mentions anyone named Anderson either. The most it says directly is: "Master Teacher is the supreme authority, nobody in the cult can question his apparently divine wisdom." It also says, "Not only does the Master Teacher claim he is Jesus but he require constant attention to be focused on him." The statement is as far-fetched as the other statement is self-aggrandizing. I doubt that anything in this reference meets WP:LIBEL, or WP:NPOV, but if you want to add it back in, then according to the guidelines you should be very careful to quote the source, exactly, to avoid having WP be considered a primary source of its own, and you yourself take full liability in the case that you do not quote it directly. See Wikipedia:No libel "Avoid paraphrases or inexact quotes or relying on memory when making contentious observations or assertions - and be ready to provide sources or withdraw comments if challenged" Ste4k 20:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. 1) Why have we merged in the Anderson biography? 2) Is there any doubt that the Master Teacher is the head of the Endeavor Academy 3) Is the identity of the Master Teacher in question? 4) Do we doubt that books are written by the Master Teacher? Regarding your questions, we may certainly use the Endeavor website as a source for their leader. If this were a university we would use the official website for a source for their staff. -Will Beback 20:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Answers: 1) Please see above conversation in "Original Research". 2) Yes. 3) Evidently so. 4) I do, and haven't found any evidence in that regard even after reading all of the proceedings of the court trial records which never mention any Anderson at all. (I consider those court records very NPOV and reliable). 5) The source is not in question. The material provided by the source must align itself with the guidelines. Please see those at WP:RS#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves as previously mentioned. Ste4k 20:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

2) What source provides informaiton to contradict the sources that portray the Master Teacher as the head and founder of the Academny? 3) We have sources which say that Anderson is the Master Teacher, and none that say he isn't. 4) Amazon.com lists books by the Master Teacher. If the Master Teacher didn't write them, then who has? 5) I don't see anything in the guideline which prevents us from using the Academy website as a source for its staff. -Will Beback 21:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI, here is a source which clearly ties together Endeavor Academy, Anderson, Master Teacher, and and calls him the "founder".[5]

As does this source, with which we're already familiar.[6]

Removing NPOV information which has already been verified is not helpful.-Will Beback 20:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest including the sources before citing them to avoid confusion. Also those sources are both the same source, i.e. "rickross.com" and it has already been established that it is not NPOV. Rick Ross makes a living off of modern day witch hunting. Ste4k 20:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall a consensus that Rick Ross is not trsutworthy on the identity of the Master Teacher. Where, exactly, did we decide that? The second reference is to CBS, as we all know. -Will Beback 21:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You might want to consider the article about him here on WP and the sources of which show his criminal past as well as his site being listed as a hate group. Other actual authorities in the field also contest his self-made credentials. As discussed many days ago, he owns his own web site, the site is not syndicated anywhere, and it does not meet the standards of a reliable resource. It is neither a publishing organization, nor the press, nor anything else that fits the criteria listed in WP:RS. His viewpoints on Endeavor Academy are biased by profit potential and that is not the only church that he has comments on. A strong case could easily be made that besides financial gain that his motives are religious persecution. In any case, as you know, if this is a disputed matter between us, then I suggest that we consult a third neutral party. This organization doesn't actually meet WP:ORG in the first place, so true, it may be difficult to find sources, however, as mentioned, we should keep WP:LIBEL, WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:No libel as guidelines and policy regarding the editing of this article. Ste4k 01:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree that EA is not a publishing organization. Please see Publish:

Publishing is the industry concerned with the production of literature or information -- the activity of making information available for public view. In some cases, authors may be their own publishers.

Traditionally, the term refers to the distribution of printed works such as books and newspapers. With the advent of digital information systems and the Internet, the scope of publishing has expanded to include websites, blogs, and the like.

In addition, EA appears to have published a new version of ACIM.--Who123 14:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The second resource is from CBS. CBS does not state this opinion. CBS reported that some other man (Rick Ross) had this opinion as well as Ian Hamilton who is a disgruntled business partner of Endeavor Academy. All POV and wreckless inclusion should be avoided. Ste4k 01:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

CBS and other major news centers have relied on Ross as an expert.

