Talk:Endeavor Academy/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Meets WP Guidelines?

It still needs a small bit of work with sources and citations. Material has been either cited or removed. Once someone lends a hand to fix the references I believe the initial tags can be removed.

If anyone would like to add material then please do so but source and cite. Thanks—Who 20:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Lost References - temp storage

If you can locate this articles usage of the following reference, please help by restoring it.

"Havel's House of History. Autographs OF Religious Leaders: AM-AO". Retrieved 2006-07-30.

This did not add much to the article. Perhaps put it in external links?—Who123 03:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Done —Antireconciler ◊ talk 03:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Academy or Cult?

I do not think we should answer this question but there are many links to the issue throughout references and external links.—Who123 03:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Archive Page?

It seems that the article is in good shape now. I do not see any unresolved issues at this point. Once the tag issue is addressed, shall we archive this page?—Who123 20:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. I went ahead and archived most of the discussion page, and left those written in the last few days. If some of what I left seems obsolete, feel free to cut and paste it over. I'll also try to maintain the archive as archives seem to work best that way. I left the {{activediscuss}} tag since you didn't mention it, but the article seems to be becoming more stable, so keep it only if you prefer it. Again, good work and good ideas. —Antireconciler ◊ talk

I know your time is limited so I was going to actually do it. I agree with what you have archived. Thanks for taking the time. Again, the {{activediscuss}} tag may be useful because of the recent controversy. I think the article is well done, well cited, and is notable particularly in connection with ACIM. Thanks for all of your work on it.—Who123 12:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Questioned Credibility

Is this the best title for this section? Do we know that "Rick Ross" is a cult "expert"? There may be questions of credibility but there are also questions about this being a cult. I think in the references there are also questions raised about whether his teaching and behavior are consistent with ACIM. Thoughts?—Who123 13:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not. At least we'll want to bring up the controversy somehow since it seems like an important feature of Endeavor Academy. "Questioned Credibility" seems fairly neutral to me, but we could try "Unknown Credibility" or "Controversial Credibility" or one of your own conception if you prefer. I changed the title in the first place only because I wanted something a little more descriptive and general: even if Endeavor Academy is bunk, it doesn't follow that it's a cult or that "cult" and "Academy" are two mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive categories. Perhaps it's more accurately described by some other term all together. For that reason, "Questioned Credibility" seems actually less suggestive that Endeavor Academy is actually a cult, for "cult" seems like quite a strong word to me. As for Rick Ross, he has a website at rickross.com which suggests that he's not a light weight. It may take some further investigation, though.

I think it would be very good to raise the question of whether Anderson's behavior is consistent with ACIM if our sources have done this. I tend to think that our sources go under-utilized in this article. Good suggestion. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 16:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I knew little about EA except for the ACIM lawsuit. Editing this article has been a learning experience for me. I agree that the sources go under-utilized particularly for this section. I do not really like the word "cult". I find it is so pejorative. One article has 4 requirements for something to be a cult. It seemed that the Catholic church fits these criteria but we would not call it a cult. This is the Homes article ( 1) compliance with the group, 2) dependence on a leader, 3) devaluing the outsider, and 4) avoiding dissent). I tend to have fairly high standards for calling someone an expert. They would probably be whatever the court uses. I have not seen enough to call Rick Ross an expert. His primary page ([1]) lists 10 subsections that are most popular that are perhaps not cults. One aspect of the word cult that does seem helpful is that it a warning of possible danger. I find EA raises an alert flag with me. It does not seem like they are going to commit mass murder or suicide. On the other hand, there are the suicides in Oz, the reports of abuse, and the reports that people are encouraged to give all that they own to EA. ACIM does not teach surrender to a person but to God. ACIM does not mention a "master teacher" but instead advises turning within to seek guidance from the Holy Spirit, Jesus, and ultimately God the Father. I think having cult in the title would be useful because it seems to bring up all of these issues. I still would not call it a cult. How about, "Is EA a Cult?" At WP Cult, the dictionary definition that seems to apply here is "A religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader." Whatever it is, it does sound interesting. I would like to spend two weeks there to experience it for myself. I find this an area I do not know much about. Would you like to explore it together and learn along the way? I am going to change the title and remove expert. These are not a big issues for me so if you want to change them it would not hurt my feelings. It just seems more accurate for now. I think the EA article should alert the reader to possible danger at this point in my reading. Hope you are having fun with this.—Who123 17:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your reasons and I'm satisfied with the title you've chosen. I don't know what to make of Endeavor Academy either. I want to say at least that EA must be harmless. I say this because I think people can become confused sometimes and teach things to others that aren't in their best interests, with what they think are their best interests in mind. If Endeavor Academy is something like this afterall, I wouldn't be able to help anyone by wanting to warn others against Endeavor Academy's teachings, for the same reason I wouldn't want others to scorn me if I was similarly confused. I think it's important to trust other people's good intentions, because I know I would want that in return, and if I was confused, I would at least be able to count on this. If belief in separation arises from belief that one has attacked, then another's believing this one can attack and be dangerous would be the same as saying, "you are right to think as you do." I know no one would want that.

