Talk:A Course in Miracles/Archive 7

message: I have "factified" all of the claims that look like OR to me. One source is given at the end of the paragraph, but it is unclear if all the ideas in that paragraph are from that book? If so, then let's name the source at the begining of the paragraph or something so it is clear where these ideas are coming from? Sethie 03:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on memory, many of the ideas there come from the Hanegraaf book (although I did not write that particular paragraph).  It's one of the few scholarly works on the New Age Movement, by the way. JChap2007 16:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, I do not still have the Hanegraaf book, but you could find it at any decent research library.  Normally, a source footnoted at the end of a paragraph would indicate that the information in the paragraph came from the source, but you are right to be skeptical given the history of this article and I wouldn't advocate simply attributing such claims to Hanegraaf until we have confirmation. JChap2007 20:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I was tempted to assume this was the case, and the way the paragraph was worded and the number of claims withinin it left me hesitant. Sethie 00:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: facts?

message: === Merge Notes ===
* The merged article A Course in Miracles (book) was deleted some time ago. Do your history.
* I've pasted the length of ACIM (book) into the "Origins" section of ACIM. The merged article covers the information that used to make up this section, but the former, shorter, Origins section may still be worth integrating, so I've commented the former section out for now rather than deleting it.
* ACIM (book) used a different (probably older) citation style, where its reference information was placed in the reference section with  tags, rather than integrating them in the main body as ACIM does and relying on the  tag at the end. The <ref> tag in ACIM (book) was instead used for collecting footnotes. Something should be done about this mismatch.
* ACIM (book) features a "quote barrier" where its author was not confident in the information proceeding after it. I've left it in, but it should be removed when we can match up and verify the sources.
* ACIM (book) contained several images whose links had to be removed from the article because the images themselves were no longer on Wikipedia. If we can find the original source of the images, they should be reincluded if possible, most noteably, Skutch Whitson and Thetford.
* If you find the new Origins section too dry, my former offer of spliting the article still holds.
—Antireconciler ◊ talk 05:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is  A Course in Miracles (book) "too unrelated" to  A Course in Miracles. What is the latter without the former? Not a dog 20:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you're right. The article is almost nothing without history, and so history should go there. The two articles are not "unrelated" as a matter of the Course being something more than its history, but unrelated as a matter of one being dry and uninteresting, and the other (the current article) being somewhat more tolerable. You can judge for yourself though. I'll copy and paste the article into the origins section. An interested wikipedian can then go about making the sources play nice with each other, as I have no such interest myself. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 05:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I decided to rename "semantics" as a "terminology" section, and merged in miracle impulse Not a dog 20:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, some of it is redundant, and those parts should be removed. The use of language is an important part of the Course, although I do not currently have a source for you with which to back up that claim. My advice would be favor checking the sources for more information on use of language so that this section can be written in a more scholarly fashion above simply cutting out information. It's not because you can't or shouldn't, but because that information will simply be reinserted if it can be sourced and rendered coherently. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 00:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, many different belief systems, theories, ideologies, disciplines have paritucular meanings for particular words, so we should be careful about the attention we give to it here. IE, why is it particularly notable for an encyclopedia article? Not a dog 00:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you're getting at, and I think you're right: the the use of language in the Course is not notable in and of itself. The material should be kept if it helps explain the material. Some of what is in the Terminology section does not, and you are right to remove parts of it. The concern I meant to express is simply that the article is becoming even more weighted toward being solely a historical account, that says much about the physical book, and little about what the book says. And the part dedicated to discussing the Course material is not especially well written, reliable, or accurate. Don't think I'm out to rewrite the article. I'm on your side here. I've seen enough people try to rewrite this article with their own ideas of what the Course says. I just want an encyclopedia article that is actually useful, and its because of the article's weakness in telling a coherent story about what the Course says that I recommend we focus both on getting a coherent story and a well sourced story, but until then, sub-standard information is still often serving a role in at least making things coherent. Trust me, I'm not saying you shouldn't make cuts you think are right or are right according to the rules and guidelines we're both familiar with. Your help is obviously valuable. Edit: Perhaps we can make the Terminology section a subsection within the Course material section. The Course material section looks like it could use subsectioning for organization anyway. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 06:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed the "Early Editing ... " section, which was mostly redundant with "Origins". I've moved the non-redundant parts to their appropriate sections. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 06:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (book), rewritten 

