Talk:A Course in Miracles/Archive 4

message: Although much work still needs to be done, it appears to me that the article, as it is now, is no longer "unbalanced". In addition, the article size is very close to the maximum suggested size. I suggest that the "unbalanced" and "verylong" initial tags for the article can now be removed.
Thoughts?--Who123 03:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. As it stands, one small mention about two other works that doesn't include other groups that have entire articles written about them is severely imbalanced. Ste4k 03:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not understand your perception of the article now being imbalanced. Would you please elaborate on exactly why you think the article is still imbalanced and what needs to be done to correct it?--Who123 04:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the rest of this discussion, it is all above/below. Elaboration does not need to be repeated. Ste4k 06:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have read the rest of this discussion. Most of the issues have been addressed. The remaining issues are being addressed although your obstructive tactics waste valuable time. You are the only user that has placed the Noncompliant Template on the article. If this Template is to be applied it should be done with a consensus of the editors.--Who123 14:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Issues addressed in your own unilateral opinion do not in any way arrive at a consensus to the other people involved in working on this article. It's fine for you to have your opinion, but by blatantly refusing other people to have their opinion, it looks more overbearing than anything else. Are you trying to convince me that I haven't the right to work on Wiki, have an opinion, and that you are self-declaring yourself in charge of everyone elses opinion? Is there some sort of aesthetic problem that you feel a maintenance template presents that you simply can't bear because of considerable amount of bias? Are you in some kind of hurry to remove maintenance tags before other editors from the WP at large are allowed to come and help work on this article? Please answer these questions with due regard for other peoples' opinions before deciding for yourself that you are in charge of what other people think. Ste4k 03:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What you have written above does not make any sense to me. You are the one acting unilaterally in applying the Noncompliant Template. I have asked for a consensus before this is applied.--Who123 15:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial Templates 

message: Apparently user User:Ste4k has decided that this article ultimately needs to be deleted and replaced with her own article at A Course in Miracles (book), and also a second article which she apparently plans to create later on to be titled something like A Course in Miracles (movement).  This user has also nominated multiple ACIM related articles for deletion, some deletions of which have succeeded.  A discussion about User:Ste4k's plans to effect these changes is under way at Nomination to delete Ste4k's article on ACIM (book only).  The input of editors of this page at that article would be very much appreciated.  To the best of my knowledge, this editor has not yet made any detailed analysis on Wiki of the actual contents of ACIM.  Thanks,  -Scott P. 12:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your presumption is quite incorrect. Thanks. Ste4k 18:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, one of the reasons why I have a neutral point of view on this topic is exactly because I haven't nor do I plan to make any sort of analysis at all about the actual contents. An encylcopedic entry about a book is not an editorial or book review. Ste4k 00:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: ACIM is surrounded by bias, conflict, and heated differences of opinion; as are most religious discussions. I do not believe that any of us is without bias or has a neutral point of view. Hopefully we can work together to form a consensus to provide the reader of this article with factual information or useful differences of opinion when necessary. -- Who123 14:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually haven't seen much bias, except perhaps in citing primary sources. I haven't read any of these versions. I have read the court cases and seen a lot of web sites which are frankly all involved in selling one or another version of the book in one way or another. The first time I had ever heard of the Course was about three weeks ago. I am sure that there are several other editors that are equally as neutral. I say that basically because my first question, has still never been answered satisfactorally in my opinion. Ste4k 03:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I was not speaking of bias here but the various forms of bias in the ACIM community. Not all of the web sites are involved in selling anything. The larger ones are and they can afford larger websites and more advertising. I think it is useful to have input from those who are familiar with ACIM and the events surrounding it. Many that study ACIM are not affiliated with any of the major organizations and some of these are fairly neutral and rational. Perhaps you could restate your question here? -- Who123 17:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What question? Ste4k 03:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale for proposed ACIM article group restructure 