CBS, in their own words, says:

• They say that it is a kind of a health spa for the soul, with its own spiritual guide: a former real estate salesman named Chuck Anderson...The Howards - and roughly 500 others at the Academy - have sacrificed their careers and their former lives behind to live there and follow Anderson, the man they know as Master Teacher...Clare Howard first heard the Academy's teachings at a 1991 seminar based on the New Age doctrine called "A Course in Miracles." ...At the Endeavor Academy, almost all decisions are made by Anderson.[7]

That is eminently clear. -Will Beback 02:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Great! Then include that into the article verbatim and cite it. That is not what is in there now. Ste4k 02:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This statement: "Endeavor Academy is headed by its primary teacher and founder, Charles Buell Anderson. " is cited to be using the 48 hours article as a source. Why? There isn't anything about any "Charles or Buell" in that article. There isn't anything about any "founder" in that article either. That article doesn't even say that Chuck Anderson is the "primary" teacher. A-he is called "Master Teacher. does not equal B-he is the primary teacher. It does say that that he is a "spiritual guide". Sounds like he works there, certainly, but not much more. That needs to be either removed as OR or correctly cited to whatever it came from. Ste4k 02:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's another presumably neutral source: [8] -Will Beback 02:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure we can reword the statements in these sources more clearly than the current text. I'll give it a shot. -Will Beback 02:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This made me laugh: "Anderson is a former realtor and member of the Alcoholics Anonymous [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]". It reads like he is still in AA, Will. I'm sure you can do better than that. With five sources just pick the best, quote it, and cite it. It seems like we're spending a lot of time on this instead of trying to find sources for the real problem with the article: WP:ORG. Ste4k 04:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The source, a speech of his own, doesn't explictly mention leaving AA. However he does say, "My name is Chuck Anderson, and I’m an alcoholic.", , so we can state that much. -Will Beback 04:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You've got me rolling on the floor now. lol. Honestly, Will, are you trying to make sure that this article gets deleted? The topic here is the Academy and the problem is notability. Ste4k 04:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

When an AfD fails, it is better to just move on and concentrate on improving the quality of the article, in my opinion. JChap (Talk) 04:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Leaning further away from the problem

Article right now says: In an interview with CBS News Anderson denies having followers, claims to be "returning to heaven" "shortly", and says that "everybody" is going with him. He says "There's nothing dangerous about me. I am the danger of eternal love."[9]

This source is seven years old now. If these are the only two references we can dig up in the press then it shows more of a reason why this organization and/or the source and/or Anderson is not notable. If they haven't been mentioned in over five years, and (ste4k checks herself real quick), yes, I am still here and not in heaven, then what's the point of adding this material to the article? Seems to be off-topic and or steering away from notability of the organization rather than the contrary. Ste4k 04:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That material concerns the 'spiritual guide' and founder of the organization. If it's too much for this article then we can split out the material about Anderson. I have not idea what Anderson meant by "shortly"- he might have been thinking in geologic time. The point is that this is verifiable information about the topic, presented with a neutral point of view. The notability of the organization was settled in the last AfD. -Will Beback 05:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the notability of the organization at this time is its relation to ACIM, people that may be interested in the organization, and the lawsuit.--Who123 06:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I think EA is notable to the ACIM community. If there is not one already, there should be a link from ACIM to EA.--Who123 06:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Trying to establish notablility on a group of perhaps 100 people is hardly going to make any difference, Who123. And Will, there have been literally thousands of people that have been on 48 hours. Who cares? Please see WP:CORP. This company is a two-bit operation that probably has a class of 30 people, and staff of 3. Woopidy doo. Waco? Branch Davidian? Yeah, now that was notable. No question about it. This group? Get real. The article on WP has more notability than the group itself. Just check Google. Ste4k 02:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• See notablility section.--Who123 02:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Attempt to Demean Anderson

