Talk:A Course in Miracles/Archive 6

message: so how long must those empty sections sit there with the ugly stub tags? Not a dog 04:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the stub tags are cute. I am not aware that they violate WP policy. They are sections that should be expanded. I suggest leaving them until someone wants to add material.—Who123 16:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: have to agree with not a dog. they detract from the aesthetic quality of the article for no good reason... taking them out. Zghost 08:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  empty section stubs 

message: This section was written to explain the Course's use of language. It was not written to describe the entire methodology of ACIM. Using the title "Methodology" is not accurate.—Who123 12:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, according to the GtL, maybe when you have some other methods described you can carve it into sections. Btw, why do you keep adding that trivia about the copyright stuff into the topic paragraph? It's off topic since the article isn't about copyrights and stuff but about the Course in Miracles. I mean, who cares? It's trivial and digresses the paragraph. Zghost 12:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "The use of language" is semantics. So, maybe methodology is too broad, but that's too wordy, so, how about a compromise: "Semantics". Zghost 12:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I changed it, but looking at it compared to the text, maybe Semantic method would be better. I'll leave that up to you. Zghost 13:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I think that the title "methodology" is inaccurate is that it is too broad. What is being desrcibed is how ACIM uses language. As this is the only aspect of the methodology described thus far the title is misleading as it suggests that this is the entire methodology. Perhaps semantics would be best. It would be helpful if the use of male nouns and pronouns could be discussed here as this is a point of confusion.—Who123 12:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methodology 

message: In regard to the comments in the edit summary at Link.. "Who123 
(→Criticism - This was an accurate quote. I question the validity of this source as this is mainly his personal opinion that does not appear well informed or well written.).. Criticism is always a personal opinion. The task of the project is to provide the information for the reader, not to interpret it. If you don't agree with the guy's opinion, then that just makes it all the more reason why it's a good inclusion in the criticism section, IMHO. Zghost 15:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Almost as irritating, or in accordance with personal mentality as laughable, may come across the fact that, for example God as source of love and the Holy Spirit are referred to as being male."
This may be laughable to him but then so would be Christianity or any other spiritual/religious work that uses male or female nouns or pronouns. It is my belief that this reflects the limitations of the English language rather than God being male. The Course describes our true identity as spirit rather than bodies. Sexual terms refer to bodies. In the English language male terms may enclude everyone such as "mankind" as opposed to "womenkind".—Who123 11:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you missed the point. It doesn't matter if you agree with the opinion or not. If you'd like your own opinion inserted in the article then you should go publish a book or something and then come back and put it in as a reference. Zghost 13:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a mis-quote. The example of ACIM being laughable is that it uses male nouns and pronouns.—Who123 12:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Third opinion:Without access to the source, I can't verify the accuracy of the quote, but while both of you should calm down, I agree mostly with Who123.  If the text quoted by him is correct, then the quote deleted was a minor misquote.  More appropriate would have been to correct it.  I agree with Zghost on this: whether you disagree with the criticism isn't the point.  If you think it's being given undue weight, the argue for its deletion on that, or delete it with that comment.  If the reason is misquoting, then correct it.  jesup 03:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not seem reasonable to include a criticism that finds a religious work laughable because it uses male nouns and pronouns to refer to God. It is not saying God is male; it is a limitation of the English language. This person would then find laughable any religious work doing this including all of Christianity and other major religions. The source is an online source and is available.—Who123 12:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Third opinion: I've now read the quote (thought it was a book reference).  The quote was accurate: "Meanwhile another important question demands to be answered: Why pay attention to a book that comes across as astonishing if not irritating or laughable? Why waste our energy on a movement of students that people with ‘common sense’ regard a movement of other-worldly people?"  And this is a criticism of the entire book, not the side reference to the use of male pronouns.  There was previous characterization as "laughable" the fact that the 'Voice' is Christ.  The male pronoun remark is in an inner paragraph, with the text "Almost as irritating, or in accordance with personal mentality as laughable, may come across the fact that, for example God as source of love and the Holy Spirit are referred to as being male.".  So I would now say a) the quote was in fact an accurate quote, and b) the quote does reflect the overall opinion of the critic of the work, and c) I don't see that that critic put much weight into the male pronoun argument, since they followed it immediately with "But it is especially all the seemingly christian concepts, because next to the central concept of forgiveness, the text is teeming with concepts like sins reconciliation, redemption, Holy Spirit, The Kingdom of God, Heaven and sin."  Also, the writer is not a native English speaker.  So overall, on this issue, I'd say I agree with Zghost.  Also, as per before, if your argument is with the quality of the criticism or that it's non-notable, make that argument here.  Having read it, I think it's totally appropriate to have this link in a criticism section.  Details of what text should be quoted or how the criticism is characterized can be argued, but the male pronoun argument is not a strong one.I'm also astonished by the number of edits on this page.  Guys, slow down, if you're doing extensive rework discuss it first, maybe even float some proposals.  There were so many edits I got lost trying to find the edits this controvery started about.  jesup 13:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not opposed to including the reference. My main concern is that a certain amount of sensitivity and respect for each others religious beliefs be maintained on WP. Some might find the idea that Jesus rose from the dead or that God dictated the Koran to Muhammad laughable. Some might find atheists (those who believe God does not exist) are as laughable as theists. I do not think this is suitable for a WP article. In addition, pointing out that the author of the article was bewildered is simply saying that he does not understand the material.—Who123 16:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: (Resetting indent level) Ok, so the proposal on the table is to delete the astonishing...laughable quote based on POV reasoning. I.e. including the quote doesn't add to a neutral article.  I can see that; the wording is mildly inflammatory.  Summarizing the criticism (in a NPOV manner) is reasonable in a section on criticism.  The current 1-sentence (or so) summaries could be expanded, though it would probably be better to write an overall cohesive paragraph or two on criticism with <ref>'s rather than a series of links and short summaries.  "Wikipedia is not a link farm".  Comments on this proposal, then?  Proposal: leave that quotation out.  Alternatively either replace it with a better textual summary or better quote (propose one here), or take a shot at rewriting the entire criticism section as a section instead of a listing of links.  jesup 17:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I am saying is that POV opinions that are derogatory (especially in sensitive areas like someone's religious beliefs) do not belong on WP. I think the references are fine. I think the other criticisms are reasonable. Perhaps this author's criticisms to ACIM could be summed up without his personal POV about it being astonishing...laughable or him being bored or bewildered by it? What is his rational criticism?—Who123 13:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  He calls it "astonishing if not irritating or laughable" 