message: The article section on organization should be rewritten. The FACIM is not the organization of ACIM (the acronym "ACIM" is not the FAICM's trademark as it has been revoked by the U.S. Patent Office). FACIM is only one organization involved with publication of ACIM. It is highly controversial. This section reads like an ad for the FACIM which has turned its founder and family into millionaires. This should be about ACIM and not the FACIM. I suppose Wiki could include a article about FACIM but this would basically be an ad for the organization. -- Who123 23:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ACIM is used extensively by the group "Foundation of Inner Peace (FIP). FACIM also uses this term extensively. The acronym is used in both of their web-sites where they share the same trademark as well as it being a portion of their domain names. They both share common members on their Boards of Directors. They were co-defendents in a trial over copyright issues.  In the media, the works are commonly referred to as "The Course". In the court proceedings, the works are also referred to as either "The Work", or "the Course". If you look below in this article at the references, you will notice that most of them are primary references and associated with ACIM/FIP/FACIM/Wapnick/Skutch/Skutch Whitson which are basically one entity and group. According to WP policy and guidelines, we can only use primary sources for statements that they make about themselves, specifically in regard to their notability. This means that the references being used written by Ken Wapnick and Robert Skutch cannot be used to source any material in this article except to speak about FIP, FACIM, or themselves personally. It also means that the version of the work published by FIP called "A Course in Miracles" cannot be used as a source for any material in this article unless the quoted citations are speaking about the book itself for it's own notability, or about FIP, or FACIM. If there is a preface in the book that speaks toward the notability of the book or the publisher, then that content can be used. Anything else, hasn't a reliable source and is therefore un-verifiable. Anything unverifiable, of course, is simply original research. Ste4k 18:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That's fine, but we can only use what has already been printed, not our own research. The trademark on ACIM has not been revoked, the copyright on the Urtext, though, has been declared void. These are two different things. If it was revoked sometime in the past three days, though, then please advise. Thanks. Ste4k 22:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just double checked: The Patent and Trademark Office database shows that both phrases are no longer trademarked. The only relevant trademark still in force is a design combining the phrase "ACIM" with a logo, which is registered to Foundation for A Course in Miracles. You may recall we already discussed this on Talk:Charles Buell Anderson. -Will Beback 01:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and as I pointed out in that discussion, two things, 1) The index that you used to call up that design was "ACIM". 2) both the FIP (who uses acim.org as their domain name) and the FACIM who both share common members on their boards of directors use the acronym ACIM as brand name and also mark this acronym with the ® registered trademark symbol even in places where they are not granted the right to do so. Basically, they use ACIM as their face value brand name regardless of the limitations set out by their registration. The issue here has nothing to do with whether they are granted permission or not. These are the same groups that were publishing without rights to a copyright as proven in court. The phrase "the Course" is short and very generic, avoids any of these issues, is used by reputible secondary sources in the media, and also by the court, and there isn't any reason not to use that for shortening the title, especially when even between you and I it is clear that some controversy exists over the use of the other acronym "ACIM". If between you and I there exists this controversy, then certainly a fair number of readers in the future will feel the same way. For these reasons and in support of NPOV, we should be using "the Course" rather than "ACIM". Ste4k 02:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  You are correct that "ACIM" was an invalid trademark. It is not a trademark now. I was mistaken about doing a search on ACIM and finding thousands of hits. I just used a well known search engine and received 1,080,000 hits. To avoid using ACIM continues to support the false trademark on it. If there is confusion about the legal status of "ACIM" then the article should help to resolve this confusion rather than foster it. I suggest that each of us is free to use ACIM as we wish. We should not attempt to stifle each other. -- Who123 17:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has told you not to speak in any way that you see fit. It is pretty clear that you prefer to align yourself with the Foundation of Inner Peace rather than an unbiased viewpoint. That's your choice. The topic here, however, is about the article itself. Please re-read my statements above, it appears that you have misunderstood them. Ste4k 03:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not aligned with FIP or any faction. This is the third section where you try to force your opinion that ACIM is not a common abbreviation for A Course in Miracles.--Who123 16:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a common abbreviation among the two publishers and they establish brand name recognition using it. I have not forced my opinion at all, but rather stated it, and provided examples. If you can find some reputible secondary sources that use the acronym with the frequency that this article had earlier today, then you might be able to convince me otherwise. Ste4k 05:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Referring to factions

message: Regarding this reason, if "sometimes referred to" is somehow able to be sourced without OR, then sure, I guess if someone wants to waste a month trying to find that printed somewhere, it's fine with me, too. Ste4k 09:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sometimes referred to ??? 

