Talk:A Course in Miracles/Archive 3

Archive 3: June 28, 2006 - Jul 13, 2006

---

To view earlier archives, see:

• Archive 1: May 17, 2004 - Nov 12, 2005
• Archive 2: Nov 12, 2005 - June 29, 2006

---

Ste4k's actions

Ste4k has recently submitted deletion nominations for all of the following A Course in Miracles-related articles: Attitudinal healing, Helen Schucman, William Thetford, Foundation for Inner Peace, Foundation for A Course In Miracles, Community Miracles Center, Gary Renard, Kenneth Wapnick. And in the article Authorship of A Course in Miracles, Ste4k will not accept ANY websites as reliable sources with regard to ACIM, including http://www.acim.org/ and http://www.facim.org/, both of which are the official websites of California-based non-profit organizations. This editor's deletion attempts are merely personal bias masquerading as adherence to Wikipedia policy. -- Andrew Parodi 08:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

(Please don't change my personal messages. I did that with your personal message because I didn't realize it WAS a personal message as it appeared to be a verbatim transcription of Wikipedia policy. I hadn't seen your signature at the bottom, because it was buried under a rather long deletion nomination. Had I seen your signature there, and had I realized that those were considered your personal statements, I wouldn't have edited it. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi 03:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC) )

He also attempted to delete the ACIM section on the forgiveness page. Please note that good intended edits are welcome. speet 12:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

These comments are both against good faith and harrassment. I'll say no more and be bringing this matter up to mediation. In the meantime I'd suggest that you find some credible sources for this book. Ste4k 05:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Can hardly qualify as harrassment when it was posted here and is factual. You have indeed attempted to have all of the above ACIM-related articles deleted. I think another editor pointed out something important about your activities: you don't understand that Wikipedia is not a "paper encyclopedia". I will certainly agree that it will be a long, long time before ACIM is written about in Encyclopedia Brittanica. But Wikipedia is not Encyclopedia Brittanica. Wikipedia has an article about Celebrity sex tape for pete's sake! As the other editor noted, "notability" on Wikipedia is a lot more lenient than in most print encyclopedias. -- Andrew Parodi 03:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And the last person to remove the section from forgiveness was me, since I agree absolutely that ACIM is of insufficient significance to justify its inclusion in that article. It discusses the major religions, minor sects have no place there. I have also edited the above comment to reduce it's unnecessarily combative tone. Please endeavour to remain WP:CIVIL even while disagreeing. Just zis Guy you know? 12:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

But forgiveness is the major aspect of ACIM. How many spiritual systems are primarily focused on forgiveness? Forgiveness is the centerpiece of ACIM. I don't think that can be said of any other spiritual system. Within the context of an article about forgiveness, I think that makes ACIM notable. -- Andrew Parodi 03:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Based on the information provided by the top comment and that both of these non-profit organizations bear the same trademark, they are at least a conglomeration or partnership and are also, as pointed out, the sole source of this book, which defines them, then, as self published resources. The information they provide can be used about the book, but do not provide any sort of notability for the book. Please read section 6.3 of the reliable sources guidelines which are used to establish verifiability. The specific information that these sources should supply is the data regarding the sales and distribution of the item, and also other third party neutral sources by which those figures can be verified. Ste4k 07:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Issues of notability with regard to this topic have already been settled and established. I'm not reinventing the wheel with you. -- Andrew Parodi 03:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the first cited source, this book was written by hand by a psychologist while channeling "The Voice". The specific question which this article does not address and which all articles on books certainly should address is the name of the author of this book. Are the contents of this book the exact same as the original writings that took seven years to produce? Is there an objective third party reference that can verify this? Ste4k 07:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This is actually a topic that I hope will be addressed in the Authorship of A Course in Miracles article. You seem to be unable to grasp that within the ACIM "community" the very authorship of this book is hotly debated. I mean, click on the above link and SEE. Or, actually, you should recall how heated it gets.

In short, no, what is presently published is NOT exactly what Helen Schucman took down. In point of fact, William Thetford and Kenneth Wapnick worked with Helen Schucman to edit ACIM and prepare it for publication. In the original manuscript, there was a great deal of personal information and advice for Helen and William. This was one of the major aspects of the court case; people accused Kenneth Wapnick of trying to control ACIM, and of actually rewriting it to his own liking and to interpreting it to his own liking. Further, there are differences between the first edition of ACIM and the second edition of ACIM (which was published after the deaths of both Helen Schucman and William Thetford and was primarily overseen by the Foundation for A Course In Miracles and Foundation for Inner Peace); the second edition contains a numbering system and a book not in the first edition, a book called "Clarification of Terms". -- Andrew Parodi 03:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I do appreciate all the attention you're giving me Andrew, but seriously, what does any of it have to do with this article? Ste4k 14:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced

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)

Also please note that the tag was added by an administrator on the basis that the entire article reads like original research. Analysis of the book and its alleged significance should be on the basis of reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is not the place for book reviews, they can go on Wikinfo or another sister project. Please stick to facts which are stated in neutral terms from the mainstream press, well-known religious papers and so on. Just zis Guy you know? 12:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Initial Image

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)

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)

Is an image of the written form of the book helpful to the article? If so, then I think one image from each publisher would be preferable (with a smaller image and caption) so that the article is unbiased. -- Who123 16:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It is quite common that editors (and people in general) do not agree. Perhaps we should focus on this topic of discussion - the initial image. I think keeping the image places Wiki at legal risk as it may violate FIP's copyright. It introduces bias at the beginning of the article. It does not add substantive content.Who123 20:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Public Domain

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)

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)

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)

Also, the public domain version is not the one that sold 1.5 million copies. -Scott P. 14:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Amazing statistics you quote. Any citations for them? -Scott P. 20:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Source: U.S. Patients, Trademarks, and Copyrights site:

http://www.uspto.gov/

Who123 22:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Good fact. I think that Scott was asking about these though:

• Link Although it was Schucman's directive that only a nonprofit foundation was to publish the Course, FIP assigned it to a for-profit company, Penguin, for $2.5 million dollars. Skutch Whitson and her family receive salaries, perks and benefits from FIP.
• Link In December 1995, FIP entered into a five-year licensing agreement with Penguin, pursuant to which Penguin was granted the license to publish and distribute A Course in Miracles in English in all territories except the United Kingdom. The version of the book published and distributed by Penguin was a single hardcover volume. The Penguin licensing agreement expired by its terms in or about December 2000.
• Link In or about December 1995, FIP entered into a five-year licensing agreement with Penguin, granting Penguin a license to publish and distribute the Course in English in all territories except the United Kingdom. The Penguin edition of the Course is a single hardcover volume. FIP and its licensees also publish and distribute eight foreign-language editions of the Course.

Seeing that these are quotes from the proceedings of the court case which rendered the copyright void, this version that sold over a million copies is indeed now in the public domain. Ste4k 04:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer but it appears to me that the Criswell and the first edition of the FIP version are public domain. It also appears that the HLC is public domain. I suspect the Urtext is public domain as well but Wapnick does have a copyright filed on it c. 1990. Personally, I do not believe that this copyright would stand under a court challenge. The second edition of the FIP version is under copyright as a result of a later copyright that covers the additional material as well as the specific outline numbering system. -- Who123 16:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The copyright once held by Ken Wapnick which was registered as number A693944 is void. A search of the U.S. Copyright Office reveals:

1. Registration Number:    RE-882-755  
Title:    A course in miracles; text, workbook and teachers manual, 4 v. By 
   Helen Schucman.
 
Claimant:    Deborah Forrest (NK) 
Effective Registration Date:    25Jun03 
Original Registration Date:    6Oct75; 
Original Registration Number:    A693944. 
Original Class:    A 

the date on this record shows 25 Jun2003 but the judgment that rendered it void was ordered 27 Apr2004. Ste4k 18:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Needs splitting

The article probably needs splitting into A Course in Miracles (book) and A Course in Miracles (movement); the book can be described neutrally without reference to the movement, the movement would be a suitable merge target for a lot of material which AfD seems to think should be merged rather than given its own (largely uncited) treatment. Just zis Guy you know? 16:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the movement of students that this book has generated is inseparably related to the book itself, and that as such, any article about the movement would need to have an in depth treatment of the evolution of the book within it. To try to discuss the movement without such an in depth treatment would result in an incomplete article. Thus I feel that such a separation of this article would not be practical. -Scott P. 12:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There are two threads to the article, though: the book and its history, including the copyrioght dispute; and the movement and its history, which seem to me to be separable. Just zis Guy you know? 12:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The book states that it is intended as a self study guide. Nowhere does the book state that it was written with any intention of starting a movement. Therefore it seems to me that even the use of the term movement becomes possibly confusing or possibly even controversial when attempting to describe the majority of the students of this book. The majority of those who study this text have no formal organization to which they belong, but prefer to gather only to read and directly discuss the text itself. To attempt to define the dynamics of such a group without directly discussing the text in detail would seem to me to be rather difficult and conterproductive. Separate articles for what I would refer to as splinter groups such as Endeavor Academy does seem to me to be in order. -Scott P. 14:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually that is pretty much my point. The book says it's a self-study guide, but people like the Endeavor Academy have turned it into a social network and more of a belief system or religious sect. The Bible and Christianity are separate too. A bit more significant, of course, and a bit more widely discussed in secondary sources, hence a larger treatment. Have a look at Christianity, by the way - look at the references, the way it's written, the tone of the article. Just zis Guy you know? 21:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You are certainly correct that there is a major difference between the Bible and Christianity. But in so far as I know, the majority of the students of ACIM could be described in a single sentence as those who consider ACIM as their primary written source of spiritual wisdom and inspiration, but who, in accordance with the recommendations of this book, have no official membership organization. Does this sentence deserve its own article?

