Talk:Academy of Achievement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Laundry lists[edit]

This is a group that likes to associate itself with notable people. It does not confer notability, and the things it confers are not notable in the context of those lives. The constant inclusion of laundry lists of people the company has decided to "award" is simply resume padding. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

As previously noted, the head of the organization is a friend of a friend, so I am not editing directly.
I disagree with you on the content of the article and the apropriateness of including people who have particpated in the Academy of Achievement's events. Those people didn't passively receive the award -- they participated in the events related to it. The group may associate itself with notable people, but the notable people associate back. Their participation is significant in and of itself -- I would argue that it does confer notability.
That said, the article needs an edit for tone, as in places it reads fluffy/promotional.("...a non-profit organization that brings high profile, successful people from various fields together with promising young achievers to inspire them to succeed"). I will sandbox a revision for review as soon as I have the opportunity. JSFarman (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Guy - I reverted your revert of my edits. You may not have realized that you removed the legal name of the organization from the lede, added inappropriate primary sources to the article and added sources that do not substantiate the accompanying content. Also, by removing the names of the speakers and honorees, you have removed the much needed context for the group, context which address your concerns of notability. A sampling of high profile names isn't a laundry list, but a quick way to convey the scope of the organization. I encourage you to read the information and the sources before removing any appropriate content.TechnoTalk (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
It appears that newcomers to this article trying to follow the rules and make good faith edits have their work cut out for them. For those of you who have made your way down to this thread, User:JzG has again reverted my edits, claiming that even a handful of names of awardees and speakers does not belong in an article about an organization whose notability comes in large part from hosting private award ceremonies with very notable speakers and honorees. What's troubling is that this person, not a normal user but an admin no less, has spent the past four years deleting media coverage citations from this article, and then defending these deletions by paradoxically claiming the organization is not notable because there's no media coverage. Indeed, since all evidence of awardees and speakers and student attendees has been removed, any newcomer would seemingly be able to assume that this article should be deleted altogether. Is that the endgame? In the meantime, I've found some more good sources and will add good additional info as time permits. Of particular interest will be building a history section. I'd appreciate if everyone, admins and regular users like me, would review in good faith the content and sources that are added rather than just doing a blanket revert. I know it's hard to change four years of behavior, but let's wipe the history slate clean and judge new edits on their own merits. To do otherwise would seemingly be an affront to the spirit of Wikipedia.TechnoTalk (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Repeated blanking of information that provides context[edit]

I restored the key context info in the lede, to provide a basis for readers to learn about the type of honorees and speakers the Academy attracts to its events. All the info is properly sourced, and as such, should meet Wikipedia guidelines. I also previously restored the vandalism whereby User: JzG tried to insert a fake motto into the infobox. I've alerted him of my reversion on his talk page, and want the community to be aware of his actions in case he continues. Let's be civil folks.TechnoTalk (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Names of speakers and honorees[edit]

I'm starting a new section to reframe this discussion in less loaded terms than employed by user: JzG when he refers to this as a laundry list. The info is properly sourced, and I do not agree that an article about an organization with a long history of ceremonies with notable speakers and honorees does not benefit the reader by having at least some of the names of those speakers and honorees. This provides critical context. When I first found this group through Steve Jobs' 1982 speech, I didn't know of it and didn't think I would find very much coverage. However, the media has been covering this event since 1961. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal itself noted that there's less coverage than you'd think for an event of its magnitude. I will be adding more info, properly sourced, to flush out this history. Michael Dell, JzG's CEO is also an honoree. I want to point out a few things. This is clearly personal for JzG, as evidenced by his vandalism of the motto, but I'm going to remain civil and let the community help as necessary. I'm adding Edward Teller the first speaker becuase that's notable, and to suggest that I should remove him because it puts the group in a bad light is not in good spirit. Are you suggesting I introduce bias? Also, saying the speakers are not valid because they are paid is a leap of logic. I don't know, and neither do you, who was paid what, if anything, to speak. Some of the articles I've read suggest that the awardees (ex: Issac Asimov) invite others to come to the event, because they are proud of their association with the group.TechnoTalk (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the edits and continued vandalism by user JzG. Per WP:RV, he is required to build consensus before further reverting, but has not. I've flagged him again for repeated vandalism - he continues to add a nonsensical motto to the infobox. It's not easy going up against an experienced administrator, but if other impartial users would care to comment, we can build consensus and hopefully keep the context that is necessary to show the notability of this organization.TechnoTalk (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Outside opinion[edit]

@TechnoTalk: requested my opinion on whether @JzG: was inappropriately removing neutral, well-sourced content under the premise of it being promotional, when it wasn't actually. Name-dropping is a very common source of promotion, but in this case at least some of the sources I've glanced at suggest that the organization is in fact primarily notable as a gathering of famous people and such content may be warranted.

