Talk:A Course in Miracles/Archive 3

message: This article does not cite its references or sources. You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations. The tag on the article will help attract other editors to this page to remedy the problem. Please leave the maintenance tag so that others may be helpful. Thanks. Ste4k 11:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the page looks like what Wikipedia calls "Original Research". This is because it is. The article was written by a (very kind) man who reads the Course and who was simply trying to provide information about it. He isn't in any way making money off of the Course. He simply likes to write articles about ACIM on Wikipedia. I am attempting to edit this page to make it more neutral, because, frankly, I like the thought of that. I'd like this page to be crisp and "cold" (what I mean is, I'd like this page to be completely without any flowery prose; flowery prose has its place, but usually not in such articles). -- Andrew Parodi 03:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe you ever quite understood that this is not about other people having anything against the man, or the book, or the publisher, etc. It really isn't. Its about an encyclopedia. Ste4k 01:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced 

message: I believe the initial image should be removed. This is simply an ad for one variation of one version of ACIM. I do not believe the article should begin with advertising for FIP and FACIM. ACIM is available for free as public domain on the internet. This second edition of the FIP version has material that is not public domain including an outline numbering system and additional sections. It adds to the length of the article without adding content. Discussion? -- Who123 18:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are at least two other book covers that would make the point clearer rather than lose one version we already have. Maybe setting the book covers side by side would do better to get the point across. Ste4k 04:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually an image of the written form of the book would need to be a stack of black three ring binders, if we made such a picture it would only be original research since the picture wasn't previously published. The image that this article has now is basically the same thing, since it has never been previously published. But also, this article should probably be renamed to "A Course in Miracles by Foundation of Inner Peace" since the name it has right now is causing a considerable amount of ambiguity and because the only version mentioned in this article and its references is the version by that publisher. Do you agree? Ste4k 17:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Does Wiki have legal permission to publish this image? If there is any uncertainty on this the image should be removed now until this is resolved. I believe that the image as is adds bias to the article. I do not agree that the article should be renamed as suggested. This would induce tremendous bias. Let me start a discussion on the versions. Who123 18:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article were renamed, then the main entry "Course in Miracles" could be given a dismabiguation page which is a normal practice on WP. Each version of the book could then have it's own article, and edit wars caused by ambiguity could be avoided in the future. It's seems like a very fair and neutral suggestion. Ste4k 18:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please do not rename the article. There is not enough variation in the versions to warrant separate articles at this time. Doing this would only increase the division that arose during the "Course war". This is my personal opinion but I believe that this article should mainly help someone not familiar with ACIM to answer the question, "What is "A Course in Miracles"?" As this page is refined it may be useful to have breakout articles relating to Course versions, the philosophy of ACIM, etc. Who123 19:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is the "Course War"? The fact that editors cannot agree on things only further substantiates that the name is highly ambiguous. I am still completely neutral on all of this, but the ambiguity seems to be the underlying problem. Some editors think X, and others think Y. Either an disambiguity page that seperates the topic should be done, or, the article should include all of the various factions and be sperated by sub-topic. In either instance the ambiguity that appears to be the base problem would be eliminated. As an encylopedia we should be striving to resolve ambiguity rather than become victims of it ourselves. Ste4k 19:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial Image 

message: Since this article causes so much contraversy, since it's in the public domain, why don't we just print it as an article and put a freeze on it? Seriously, couldn't we just do that? Ste4k 14:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The material is not entirely in the public domain and it is over 1,000 pages long. -Scott P. 12:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, for material that is in the public domain, we have our sister projects Wikisource and Wikibooks. -Will Beback 15:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the public domain version is not the one that sold 1.5 million copies. -Scott P. 14:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: How can that be so? Wasn't Penguin's 2.5 million dollar contract the same contract that had Penguin publish 1.5 million copies over a period of five years ending in December of 2000? Ste4k 20:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazing statistics you quote.  Any citations for them? -Scott P. 20:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you mean that you haven't read anything about books with this title? I thought you mentioned earlier that you considered yourself an expert on these matters. Ste4k 20:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is fact and should be included:
"The 1975 copyright of "A Course in Miracles" was voided by
Federal District court judge Robert W. Sweet for the US
Federal District Court in the Southern District of New York
on 10/24/2003 on the grounds of general distribution prior
to obtaining copyright thus placing it in the public domain,
as Amended on 6/16/2004. The previously registered Trademark
on the acronym, "ACIM" was canceled by the US Trademark
Office on 10/25/2005 and the previously registered
Service-mark on the book title, "A Course in Miracles"
was canceled by the US Trademark Office on 8/10/2005."
Who123 21:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Public Domain

message: This article is in urgent need of serious pruning.  Many sections of it read as a sermon.  Where are the secondary sources of commentary, form which we can distill the encyclopaedic content?  Wikipedia is not a place to proselytise, we are here to document what the external world understands of this concept and has written in reliable authoritative sources.  Above all we are not here to publish someone's dissertaiotn on the subject of this book, which is how I think this article started.  Just zis Guy you know? 12:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pruning 