I agree that notable splinter groups like Endeavor Academy would seem to deserve separate mention here, but I don't see why the majority of the rather un-notable intentionally unorganized students of ACIM would deserve their own separate article.

-Scott P. 14:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As there is no central authority on ACIM, who judges which groups are "un-notable" and which are notable? -- Who123 22:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I quite understand what you're saying there. Are you saying that there are several groups interested in several different versions of books that all have the same title "A Course in Miracles"? Ste4k 20:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There are three primary versions of ACIM with multiple variations all called "A Course in Miracles". Some are in written form and some are "electronic". Some individuals or groups may use one or more particular forms. --Who123 22:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"The book states that it is intended as a self study guide." Although this is often said, where exactly does the original material state that it is a "self study guide?" This description of ACIM should be removed. Who123 22:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

According to two of the versions at my disposal, the first statements are:

1. "T-in.1. This is a course in miracles. 2 It is a required course. 3 Only the time you take it is voluntary. 4 Free will does not mean that you can establish the curriculum. 5 It means only that you can elect what you want to take at a given time.
2. It is crucial to say first that this is a required course. Only the time you take it is voluntary. Free will does not mean that you establish the curriculum. It means only that you can elect what to take when.

I don't actually believe that quoting the source in this regard is applicable towards it's notability, but be that as it may, it is referencing itself, but as you point out, it does not actually say this according to these two versions. Perhaps it would be better to take what is common in both versions and requote the source. Just an idea. Ste4k 17:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between the Bible and Christianity. At this point in time, I agree that it would not be helpful to separare the book and the movement for ACIM. -- Who123 22:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Pruning

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)

The article has now been "seriously pruned" and all questionable material moved here to discussion. Ste4k 05:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Pruned" material

I believe we have lost much valuable information as a result of JzG's "pruning" efforts. We should start an "A Course In Miracles (doctrine)" page for the fruit JzG dislikes. If it were not for JzG's positive intentions, I would call the result vandalism, so let's do better. I agree that there is much redundant information on this page, but the article is shifting too heavily toward contrasting ACIM with Christianity. A proper article on ACIM should describe its doctrine first, as it was meant to stand on it's own merit, and only afterward highlight obvious differences betwen ACIM teachings and non-ACIM interpretations of the standard interpretation of Christianity. JzG is assuming that a proper interpretation of ACIM is as Christian supplemental material, rather than the Christian Bible being supplemental ACIM material. He is not "playing the game", so to speak, and so long as he doesn't, this article can't be neutral, for playing ACIM's game is what it means to be charitable, and charity is what it means to be neutral. — Antireconciler 21:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Only if it can be sourced from reliable secondary sources. The major problem with it was that the whole thing was completely unreferenced and read like a dissertation or homily. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it's an encyclopaedia distilled from the body of knowledge as presented in reliable, independent secondary sources. Read WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV. The problem is not with the truth, if truth it be, but with the fact that it is funcitonally indistinguishable from opinion. So, do start woith citations to reputable seocndary sources outside the movement. Commentary in standard texts on comparitive religion, references from psychological texts and so on. Just zis Guy you know? 21:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Understandable. Surely Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor should it provide incredible information, so I can understand your reasons for wanting to remove it. No one should be lead into misinformation at the hands of article writers who write to validate their own opinions instead of from a true objective desire to spread genuine knowledge. Such actions bring down the credibility of the entire encyclopedia, and thus its effectiveness.

So, it's understandable to want to quote only reliable secondary sources outside the movement, for these will be objective, able to see outside ACIM's world and look in safely, untouched. And in ACIM's world, only the perfectly inclusive is true, and as such, to stand outside the movement and look in as an outsider ... well, this will be necessarily to miss the point, for this perspective is an impossibility for ACIM, and so ACIM will naturally be misperceived by a view from nowhere that tries to say anything meaningful about it. For one cannot understand by standing on the outside looking in objectively. Only those inside will understand, for inside is all there is to those inside, and the man on the outside is inside not knowing it. If ACIM IS true, then the man on the outside who is inside not knowing it is speaking as if he knew what it was like to be inside but cannot for the fundemental reason that the error he makes cannot be contained as if it were an isolated instance by the principle of explosion, which is a natural consequence of the law of noncontradiction. Where Wikipedia has demanded an outside, separate, objective view, must the system fail where separation means nothing, for no concept is more critical for ACIM to make any sense at all, again, by the aforementioned principles.