message: * The merged article A Course in Miracles (book) was deleted some time ago. Do your history.
* I've pasted the length of ACIM (book) into the "Origins" section of ACIM. The merged article covers the information that used to make up this section, but the former, shorter, Origins section may still be worth integrating, so I've commented the former section out for now rather than deleting it.
* ACIM (book) used a different (probably older) citation style, where its reference information was placed in the reference section with  tags, rather than integrating them in the main body as ACIM does and relying on the  tag at the end. The <ref> tag in ACIM (book) was instead used for collecting footnotes. Something should be done about this mismatch.
* ACIM (book) features a "quote barrier" where its author was not confident in the information proceeding after it. I've left it in, but it should be removed when we can match up and verify the sources.
* ACIM (book) contained several images whose links had to be removed from the article because the images themselves were no longer on Wikipedia. If we can find the original source of the images, they should be reincluded if possible, most noteably, Skutch Whitson and Thetford.
* If you find the new Origins section too dry, my former offer of spliting the article still holds.
—Antireconciler ◊ talk 05:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is  A Course in Miracles (book) "too unrelated" to  A Course in Miracles. What is the latter without the former? Not a dog 20:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you're right. The article is almost nothing without history, and so history should go there. The two articles are not "unrelated" as a matter of the Course being something more than its history, but unrelated as a matter of one being dry and uninteresting, and the other (the current article) being somewhat more tolerable. You can judge for yourself though. I'll copy and paste the article into the origins section. An interested wikipedian can then go about making the sources play nice with each other, as I have no such interest myself. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 05:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I decided to rename "semantics" as a "terminology" section, and merged in miracle impulse Not a dog 20:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, some of it is redundant, and those parts should be removed. The use of language is an important part of the Course, although I do not currently have a source for you with which to back up that claim. My advice would be favor checking the sources for more information on use of language so that this section can be written in a more scholarly fashion above simply cutting out information. It's not because you can't or shouldn't, but because that information will simply be reinserted if it can be sourced and rendered coherently. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 00:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, many different belief systems, theories, ideologies, disciplines have paritucular meanings for particular words, so we should be careful about the attention we give to it here. IE, why is it particularly notable for an encyclopedia article? Not a dog 00:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you're getting at, and I think you're right: the the use of language in the Course is not notable in and of itself. The material should be kept if it helps explain the material. Some of what is in the Terminology section does not, and you are right to remove parts of it. The concern I meant to express is simply that the article is becoming even more weighted toward being solely a historical account, that says much about the physical book, and little about what the book says. And the part dedicated to discussing the Course material is not especially well written, reliable, or accurate. Don't think I'm out to rewrite the article. I'm on your side here. I've seen enough people try to rewrite this article with their own ideas of what the Course says. I just want an encyclopedia article that is actually useful, and its because of the article's weakness in telling a coherent story about what the Course says that I recommend we focus both on getting a coherent story and a well sourced story, but until then, sub-standard information is still often serving a role in at least making things coherent. Trust me, I'm not saying you shouldn't make cuts you think are right or are right according to the rules and guidelines we're both familiar with. Your help is obviously valuable. Edit: Perhaps we can make the Terminology section a subsection within the Course material section. The Course material section looks like it could use subsectioning for organization anyway. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 06:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed the "Early Editing ... " section, which was mostly redundant with "Origins". I've moved the non-redundant parts to their appropriate sections. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 06:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Notes 

message: First, let's not have a revert war, shall we?
Second, does anyone have a reliable secondary source for Ali Sina being considered a notable or important critic of ACIM? If such a source exists that would make the comment seem less like original research. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who originally added this cited criticism , but I agree with its removal since the source (Ali Sina) apparently has been deemed non-notable for having his own article. Not a dog 13:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's irrelevant, actually.  What matters is if independent third parties consider this a notable or pertinent criticism of ACIM. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, my original thinking was that if the person is notable enough to have his own article, then his cricitism (presumably being topically related to his notability) would automatically be acceptable. You're saying that the key issue is whether other people find his particular criticism notable? I think I understand better now. Not a dog 13:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if there is any source that says that Sina is notable as a critic of ACIM, but it should be noted that the language that is the subject of the edit war is a cleaned-up version of Sina's actual article.  Sina's primary criticism of ACIM is that Schucman's Jewish heritage influenced her writing/transcription, even using the phrase "Jewish propaganda" at one point.  His article on his website (which is what our article's criticism section referenced) came off like more of an anti-Semitic rant than anything else.  This part was not mentioned in the summary of his criticism in the WP article.  If we have to sanitize a source, can we really claim it is reliable?  Sina's analysis, incidentally, is completely at odds with that of reputable scholars such as Hanegraaf, who emphasize the Course's essentially Eastern (not Christian or Jewish) cosmology.  JChap2007 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that if the source was "sanitized" then claims by that source likely aren't "reliable" for inclusion. That's why I agree with removing this particular criticism (unless we find a 3-rd party noting that the criticism is sound). However, considering your last comment, just as a general comment, lets be careful not to automatically discredit an opinion/criticism just becuase some other "reputable scholar" disagrees. --Not a dog 17:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we should not automatically do anything, but in this case we have Hanegraaf, a professor of religion at the University of Utrecht, who has written an extensive study on the New Age Movement that is well-respected by other scholars, and Ali Sina, who is known mostly as a critic of Islam and who does not appear to have any credentials of or knowledge about this particular topic, as well as an axe to grind. JChap2007 18:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ali Sina 

