:If this isn't a controversial topic, then why are we having an edit war over it? If it isn't a controversial topic, then why does discussion of it always get heated? If it isn't a controversial topic, then why did it result in a multi-million-dollar lawsuit that caused a great divide within the Course community?  

 :I am the first to admit that the article is currently far from being the best on Wikipedia, and far from being its full potential. That's because it is a stub.  

 :You can continue to accuse it of being an attempt to advance Wapnick's perspective all you want. That isn't the case.  

 :If you think that the article is sloppy, why not do what you can to improve it? Your recent edits only confused the matter. What you recently added suggested that both the "literalists" and the "symbolics" believe that Jesus is the literal source of the Course. That is not accurate.  

 :I am going to talk to the other editor of this page to see if he can block you from editing this page any further. This page certainly needs work, but it does not need continued vandalism. And I don't need these continued bizarre accusations.