Where separation means nothing, then, allow us to plea an exception to Wikipedia's rules, which must fail in such instances. Perhaps if we post a disclaimer in the "main tenets" section that the information is in principle unverifiable and unintelligible by objective outside means, we will be able to post valuable information of such a nature on Wikipedia. Otherwise, we have done ourselves a disservice. Despite the demise of logical positivism, many will still believe that scientific, objective verifiability is what it means for a statement to be meaningful. These people do themselves a disservice.

— Antireconciler 03:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, special pleading for exceptions to policies explicitly stated as "non-negotiable" by our founder is not going to work. Just zis Guy you know? 18:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you correctly Antireconciler. I haven't ever read any of the books with this title, but I can read. I have found several secondary sources about various things to do with this specific version of this title. One does not need, in fact, it is in my opinion detrimental to the process to know anything at all about the subject matter as an editor. If a verifiable source is found, then it's quite an easy task to add content to an article. Just repeat what that source says. *poof* voila! Everything just falls into place. Nobody expects that to be rocket science, of course, BUT the good part is, there are many, many editors on WP that will come along and clear out the POV, the misspailings, the awkward grammar, do cite checks, rearrange for aesthetic quality, etc., etc. Anything else that doesn't come from a verifiable secondary source, is just opinion and belongs in the opinion bin under the heading original research. Ste4k 00:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a word for what you're talking about, Antireconciler. Your comment reminds me of Woody Allen's joke that he cheated on a metaphysics exam by looking into the soul of the person next to him. If we're going to chuck "scientific, objective verifiability" and replace it with "it seems true to me" why do you even need an encyclopedia in the first place? JChap (Talk) 13:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Science does have its role. It is does not encompass all of academic study which is usually considered to fall both within art and science. This is particularly true of philosophy, psychology, and religion. It even applies to Medicine which is considered to be both an art and a science. -- Who123 04:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Attitudinal Healing section

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)

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)

Is this article being discussed for for deletion, too? Where is that discussion, Scott? Ste4k 12:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

very long

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)

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 {{verylong}} tag in light of this. Thank you for your helpful efforts, —Antireconciler 04:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

The article is now down to 33 kilobytes. I believe this is focused on one specific book with multiple variations published by numerous sources. FIP and FACIM are two different but closely tied organizations. The trademark on "ACIM" has been revoked by the US Patents Office (see elsewhere). It may be useful to retain the tag for now to help prevent unnecessary additions. -- Who123 21:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Plastering multiple templates on this page without discussion.

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)

He's right, though - the entire document reads like an essay. Just zis Guy you know? 16:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Ste4k, please be advised that as a Wikipedia editor it is not your appropriate place to inform fellow editors of the appropriate state of their emotional ("happy" or "sad") reaction with regard to the placement of templates in given Wikipedia articles, e.g, "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." This is not a therapy session but an encyclopedia article. The time saved from informing others of the appropriate emotional reaction may allow you to take your own advise and devote your considerable energies to the large backlog of various articles that could use your attention. Thank you. Secondary Source 03:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

My Contributions are readily available if you believe that I spend an undue amount of time in that regard. Per advising my use of the word "happy" you should be aware that it is the resolution of a complaint and a suggestion for consensus. The complaint made above was addressed specifically at me rather than speaking about the article in general. Please refer to the guidelines for such matters, specifically WP:CIV regarding personal attacks, and suggestions on ways to prevent them. Please also review WP:AGF, my comments are intended to help this article rather than hurt it. Thanks. Ste4k 15:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

So, is that basically all you do on Wikipedia, memorize the rules and then try to remind others that they are not following them? If you have any personal friends, they most likely think you're very anal. Secondary Source 09:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Ste4k has forgotten WP:Don't Be an Asshole. Secondary Source 12:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted material from criticism section

I deleted the following material from the criticism section:

"Other critics have noted William Thetford's connections to MKULTRA 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."

Reasons:

1. The first cite, William Newton Thetford Professional Vita, is to Thetford's cv, not to criticism and "other critics" seems a cover for OR.
2. 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)

Example?

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)

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)

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)

I certainly agree about time. I think the wording here is nevertheless very confusing. Ste4k 01:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)