message: Dear Who123,
Why did you remove the templates that have all been explained both here in discussion as well as
in the history, and not replace them with the single  template? On what basis did you remove two verified sources for this article and replace them with some personal web-site? After removing the sources, you did not remove any of the material in the article that they "might" have supported. And when adding the personal web-site, you didn't add any material to the article at all. The only thing you removed was some obvious OR. What gives? I am reverting your edits which haven't any explanation and suggest that you move questionable material here to the Discussion page in the future. By the way, if you need help on using citation templates, please see the appropriate documentation. Thanks. Ste4k 06:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm rather busy working on several hundred other articles right now. Since this is your favorite topic, feel free to address the concerns as listed above, i.e. OR, POV, VER, RS, length, balance, essay, importance, etc. Do not assume that your work satisifies any of these issues based on your own bias and allow the editors who made the review to remove the tags for themselves after they are satisfied with your efforts. Thanks. Ste4k 19:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Ste4k, you did not write the article. You do not own it. If you are interested in improving the article, please discuss individual items in the sections above. As you are involved in hundreds of articles, do you have the time to constructively add to this one? I think the existing three tags accurately reflect the status of this article. Please do not change them.--Who123 20:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Click on the blue links and you will see all of the discussion. In the interim, stop edit warring over tags and work on the article. Thanks. Ste4k 23:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It takes two to edit war. Tags, by themselves, do not improve the article. Please seek consensus on this talk page rather then fussing over which tags on the article. -Will Beback 23:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it takes two to edit as well. Those tags are valid. If you'd like me to start editing the article, please just say the word. Ste4k 23:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If we wish to further discuss the tags then let us do it in the initial templates section above. I think any major edits should be discussed first.--Who123 23:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tags were on the article along with all the discussion listed in the links above before you ever even entered the conversation about this article. You unsubstantiated edits have only enflamed a controversial article. You have added nothing to this article in the way of content, nor have you answered to any of the problems this article has. There is no further discussion about tags which are valid. They help to improve the article and acting like they don't is purposful ignorance. Digressing the topic about your unsubstantiated edits is dubious at best and does not support your actions in the least. Ste4k 00:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't climb the Eiffel Tower dressed as Captain America, both of you.  As Will said, the tags don't improve the substance of the article. JChap (talk • contribs) 00:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JChap, I think you should be talking to Ste4k for her unilateral destruction of the article.--Who123 03:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsubstantiated Edits and questions for Who123 

message: What is happening? Can someone explain what is going on? ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 02:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Moving all of this original research to discussion preserves it and allows it to be included after the challenges have been met. Please see WP:VER. Thanks. Ste4k 02:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ste4K, may I say that this is quite an unusual way of going about this? You may want to ask these editors that worked hard in adding the material to provide references, before doing what yoy are doing, and if in a reasonable time period, let's say 10 days, they do not provide sources, you may then remove material. Also note that primary sources about the subject are allowed in the article in a comesurate manner. I am reverting all your deletions and asking editors to provide references by July 28th. At that time you may discuss with other involved editors what needs removing. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 05:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Jossi, your comments here appear to contradict the comments you made earlier to me on your talk page nearly three weeks ago on this exact topic. If you aren't yourself familar with WP:VER please note WP:VER#The policy and note that your reversion is including unsourced and uncited material, all of which has been moved here (per the guidelines) to discussion. Regarding unusual, it is actually the normal way of doing things, and if you would like some examples, I would be more than happy to point a few out. The number of editors that actually included the bulk of the material is "one" and perhaps "two". Neither of them are participating in the discussions anymore. The reasonable time period of 10 days appears moot since in the actual time period which has been for three weeks, has been quite enough since nothing has changed at all regarding the problems except bickering over "tags". If you'd like to justify your including uncited resources and removing well cited resources, please do so here. Thanks. Ste4k 06:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have started adding references, and you are deleting them. Help me to assume your good faith, by restoring the edits I made and the two references I provided. