<article_title>United_States_Academic_Decathlon</article_title>
<edit_user>NuclearWarfare</edit_user>
<edit_time>Monday, February 22, 2010 7:47:14 PM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>undo temporarily until the licensing issue is worked out</edit_comment>
<edit_text>History
<strong><strike>[[File:Dr. R. Peterson.jpeg|thumb|left|Dr. Robert Peterson, Founder of USAD]]
</strike></strong>Academic Decathlon was formed in 1968 by Dr. Robert Peterson, the superintendent of schools in Orange County, California.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; Marvin Cobb, the executive director of the California Academic Decathlon in 2003, said after Peterson's death that Peterson intended the competition to encourage not only the highest-level students who already competed in academic competitions, but also to &quot;change C students' lives&quot;.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; The inaugural competition was held in December 1968, and hosted 103 students.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; Though at first only regional contests were held,&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; in 1979, the first statewide competition was held.&lt;ref name=&quot;tad&quot;&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; In 1981, the newly formed United States Academic Decathlon Association held the first national competition in April 1982 at Loyola Marymount University in California—16 states and the District of Columbia participated.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; Peterson, inspired by the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, hoped to make Academic Decathlon an international event.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; At the 1984 Nationals, 32 states as well as Canada, Mexico, New Zealand and South Korea fielded teams.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; The inclusion of foreign countries did not become a regular occurrence, however. There was no more international participation until 1989, when teams from Northern Ireland and Rio de Janeiro competed.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; Since then, Burnett Secondary School&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; from British Columbia, Canada,&lt;ref name=&quot;Indiana Legislature&quot;&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; and Southbank International School from London, England&lt;ref name=&quot;2009 Competition Handbook&quot; /&gt;&lt;ref name=&quot;2009 Awards Program&quot; /&gt; are the only two foreign competitors to have competed at Nationals, having done so in 2004&lt;ref name=&quot;Indiana Legislature&quot; /&gt; and 2009&lt;ref name=&quot;2009 Competition Handbook&quot; /&gt;&lt;ref name=&quot;2009 Awards Program&quot; /&gt; respectively. In April 2009, USAD announced that it would be regularly hosting an online international competition, the International Academic Decathlon, after a successful trial event in 2008; however, all 2009 participants but Southbank opted out, leading USAD to issue Southbank an invitation to attend the 2009 U.S. National competition in Memphis instead.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;</edit_text>
<turn_user>NuclearWarfare<turn_user>
<turn_time>Monday, February 22, 2010 7:46:48 PM CET</turn_time>
<turn_topicname>DemiDec Self-Promoting</turn_topicname>
<turn_topictext>I just feel this site should not be used to promote someone's company and should be used only to give information regarding United States Academic Decathlon. By posting photos of vendors such as Demidec Dan, it seems to cheapen the site to an ad for his company. Photos should be restricted to USAD and students, not vendors!Llamagirl1 (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Llamagirl 1 Well, you are right in that articles should be kept neutral and informative to all. However, Academic Decathlon is not only notable for the competition itself and the students, but for the companies that have sprung up around it. It is amazing that an small industry now exists just to support Academic Decathlon, and if we wish to be comprehensive (see FA criteria), we must cover that. navyNW (greenTalk) 15:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC) I don't agree. There are two companies that were created to make a living for a few people off the backs of USAD, a "small industry" is inaccurate. While these companies exist soley as a result of Academic Decathlon, I still don't think that their self-promoting photos etc. should be on the USAD wiki site. I believe that privilege should be confined to USAD and the students that support the program. Demidec, which produces some nice study materials, should promote on their own wiki site is all. 76.164.53.118 (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Llamagirl1 I reviewed this article (as you can see above), so I thought I would comment here. First off, thanks so much for contributing to this article and thinking about how Wikipedia is dealing with the issue of presenting for-profit companies. As I am sure you are aware, we have had trouble in the past with companies promoting themselves and other such issues. We have to be very careful with how we present this material and you were very astute to raise these questions. So, let's look at the material in the article. In order to decide whether or not this is promotional, let's look at some of the sentences from the article: The language here is not promotional, in my opinion. It presents the facts straightforwardly ("various companies", "two of the major ones"). It offers descriptions of the books "exams and study guides" "augment or replace" (note that it is not endorsing either choice). The paragraph also presents the official USAD response - in detail. As these books are an important part of the studying process (whether published by AcDec or not), it is essential that the article mention them. I do not think that this article is an advertisement for them. The other question you raise is about the photo. This is a very subtle issue. You, I think, view this as "product placement" or "viral advertising". However, Daniel Berdichevsky is clearly a notable person in the AcDec world, so having a picture of him is not inappropriate, in my view. This is like having a picture of Andrew Carnegie in an article about steel. He was a good businessman related to the field (obviously AcDec is a bit smaller than steel, but you see the point). What are your thoughts about these arguments? Please do let us know. Perhaps we have missed something! Wikipedia is all about discussion! Awadewit (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Wow, I would not compare anyone's involvement in USAD to Andrew Carnegie's involvement in the steel industry other than its creater, Robert Peterson. A former high scoring student and current for profit vendor is not worthy of that comparison! This company does not have the expense of research and development of the materials, they simply "borrow" USAD created, researched, and produced materials and expand upon someone elses creation. Then, they sell them to make a profit for themselves. No creativity there. There are many people who are responsible for the success of