Talk:A Course in Miracles/Archive 5.1

message: Archive 5.1: July 24, 2006 - Sep 9, 2006
----
To view earlier archives, see:
*Archive 1: May 17, 2004 - Nov 12, 2005
*Archive 2: Nov 12, 2005 - June 29, 2006
*Archive 3: June 29, 2006 - July 13, 2006
*Archive 4: July 13, 2006 - July 24, 2006
*Archive 5: July 24, 2006 - Sept 7, 2006
(Note: This discussion material is from a period when four or five editors, some of whom had admittedly  not read any of the ACIM material, attempted to create an unusual POV fork article.  One of these editors was permanently banned from Wikipedia due to his generally divisive behavior as a result of this.  The POV fork article was ultimately also voted for deletion.  Some constructive changes to the article did eventually result.  I am not certain as to exactly how there appear to be two overlapping discussion archives for this period, however I have created this archive 5.1 in the interests of not losing this information. -Scott P. 13:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

message: The contents of several articles were merged in here, but now that material has been lost. As soon as the page is unprotected we should seek out that material and re-merge it. 
*
*
*
*
There may be others, these are what I could find. -Will Beback 19:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we should retrieve the articles. I would like to re-visit whether each article should be merged or stand alone with a link from the main page. It also depends on the vote on the new poll in terms of which article will be the beginning. In any case, I think the information should be retrieved and perhaps placed on the sandbox page.--Who123 20:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, some of those may need to be revisited. I also think the A Course in Miracles (book) AfD was irregular and should be reviewed too. Those reviews should be done through Wikipedia:Deletion review. -Will Beback 21:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. The material from Attitudinal Healing was maybe a pair of sentences that I deleted earlier because they really were usless. The original article must have been a very short stub. I also think it was nonsense that the material from A Course in Miracles (book) was deleted. If there is not a more effective means of reintegrating the material, I have a copy of it at its prime. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 02:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, some of the mergers were very minor, but we should at least mention the topics. The "A Course in Miracles (book)" AfD deleted the name, but the contents should certainly be included here. On reflection I suppose there's no need to review the AfD, since the name wasn't helpful. Any admin, myself included, can dig out the deleted material from A Course in Miracles (book), in case Antireconciler's copy isn't complete. That stuff (at least the NPOV, verifiable material) should go in here too. -Will Beback 08:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 23:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged & deleted articles 

message: I was bold and shortened this section. It now only presents "basic tenets" of ACIM, rather than lengthy quotes. I also removed many of the "our" and "we" formatted references since that tone is not encyclopedic. I also removed stuff like "the miracle of the course" because it isn't proper to describe this book as "a miracle" in an encyclopedia article. Not a dog 13:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag for the talk section includes, "Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them." I find that your deletion of most of this section makes the article worse rather than improves it. The section was fairly well written, sourced, and cited. I am going to revert. Can we please discuss substantial changes here first particularly if the section is sourced and cited or there is disagreement?—Who123 14:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, then tell me how my edit made the article "worse." Just being well-written and sourced doesn't mean the content is appropriate. This section is called "Basic tenets". The first sentence notes that it has roots in psychology and englightenment. Why do we need additional mention of that at length further down in teh section. You don't. Just state what the basic tenets are, cite the source, and move on. This isn't supposed to be a book report or instruction manual. Further, sentences like this are inappropriate for an encyclopedia: the Course focuses on our awakening to our oneness with the Divine. Our perception changes so that we no longer see ourselves as separate.  This sounds like a recruting brochure or personal testamony, not an encyclopedic description of what the book's "basic tenets" are. And the "In summary" paragraph is redundant to the opening paragraph. I could go on. IMO, this section is not well-written, and should be trimmed accordingly. (BTW, not every change should have to be discussed. This is a wiki, afterall) Not a dog 14:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still awaiting your reply here. Not a dog 22:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that yourself, JChap, and I working together have made this a useful section as it stands now.—Who123 16:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Basic tenets

message: This material keeps coming back into the article.  Should it be here? The author attributes certain aspects of ACIM to "Jewish propaganda."  Is this a reliable source? JChap2007 00:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I presumed it was reliable since Ali Sina is notable enough to have his own article. While his views might be unpopular, I presume they are notable. Not a dog 01:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ali Sina essay at faithfreedom.org

message: These sections are filled with uncited material. I am going to reduce each section to a stub. This should remove most if not all of the uncited material. I think the citation tag should be considered for removal.—Who123 18:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theology & Psychology sections