As a way of introducing Rick Ross, maybe we could call him a cult investigator or maybe just say he's knowledgeable about cults. I'd be happy to explore Endeavor Academy further with you and help as I can. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 02:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to attack either. I am not saying there is malicious intent. If I call back on ACIM again, it says we are to learn to see everything as either love or a call for it. CBS never called EA a cult and I do not think we should either. There are, however, enough people writing to suggest there may be a problem. I think out of love we can fairly present the material. If someone wishes to go to EA, they should be able to read what they can here and go with eyes wide open. Despite everything I have read, I would still like to go to experience it for myself. It sounds very interesting. I may even go at some point.

I think it would be fair to call Rick Ross knowledgeable or a cult investigator. Does this all seem fair, reasonable, and right at this point or do we need to discuss specifics? I just want the best article for the reader.—Who123 02:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I know, and I think you're right. The article does sound fair to me. If this lady I called at EA calls me back, maybe we can get permission to host an image here. Other than that, I think we should put up some information about what people do with their time at EA in the history and activities section and remove some of the litigation material that doesn't pertain to EA, add some transitions in some places, and I think we'll have a sparkly article. I don't think I'd be interested in ever visiting EA myself. It's interesting, but I prefer resources not quite so far away from me. Actually, if you are interested in what students of EA probably have to read, you might check out their newsletter. I've never read it myself though. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 22:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an image would be nice. I agree that some information about what people do at EA would be helpful. I wonder about sources. There seems to be a fair amount of "charge" around EA and mystery about it. I do not know where to go to get unbiased, reliable information. That is why I would like to visit but will probably never get around to it. I do not think removing the litigation material would be helpful. It is probably what makes EA most notable. After the death of Bill and Helen, FACIM/FIP took a very heavy handed approach through suing or threatening to sue people from Marianne Williamson to ACIM internet groups. Where ACIM teaches freedom from fear, FACIM/FIP was inducing it. This "reign of terror" was ended by the EA lawsuit. I will continue to work on it if you like but I am ready to turn to the main ACIM article. Just let me know what you would like.—Who123 04:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC) (response broken by —Antireconciler ◊ talk to start new topic)

Litigation

I just read over your changes to the article. They are good. You have a flair for writing. Because of what I have said above, I would suggest putting the rest of the litigation material back in. I leave it up to you.—Who123 04:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it ^_^. I definitely think the article should talk about the ACIM litigation, as it is a very big part of it's notability. I got rid of the explanation of which versions of the text surfaced as a result of the whole ordeal because I couldn't see any way to make this fact relevant to Endeavor Academy, even though it's relevant to ACIM which is relevant to EA in turn. I think it's just too remote to be of interest in such a general article, and that it's enough to say EA uses their own version of ACIM. The other statement I removed was that EA publishes their own version ( ¬_¬ ), but that's just because we already said the same thing in the introductory paragraph, and I don't think it would help to restate it unless we had something to add to it specifically. If I haven't persuaded you though, I would be most open to your thoughts and reasons to the contrary. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 05:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning. I think the versions are important here because without the EA lawsuit, the earlier versions would not be in the public knowledge or domain. Also, it was their winning of the lawsuit that allowed them (and others) to publish different versions. Your call.—Who123 13:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put this information back in, then, adding your reasoning, which seems very important to the point. The reasoning itself might need to be sourced, which I'll look at later unless you beat me to it. Add to it as you see fit. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 16:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it back. I think there was a source for the other versions coming to public knowledge. See prior version or the ACIM article. Although I will continue to participate here, I have moved my focus to the primary ACIM article. This article is now in good shape whereas the ACIM article is not.—Who123 16:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