message: In somewhat the forth sentence it says: "Ironically, observers note that it has been most popular among those who have been disillusioned by organized Christianity."
That is not a true statement. Most popular the Course would have to be among those who had a life and mind changing experience and are continually able to use it for their pursuit of happiness. I do not deny that many turned to the Course for their disillusionment with organized Christianity. But then, everyone can pick up the Course and have a dramatic change in his life through the application of its principles. Further, many who do pick it up, do not stay with it. So the sentence is quite meaningless.
Thanks--Mindawiki 03:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most popular? 

message: The fifth (?) sentence says: "Some go so far as to call it the "most obvious choice" for the single text that is "sacred scripture" in the New Age movement."
Is that link to the New Age movement relevant information or rather a label that does not appreciate but limit the idea and meaning or expression of the Course? You will be able to find some people expressing almost any sort of opinion. So linking A Course In Miracles to the New Age Movement in this way does not really represent meaningful information, but rather gives rise to misleading or limiting judgment.
Thanks--Mindawiki 03:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  link to the New Age movement? 

message: The article does not contain a single quote from the source itself, but holds references that do not even qualify as a quote, like at the very beginning of the article.
--Mindawiki 05:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor quotation... 

message: "A Course in Miracles (ACIM or the Course), refers to itself as a course of 'spiritual psychotherapy' and of spiritual transformation..." is the first sentence of the article. The term "spiritual psychotherapy" is not in the Course. It is given on Robert Perry's Site without reference. (http://www.circleofa.org/articles/HealingJudyAllen.php)
My suggestion is therefore to say: 
A Course in Miracles (ACIM or the Course), refers to itself as "a course in mind training" (1) and "a course in how to know yourself"(2),  it "states, and repeatedly, that its purpose is the escape from fear." (3)
(1)(A Course in Miracles. 2nd. New York: Penguin Group, 1996. . Text. page 16)
(2)(A Course in Miracles. 2nd. New York: Penguin Group, 1996. . Text. page 335)
(3)(A Course in Miracles. 2nd. New York: Penguin Group, 1996. . Text. page 163) 
I do not quite know how to insert these references in the article.
Thanks--Mindawiki 06:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  misquotation: "spiritual psychotherapy" and proper quotes from the Course... 

message: I miss mention of ACIM's particular and striking literary quality, i.e. its extended use of Blank verse over hundreds of pages. It also contains sonnets hidden in the text. The amazing thing about is, while one has to get used to it, it is still a language of modern use.
"God has not many Sons, but only One. Who can have more, and who be given less? It is for him the Holy Spirit speaks, and tells you idols have no purpose here. For more than Heaven can you never have. If Heaven is within, why would you seek for idols that would make of Heaven less, to give you more than God bestowed upon your brother and on you, as one with Him? God gave you all there is. And to be sure you could not lose it, did He also give the same to every living thing as well. And thus is every living thing a part of you, as of Himself. No idol can establish you as more than God. But you will never be content with being less." (A Course in Miracles. 2nd. New York: Penguin Group, 1996. . Text. page 621)
"You who perceive yourself as weak and frail, with futile hopes and devastated dreams, born but to die, to weep and suffer pain, hear this: All power is given unto you in earth and Heaven. There is nothing that you cannot do. You play the game of death, of being helpless, pitifully tied to dissolution in a world which shows no mercy to you. Yet when you accord it mercy, will its mercy shine on you." (A Course in Miracles. 2nd. New York: Penguin Group, 1996. . Workbook. page 364)
Thanks--Mindawiki 20:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mentioning the literary quality of ACIM, for example its extended use of jambic pentameter 

message: It seems to me that the old litigation section was overly detailed about specific points of the litigation, and underly informative about providing a concise and accurate summary of the court outcome.  I have modified it in the hopes of achieving this.  
Thanks,
-Scott P. 17:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidation of Litigation section rationale.