Talk:A Course in Miracles

To view earlier archived discussions of the A Course In Miracles article, please see:

• Archive 1: May 17, 2004 - November 12, 2005
• Archive 2: Nov. 12, 2005 - June 29, 2006
• Archive 3: June 29, 2006 - July 1, 2006

See also Talk:A Course in Miracles (book).

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)

Flowery prose has no place on Wikipedia at all, actually. Neither does anything which cannot be verified from reliable secondary sources. Just zis Guy you know? 16:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The summarization found in this article is sourced directly from the book. Admittedly there is much "summarization" of the ACIM text on this page that has been agreed upon by several students of this work. The work is rather lengthy and I see no reason that a summary of the work is inappropriate here. If anyone might feel they might have a more accurate summary than found here, by all means, please edit away.

-Scott P. 12:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you read this? Ste4k 13:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have read a great deal of the work. -Scott P. 14:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, no, not the work, this: WP:NOR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position. If you click on it you can read what it says. Thanks. Ste4k 20:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This claim of no sources appears to be written by some who have not read the material. Otherwise they would not be making a blanket request for sources but would be pointing to specific sentences which they believe to be incompatible with the source text. Unless someone is able to point out a single sentence in this article which they are certain is not supported by the text, I submit that this claim of being unsourced is rather a stab in the dark by those who are unfamiliar with the material. The article on the Christian Bible does not have a footnote on every sentence because those who read it are already familiar with the Bible enough to know that the content is supported by its source text. I would ask that if this uncourced template is to remain, that those who are placing this blanket statement support their claim with at least a single instance of material which conflicts with the source text. -Scott P. 12:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How about starting with the first sentence. It reads "A Course in Miracles (sometimes referred to as ACIM or simply the Course) is a self-study book of "spiritual psychotherapy" or spiritual transformation. The author of the book Dr. Helen Schucman, asserts that she "scribed" the book with the assistance of Dr. William Thetford under divine inspiration. It was first published prior to 1976 and has sold over 1.5 million copies worldwide in 15 different languages." It cites The Translation Program as it's source. www.acim.org is owned by the organization publishing this version of the book. That makes this source a primary source. According to WP:RS, "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability". About the source itself, on that page (currently) there is no mention of Schucman or Thetford. There isn't any mention in the text about "sometimes referred to as ACIM", and the only "ACIM" written on that page is the trademark for the particular version of the book written by that publisher. There is no mention about X-million number of copies, etc., etc. Ste4k 12:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless the publisher's reputation has been tarnished, it is generally accepted practice in the publishing world to accept a publisher's statement at face value a factual statement of the number of copies it has published. If you might be able to somehow significantly tarnish the reputation of FIP, then perhaps its accounting of the number of copies published might be considered worthy of question. Otherwise we will have to begin deleting references to the number of books published by every book whose publisher you happen not to believe. Nobody but a publisher normally keeps such records. How else do you suppose they are normally tracked? Unfortunately someone seems to have recently deleted the article on FIP so it now becomes rather difficult to track them. Go figure. (BTW, FIP is the publsher, not acim.org.)

-Scott P. 13:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's fine, but the point here is that there is no publisher's statement made about anything in that sentence. The idea behind having a resource is that we copy what the resource says instead of just listing them as a reference. If the resource says, "Joe at worms" then we write "Joe ate worms". About tarnishing any reputation, that isn't the point at all. And about accepted practices in the publishing world, this is Wikipedia and the accepted practices are covered by what we call "policy and "guidelines" since those came about over a long period of time and through the process of consensus. About people keeping records of how many books were published, I think you missed the point there. Publisher's Weekly magazine has a statement about the number of books among other things for example. They are a secondary source. Do you see how that's different? About the article on FIP, it hadn't any sources at all which is one of the reasons it was deleted. The only references which it had on the bottom were "See Also" references that pointed to this article here, and other articles which were also unsourced except for pointing to this article here. FIP and ACIM.ORG are the same entity. FACIM is also the same entity. This is known. Having the same board of directors, as well as sharing the same registered trademark "ACIM®" , etc., makes anything from either of those web sites primary sources. Ste4k 20:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying that unless Publisher's Weekly (or some other such publication) repeats the actual publisher's information on their site, then the information is unrepeatable on Wiki? All publication numbers are ultimately merely a repeat of the publisher's data by default. I still don't follow you here. I apologize. -Scott P. 23:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, no, what I am saying here is that there is no publisher's statement made about anything in that sentence. Publisher's Weekly magazine has a statement about the number of books. If you need to know how they arrived at that number, you should ask their research department. It is highly likely that they were given proprietary information that they were able to verify at two sources, and would probably be under a non-disclosure agreement regarding that content. But you can contact them and find out how they arrived at that number for yourself if it interests you. Non-disclosure agreements usually have an expiration date attached. About the policies on Wikipedia, though, you can read them for yourself at WP:VER, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. Pay close attention to the definitions of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. You might also want to read WP:CITE and WP:FES. Hope this helps. Ste4k 00:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have now listed the source of the publication number in the actual section to let the readership judge on its own. Now, could you please tell me exactly what you have actually found here to be inaccurate or undocumentable, as opposed to all of this tempest over a teacup about whether to list the publisher in the actual text or in a footnote? -Scott P. 15:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's be plain here, Scott, the first sentence is only one sentence in this article. Every sentence needs to be verifiable. Everything that isn't verifiable is simply opinion and original research. Original research can be deleted by any editor at any time. I am hoping that you will want to improve this article rather than squabble about it. If you haven't made yourself familiar with the policies in this regard WP:NOR, WP:VER, WP:RS, etc., I highly suggest that you read them. I am not the only editor on WP and I think that many people have been overly generous with their time and efforts considering the size of the information in this article. Ste4k 20:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"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."

