Talk:Endeavor Academy/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Page Protection 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction 

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

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

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

message: :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)</Sup> 08:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Done. —Antireconciler 20:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: nice job. Ste4k 04:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Proposal 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Leaning further away from the problem 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Attempt to Demean Anderson 

message: "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)
thread_title:  What CBS says 

message: "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)
replies: text: See  -Will Beback 01:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See  Ste4k 02:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What should I see there? -Will Beback 04:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited statement #1 

message: "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:
# It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability; 
# It is not contentious; 
# is not unduly self-serving; 
# It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; 
# There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it. 
There are three problems with this statement which cause it to fail WP:VER:
# It is not relevent to the organizations notability
# It is contentious
# If is making a claim about third parties and/or events not directly related to the subject
Ste4k 00:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are numerous sources that say that EA is based on ACIM. . 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)
replies: text: See  Ste4k 02:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? What should I see there? -Will Beback 04:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed statement #1 

message: An editor has expressed a concern that the subject of the article does not satisfy one of the guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia on one of the following topics:
*Academics (proposed)
*Biographies
*Books (proposed)
*Broadcasting (historical)	
*Corporations 
*Fiction
*Hotels (proposed)
*Music	
*Numbers
*Organizations (proposed)
*Pornographic actors (proposed) 
*Software (proposed)
*Web content
If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand the article to establish its notability, citing reliable sources. If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for deletion, as per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. (See also Wikipedia:Notability)
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)
thread_title:  Push whatever POV you want. 

message: 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. 
#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. 
#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.
#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? 
#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  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.
#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. 
#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.
#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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article Review as of [[18 Jun]][[2006]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Related RfC 

message: 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)
thread_title:  12 Step Process 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Where do we go from here? 

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