message: Copied from the section above: "Btw, why do you keep adding that trivia about the copyright stuff into the topic paragraph? It's off topic since the article isn't about copyrights and stuff but about the Course in Miracles. I mean, who cares? It's trivial and digresses the paragraph."
:The legal stuff is not trivia. After the death of Bill and Helen the now invalid copyright was used to stifle Course discussion though lawsuits and threatened lawsuits. Authors could not publish their works as they first had to be approved. Even fair use was not allowed through the intimidation of lawsuits. Discussion groups could not use "A Course in Miracles" or "ACIM". Much of the Course discussion over the past number of years has involved this oppression and the lawsuit. It is important for readers to know that it is OK to use "A Course in Miracles" and "ACIM".—Who123 12:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, thats all covered in the sentence above that says the copyright was voided. The details are trivial. The court said it was void, and thats that. The other thing you didn't answer was where you cited that info from. The reference only has one sentence on the end that says the judge ordered it void. The article can't have more in it than the references support. When you can answer that question and explain how/why the trivial details of how a copyright is voided is important to the average Joe Q. Public, let us all know. Is it real important to you for some reason? Zghost 12:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not every sentence needs a cite. One can simply look it up on-line at the US Trademarks site. This additional material does not discuss the copyright but the service-mark and trademark. It is not trivial to inform the public that they, as well as the copyright, have been voided.—Who123 12:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks to me like you are disagreeing with yourself. Let me repeat what you just said and point out the heart of the matter by replacing one word: It is trivial to inform the public that they, as well as the copyright, have been voided if one can simply look it up on-line at the US Trademarks site.  Let me explain that a little better... the only people that would care about such details are people that are trying to register a new copyright or their lawyers. The project goal is to create an encyclopedia. It's not to keep track of redundant trivia that only special groups of people are extremely interested in. The information itself does not support the article in any manner. There aren't any sentences that leave questions in the mind that this information answers. The flow of the intro paragraph in centered on the Course, the texts. As a topic, the Course is the theme in all of the sentences in that paragraph. The digression I was speaking of occurs when that theme changes from "What is the Course" to "How exactly was the copyright on the Course voided". And the manner in which the copyright was voided is *not* atypical in any respect. For example, the Queen of England didn't issue an edict, no buildings were torn down trying to find the filing cabinet, and Hurricane Katrina wasn't blamed on being an act of God in retribution for the voiding of this copyright. Its trivial. It wasn't the first copyright to ever be voided, and it certainly won't be the last. So, I repeat my question to you...
Is it real important to you for some reason? Zghost 13:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is not about how the copyright was voided. It is about the service-mark and trademark. It is important to anyone who wishes to use "A Course in Miracles" or "ACIM". If they were not voided this article could not be titled "A Course in Miracles" and "ACIM" could not be used in the article.—Who123 13:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal aspects 

message: Regarding the edit here Link with the comment in the summary "Organized by importance" ... Importance according to who? Alphabatizing the order is pretty standard and NPOV. Ordering a list in your own order of importance is by definition inserting your own POV into the article. Wiki articles need to strive for NPOV, not the contrary. Zghost 13:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of importance? 