message: Someone went through the trouble of merging Attitudinal Healing with A Course In Miracles ... but didn't really merge the contexts. The topics don't appear to relate to each other. Unless anyone wants to link the two topics more clearly, I'd like to simply get rid of the section. —Antireconciler 05:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no qualms with that.  Your comments on the Afd discussion would be most welcome too.  Thanks, -Scott P. 15:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this article being discussed for for deletion, too? Where is that discussion, Scott? Ste4k 12:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attitudinal Healing section 

message: This page is 47 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size. 
Attention Firefox and Google Toolbar users: You may find that long pages are cut off unexpectedly while editing in tabs; please be careful. This issue has been reported to Google, and we hope they will fix it. Ste4k 12:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood. I've tightened it to 44 KB by removing redundant or uninformative parts, and perhaps some redundant information on docrine should be trimmed off as well. We are certainly still working on ideas for more properly managing this information, and our solution may depend on what happens to A Course in Miracles (book). I've removed the  tag in light of this. Thank you for your helpful efforts, —Antireconciler 04:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in case you aren't able to complete the effort, I have reapplied the tag. You were able to knock it down by 3K which is good. The other article hasn't anything to do with this article. The other article is about all of the various books that stemmed from the original texts. This article is only about one specific book printed by one specific publisher, The Foundation for Inner Peace (a.k.a. FACIM and highly associated with the acronym "ACIM" which is their trademark). Ste4k 05:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In good faith I am sure that over the period of a month or so, which was previously agreed to by consensus among at least four editors, that this article's size will be reduced as promised and still have plenty of room to discuss all of the various versions in a balanced fashion. Ste4k 02:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  very long 

message: Dear Ste4k,
You have already plastered enough derogatory templates on this page, one at a time please. Discuss, agree, then another, but not this flurry please.
-Scott P. 16:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's right, though - the entire document reads like an essay.  Just zis Guy you know? 16:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All templates applied to this article are both being actively discussed on this page as well as serve the primary purpose of attracting the attention of other editors who perform cleanup to this page. There is nothing at all derogatory about a template which is being used to help improve the article. I think that you misunderstand the purpose of such templates and should be instead happy that many other editors will be notified that this article needs help. You should avoid becoming too attached to any specific article since there are WP:BACKLOG quite a few articles on Wikipedia that could use your attention. Ste4k 20:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If it is your goal to create bits of writing so laden in Wikipedia jargon and stiff in tone that they are hardly intelligible to anyone but yourself, I think you have succeeded, my friend. Godspeed! I still think you would do better to stop telling others how they should feel. Secondary Source 06:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference between "suggesting" and "telling". My suggestion for consensus about the article's content and maintenance is quite different than speaking to me directly about my conduct. Please review Help:Talk and WP:CIV in regard to such matters. Thanks. Ste4k 17:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plastering multiple templates on this page without discussion. 

message: I deleted the following material from the criticism section:
:"Other critics have noted William Thetford's connections to MKULTRAWilliam Newton Thetford Professional Vita. and posited that ACIM may have started as a mind control experiment but eventually took on a life of its own. Helen Schucman's reluctance to endorse the Course and her eventual descent into psychotic depression is cited as evidence that she was initially Thetford's unwitting dupe but finally came to understand the nature of the movement she had helped to initiate.A Course In Miracles (ACIM). The Miracle of Brainwashing."
Reasons:
#The first cite, William Newton Thetford Professional Vita, is to Thetford's cv, not to criticism and "other critics" seems a cover for OR.
#The second source,A Course In Miracles (ACIM). The Miracle of Brainwashing, doesn't offer any actual analysis for the claim made.  It also states that Schucman was influenced by "Jewish propaganda" growing up and that the heterodoxy of ACIM can be attributed to her being a Jew. It is just a rant, not a well-thought out criticism and it is not claimed to be the view of anybody beyond the author. JChap  (Talk) 01:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted material from criticism section 

message: In the comparison section on forgivness, etc., There is a cited statement: "For example: Jesus, teaching in the 'Lord's Prayer' about forgiveness, says, "God forgives our trespasses just as we forgive (the  trespasses of) those who trespass against us."  This seems to be slightly inconsistent with other Biblical passages describing how we are forgiven only through "Christ's blood, even the forgiveness of sins" and the note refers to a passage in a bible: "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace." This seems to be a either a very poor example, or confusing, or both. How can a statement made about a person after death based on that person's teaching be contrasted to that person's teaching using that person's own words? It seems to be rather contradictory to say that the person agrees with himself as an example of how two perspectives contradict themselves. Either way, it looks like OR using the A = True, B= True, therefor synthesis A + B = C must be true. I didn't delete it, but I think someone else should take a close look at it. Ste4k 17:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The passage discusses Christian teaching, which includes both the Lord's Prayer and Ephesians (in which the cited passage is found).  Most Christians would think that both are the inspired word of God, so comparing them is valid.  As an aside, the passage quoted above mischaracterizes the Lord's Prayer, which is an entreaty to God and does not guarantee forgiveness from him if someone forgives other people.  JChap  (Talk) 18:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I also agree that OR could be a problem here, but cites have been promised, so let's give other editors some time to go back through their source material.  JChap  (Talk) 18:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly agree about time. I think the wording here is nevertheless very confusing. Ste4k 01:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example?