the program, and USAD deals with hundreds of companies. Maybe we should contact USAD and ask them for a list and invite all vendors and others involved to have a section on the wiki page? No, most mature and reputable people and companies would not be so brazen in their self promotion. I believe that this page is getting overloaded with exessive information. I agree that there should be mention of Demidec, DB is no longer the highest scoring student, but photos and an entire section is just too much. Lamagirl (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC) File:Circle_of_fifths_deluxe_4.svg Ermm... I personally could not care less about the self-promoting thing, and I think this is all being blown a bit out of proportion. With that said, the DemiDec information isn't really all that intrusive. You say that an entire section is too much but also say that there should be a mention of DemiDec. As far as I can tell this is exactly how things are presented; that is, under the Study Materials section, there is mention of both DemiDec and Acalon. Nothing intrusive, just enough to let the reader know that third party materials exist. I think the way the article is written is perfectly acceptable in regards to bias / self-promotion. I agree that the picture could be interpreted as being too much, but if I understand NW's intent correctly, it's more there for aesthetic appeal: an article with pictures is more fun to look at. If you can provide some alternative that would be great! Or even just a suggestion for an alternative picture. Maybe we could include a snapshot of some of the USAD official study materials? Although if we do that, we start getting into copyright violations, something that is in no way condoned on Wikipedia. Perhaps something to do with the basics material? Something like including a thumb of the circle of fifths? I remember that information being on quite a few music tests that I took when I competed. What do you think? - 355E3BYohhans&amp;talk 18:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC) One paragraph on DemiDec / Acalon seem to be an adequate amount, and that's what is currently in the article; we can't neglect their existence without sacrificing the article's comprehensiveness, as they are very prevalent in the AcaDeca world. That said, if we add a picture, it'd be better if we add some pie charts of the table immediately above the DemiDec prose. Titocolor:#008000;xd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC) According to USAD officials some of the information regarding their position on third party materials is inaccurate and should be removed, or restated. I think the photo should be removed and the inaccuracies corrected. I would also like to add a photo of Dr. Peterson as he IS the Andrew Carnegie of USAD.Lamagirl (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Please elaborate on "information regarding their position on third party materials is inaccurate". What part is inaccurate? Everything in the article is sourced, and the comments about USAD discouraging third-party materials is sourced directly to them. If you think what is stated is said with a bias attached to it, how do you think it should be reworded? Personally, I think this "USAD explicitly discouraged teams from ordering materials from third-party companies in the late 1998,[92] though it later removed their discouragement from the curriculum page.[93] However, USAD republished their discouragement just a few weeks after removing it.[94] However USAD did not publish such a warning in 2002.[34]" ought to be shortened to "USAD explicitly discouraged teams from ordering materials from third-party companies in the late 1998,[92] though it later removed their discouragement from the curriculum page.[93]". But that's just me. Beyond that, I don't see much need to alter anything regarding USAD's comments on third-party materials. Am I missing something? As far as a picture of Dr. Peterson, I think you're right. There should be one, and there was. But, unfortunately, the one I included in the article previously was deemed inappropriate since it apparently did not qualify as fair use (I grabbed the pic from here: http://usad.org/About/Peterson.asp). If you can find a picture that can be used freely, that would be great! I'd love to have one included in the article. But as I commented earlier, I think something should replace the DemiDec picture if it is to be removed. Do you have suggestions for one? The Dr. Peterson picture would go in the History section. - 355E3BYohhans&amp;talk 22:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC) If you are in contact with USAD officials, you can always tell them that they can clarify their position (and us confirm that they are indeed talking on behalf of USAD) by emailing OTRS. Also, they could probably provide a libre image of Dr. Peterson to resolve the whole picture issue. Titocolor:#008000;xd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC) I checked the source and it seems that USAD only eiscouraged purchasing 3rd party materials in regard to Art and Music as all of their test materials came directly from their own curriculum. Quote is as follows. "5...d) VERY IMPORTANT - ALL TEST QUESTIONS ON ART AND MUSIC WILL COME FROM FOUR SOURCES EXCLUSIVELY: THE ART BOOKLET (PICTURES AND TEXT), THE OPERA COMPENDIUM, THE MUSIC CD, AND THE ART AND MUSIC SECTIONS OF THE SUBJECT AREAS GUIDE. Purchasing study materials from commercial companies is a waste of money." I think this is a bit fuzzy, but does not mean that USAD discouraged all purchases of 3rd party materials. I have requested and received a photo of Dr. Peterson from USAD to include on the Wiki site with their permission. I still think the photo of Daniel B. should be removed and that students should be featured as they are the focus of USAD, not 3rd party vendors...Llamagirl1 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Dan and Dean were once Academic Decathlon participants; in fact, Dan was once the top scorer and is now on the Board of Directors for California Academic Decathlon. There are other reasons to keep him and the image there besides DemiDec after all. blackbibliomaniacred1blue5 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC) I spoke to USAD, Ms. Chafe and she gave permission to use the photo Dr. R. Peterson on the site as they own the copyright. It is the same photo used on their webpage. Unfortunately, I do not have the status to publish the photo on Wiki. Is there someone who can do that. I have it started and placed. autosigned—Preceding unsigned comment added by Llamagirl1 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Well, to accept the article on Wikipedia, it would have to be published under an acceptable license. Is USAD willing to do that? navyNW (greenTalk) 19:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)</turn_topictext>
<turn_text>I spoke to USAD, Ms. Chafe and she gave permission to use the photo Dr. R. Peterson on the site as they own the copyright. It is the same photo used on their webpage. Unfortunately, I do not have the status to publish the photo on Wiki. Is there someone who can do that. I have it started and placed. autosigned—Preceding unsigned comment added by </turn_text>