Talk:A Course in Miracles/Archive 5

message: The fact that "A Course in Miracles" is sometimes referred to as "ACIM" or simply "The Course" is not original research. It is common knowledge for anyone who is at all familiar with ACIM. We are using these abbreviations in our discussions here. I have already posted this in these discussions and it was deleted. Please do not delete or change discussion material posted by others.--Who123 04:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All you are saying is that based on the opinion of several editors here on WP that the statement is true. That in itslef is pure original research by defintion. I will mark the section disputed. Consider the section disputed. Adding a tag would be confusing. Also keep in mind that the statement itself about "ACIM" is confusing since an equal statement could be made "Foundation for Inner Peace" is sometimes referred to as "ACIM" by the same reasoning as you suggest for the statement; i.e. original research. Ste4k 03:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a quote from another WP article: "The Internet (also known simply as the Net)..." Internet. Do you consider this OR as well? I and two other editors do not consider this OR. Once again, it is common knowledge for anyone who is at all familiar with ACIM. The "Foundation for Inner Peace" is not referred to as "ACIM", it is referred to as "FIP". I am finding your remarks and edits pedantic (unduly emphasizing minutiae) and obstructive. You have stated that you have little or no knowledge of ACIM. Perhaps your editing time would be better served in an area where you do have some knowledge?--Who123 04:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd like to go work on the other article, that's fine. It is up to you and/or the other editors to demonstrate that it is not OR, not up to me to remove OR from the article. As mentioned earlier, this is disputed. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOR,WP:DR,WP:VER, and WP:RS. Ste4k 06:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is not the WP policies. The problem is that you are applying them in an obsessive manner that obstructs rather than advances the article. Your use of these policies is to carry them to the extreme. Once again, look at these articles as two examples: Bible Internet.--Who123 14:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There is nothing obsessive about the correct use of article maintenance templates. The specific use of this discussion area is designated to discuss the article "a course in miracles" rather than opinions about other articles. Ste4k 22:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is not about article maintenance templates. It is about the Introduction of the article.--Who123 15:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The introduction is now no longer quoted from a reliable secondary source. Ste4k 01:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The introduction is advertising for the publisher instead. Ste4k 01:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it read as an advertisement, but there's no need to mention one publisher in the intro. I removed it, but I think we should cover the various publishers and editions in a later section. -Will Beback 04:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ste4k keeps bringing up the notability of this and other ACIM articles. I think it helps to address the notability issue. Ste4k did not object and thought it was fine as long as it was part of her stub article. I hope you do not mind but I am going to revert. If we cannot even come to agreement on this simple introduction I do not see how the more complex issues can be resolved.--Who123 04:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not revert. I see that you kept the notability but just removed the particular publisher. Looks good.--Who123 04:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction to Article 

message: I see that there was a very slight change in the title. It is slight but I think it needs to be reverted. This is not an introduction to the book. It is part of the book itself. It is therefore the introduction of the book.--Who123 17:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction of ACIM 

message: Please see edit wars above. There are two ideas on how to begin this project. One is that we begin with the current very short article (stub). The other is that we begin with the original article in the last reversion by Will Beback.
Please sign all comments with ~~~~
:Which version of this article should we start with after it is unlocked?
===Current Stub Article===
(votes and comments please)
===Original Article===
(votes and comments please)
:*Original Article per my prior comments: essentially Wikipedia:Policy trifecta, meta:Inclusionism.  —Antireconciler ◊ talk 02:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Original Article. I have given this a great deal of thought considering both options (as well as starting with a blank page). This is my vote for several reasons. The first is the reader. I believe we should provide the reader with the best information we have at present. The second reason is that someone has put a great deal of time and energy into writing the article in the first place. I do not think we need to waste time and energy by reinventing the wheel. I would prefer to start with what we have and improve it.--Who123 02:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: How do you find the wording loaded? It seems simple and clear. It sounds like this is a vote for "other". Do you wish to remove the current stub and start from scratch? I think this is the first thing we need to decide, not the last.
===Results===
Although it is difficult to come up with solid results based on only 3 votes, it appears the vote is to restore the original article. When this is combined with the recent comment of someone passing by I am going to do so.
This is certainly open for additional voting and discussion.--Who123 16:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is difficult to come up with results based on a loaded poll with only two people voting, a "random" passerby and most of the editors who work on this page distracted by an RfC.  You shouldn't have acted unilaterally to revert only 30 minutes after unprotection.  The passerby's comments may apply to the version he was commenting on, but it is also an accurate descrption of the current version, which is unsourced and full of POV.  Do you have a plan that has a realistic chance of fixing that?  If not we should just do the page over, starting with research and then writing, with close citation. JChap (talk • contribs) 17:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll on Where to Start 