References

This is a good article to learn the Cite.php method. I think the references need some fine tuning. The Wikipedia:Footnotes, Help:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Citation templates do not seem to fully explain the method very well, particularly for multiple insertions of the same reference. Perhaps these articles need some work?—Who123 19:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Where do we go from here?

This article appears to now meet all WP guidelines. I think it is balanced. I think it is notable, particularly in the context of ACIM. At the moment I cannot think of any improvements.

I am going to remove the 'nominated for deletion notice'.—Who123 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm restoring the notice - there's no reason to remove it. -Will Beback 18:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am curious. What is its purpose? Thanks.—Who123 19:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't found anything about it in policy, but I also think it should remain just because that fact should be accessable in case someone else thinks it should be nominated for deletion again. Future editors will have the old arguments where they can easily see them. Getting rid of the tag seems to be on a similar level as not posting a link to an archived discussion after one has been archived.

I also prefer Will's new heading for the section on EA's possible cultishness. It sounds more professional while maintaining the key idea. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 23:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I prefer Will's new heading as well. I just do not understand the need to keep the tag. The article has changed so much since then. Tags are removed when no longer needed, it seems. In the edit, one can always make a comment that the tag was removed. Perhaps Will will fill us in. Curious minds want to know. :~) —Who123 23:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The tag that denotes previous deletion nominations is usually kept forever, from my experience. It alerts other editors that the article has already survived an AfD. I can't see any reason to remove it. -Will Beback 03:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There would be an argument for moving the tag if it no longer applied. However, "this article was once proposed for deletion; here is where you can find the record of that discussion" will never 'no longer apply'; the fact that such a discussion did in fact happen is part of history. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Cult allegations

The statement by Rick Ross lacks citation. Thanks --Mindawiki 21:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Now cited.—Who123 11:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheese factory link

Sethie doesn't feel like that really belong in an encylopedia article- "People of this group work at this bussiness?", and Sethie is open to hearing other's thoughts. Sethie 20:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Reads like brochure

I put the POV tag on this article because this article reads like a brochure by the organization itself. -- Timeforgot (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

While some small sections of this article were written by either the founder of this organization (which sections appear as direct quotes), or by his followers, by in large, the current incarnation of the article was the only version that regular Wikipedia editors found they could publish without having to deal with major disputes and vandalism by members of the organization, thus it represents a sort of a 'truce'. While there may be some relevant information omitted from the article, still I believe that the agreed upon contents of the article are encyclopedic and are properly referenced. If you feel inclined to add additional relevant information yourself, please feel free to do so, and see what happens. Scott P. (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten the intro paragraphs to be more NPOV. Scott P. (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Rewrote intro paragraphs in NPOV

I have now finally re-written the intro paragraphs in what I consider to be an NPOV type of wording. In order to do this, I had to remove some of the very subjective claims, such as that the school teaches "enlightenment", etc. etc., and replace these with more neutral "encyclopedic" wording. Subjective claims such as this must always read as well referenced quotes in Wikipedia. The intro paragraphs should generally have an objective, informative, and scholarly tone, and should certainly never be used to promote any one given cause or another. Scott P. (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Reinserted cult-allegations section and related information

Properly documented, pertinent and noteworthy information about Endeavor Academy has been deleted from this article, and replaced with verbose wording that reads like advertising copy. I have re-inserted the information that was deleted. If you might wish to call into question any of the claims made in the "cult-allegations" section, then the proper way to do so is to present properly documented information that might serve to make a proper "counter-argument" there, not by simply deleting this section and replacing it with what appears to be advertising copy.

Wikipedia pages are not meant to be used for advertising purposes, but rather are meant to present both relevant and noteworthy sides of any given controversy in as neutral and as balanced of a way as possible. Scott P. (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Endeavor Academy. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 15:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)