That being said, in a more general sense, the article is so over-the-top promotional, it would definitely justify an advert tag or some heavy trimming. Just in the Lead we have stuff like:

  • "that brings high profile, successful people from various fields together with promising young achievers to inspire them to succeed."
  • "which the Wall Street Journal called "perhaps the glitziest gathering of intellect and celebrity that no one has ever heard of,"
  • "the Washington Post called "one of the world's most dazzling gatherings of international celebrities."

Per Wikipedia:Quotations quotes are often used as a way to insert non-neutral language that would not otherwise be considered acceptable. The Lead is suppose to define the subject, explain its notability, then summarize the entire article (including history), but the current Lead does nothing but repeat over and over how super-amazing their event is. Meanwhile, after reading it I'm still unsure what they do in a literal sense, phrases like "inspire them to succeed" not being a very clear description of what they do. CorporateM (Talk) 23:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I have done the necessary trimming of promotion throughout the article. Happy to look at any specific sources/content at this point. CorporateM (Talk) 23:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
OK - I can't say that I expected to see so much of my properly sourced content deleted, because there's even less info now than what Guy left, but we at least have a new starting point. I'll take responsibility for the promotional statements that were added, but they are valid quotes for context, and I added them to the lede (I thought it was spelled lede) because Guy kept insisting the group was not notable, while he simultaneously deleted all the media sources I added. Nothing tells teh reader more that the group is notable than those quotes. The sources I have found also suggest much more info could be added to flush the article out than what is there now. Without any info about who the speakers are and who the honorees are, this becomes another article with a big hole in it. At least you removed Guy's vandalism, which he then tried to distract from by bringing suspicion of COI action against me.TechnoTalk (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't look like notability should be a problem, but sometimes editors lean towards deleting an article when it is promotion or an attack page, even if the org is notable. That shouldn't be a problem anymore. Generally speaking we don't want promotional quotes, even if they are cited to reliable sources, or an indiscriminate list of award winners. WP:ORGLISTS provides some guidance on when identifying award winners (as an example) is considered encyclopedic - which is whenever there is substantive source material on it. This can include a press article that is wholly focused on an individual winning the award or a profile story on the org that mentions a specific person and the significance of the award with respect to them, but not brief mentions made in passing or trivial announcements/listings. List articles and categories are also sometimes used, such as List of winners of the National Book Award, but only for exceptionally significant awards.
One common exception to avoiding comprehensive lists for example is acquisitions. Sometimes there are too many trivial acquisitions to list them all, but in most cases every acquisition or most of them get significant press attention, so they generally warrant comprehensive inclusion. So every case is different. Hope this helps. CorporateM (Talk) 01:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Another improtant point to make is that stories about winners of awards must not simply be regurgitated press releases. When someone wins a notable award, such as the Fields medal or a Nobel prize, there will be several different stories, and they will be very clearly written ab initio by the journal in question. Less notable awards, such as the films that pick up awards by state or city film critics' associations, you might get two or three stories, but they are all almost word for word the same, because they are space-fillers written direct from press releases. I have yet to see a single story about any of the awards handed out by this company that can be clearly read as anything other than exactly that. There is no lead story from Time that describes the conferral of one of these awards. Bluntly, the company is barley notable, the awards, as far as I can tell, are not. Guy (Help!) 08:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, very strongly agree. There are a lot of press articles about awards that are just routine announcements that list all the winners that aren't really usable. CorporateM (Talk) 16:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you guys actually read the sources I used. Not only was there not a single regurgitated press release, but there was not a single press article just listing winners. The articles - all mainstream press - all talk about the events, and how meaningful they were to the attendees. I also used YouTube videos of acceptance speeches to substantiate that the award was indeed awarded to such and such a person, or that so and so spoke at the