message: (votes and comments please)
:*Original Article per my prior comments: essentially Wikipedia:Policy trifecta, meta:Inclusionism.  —Antireconciler ◊ talk 02:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Original Article. I have given this a great deal of thought considering both options (as well as starting with a blank page). This is my vote for several reasons. The first is the reader. I believe we should provide the reader with the best information we have at present. The second reason is that someone has put a great deal of time and energy into writing the article in the first place. I do not think we need to waste time and energy by reinventing the wheel. I would prefer to start with what we have and improve it.--Who123 02:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Article

message: Although it is difficult to come up with solid results based on only 3 votes, it appears the vote is to restore the original article. When this is combined with the recent comment of someone passing by I am going to do so.
This is certainly open for additional voting and discussion.--Who123 16:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is difficult to come up with results based on a loaded poll with only two people voting, a "random" passerby and most of the editors who work on this page distracted by an RfC.  You shouldn't have acted unilaterally to revert only 30 minutes after unprotection.  The passerby's comments may apply to the version he was commenting on, but it is also an accurate descrption of the current version, which is unsourced and full of POV.  Do you have a plan that has a realistic chance of fixing that?  If not we should just do the page over, starting with research and then writing, with close citation. JChap (talk • contribs) 17:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Results

message: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ste4k includes mention of activity on this article. Interested users are invited to comment. -Will Beback 21:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related RfC 

message: I came to this page looking for more information about this book and I'm really embasassed for Wikipedia after reading it.  Considering how much discussion has taken place on the talk page, the article is tiny and extremely poorly written.  The first sentence should at least give an idea of WHO/WHAT/WHEN/WHERE.  The external links should at very least include www.acim.org.  I vote this as the worst article in all of Wikipedia.  Excuse me while I go vomit.  Cacophony 01:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page has undergone some major changes lately. 
An older version might have more information for you. --Nscheffey(T/C)</Sup> 03:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Because of the poll and this comment I have restored the article as per the last restore per Will Beback.--Who123 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worst article in all of Wikipedia 

message: I think we can pull these from the stub article by Ste4k.
I do not know how to do the references. Can someone do this?--Who123 02:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History + Litigation 

message: Removed the word "Unique".--Who123 03:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should go with those unless and until we have better sources from outside the movement.  The changes you have made are striking and go a long way towards what I was hoping for: well done!  Just zis Guy you know? 20:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks much! I did not know if I was going in the right direction or not.--Who123 22:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is much improved. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doctrinal Highlights of ACIM 

message: Moved up and removed OR. This is now a direct quote from ACIM.--Who123 03:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction to "A Course in Miracles" 

message: Now the sourcing gets difficult. Other than a little fine tuning I think this is correct. Are the books in the references acceptable sources?--Who123 03:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should go with those unless and until we have better sources from outside the movement.  The changes you have made are striking and go a long way towards what I was hoping for: well done!  Just zis Guy you know? 20:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks much! I did not know if I was going in the right direction or not.--Who123 22:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is much improved. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aspects of ACIM's Spiritual Belief System 

