Talk:Academy of Achievement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / District of Columbia (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Organizations  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Proposed Deletion[edit]

Hi there. I don't know Wikipedia procedures very well, but can see that a single article can only be a proposed deletion once. Too bad. Here are the proceedings: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academy of Achievement. While I applaud user:DGG's efforts to come up with references to improve this article (found here: DGG's refs) unfortunately this PROD came a bit too soon. Four months later The Washington Post' published a three-page article that explains the Academy of Achievement's relationship to EduCap (why don't we have an article?). Two weeks later, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that EduCap was under investigation and that it decided to reduce its loan operations. Two years later, The Wall Street Journal reported that Leon Panetta only took two rides on EduCap's Gulfstream IV. So I do believe that the first proposed deletion was correct. Comments? -SusanLesch (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Two years later came CBS 60 Minutes with "Loan Charity's High-Flying Guests Exposed", "Student Loan Charity Under Fire", and "Who Is Catherine Reynolds?". -SusanLesch (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I had forgotten about this puff piece. Susan, what is the gist of the articles you list here? And how does their content relate to deletion? Drmies (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • What used to be "unimpeachable sources" referenced in the original deletion request need to be revisited in light of these newer articles. The Washington Post said that EduCap and this Academy share offices and staff. Bongomatic just removed the long list of "gold plate" achievers which was what I objected to. The whole thing reminds me of the spam I have been getting for about twenty years to join a "Who's Who" book. I could just add these articles as sources here instead of deletion I guess. But it will spoil the "honor". -SusanLesch (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • SL, that an article can only be a proposed deletion once refers only to the specific expedited WP:PROD procedure, where any challenge stops the deletion. If an article is kept at an AfD, as this was in 2007, and you still think it should be deleted, you can nominate it again. But like Drmies, I do not see how anything that has happened since--especially anything relative to what you've linked -- makes it less notable. (and we do have a rule that if it was notable once, it remains notable.) If the nature of the group needs to be more precisely stated on the basis of your sources, add them and, since it may be controversial, support the additions with quotations in the footnote. As for EduCap, nothing stops you from writing an article. It'll be judged on its merits, like any article. Just be careful about the WP:BLP policy--it applies to all articles. even those not explicitly about individuals. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree; DGG's advice is sound. Even if the finances are fishy, morally or otherwise, coverage simply exists and notability cannot deteriorate, so to speak. I agree with Bongo's removal (as a matter of fact, I thought I did just that in the past, but I guess I didn't), and it is clear that there may be some COI and POV issues in the history--we'll need to keep an eye on it. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, both of you. I will just add to this article. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It is a beautifully crafted advertisement. Just as it always has been, in fact. Guy (Help!) 07:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

An attempt to resolve outstanding issues with this article[edit]

I've come here at the request of the Academy of Achievement to see if I can help resolve some of the issues with this article. Based on my analysis, it seems that before November of this year, the article was too much of an advertisement, and yet now I believe the article has swung too far in the opposite direction. Because I'm sure some will wonder, I should say now that this is my first engagement with the article; the identity of User:Aaaeditor is not actually known to me, but I'm confident in saying that editor is unlikely to return.

Anyway, to the matter of this article: as noted, for a long time it has been problematic for various reasons and, in order to help bring the article into line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I've prepared a newly researched, completely rewritten draft, which aims to describe the organization's history and operations in a neutral, encyclopedic manner. You'll find it in my user subspace here, with the non-free logo disabled, likewise the categories: User:WWB_Too/Academy_of_Achievement

Unlike past versions (this one for example) the article contains limited information about past delegates and honorees, and provides a citation for each one. Unlike more recent versions (as of this writing, here's the current version) nearly half of the article's text is now devoted to controversies about a related organization.