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 06:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide the references alone, including the massive amount of material that has been moved to discussion makes no sense. Add a reference, then quote it and cite it. Please feel free to do that. Ste4k 06:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I just looked at the reference you were including. It is a primary resource and there are particular restrictions on those. Those references are all listed here in discussion. Feel free to participate in those sections. Ste4k 06:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And please do not wikilawyer on me, OK? I am very familiar with WP content policies, as well as familiar with how collaboration works in this project. Also, please do not tell me or other what to do, rather discuss things and gain consensus on how to move forward together with others. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 06:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does that differ from what you are telling me? I have invited you to discuss and build consensus on the various sections of OR. They are all listed here in discussion. Ste4k 06:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see #Self_Published_Resources_.231 regarding the references you were adding. Thanks. Ste4k 06:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, that is a very unusual way to go about it. Please do not wikilawyer... I know WP:RS, and primary sources are allowed explicitly in this case, if attributed. Look, I will not lose sleep about this article. But you may find yourself very lonely in this article if this is your attitude... I most definitively will not edit war with you about this. Have fun, my friend... but without me... ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 06:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before I leave you, please note that a short search on the databases I have available, shows me that there are plenty of third-party sources out there to be able to create a good article about this subject. But I guess, that the environment here is not conducive for editors like me to put any effort on this. Happy editing.  ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 06:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be plenty of resources, but the one you just added was a primary and discussed below in the section you started called "references". I provided one reference today (the court) and converted two previously considered "external links" into reliable resources by verifying them, researching their ISBN numbers, and quoting them. The environment here is conducive. Reverting good research and citation efforts on the other hand, is not conducive. For the past three weeks, I have been trying to work in such a non-conducive environment on this article. It is now much more compliant to policy, wouldn't you agree? Ste4k 06:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You know, I don't dislike the idea of removing sections and sources to the talk page for separate evaluation, but it should have been discussed first and not just sprung on everybody as a surprise. JChap (talk • contribs) 02:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They could have been copied one section at a time as we were all ready to discuss the section if that is what we agreed on first. Consensus is so important. See the "Straw Poll" below.--Who123 02:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone explain what is going on here? 

message: Editors are requested to provide references within 10 days (by July 28). If sources are not provided, material in the article may be deleted. Note that primary sources about the subject are allowed in the article (i.e. citing from the course book itself, or official websites). ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 06:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, regarding this inclusion the source clearly listed there as www.acim.org, which of course is the publisher. This is a primary resource, not neutral at all. The court case itself is available online. Please see WP:CITE#Intermediate_sources:_Say_where_you_got_it in regard to intermediary sources. Also note that acfip.org is a private website owned by Michael Dawson. Is this person of academic standing in this field that you know of? Ste4k 06:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a recurrent problem with this article.  There are almost no sources outside the small group of individuals already named, and they seem to spend half their time arguing with each other! Is there no credible external academic reference we can cite? Just zis Guy you know? 12:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While we're discussing this issues let's please forestall major changes to the article. -Will Beback 20:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Course_in_Miracles&diff=64721892&oldid=64715231 You mean forestall, and then change your mind, right? When you all figure out if policy is consensus or not, let me know. I've never seen such a ridiculous facade of hypocrisy in my life. Ste4k 23:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree. There are encyclopedias of religion, journal article, books on the subject that can be cited, official websites, etc. We just need to move slowly and add references where needed. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 20:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And all of that has been sorted out into discussion, and the article is now back full of OR in the meantime which violates policy, is full of disinformation and advertising, and absolutely useless to the general public. Don't waste any more of my time preaching policy, please. Ste4k 23:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I second Jossi's idea on a deadline for providing sources.  Any material not sourced by that date should be deleted.  