message: Regarding the edit at Link with the comment in the edit summary "clarify" ... That is not a clarification. Before your edit, the sentence stated a simple neutral fact. After your edit, your own POV considered the fact to be criticism and the sentence now leans toward your POV. If you are trying to beef up the criticism section, it would be a better idea to find some more books/articles to reference than to insert your own POV. Zghost 13:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a critical remark. You moved it from the criticism section where it belongs.—Who123 12:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More POV?? 

message: For unknown reasons, the image of the most widely circulated edition of ACIM was removed from this article, I have re-inserted it and also rearranged and rewritten a bit of it in an effort to add to the informativeness, readability and accuracy of the article.  Any comments would be most welcome.
Thanks,
-Scott P. 19:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Scott, I added the important legal information that was left out (in a shortened fashion). The FIP edition is not the only written version currently in print in English. Thanks.—Who123 13:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reinsertion of image and more 

message: The article Miracle Impulse is little more than a dictionary definition, and should be merged to A Course in Miracles. Not a dog 10:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it should just be removed?—Who123 11:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are enough terms like this they might be combined into one article, something like "Concepts of A Course in Miracle". -Will Beback 17:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One other term that comes to mind is holy instant. But although miracle impulses and the holy instant are talked about in the course, they do not originate there. Both could have their own article linked to A Course in Miracles, in my opinion. Miracleimpulse 10:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I've not been by here for a while and have only just read the changes made by several editors in the last couple of months.  Well done!  The article is vastly better than it was.  Kudos to all for some very hard work, especially in finding sources of critique and evaluation independent of the promoters. Guy 10:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a quick note... 

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: As stated, I think the fourth paragraph in the Course material section is anomalous.
Consider:
#This passage from the article: The Course fully accepts the Freudian concepts of the conscious mind, the unconscious mind.
#This passage from the reference for the passage from the article: Like Freud, the Course views the mind as a veritable battleground, filled with conflict between the conscious and unconscious [...]
#This passage from the Text (my italics): T-7.VIII.4. You cannot perpetuate an illusion about another without perpetuating it about yourself. 2 There is no way out of this, because it is impossible to fragment the mind. 3 To fragment is to break into pieces, and mind cannot attack or be attacked. 4 The belief that it can, an error the ego always makes, underlies its whole use of projection.
Boiled down, we have the following:
*The Course fully accepts the Freudian concepts of the conscious and unconscious mind.
*The Freudian concept of the conscious and unconscious mind is that it is a veritable battleground, filled with conflict.
*The Course states that it is impossible to fragment the mind.
Additionally, let's stipulate,
*Only a fragmented mind could be a battleground.
It is clear that these statements form an inconsistent quartet. At least one must be false. If it is the reference which is in error, we should be sure to be clear about what we mean when we talk of the "Freudian concepts of the conscious mind [and] the unconscious mind," and explicitly reject the reference's interpretation of Freud. If it is not the reference which is in error, the article as it is written must be.
—Antireconciler ◊ talk 06:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right, and I'm afraid you've misunderstood my intention. I don't wish to challenge the references. Nor am I proposing that we change the article concerning this. I'm discussing the article, not changes I want to make to it. The inconsistency is a formal inconsistency. That means it is not subject to differing interpretations or frameworks. I've noted your thoughts. Thanks for sharing. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 05:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah... :) I was assuming you were raising this with certain changes in mind. My boo-boo. Sethie 17:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 

message: As a tribute to Ste4k, I want to revive the material formerly at A Course in Miracles (book). It contained a well-written and well-sourced (!) account of the history of the Course's primary literature. At the same time, I think it is too unrelated to the A Course in Miracles article to warrent a merge. Without objections, I will create a page at History of A Course in Miracles, place the material there, and add a link to it in the Origins section of the A Course In Miracles article. I welcome any feedback. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 07:12, 15 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)
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)
thread_title:  Merge Notes