About which, I refer to the section currently titled EduCap. With all due respect to its creator, I think the resulting section is a problem—specifically, one addressed by the WP:COATRACK essay; whatever one can say about the controversy, the Academy of Achievement was itself not a central actor. Indeed, only two of the sources used to support this section mention the Academy (here and here), and the latter merely in passing. I'm surely not saying there is no connection, and I have not eliminated mention of the criticism entirely. Others may have a different view about how much to include, but I hope we can agree its current importance to the Academy is vastly overstated. I hope this new draft represents an acceptable compromise, or at least a starting point toward one.

For what it's worth, I take no position on whether this material is at some point addressed in a separate article about EduCap (note: that link currently redirects to this article). I just don't think the detail belongs here.

My first step following this note will be to notify recently involved editors about my proposal here, and add a message on a few relevant noticeboards. If anyone reading this note is aware of a good forum to bring this discussion, please do so. I look forward to seeing through this matter to a mutually agreeable resolution. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  • [Continued from my talk page:] As far as your comments go, WWB, in a nutshell, the EduCap section is the best sourced in the entire article and doesn't really take up half. I do agree that not all of it seems directly related to the academy, though it is possible to argue that in a roundabout way it is--and that the roundaboutness is precisely what should be made clear: collusion, etc. I think that the section needs to be rewritten, that probably parts of the second and the third paragraph should be cut, and that it needs to be made clear from the outset what the topic of discussion is--the academy. But Susan needs to weigh in here as well, and I say this without having looked at the sources (whose authority, BTW, I don't doubt--and I would not go so far as to say that the importance of this material is "vastly overstated"). Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Drmies, I appreciate the note. While undoubtedly true the EduCap section is the best-sourced in the current article, I think that is of a piece with the coatracking issue I've raised. Additionally, the alternative version I offer for consideration is meticulously cited to reliable sources (online where possible, though many are older), and I think would be a clear improvement over the other existing sections.
Perhaps I've somewhat overstated "vastly overstated", but I would ask you and others to read through the sources and see for yourself. It may be that some material in the section's first paragraph is appropriate, but I believe the second and third paragraphs are very much off-topic. I've pinged Susan as well, and I agree that I would like to see more discussion here. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I have read the proposed new article by WWB and the existing article. It seems a balance is needed between the two concerning the EduCap issue. The proposed article on WWB's user page mentions nothing about EduCap and the Catherine Reynolds questions. Sources do not seem to indicate any wrong doing by the Academy but in keeping with the Wiki policy of creating an informative encyclopedia, there should be some mention that the actions of the Academy's executive have been called into question. The current article's section on EduCap devolves into what appears to be a separate topic. Changing the approach/focus of the text could help create the needed balance. As the section is now written, it seems extraneous.Coaster92 (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi WWB Too. Sorry, I read your article and am afraid it reads like an advertisement. (See for example WP:NOTADVERTISING.) Ending every paragraph with a list of famous people is not a solution in my opinion. Five of seven sections are treated this way. Also I question your treatment of sources (for example, one page at the academy's site includes everybody in one place; but instead we have in the lead The Washington Post (twice) and USA Today listed, and though they are good reliable sources, makes them seem superfluous and artificial). Next I question your omission of the founder's name, Hy Peskin. And finally I think your treatment of EduCap is lacking. It took me a long time to get to the bottom of this. I suggest shortening the section and leaving it here. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I was asked to comment also. I disagree with Drmies that the Educap material belongs here. It's prejudicial, to say the least. I think it much better that the material on Educorp goes elsewhere, except for a short statement about the existence of a connection, to be given in as neutral terms as possible. Educorp is probably notable, but even in an article about it by itself, the material here would have to be severely edited to remove bias against the company. In particular, that various politicians resigned is only relevant if they resigned because of their connection with the company.
As for the suggested material of the AofA, it's excessive. Perhaps some of it can be used. The names of performers at its meetings is not appropriate content. Probably the names of speakers is not either. For both performers and speakers, even the most distinguished come, if you pay them enough of a honorarium, so their attending does not show they think it important. The names of colleges that nominate students is not, either. That the students listed were delegates has to be proven from some other source than the AofA website. As for the awardees, likewise. It would greatly help verify them if web links could be given for the references. I see no evidence that the awardees attend to accept their awards; it would need verification.
  • I note there is considerable duplication between this article and the one on Hy Peskin--a very problematic article from which I have removed a good deal of negative unsourced material. I know he;s no longer a BLP , but that sort of rumor neerds good sources in any case.
Some of what I say here is not compatible with what Susan L says above: I see her comments not just as a desire to avoid advertising, but also as a desire to include negative material. (I gather from what was in Peskin's article before I removed it that his role is quite disputable). Susan, have you any coi over this subject? I am quite puzzled at her suggestion that we use the web page instead of Reliable newspapers as sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, DGG. Reliable sources are a requirement. I thought here they were being squandered. There's no reason I know of to cite every famous person. Not a big deal. And no I have no COI. P.S. I wonder, after your deletions to Hy Peskin, do you? -SusanLesch (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC) and SusanLesch (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm grateful that others, particularly Coaster92 and DGG, agree there are problems with the current EduCap section. Although Susan says she thinks my coverage of this topic is "lacking", this is in fact the key point of our disagreement: however well-sourced it may be, however long it took "to get to the bottom" of it, I just think this is not the place for it. However, I'm not opposed to a compromise regarding material that is specifically about the Academy and, if any is to be retained, agree with Coaster92's suggestion that it be rewritten.
I'm also open to a compromise regarding the list of notables, per suggestion by DGG and Susan. On balance, I think the names of participating universities is more important than performers, but because there is no clear guideline on how many names is too many, I'm curious what others think. For what it's worth, I have dramatically scaled back the names of awardees and attendees compared to past versions, and most of the names I have included were mentioned by third-party sources. As to whether they are paid an "honorarium", a 2004 Chicago Tribune story cited in my draft states "(expenses are paid but that's it)", so I don't see any reason to exclude names on that account.
Regarding Susan's question about Hy Peskin vs. Brian Blaine Reynolds, most third-party sources discussing the Academy refer to him as Brian Reynolds, so I believed that to be more relevant. Perhaps a parenthetical statement like "(formerly Hy Peskin)" would be appropriate, but that seems more germane to his Wikipedia article.
Looking forward to continued input, and working toward consensus. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I used your lead and removed an entire paragraph about a Gulfstream jet. Hope this helps. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