message: I have several concerns before proceeding:
1. If we assume good faith on the part of the original author, all of the material in the article is in the cited sources. I have learned that it is much easier to destroy rather than create. All it seems to take is one editor to come along to destroy the article without even obtaining the cited sources. Are the books already cited acceptable to WP? If they are, why should I spend the time and money to buy the books to verify/improve the article only to have it destroyed again by a single editor in the future?
2. If I decided to buy the references and improve the article, I will need help. I do not understand the WP citing system at this point.
3. To my knowledge, there are two major authors that write on the material in ACIM itself. These are Wapnick (FACIM) and Perry (Circle of Atonement). I have not checked but I suspect that they have written books on an introduction to ACIM. Would these be acceptable to WP?
Thanks--Who123 22:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You raise some valid concerns.  My best advice is to read WP:RS and make your own judgements on how you think it applies to a source.  However, I can give you my thoughts.  On point one, WP:AGF is usually applied to conversations between editors on talk pages.  I have never heard it suggested that it should replace WP:CITE.  Somewhat inconveniently, WP:RS does specifically cover what is and is not considered a reliable source in articles about religious subjects.  Generally, I would think that books or other sources  published by the religious organization itself are reliable sources as to what beliefs the organization promotes or teaches.  Also, WP:RS#Self-published_sources would seem to apply, so anything self-published could be relied on for information about history and impact, but the material would have to be treated cautiously and preferrably verified by independent sources.  Some of the sources seem independent and a few seem critical.  Independent sources are the best, but someone with a personal bias is less reliable than someone who simply looked at the available material and made an independent judgement.  If a biased source is used, its assertions may have to be qualified.  However, for all I know, the critical sources are simply people who looked at ACIM (or religion in general) and didn't like what they saw.  To respond to your further concerns under point one, I have found that it is generally difficult to remove material that is well-cited.  The reason that material in previous versions of the article (and related merged articles) was vulnerable was that it was not cited.  As to point two, I would advise putting your sources in parentheses in the text.  This is acceptable under WP:CITE or any editor can make a references section if he or she desires using these cites.  On point three, I think these would be great resources for the section on ACIM beliefs.  I hope that this has been helpful.  JChap (talk • contribs) 23:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very helpful. Thank you. It seems just when we are beginning to make progress, Ste4k obstructs it. Ste4k stated the introduction was good when it was part of his/her stub article. Now that his/her stub article has been brought into the main article he/she states it is not acceptable. I do not see how any progress can be made on this or any ACIM article as long as he/she is allowed to edit.--Who123 04:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your assessment of this situation, based only on a few weeks of editing in the project may be not grounded. I also find as your tone of voice and choice of words to be somewhat innapropriate. A friendly advice, please remain WP:CIVIL in your comments. Ste4k 11:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My assessment and "tone" are based on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ste4k and on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Harassment_and_Wiki-stalking. I find your editing behavior inapropriate. I suggest WP:CIVIL has some lessons for you.--Who123 12:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: An aside - some of the sections appear to be duplicated. -Will Beback 04:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I am aware of this. My thought is to proceed from the begining to the end of the article. As this is done the duplicate sections can be reviewed and addressed.--Who123 04:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like all articles, this is "live". It is confusing for readers (not to mention editors) to have duplicate sections in different places. The duplication should be removed as soon as possible. -Will Beback 15:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will see what I can do to help. As I said, I do not understand the WP reference system. Perhaps someone who does could fix it?--Who123 16:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think one of the biggest problem areas is the duplicate nature of the ACIM highlights section and the Comparisons...:Christianity:Theological differences section. One is almost necessarily a variant of the other. How should we procede? —Antireconciler ◊ talk 16:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have ordered several books about ACIM so that I can help with the citing. I am waiting for these. I have not compared the two sections. It seems that the Highlights section should focus on ACIM and the Comparison with Christianity focus on that. It seems there may be some overlap but I do not see this as a problem. Although ACIM has elements of philosophy, psychology, and theology; I believe it is primarily about transformation. I am in a holding pattern until the books arrive.--Who123 18:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several Concerns Before Proceeding 

message: The article has duplicate reference sections based on the merge. Can someone that knows the WP citing system merge the first reference section with the notes section using the WP system?--Who123 18:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate References 

