Talk:A Course in Miracles (book)

message: This is the combined merge with actual credible secondary references. Ste4k 06:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

message: I doubt the accuracy of this source. It is probably close to correct, but hasn't any reputible sources of its own. It also has a statement which is contradictory to the facts as found in the court documents. According to Whitmore, "Penguin pays the Foundation for Inner Peace a royalty advancement of $3 million dollars for exclusive use of the copyright." According to the court documentation, the amount was $2.5 million dollars as stated in the article. 0.5 is a very small number except when dealing with millions of dollars. Ste4k 13:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in the "Timeline" source. 

message: Due to the the duplicative nature of this article, I believe that this article needs to be merged with the main ACIM article.  Also, several of the timeline and references are undocumented and inaccurate.  The reference to students of ACIM as being "cult" members seems to me to be POV.  The highlighting of the transexual identity of one of the early financial contributors to FIP who is otherwise rather obscure in his relationship to ACIM also seems to me to be rather POV.  I am therefor (re)nominating this article for deletion in the Afd discussion.
-Scott P. 02:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs to be better documented, and merged with the main ACIM article 

message: I reworded this sentence:
:"It became a spiritual curriculum for many individuals and study groups, [1] well over a million copies have been printed, multiple foreign-language editions exist, [4] and it remains a cult favorite.[1]"
to read:
:"It became a spiritual curriculum for many individuals and study groups, [1] well over a million copies have been printed and multiple foreign-language editions exist, [4]. The book remains a strong seller within a certain segment of the faith and spirituality book market[1]."
The Garrett article cited in the AfD was writen to describe the marketing plan for another book. It was also used as an adjective, not a noun. The intended audience for this comment was booksellers, not the general public or theologians. When ACIM was referred to a cult classic here, the author was referring to the pattern of its sales after its initial big explosion -- this book continued to sell in smaller, but still respectable numbers to a group of people that were very enthusiastic about the book and the ACIM concept. You could say the same thing about Macintosh enthusiasts.
Wiktionary has two definitions of "cult" when used as an adjective:
#Enjoyed by a small, loyal group
#That has garnered limited sales figures, but a loyal fanbase and raving reviews in the press.
::"The Lord of the Rings" is a classic geek cult novel.
Wiktionary has three meanings that apply to cult when used as a noun. I believe none of these apply to the Garrett article:
#A group or doctrine with religious, philosophical or cultural identity sometimes viewed as a sect, often existent on the margins of society.
#Devotion to a saint.
#A group that exploits members psychologically and/or financially, typically by making members comply with leadership's demands through certain types of psychological manipulation, popularly called mind control, and through the inculcation of deep-seated anxious dependency on the group and its leaders.
I got rid of "cult" (adjective) here because even though it's correct, it's just such a loaded word in this setting and there are other ways to make the point about this book's sales. If someone wants to assert that ACIM fans belong to a cult (noun), they need to quote a different source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A. B.  (talk • contribs).
Yeah I agree. Garrett reeks. I'll remove that. Ste4k
You know, now that you mention it, it all must be POV, I mean, think about it, it's all direct quotes from a U.S. District Court Case, of course that HAS to be biased, right? I mean after all, the only thing they demand on in cases like that are facts and other nonsense. I'll clean that up real quick, I haven't any clue what I could possibly have been thinking! Ste4k 06:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "cult"