User:WWB Too is a Paid Contractor for the Academy of Achievement[edit]

All,

It is important to note that, to the best of my knowledge, User:WWB Too is being paid by the Academy of Achievement to rewrite their Wikipedia entry in a manner that will allow it to remain consistent with Wikipedia rules while minimizing any references to scandals in the company's recent history. Editors should understand that edits by WWB Too are primarily motivated by his financial interests, rather than being motivated by a desire to improve Wikipedia. WWB Too, please respond if you would like and feel free to offer any corrections to my statements, above. Ebikeguy (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

What Ebikeguy writes is correct insofar as I've been hired by the Academy to see if I can encourage the improvement of this article, and indeed I mentioned I was working on their behalf at the outset. If he means to imply that my financial interest comes before making suggestions consistent with making Wikipedia better, I strongly disagree with that. I hope that you'll see my disclosure, my solution-oriented approach, and my efforts to bring all involved editors back into the discussion (even those who disagree with my position) as evidence of that.
Anyhow, the article is now better than it was before, but the EduCap section remains a problem (and a bit of a mess). And though I appreciate that Susan has used most of my lead section, I believe there are aspects of my suggested draft that remain an improvement in several ways. Meanwhile, I'm also persuaded that I should revise my own draft to remove some of the celebrity names. So I'll put together an updated draft and explanation this week, and I think we'll be able to find common ground here. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
WWB Too, I'm glad you think the article is better. Are you going to ignore the wishes of Jimbo Wales? He wrote on the topic of paid editing: "I will personally block any cases that I am shown." I personally have gone as far down this road as I can. I don't plan to sit around waiting for your drafts later this week. Sorry. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that. Regarding Jimbo's comments from 2009, I've explained in the relevant discussion over at Jimbo's Talk page why I believe my involvement here is entirely consistent with what he wrote then. Please note, the exact number of direct edits I have made to this article, at this writing, is zero. My goal is to make the case that this article can be better still, and I'm open to working with anyone who's willing. Best, WWB Too (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Jimbo does not block such cases. His statement that he would do in this situation (and elsewhere) encountered so much opposition recently, that he voluntarily given up the use of his right to block on enWP. As for me, I will work with anyone who will work in good faith; I judge the good faith by what they do. For those who will not cooperate, I have the authority to block, and have done so dozens of times. People who insist on inserting irrelevant or inadequately sourced negative material on a page can be blocked also if necessary; I have sometimes done that also. DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Educap[edit]