This is, of course, conditional on the editors being allowed to work without being subject to mass deletions or distractions.  JChap (talk • contribs) 02:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But once this all settles down, we need to impose some deadline for getting unsourced material out of the article or it will just remain indefinitely.  We shouldn't be just assuming it's accurate.  If a piece of information is accurate, and we're not distracted by other things, we should be able to verify (by finding reliable sources) such information. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Once again, for reasons above I do not agree with setting an artificial deadline. I think the problem is in "once this all settles down". It appears to me that one editor is doing everything they can to keep things from settling down. They are just being disruptive and obstructive. How do we get this to settle down?--Who123 23:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References needed 

message: *Move as poller, who spent four and half hours preserving the material and moving it to discussion per the guidelines. Ste4k 01:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: *Remain per my comment below. I quote an earlier remark where I show why original research is logically necessary in this case. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 01:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remain

message: This "poll" is an embarassment. No one is going to vote that "original research" should be included in an article. This is a diversion from the real issue: Ste4k's massive removal of information. The silver lining: perhaps this will draw more attention to Ste4k's behavior.--Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 00:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Not relevant. I'll second Will Beback's reversion of 6:12, 19 July 2006. I believe Who123 also supports this reversion, if I may speak for him. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 01:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Now I'm confused, the original statement was that nobody would vote. I supplied my reasons for believing they would. How is that not relevant? You voted. Ste4k 02:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ah, my mistake. I thought you were highlighting differences between editors reversions as evidence for the question being non-neutral. It makes more sense to me as you say it now. In any case, it is good if we can agree on an acceptable historical instance of this article for a short time (which is the current one as I write this). It should give us a common ground to work from, which we can say, "this is what I mean by original research and unverifiability," rather than discuss this amidst a war of reversions. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 04:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually I was commenting on the way you phrased your "poll". 
People are voting that your wholesale removal of information should be reverted, they are not voting that original research should be included in articles. --Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 05:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The question reads, "be moved to discussion, or remain in an article". Your statement says, "...``original research`` should be included in an article. This is a diversion...". Ste4k 05:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, trying to decipher your point. No one here is voting that original resource should remain in articles. Your "poll" is phrased very misleadingly. --Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 05:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Correct, no one here is voting that original resource should remain in articles. That is not what the question asks. And the question is not a diversion as you originally stated. Ste4k 06:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what the question asks and you are a diversion. --Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 06:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *This was a very poor poll. It is designed to confuse. I agree that people have expressed in their votes about the wholesale removal of information.--Who123 13:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *One of the reasons the straw poll is defective is that we cannot reach consensus on original research, unreliable sources, questionable links, and unsourced statements without discussion first.--Who123 13:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Consensus, major edits, one editor, like this and this? Notice the discussion was a week later. Ste4k 01:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The actions of an editor two years ago are not justification for your actions today. -Will Beback 05:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Justifying the inclusion of "massive amounts" of original research by condoning the actions of an editor two years ago disagrees with your recent statements regarding reliable resources. Ste4k 06:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Encyclopædia Dramatica is a very different topic from A Course in Miracles, with a different context. The Course, as you insist we call it, has been purchased by hundreds of thousands of people, and has inspired movements, books, TV coverage, etc. On the other hand, ED is a spoof website with a narrow target and an inconsequential audience.  -Will Beback 18:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you feel that some articles are different than others when it comes to policy? I don't. They are all the same to me. You can call the Course whatever you'd like, I prefer to refer to it in the same neutral tone as Publisher's weekly, and the U.S. District Court. If the Course has been purchased by so many people, then why isn't there a reliable secondary source quoted as saying so in the article? You removed the reliable secondary sources that I provided. Since neither article has any reputible sources, they are the same to me, i.e. non-compliant, and especially for an article this size. Back to the question then, why do such large amounts of OR/POV remain in the article rather than being discussed in an organized and productive manner, compliant with policy, off of the article and in the discussion area where the first step in dispute resolution is to occur? Nothing was deleted, nothing destroyed, everything that was moved off of the page had a clear and concise reason for doing so, was preserved in the discussion area where each and every section, statement, chunk, external link, etc., could be discussed and consensus built upon. Edit wars avoided, no more "unsightly tags", these were the very things that you yourself and Who123 were striving for. True? Ste4k 20:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to see how edit wars have been prevented when you have revert warred over this unilateral action and have stuffed the talk page with so much text and so many questions. This poorly conceived straw poll is inciting more drama, not improving the article. What is missing here is an effort to act in a collegial, collaborative manner. -Will Beback 20:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with both comments by Nscheffey, Will Beback, and Antireconciler.  BTW, A number of references are books. Which ones do users have in their possession?--Who123 01:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: JzG has called this "special pleading." No. Engage what I have said on it's own grounds or fail to understand. Isn't that exactly what I've been saying this whole time? —Antireconciler ◊ talk 01:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Antireconciler, I think what you say is very true. I do not demean science and it has it role. Spirituality simply does not fall within the realm of science. I think we can use primary sources (the various versions of ACIM) as well as secondary sources. Unfortunately, the secondary sources are few and not without bias. This means some interpretation of the primary source (which is all a secondary source is). ACIM is decentralized and this makes it more difficult to pin down. One of the teachings of ACIM is to seek our inner teacher which is not dissimilar to 'the Kingdom of Heaven is within you.' This makes it even more difficult to pin down. I think our role as editors is to try to present to the reader the best introduction to ACIM that we can. Other areas such as factions or detailed information should be split off into linked articles.--Who123 02:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not really sure why this means an article on ACIM must contain original research. Discussing the belief system laid out by A Course in Miracles is not original research since the concepts have been previously published (in the book itself). I think much of what has been removed could be replaced and sourced to the orginal text of A Course in Miracles. --Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 04:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Nscheffey, I think you have a good point. I'm not sure how to answer, so let me explain it to myself, for everyone. My main point is that no one can "stand on the outside" of the ACIM system and understand it. This is because supposing yourself outside of ACIM contradicts the foundation of ACIM, which is that no one can be on the outside, that is, separate. It is like Parmenides of Elea says, who argues that Being(-with-a-capital-B) is One. Then, what use is the view from outside the system, which by the system does not exist? And to look in on the system from a view from nowhere, well, quickly do all manner of contradictions follow. Please don't mind my language. None of this is complex unless you make it that way. Complexity requires a multiplicity in multiplicity of arrangements. "Being is One" is the opposite of that. So, who writes of the system is a part of the system, else, contradiction. Even though I say, "you are a part," I don't mean you are a separate division of it. Unless "Being is One" is incoherent, I must mean you are identical to it, an expression, or extension of it. This is an important distinction, so please pay attention. Then, to understand the system is to understand that you are a part of it first. To be a part of a system and then write about it, collecting passages from the primary text as you find them meaningful, this I call original research. This is not to be unobjective in its subjectivity. A personal subjective perspective can simultaneously be objective and shared. This is a trivial consequence of "Being is One." Naturally a multiplicity of true perspectives that are not identical is what it means for reality to be divided. This is, by our hypothesis, an absurdity, and an absurdity without it, for nothing makes sense without it. This is the opposite of complex. That what is unverifiable is simultaneously verifiable, what is original research is simultaneously thouroughly unoriginal ... this is what ACIM means, because ACIM means Being is One. This is not complex, and because it is not complex, you will not have difficulty understanding it. If you are having difficulty, it is not for the system you have it, but for some notion you must already support. This is as obvious as daylight and cannot possibly be missed. Naturally, I don't mean any attack on science. Unless "Being is One" is nonsense, ACIM includes science, and not in part. I can not say, "science is applied to the realm of the world, ACIM to the spiritual." What can separate, divided realms with different laws mean? Surely nothing. Law is one ... which is the Law. It should be clear, then, why heralds of WP:Ver are taking no action at all. What are they doing? No really. What are they doing? (pause 5 seconds and reread) They are doing nothing. They are splitting the indivisible. Is doing the impossible meaningful? Only if dreams are first! And I tell you, dreams are not meaningful because they are not real. If they were real, they wouldn't be dreams. Is this making more sense? If so, I need say nothing further to convince anyone that verifiability heralding here is like a triangle with four sides. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 05:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Antireconciler, I understand what you are saying both from an intellectual and experiential standpoint. I would like to continue this discussion but is this the best place and time?--Who123 13:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Nscheffey.  There are sufficient sources for a good article.  If there aren't, WP shouldn't do an article on this. WP:OR and WP:V are unlikely to change soon.  Let's not have another long, fruitless discussion. JChap (talk • contribs) 05:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that we have the sources. I do not think the article is bad at the moment. There is always room for improvement, however. I do not think we need to be in a rush. I think we need to agree on a format. I suggest starting with the beginning of the current article and going through it a section at a time to the end.--Who123 13:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My confidence is limited to there being enough outside, reliable sources in existence, per the bibliography and source list in the Virginia article, to write a good verifiable article.  Are we there yet? Ehhhhh, not so much.  I'm going to try to run down some of the listed books in the Chicago Public Library over the weekend and there are copies of different versions of ACIM online, so there should be enough material for an article. JChap (talk • contribs) 00:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Is moving material from the article to the talk page within 48 hours a WP policy? I disagree with this notion. This particular subject is a difficult one. One key member has stated that he is just about to be married and does not have time at the moment. Time is limited for all of us, some more so than others. I think the improvement of this article should proceed at its own pace, a section at a time. Nothing is served by prematurely removing material.--Who123 13:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The talk page is too long.  I want to archive out any section to which there has not been a post in more than a week.  Any objections?  We should save the material Ste4k has moved here for now. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we are going to archive this should be done by consensus. I do not think any of the material that was moved here from the article should be kept.--Who123 00:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) I understand the need for consensus.  That's why I asked the question here and did not just go ahead and do it.  What is your objection to keeping the material from the article?  You and I have both commented on some of it in the last few days, so it seems inappropriate to archive those comments.  Also, we need to work through the material at some point because much of it is problemmatic. JChap (talk • contribs) 00:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern are two. This page is too crowded. It is hard for everyone to know what is going on because there are so many topics. I like the suggestion about moving everything to a temp page (see below). I have one request. I would like to add in (for now) the short bit I added on ACIM versions to help with that confusion. If this is not acceptable then please leave it on the page so that it does not get lost. I am glad that we finally seem to be moving. :) --Who123 01:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: be bold JChap, feel free in all good faith. Ste4k 00:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the stuff that Ste4k copied from the article is so voluminous I suggest we move it to a temp page while we review it. Talk:A Course in Miracles/temp That'd keep it together without overwhelming this page. -Will Beback 00:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea.  If everyone else agrees, I'll do it. JChap (talk • contribs) 00:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. --Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 00:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why bother, its all in the article. You'll be working with two sets of data. One will be changing live, the other will be sitting pretty much dead in the water like it is now, and what else is there to talk about on a discussion page besides the article, hmm? That's two articles, now Will, that you and your boy have successfully run me off of. later. Ste4k 03:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Archive it now, I say. Clear the lot and start again. Just zis Guy you know? 18:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears we have consensus (or could I just be dreaming?).  I will archive, moving the disputed text to a separate page. JChap (talk • contribs) 21:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And done.  Sections with posts less than a week old (including the straw poll and the "versions" section were kept. JChap (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's still too long.  None of the conversations above the "References needed" section seem to be active.  Should these be archived as well?  "Course Versions" could be moved to the temp page. JChap (talk • contribs) 22:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think everything above the Straw Poll should be archived unless I am missing something. I would like to keep the versions section if that is OK with everyone. A smaller tag at the top would be nice too. Thanks for all the work.--Who123 17:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: I do not believe under current conditions that any constructive work can be done on this article. I think it should be reverted to the last revert by Will Beback and then protected.
How do we protect a page?--Who123 16:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Page Protection