message: I have moved this up to just after the Introduction of the Course. It is completely re-written and cited.
Thoughts, comments, suggestions?—Who123 18:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: I just looked over this section. I do not see that it is very important to ACIM except for the basic philosophy. Perhaps it should be moved up with a few words on the basic philosophy? Thoughts?—Who123 04:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophical idealism and the New Thought Movement 

message: The structure of the article was very disorganized. I have re-ordered it along the broad outline of:
I. Introductory material
II. Theology
III. Psychology
IV. End material
I hope this organization makes more sense. I will continue to work on the material from beginning to end. As always, helpful input is desired.—Who123 18:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of article 

message: I do not understand why the article was removed from the religion category.—Who123 03:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already in religious categories. —Ashley Y 06:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories. It's already in the appropriate subcategories. —Ashley Y 17:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion Catagory 

message: I think the first place to start is to examine the source: The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power by Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad. One reviewer at Amazon notes:
:"there are some real problems here. Kramer & Alstad don't document a single thing they say, other than to refer to their other equally undocumented essays. Thus, ironically, this screed against authoritarianism must be accepted as the raw authoritarian assertion of the authors' views. It functions just like the type of revelation they condemn."
:"I'm not convinced they understand the inner spiritual and moral dynamics of either Buddhism or Christianity as well as they try to make themselves appear to ... I felt that at many points Kramer and Alstad were dealing in the fantasies of their own stereotypes and straw persons about these beliefs. They don't seem as widely read as they claim..."
Patrick Miller in The Complete Story of the Course also states that the Kramer & Alstad book is not sourced. When Miller attempted to contact Kramer & Alstad about their writing he received a letter from Alstad that included:
:"we are not interested in involving ourselves in a dialogue about the value of A Course in Miracles."
I conclude that The Guru Papers is not a reliable source.
If we turn to the Course itself the Preface states:
:"It [the Course] is not intended to become the basis for another cult. Its only purpose is to provide a way in which some people will be able to find their own Internal Teacher."
:"At the end, the reader is left in the hands of his or her own Internal Teacher."
I conclude that calling ACIM a cult is unfounded. I will, therefore, remove the material. It is, as always, open for discussion.—Who123 16:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cult allegations 

message: The remaining source is Miller's The Complete Story of the Course. In this book Miller devotes two chapters to Negative reviews. The first chapter is focused on comments from traditional Christianity. To sum up this chapter there are differences in the theology of traditional Christianity vs. ACIM. Miller quotes this passage from ACIM, however:
:"All terms are potentially controversial, and those who seek controversy will find it. Yet those who seek clarification will find it as well. They must, however, be willing to overlook controversy, recognizing that it is a defense against truth in the form of a delaying maneuver. Theological considerations as such are necessarily controversial, since they depend on belief and can therefore be accepted or rejected. A universal theology is impossible, but a universal experience is not only possible but necessary. It is this experience toward which the course is directed. Here alone consistency becomes possible because here alone uncertainty ends."
Miller's second chapter discusses criticism from "anti-authoritarian thinkers." He states that "these critics have apparently conducted far less through analysis and are unwilling to discuss their published conclusions." After studying the chapter in detail I could not find any valid negative reviews. Miller concludes by writing, however:
:"we still lack any exhaustive, reasonably impartial assessments of the quality of this new guide to transformation."
I suspect this is perhaps true of any spiritual path. I will therefore remove the other unsourced material from the article.—Who123 17:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other material 