the material is inappropriate here. We do not engage in assigning guilt by association. I have moved it to a separate article that I shall work on; there are multiple additional sources, many of them positive. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You may be aware that there is now a circular wikilink in your new language, and you may be working on fixing in by creating a separate article for EduCap. As of now, Educap redirects to Academy of Achievement. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I humbly suggest that when RS sources closely link two organizations, as shown here, here, and here, that it is appropriate to mention that connection in one or both of the articles on each organization. When both organizations are controlled by the same person (Catherine B. Reynolds), such scrutiny is even more appropriate. Some may feel the language you just inserted glosses over the potential problems in the relationship between the two organizations. Perhaps a compromise is in order? Thanks, Ebikeguy (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that the link is not very tenuous. According to these sources, the Academy paid Daschle and Daley, characters who are brought into the news via their EduCap connection. I think that this deserves mention, more than in WWB's draft (linked below), where they are just office mates. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible compromise[edit]

While I agree with DGG that the controversies concerning EduCap do not belong here, I take Coaster92 and Ebikeguy's point that a compromise should be found. The 2007 Washington Post article does contain some material that is specifically about the Academy, and it would be reasonable to include. I have edited for clarity what was Susan's original first paragraph, and it's included as a new EduCap section in my proposed draft article. I've made it a second-level heading, immediately following Organization and funding, which flows naturally.

Doing so should probably also mean including the whole of the Background section I have prepared. This section is not duplicative of anything in the article, I believe is neutral in its presentation, and is supported by eight newspaper sources, half of which are available online.

Meanwhile, I would like to suggest the sentence about EduCap be removed from the introduction. All it says is that there is a relationship between the organizations, which is essentially a non-sequitur, and is confusing. Plus the Academy has a 50-year history of its own, and its association with EduCap has appeared in just a few news articles. In the interests of compromise, I think the balance can be found be in giving "EduCap" its own sub-heading, as I have done above. Under other circumstances, it probably could fit very well as a second paragraph of "Organization and funding", but I hope this helps find a balance. Thoughts? WWB Too (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just repositioned my last comment as a new sub-section, making the case for a possible compromise on the "EduCap" issue. In case anyone is seeing this for the first time and hasn't read my initial comment on this page, it's in a previous thread here. However, I've revised my draft some, including a short paragraph about EduCap and trimming some of the notable names. Because of my conflict of interest regarding this topic (also much discussed above) it's better that I not make any direct edits, so I'd like to encourage others to be bold in addressing the matter. Best, WWB Too (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, one more point: another reason to recommend someone use the last three sections I prepared is not just the clearer writing and more complete sourcing than the equivalent sections of the current article, but Student Delegates in particular lists Larry Page and Sergey Brin as attending in the wrong year. Right now it says 1974... about the time both were celebrating their first birthday. WWB Too (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I have reviewed the references and I should have more time tomorrow to compare the proposed and current articles. One first impression I have looking at WWB's proposed article is why is EduCap a separate section. Why wouldn't that material be included under funding? Hopefully more tomorrow.Coaster92 (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I have reviewed WWB's proposed article and the current article. I agree the one sentence about EduCap in the current article lead, as now written, seems adrift and out of place. Re-writing could remedy that, just adding some language to connect the topic to the article and help the reader to understand why it is where it is. WWB's proposed article looks reasonable to me, not particularly biased that I see offhand. It is more complete, more informative, and consequently more interesting than the current article. I do not understand why WWB, as a writer for AoA, wants to include the EduCap section. I do think the EduCap section, as it is now written in the proposed article, belongs under funding. I do not see why it is a separate section. Any thoughts on any of this?Coaster92 (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Coaster, glad to see you here again, and I'm very glad to hear you like my proposed draft. As to your question about why I would seek to include the EduCap subsection: the simple reason is that I'm trying to find a compromise that can attain consensus. I do like your suggestion that the paragraph itself be included, but as a paragraph under Funding as opposed to a separate subsection. If you prefer my version otherwise, I'd encourage you to be bold and add it as much as you see fit. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for revision[edit]