Once again, I do not know Anderson but there appears to be an attempt to demean him. It seems people are making fun of his possible association with AA. If he did have problems with alcohol and has resolved them then I think he should be applauded for this rather than made fun of. Most do not even admit they have a problem. I also saw some remarks about sexual misconduct. Unless he has a legal history in this regard it seems like slander to me. It seems that many of the remarks are derogatory. I am not in any position to judge him. Is anyone else here? Last, I have seen his organization called a cult. This is very difficult to define and apply and is also demeaning. Be kind.--Who123 06:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right. While we shouldn't sugar-coat anything, nor should we repeat unsourced derogatory information. Anderson does not hide his past alcoholism, but we don't need to shout about it either. It's just part of ihs story. However there is reason to think that the AA's teachings inform the Endeavor Academy's teachings. Even before I saw this I'd already re-written the reference to make it more relevent to the general topic of Endeavor Academy, though I may have gone too far in the other direction - making it too vague. -Will Beback 06:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

founder

There is no mention in any of the sources cited for "founder". Ste4k 00:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Look harder. [9] -Will Beback 00:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

A + B does not equal C. Pick a source. Quote it. And cite it. The purpose of citations is contrary to "look harder". Remove the extranneous sources that haven't anything to do with the statement. If they are used for something else, then include them along with the material quoted. Ste4k 00:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The source says:

• The Master Teacher Charles Buell Anderson. Founder and Master Teacher, New Christian Church of Full Endeavor. Realtor. Instructor, "A Course in Miracles." Founder, Endeavor Academy and New Christian Church of Full Endeavor. Accused by some of being a cult leader. Subject of litigation over his use of "A Course in Miracles."

What part of that isn't clear? -Will Beback 01:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What CBS says

"Clare Howard and her husband Steph...They say that it is a kind of a health spa for the soul, with its own spiritual guide: a former real estate salesman named Chuck Anderson. "

If you want to use this reference to a tertiary source, I haven't any doubt that the reliable source CBS would agree that Clare and Steph Howard say the above. That is not what is written in the article, however. Ste4k 00:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Uncited statement #1

"Endeavor Academy, which also operates under the name 'The New Christian Church of Full Endeavor'"

Where is the source that states this? Ste4k 00:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

See [10] -Will Beback 01:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

See [11] Ste4k 02:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What should I see there? -Will Beback 04:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Uncited statement #2

"is a spiritual, residential community and school."

Is there a source for this? If so, then cite it. Ste4k 00:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded that to "religious vocational school", per their press release. -Will Beback 01:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

See the cited source. The first paragraphs says "The Academy is an intensive encounter with Singular Reality and a forum for the complete transformation to Enlightenment that is the inevitable destiny of mankind." The source is self-serving, self-aggrandizing, and is not what is in the article. Ste4k 02:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The press release says:

• Endeavor Academy is a private, non-profit religious vocational school established in October of 1992 under the auspices of the New Christian Church of Full Endeavor of Wisconsin. [12]

Calling them a "religious vocational school" appears verifiable and NPOV me. -Will Beback 04:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputed statement #1

"It incorporates the spiritual teachings of a text it identifies as A Course In Miracles."

According to WP:VER#Self-published_and_dubious_sources_in_articles_about_themselves there are five criteria that a self-published statement must past for inclusion:

1. It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability;
2. It is not contentious;
3. is not unduly self-serving;
4. It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
5. There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.

There are three problems with this statement which cause it to fail WP:VER:

1. It is not relevent to the organizations notability
2. It is contentious
3. If is making a claim about third parties and/or events not directly related to the subject

Ste4k 00:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous sources that say that EA is based on ACIM. [13][14][15]. The only thing that we don't have a source for is the assertion that some people dispute it. -Will Beback 01:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

See [16] Ste4k 02:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? What should I see there? -Will Beback 04:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Uncited statement #3

"However, some claim that this is a different text from the one generally known by that title" (speaking about "A course in Miracles"). This is simple "OR" and is uncited. In itself it only goes to prove that the afore mentioned Disputed statement is "contentious". Ste4k 00:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed it. -Will Beback

Which is just hilarious, since it was Ste4k's claim to begin with. Is Ste4k now claiming, then, that everything she said before about the text Endeavor Academy uses called "A Course in Miracles" not being the "A Course in Miracles" was, in fact, nothing but her original research? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Push whatever POV you want.