event. Reagan, Jobs, Spielberg, the list goes on and on. If that's not notable, I don't know what is. Is that not allowed? Sounds like you're adlibbing that popular statement - "what are you going to believe - your admin or your lying eyes?" CorporateM - I don't know what I expected when I reached out, but it wasn't this. Where did you read that the group was founded in Malibu? I don't see that info anywhere, or I'd have included it. Based on your editing history, I thought you'd actually look at the sources and agree with me about the notability, but instead you gutted the article to be exactly the way Guy wanted it. You even took out all the info about the additional multimedia content that sits on the Academy site. Is that not a great resource? While hunting for sources, I saw that many of the online biographies of the awardees quote that Academy content as a resource. You had to have studied this article's history before jumping in, and I'm not paranoid to think you gutted it on purpose. Openly paid editors don't get very far contradicting admins. I followed the rules - making edits with good sources, without any advertorial bias, and only asked that there be a discussion about my edits before keeping them or deleting them. Instead, Guy quickly reverted everything with his standard statement - laundry list, fluff, etc. - without so much as looking at what I did. After I reverted and politely asked for a discussion, even giving him my Skype ID to discuss, he vandalized the article's motto in the infobox, perhaps to thumb his nose at me and show how he is above reproach. I flagged his talk page twice with the vandalism template, and his response was to charge me with COI. Apparently I fit the profile of paid editing, and I must be doing real well with three company articles since April 2014, an article on Ray Price's Nightlife album and the Pretzel logic article, which I just created in Guy's honor. Specifically, due to his reasoning seeing no problem blocking all contextual honoree info from an article about a group that grants awards to successful people. There is an unreasonable notability standard being applied to this group and its media coverage. At this point this is bigger than Wikipedia. Guy - it's about you being a bullying admin who is unyielding and perhaps has been fighting too long with others to be fair and effective anymore. If you were running for admin now, wouldn't your inability to remain neutral and civil preclude you from being selected, regardless of the good gatekeeping work I see you doing in other areas? That's why I called you Gustav von Aschenbach - despite the good you've done elsewhere, you are a tragic hero with a fatal flaw - in this case it is your unyielding resistance to allowing this article to be improved. I'm discouraged and even briefly considered going to the administrative noticeboard, but you already have so much going on there, I think you actually thrive on drama and conflict. I have no history of drama or conflict - no reverts, no flags, nothing, until this point. I won't give you the satisfaction of smearing me. And, since anything I add to this article will be deleted, and this has become Guy's personal article, I'm going to step back and let others try. Eventually Guy will be gone or go so far over the top that his admin role will be stripped from him, and then we can go back to putting in newsworthy, properly sourced info about this group, and civilly discussing its merits on an even footing. If not, this will continue to be the group which the Wall Street Journal called "perhaps the glitziest gathering of intellect and celebrity that no one has ever heard of."[[1]]TechnoTalk (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── TechnoTalk, you need to look at the history of this article, whihc has been subject to years-long POV pushing by undeclared and declared advocacy accounts. I think you are out of your depth. You have remarkably little history outside of this article, inviting speculation that you are the latest in a series of editors whose interest in this article has nothing to do with Wikipedia's goals. I recommend you leave it. I have been an admin for nearly a decade, I actually do know what I am doing. I am concerned that you may have an undeclared COI, given the evidence of recent emails I have. I do not like conealed conflicts of interest. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no concealed conflict of interest. You can throw up all the smokescreens you want, and attack my contributions, but I have never been nor will I ever be paid for fixing this article. That includes cleaning up the sources, and adding significant info of interest to Wikipedia readers. You insult your position of responsibility by lying about having some kind of evidence to the contrary. Wouldn't a good admin expose someone they thought was getting paid? You have also still not acknowledged your vandalism. You also continue to insist that since you have been on the site longer, yours is the final word. Sorry - it doesn't work that way. And saying you have more friends on the site - I've seen evidence of that - they've also attacked my work - but that doesn't make you right. Quit being so ornery and try to be a better admin.TechnoTalk (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)