I have compared WWB's proposed article with the current article. The proposed article does present a more complete picture and the content looks appropriate. I would propose to revise the current article in this way:

1. The introductory paragraphs in both articles are about the same so I would propose keeping the first section of the current article but taking out the sentence there about EduCap. It does not seem to fit there and could be included later on under Funding.
2. From the proposed article, add the sections entitled Founding, Mission, Organization and Funding.
3. Move the section about EduCap in the proposed article to the Funding section and make it part of that section.
4. Blend together the International Achievement Summit and Golden Plate Awardees sections in the current and proposed articles.
5. The Student Delegates sections are very similar in both articles. These sections could be blended. There probably does not need to be colleges and universities listed. Those could be found at the AoA website instead.

I will wait for a few days for any comments and discussion before making any of these revisions.Coaster92 (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There hasn't been any comment to my proposal so I went ahead and started on the revisions and incorporated the Founding, Mission, Organization and Funding sections from the proposed article by WWB Too. I also combined the proposed EduCap section into the Funding section. I'll continue with my proposed revisions as well.Coaster92 (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Coaster—it's certainly an improvement. I'm grateful you used my Background section, and your changes to it are fine by me. That said, a number of issues remain from the discussion above, including the fairly obvious Larry + Sergei error. You'd mentioned "blending" some existing and proposed sections, including International Achievement Summit, although I see you've left it alone for now. Let me know if your thinking has changed; I'd certainly like to make the case for improving the rest of the article. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
WWB Too, I blended the International Achievement Summit and added your Golden Plate Awardees section. I see that references 3 and 4 appear to be the same. Is there any reason to believe they are not the same? If they are the same, I will fix this and get rid of the duplication in the reference list. Regarding the Student Delegates section, you said Larry and Sergei are not the class of 1974 but I was not able to find info about their graduation dates. Do you have it? The other alternative is to just take that out but that info does tend to add to the article. I will look at the Student Delegates section and revise if/what is appropriate.Coaster92 (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, cool—very appreciated. I'll see what I can find on when they attended (and my error, Sergey, not Sergei, though the article has it right) and look at those references as well. It might take me a couple days, but I'll follow up soon. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't find the year in any public listing, whether from a third-party source or the Academy's website. I do find an interview with Page and Brin from 2000 they did for the Academy, but it doesn't seem to indicate when they attended. I think there's an effort under way to update the Academy's website with more detailed information, which could help verify their listing and the rest. I hope to have more soon. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
You know what? I take it back, actually the Academy website does list them, under "The Academy Student Delegates". And it was in 2000, just like the interview. Moreover, the other names currently listed are also included in this list, making it very likely the list in the article originally came from this page. And I've created a formatted citation, if you want to use this:
<ref name="About_Academy">{{cite web |url=http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/pagegen/brochure/p1.html |title=About the Academy |date= |work=achievement.org |publisher=Academy of Achievement |accessdate=3 February 2012}}</ref>
Hope that helps. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I have blended in all that seems appropriate from WWB Too's proposed article. I am in the process of double checking references. If any adjustments are needed based on the reference check, I will make those. WWB, the Academy's website was already on the reference list so I kept that citation. Thank you so much for your efforts.Coaster92 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing student delegate[edit]