 

As it says above, an editor has expressed a concern and this article is being considered again for deletion. If you haven't read the prior AfD discussion, or the final comments by the closing editor, then you should do so. Trying to sweep the matter under the rug isn't going to help this article one bit and only goes to show that there is a genuine concern, that the editors of this article can't find any reputible resources over the course of a month to establish notability. If the topic institution were notable in the first place, finding resources could be done in a few minutes instead of digging down into the dregs of the internet for topics that nobody remembers after nearly a decade (seven years). Do what you want, but don't try to convince me that it's consensus building. What a joke. This article hasn't any factual information, is completely based on synthesized hearsay, and is an attack page in disguise. See you in a month. Ste4k 03:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Article Review as of 18 Jun2006

I'd like to know the "reason to think" that anything about Anderson is pertinent. Naming him as the head, chief, leader, teacher, whatever, sure, fine, makes sense, but as an article, seriously, what is the purpose of this article? The name is "Endeavor Academy". Pertinent fact is there is a guy named Anderson that runs it.

1. What does anything to do with Nagasaki have to do with Endeavor? Really, tell me. Was the bombing of Nagasaki notable? I think so. I doubt any would disagree. Was Anderson flying the Bockscar? No. Did he serve Sweeney his coffee that morning? No. Were there another three to four thousand other people in his regiment, yes. Do any of them have articles? Maybe a few, but I doubt they were private first class. Does Endeavor Academy teach classes on Nagasaki? Are they activists about it one way or the other? Seriously that whole section reeks of no-context and should be whittled down to a cited sentence.
2. About AA having anything to do with a "book",... who cares? The only evidence that a book exists doesn't have his name on it, doesn't have an ISBN that anyone knows of, and there isn't anything mentioned about it in the court trial records. What is it? Who cares if he rewrote the 12 step AA program and called it "Course in Miracles"? Hmmm? Really, be honest. How many two-bit authors are there in this world that have written self-published books that are pretty much based on the work of somebody else? Is that important? Before you answer that question, keep in mind that the court case wasn't important on it's own, and also that the complaintants walked away after the case was dismissed. So what's in his book that makes it worth mentioning? Does some failed copy of a mix of work by some psychologist and the AA program make Endeavor Academy worth an article? You think? That's the reason why having multiple reviews of a book by a reputible secondary source is important for articles, or why having several notable mentions in the press or the media makes a topic worth mentioning. When reputible secondary sources are quoted, we can trust that they did the research on the book and we do not have to rely on "reason to think" sort of research of our own.
3. So what's left about this article besides hearsay? Is this place listed on the stock exchange? Is it becoming a common household term? a scandal? another Waco, Ruby Ridge, or Columbine incident? Are the feds lined up behind pickets 180 meters surrounding the place? What about the story behind Ian Hamilton that comes from CBS. This guy was a disgruntled buisness partner, right? So why not look up some dirt on him? Is he notable? Does what he said to CBS matter? Why? Is he the only guy that's ever had a bad turn of luck based on his own stupidity? There is no denying that CBS is a reputible resource. But where's the context? Who cares?
4. Who the heck is Karen Bentley and why is she being used as a reputible resource? The very first clause says, "Endeavor Academy, founded in 1992". I checked both her web-site that's dangling there as an external link as well as the primary source listed in the references, and neither one of them said anything about 1992. Where did that come from? And is there a reason why these "external links" are being mixed up with the references? Do they not have enough information to be cited with the {{cite web}} template or something? Should we be using places that advertise materials for Endeavor Academy for sale, as sources? I don't think so. If you think so then let me know because I have a bridge for sale down in florida you might be interested in.
5. Back to the leadership section. The article currently says: "Anderson, a former realtor, acknowledges his experience with the 12-Step process." I have to ask you, honestly, who cares? Did he create the 12-step process himself? Was he the very first guy to ever have enough guts to stand up at an AA meeting and say, "Hi, I'm Anderson, and I'm an alcoholic." How many recovered alchoholics do you suppose there are in the world and what does any of that really honestly have to do with Endeavor? Oh, let's not forget that he used to be a realtor. That is about as important to Endeavor as, uhm, hmmm, well you get back to me on that, I can't think of any reason why that would matter to anyone about anything at the moment. Being a has-been realtor in the "leadership" section is sort of an oxymoron, don't you think? But while were on that "Leadership" subtopic... the article currently says, "In an interview with CBS News Anderson denies having followers". Hmmm, well I don't know about you but denying one's following doesn't say much about his leadership abilites, and if it's actually true that he does have followers, then maybe that should be put in there instead. Also the quotes are being stated as if they are current. Past tense should actually be used since we don't even know if this guy is actually alive anymore (for one), and he did "say" these things according to CBS the better part of a decade ago.
6. History and activities section (I assume this is supposed to be about Endeavor Academy). I'll keep this real short. There are a dozen statements there and there are close to a dozen references on the bottom, and there is anything in that section that is hooked up to any of the references in the article. The entire section is unverifiable as it stands. It's not the job of the reader to read all of the references and links hoping to find out where the information came from. It is the job of the article to clearly present it's citations and make itself easy to verify.
7. Whats left? A bunch of external links to primary sources (one of which should remain due to WP:EL), one of which does note the estimated size of Endeavor Academy as 200 people, but also mentions that that it wasn't worth mentioning by name in a book. A couple that are hate sites. Do you really believe that you should remove the {{notability}} tag and try to start an edit war? Seriously, this article is a joke. Keep digging, good luck, but I wouldn't waste my time trying to make a rotten apple float to the top of the barrel.