message: There seems to be some controversy regarding Christian apologetics or "defenders of the faith". Miller in his book devotes an entire chapter to this subject. The chapter discusses how some of the theology of ACIM differs from that of traditional Christianity. In that chapter the word "apologetics" is defined by the author:
:"The word apologetics is a theologic term meaning "defense of the faith"."
We seem to have a bit of a problem here as I do not think that definition is used at WP Christian apologetics.
My dictionary defines the term "apologetic" as:
: 1) offered in defense or vindication  *the apologetic writings of the early Christians*
: 2) offered by way of excuse or apology  *an apologetic smile*
: 3) regretfully acknowledging fault or failure  : CONTRITE  *replied in an apologetic tone*
The first definition seems to fit.
In this article it says:
:"Making the case for the Christian faith—apologetics—has always been part of the Church's mission. Yet Christians sometimes have had different approaches to defending the faith..." 
It appears to me that Miller is using the term to describe those who defend or protect the theology of traditional Christianity. Since we are using this author's book as the source I think we should defer to his definition. Perhaps the wikilink should not be used as it sends the reader into an article that is distracting to the point being made.
Thoughts?—Who123 13:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Doctrinal Christian apologetics section it states "In this type of apologetics, various Christian doctrines are defended...".
Is there a way we can change the wikilink to point to this section? I will play with it.—Who123 13:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand your concern in that as far as the Course by itself, it is not a criticism. In reading the Course, it is Christian. ACIM is written in the first person with multiple references to the historical Jesus. Some of the theology is different from traditional Christianity. It is criticized by traditional Christians for both the theological differences and the authorship. I think that this is legitimate. Thoughts?—Who123 14:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Critical Reviews - Negative - "defenders of the faith" 

message: I have been doing some editing of this article.  I was going to wait until I got the Complete Course, but this has gone on too long, so I have some other sources and am going to start with these and add info or sources where appropriate. I am starting with the Hanegraff book.  I welcome any comments as always.  JChap2007 03:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of edits 

message: Wasn't this article nominated for deletion and kept?  I cannot find the archived AfD discussion.  If it was, we should put the AfD keep notice at the top of the talk page. JChap2007 04:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A Course in Miracles (book) was AfD'ed. One editor used an edit summary indicating they were nominating the article for speedy deletion , but in fact only deleted a section. -Will Beback 05:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD notice 

message: Why does a large portion of this article consist of quotes of other people's assessment of the book/course/whatever? For example, "Basic tenets" has 2 screens worth of quotes cut/pasted from other author's books. Instead, it should just say "the basic tenets of ACIM are X, Y and Z" and then provide a reference to these sources if necessary. This continues throughout the article. If you look at other book articles (ie, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health or A People's History of the United States) they don't include huge chunks of content from other people's summary of the text. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article about the book, not a book report of other people's writing on the book. Not a dog 15:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. I've just started trying to improve the poor state of this article.  Feel free to pitch in. JChap2007 16:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. My main point is that it isn't necessary to quote large portions of the sources. It is sufficient to say "X says Y about ACIM" and then provide the citation. We don't need to provide the actual quote. This article is not supposed to be a collection of quotes of primary sources. Not a dog 00:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong), the primary source here is ACIM itself. The other works are secondary sources. WP allows both primary and secondary sources although secondary sources are generally preferred. I have ordered and received several of the books and am studying them in order to try to replace most of the primary quotes and uncited material. I think the article is much better than what it was but still needs work.—Who123 02:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might have gotten my terminology wrong. All I'm saying is that an encyclopedia article about a book shouldn't be mostly lengthy quotes from other books describing the original book. Not a dog 12:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, very little of the article as it now stands is written in an encyclopedic fashion (as numerous editors have pointed out).  I've done some research into the topic and the article also seems largely inaccurate as it spends a good deal of its time trying to convince the reader that ACIM is a form of Christianity.  In fact, ACIM teaches that Christ is not the only son of God and that his crucifixion did not redeem humankind's sin.  In fact, it seems more based on eastern religion, but put into a Western historical context.  We really don't need to either convince the reader that it is Christian or try to convince him that it is a heresy or make any judgment on it whatsoever.  All we need to do is relate the basic facts about the topic.  This article does not do that. JChap2007 15:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This reads like some kind of personal testimony or persuasive essay on what ACIM is. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia article about the book. Not a dog 15:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full of quotes? 

message: I reverted this link removal . She is discussed in the article, and seems like an appropriate link for additional info. Not sure why editors keep wanting to remove this particular link. Not a dog 18:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Marianne Williamson]] 

message: It appears that it is time to archive again. I am prepared to do this leaving anything that appears to be under active discussion or that are marked for not archiving. Thoughts?—Who123 18:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just do it. Not a dog 20:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to archive?