{{Request edit}} As I mentioned above, the current list of student delegates in the article appears to derive from a paragraph on the Academy's website, however there is one delegate listed on the website who is missing from the article. Eric Lander (Class of 1974) is listed on the website, along with the others currently included in the article. Since he is notable, and I see no other reason not to include him, I believe this may just be an oversight. On account of my COI (detailed above) I'd appreciate if someone else made this addition, provided one agrees with the proposed addition. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi WWB Too, I went ahead and added Eric Lander and put the student delegates in chronological order according to when they attended the summit. All of the information about delegates is on the Academy's website so I don't think there is a need to add to the list. The reader is able to get a good picture of the AoA operations without the article becoming promotional, which would be contrary to WP:NOTPROMOTION: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing..." All the best.Coaster92 (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Coaster, very much appreciated. Good call on the chronological listing, too. WWB Too (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

A couple additional requests[edit]

{{Request edit}} Hello again, to anyone watching this page. I'd like to ask for an un-conflicted editor (i.e. not me, see above discussion) to consider a couple of additional minor changes, one regarding accuracy, the other regarding context:

  • In the Organization and funding section, the article states that EduCap "sold 350,000 private student loans." The Washington Post article cited does not use the word "sold", but rather "provide". Would it be possible to update this to read: "provided 350,000 private student loans" so that it is in line with the term used in the source material (and common usage in general)?
  • Also in that section, the Post article is quoted stating that the Academy is "one of the largest beneficiaries" of EduCap. There is currently no context for this statement without providing some reference to charitable donations to other institutions. This information is included in the same Post article, so I'd like to request that a sentence be added here regarding the $100 million plus that EduCap / Catherine B. Reynolds Foundation has donated to organizations since it was founded. Here's what I'd suggest:
Since its establishment, The Catherine B. Reynolds Foundation has donated over $100 million to beneficiaries including the [[Kennedy Center]].<ref name=Paley>{{cite news|author=Paley, Amit R. and Valerie Strauss|title=Student Loan Nonprofit a Boon for CEO|date=July 16, 2007|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/15/AR2007071501448.html|work=The Washington Post|accessdate=November 20, 2011}}</ref><ref name=Montgomery/>
I think this should go between the sentence beginning "In 2007, The Washington Post..." and the one beginning "Per the Post...". In case you're wondering, the Montgomery reference establishes the Kennedy Center as a key beneficiary, and is currently used in the article.

Any assistance and / or feedback would be very welcome. If you happen to find this and agree with the changes, please consider this a request to be bold on my behalf and make these changes. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree the term "sold" could have created confusion so I substituted "provided" for "sold" as suggested. Regarding the sentence about Catherine Reynolds Foundation donating $100 million, this seems to be off topic to me. It does not seem to be needed to keep the article clear and informative and looks like it could be contrary to WP:PROMO. Do you see my point?Coaster92 (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, Coaster. The primary reason I sought to include the mention of the $100M donation to the Kennedy Center is because the current version says:
In 2007, The Washington Post reported that the Academy is one of the "largest beneficiaries" of EduCap (of which The Catherine B. Reynolds Foundation is part), receiving at least $9 million from the student-loan company.
While the quotation is accurate to the source, it seems misleading to call the Academy "one of the 'largest beneficiaries'" when it received less than 1/10th of EduCap's overall giving. The same Post article states:
The Catherine B. Reynolds Foundation, established in 2001, has donated more than $100 million to major cultural institutions across the country.
Perhaps an alternative solution would be to forget about the Kennedy Center and other beneficiaries—as you note, they're a bit off-topic—and simply rephrase the sentence to say:
In 2007, The Washington Post reported that the Academy received at least $9 million from EduCap, of which The Catherine B. Reynolds Foundation is part.
Does this make sense? WWB Too (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
WWB, the sentence says that AoA is one of the largest benis of EduCap. (and notes that CRFdn is part of EduCap). So isn't the more relevant point the total amount of donations by EduCap, not CRFdn? It seems relevant to the section (Organization and Funding) to mention a major source of AoA funding and noting that AoA is "one of the largest beneficiaries" of that source also appears relevant. But a discussion of CRFdn donations, as worded, does not seem relevant in this article. At this point, I am not seeing that it is appropriate to change the sentence. Any other thoughts?Coaster92 (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Coaster, I think the Post's wording causes some confusion: EduCap doesn't give directly to the Academy, but through its CBR Foundation. So to say that the $9 million from the parent company makes the Academy one of the "largest beneficiaries" of that company when the parent company's charitable foundation has given away $100 million renders the quoted phrase somewhat misleading.
The Post is saying that the Academy is one of the biggest single recipients ($9 million) out of a very large overall donation history ($100 million). If Organization and funding is going to mention the Academy's position relative to the charitable donations from EduCap, it should probably put the figure in context. If one is relevant, so is the other. Does that make sense?
In my first attempt I suggested adding context so the quote didn't mislead; in my second I've suggested avoiding it altogether. Given the incomplete information, I wonder if you'd agree that simplifying it would be playing it safer. That said, I recognize it is a nuance, so if you still disagree, I can let it go. Let me know what you think. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the Post article again and try to unravel this, then see what looks best to do. Not today, hopefully tomorrow.Coaster92 (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