...Ste4k 05:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Before we get into all of this maybe we should settle the other matters you've already raised. Do you still consider this subject non-notable? If so, then none of your other concerns matter. Notability ois the first threshold to cross, and there is an ongoing dicussion about it. There are also ongoing dicussions about sources. It isn't helpful to plaster the talk page with the same complaints over and over again. We're all trying to wotk together to make this a better article. Your help would be appreciated. -Will Beback 06:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the template had been removed, my concern and the concerns of all who agreed in the AfD silenced by "consensus" as it was stated above. I have no intention of starting edit war over a template. I added the category at the bottom of the article which handles the listing of the article in cleanup which was my major concern. Evidently some people find tags like that to be aesthetically unpleasing for some reason, i.e. offensive, etc. That's not my opinion, but I don't want to fight over a petty thing like that either. Yes notability is the underlying issue discussed throughout the above review. I don't plan on babysitting this article much in the future, so I thought I'd address the entire concern. Ste4k 07:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why add this new section? Is seems the major point is Notability which has its own section. I agree that Nagasaki is not important to this article. I do not know much about Anderson, AA, and EA. AA may be important if it is related to EA or ACIM. I do not think calling Anderson a "has-been" is kind and I do not think those sort of personal attacks have any place on WP. I am not certain but being a realtor may be significant. I seem to recall that this was the source of his wealth to establish EA and engage in a multi-million dollar lawsuit with FACIM/FIP. If this is true then it is significant in terms of the ACIM relationship. Sourcing is discussed elsewhere and that is where that discussion belongs.

This article is not a joke because of EA's relationship to ACIM. This returns us to the Notability section again.--Who123 18:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

After further study, I think Nagasaki is important.--Who123 20:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Related RfC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ste4k includes mention of activity on this article. Interested users are invited to comment.--Who123 19:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

12 Step Process

I could not connect with reference #8. If this is true for others the reference should be removed. I also think reference to the 12 step process should be removed unless it is of particular importance to Anderson. It tends to act as a slur in the minds of many.—Who 23:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Where do we go from here?

It does not appear that it should take much to clean this article up. It seems we simply need to go through the material and the references. I would suggest adding a separate section about the ACIM lawsuit between EA and FACIM/FIP. This is perhaps what makes them most notable. They also publish a version of ACIM and I think that should be included.

Who is working on this article now?—Who 00:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

References

Reference # 8 "Beginners 12 Step Meeting: "How It Works" should be removed. It is a blank page.—Who 18:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)