WWB, the Post article says that EduCap operates under three different names, one of which is the CBRFdn, and that EduCap donates to AoA. As I read the Post article and the Wiki article, the facts stated match. Is there a reference that says CBRFdn makes the donations to AoA?Coaster92 (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Coaster. True enough, the three entities are legally the same, with different roles as described in the Post article. EduCap is the parent company, the foundation is its charitable arm, and Loan to Learn is the brand under which it provides student loans. Meanwhile, the same article also mentions the Foundation as funding the Academy, in fact in the very sentence quoted in the article: "One of the largest beneficiaries of the foundation has been the Academy of Achievement." Funny, I think I spaced on the fact that the original sentence didn't refer to EduCap but the CBR Foundation.
Meanwhile, the Foundation website says the same: "The Foundation sponsors the Washington, D.C.-based Academy of Achievement's annual International Achievement Summit..." And the Academy's website does, too: "The Catherine B. Reynolds Foundation is also a longtime sponsor of the Academy of Achievement..." Again, I'd be happy whether the context of the Foundation's overall giving was added, or whether the sentence was simplified per my suggestion on March 14. What do you think? WWB Too (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

WWB, how about this:

In 2007, the Washington Post reported that the Academy is one of the “largest beneficiaries” of EduCap, which is run by Catherine Reynolds. EduCap is parent company for a student loan company (which has provided 350,000 loans) and The Catherine B. Reynolds Foundation. The Academy has received at least $9 million of the $100 million total donations made by the Foundation. Per the Post, the Academy shares office space and staff with EduCap. The Academy has paid at least $1.7 million for management services to ASC Management Co., whose sole shareholder is Academy of Achievement Chairman and CEO, Wayne Reynolds, who is also Catherine Reynolds' husband.Coaster92 (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Done It's been a few days, so I've made Coaster's suggested edit in the hopes that it fulfills this request. I've also made a few bold changes to trim the content down. We were talking about EduCap a lot in this section, which is peripheral to the article IMO; the wikilink to EduCap should suffice. I've disabled the Requested edit template, but if this doesn't solve the request, or there are additional concerns, please feel free to turn it back on. Thanks.  —Jess· Δ 15:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Jess and Coaster, thanks very much to both of you. Coaster, great suggestion. Jess, your additional changes happen to be exactly what I would have asked for, had I responded sooner. I agree EduCap details belong on that page, which I've actually started seeking to improve as well, in case one or the other of you are interested in looking at that. So far I've been working through the details on that article's Talk page with another editor (User:DGG) but DGG has had limited attention, and I'd like to get input from others as well. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)