I believe this topic is different. ACIM is both a book and a religious movement. There are no reliable secondary sources. In many ways it is like the beginning of Christianity. There is much controversy and conflict. There are differences in interpretation of ACIM. Some organizations, although "non-profit", have used ACIM to turn their founders and their families into millionaires.

I believe the introductory section needs to be re-written. Most that are very familar with ACIM know that Helen did not consider herself to be the author. She considered herself (as indicated in the Urtext version itself) to be an equal and co-scribe with William Thetford. -- Who123 22:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope that a re-write does not include adding material like, "Most believe the author is Jesus Christ."[1] It's generally impossible to verify the opinions of "most". -Will Beback 23:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

True, it is difficult to verify "most". Like many religious works the origins are obscure and filled with controversy. To the best of my knowledge, Helen never considered herself the author of ACIM. This arose out of the interaction of both Helen and Bill. I believe it would be true to say that ACIM was "co-written" by both Helen and Bill. The words originated from an inner voice within Helen's mind that she identified as not her own but from Jesus Christ. Those close to her did not believe she could have written the work. The work itself is in the first person and clearly identifies himself as the historical Jesus. The question of authorship came to the forefront during the major legal case of the Course. Due to pre-copyright distribution the original 1975 copyright was overturned as were the servicemark on "A Course in Miracles" and trademark on "ACIM". This places the publication date as somewhere between 1973 and 1975. -- Who123 03:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There are actually some secondary sources that have been found during the interim of this conversation. Also, what is said and by what source is crucial to being a secondary source. For example, although we have already determined that the sources written by Ken Wapnick should not be cited for any statements except (as a primary source) about Wapnick, FIP, or FACIM, anything that Ken Wapnick has said about the NCCFE/EA group, or the JCIM group, or others, would qualify as a secondary source, "as long as it was previously published". We also have one small mention in Publisher's weekly to date, and there are probably a few others out there in the press discussing either this topic on the whole, or various factions of this topic. I think Will Beback will probably agree that until this article has sources and content that refer to the NCCFE/EA group, that this particular article hasn't anything to do with the other groups. I believe that at least two other editors involved in the NCCFE/EA articles would probably be happy to associate this article with that group, because they have insisted on doing so several times prior even though this article currently hasn't anything to do with that other topic matter. Ste4k 04:47, 13 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)

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)

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)

Use of the acronyn "ACIM" is advertising.

This acronym "ACIM" is a registered trademark. Judith Skutch Whitson and her husband started the Foundation of Para-Sensory Investigations, Inc. (FPI) in October of 1971. She was a teacher and lecturer at New York University on the science of the study of consciousness and parapsychology. She was introduced to Schucman, Thetford and Wapnick in May of 1975. In June of 1976, the Foundation for Parasensory Investigation changed its name to The Foundation of Inner Peace due to Schucman's distaste for the former name. Dr. Schucman died in 1981. Two years later control of the copyright was essentially transferred to the Foundation for "A Course in Miracles" (FACIM) in 1983 when it was organized by Wapnick, the Board of Directors being himself, Judy Skutch Whitson, and her husband Robert Skutch. Due to a suit by Penguin, and TFIP, brought against the Church of the Full Endeavor for teaching students with the manuscript they had obtained, it was found that because of preliminary distribution of the work that the contents of the book are considered public domain. There is absolutely no reason to advertise on this encyclopedia.

I am not quite certain what you are trying to point out here. I am not aware of any Wiki policy which discourages or prohibits the use of trademarked acronyms if they serve a significantly useful informative purpose. -Scott P. 12:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Two small concepts. Ste4k 13:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, but I still do not understand what two concepts you are referring to. Could you please clarify? Thanks, -Scott P. 14:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Trademarks are for Brand's 2. Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV. If you click on the word, your Web Browser will be conducted to the specific topics which explain both of the concepts completely. Thanks. Ste4k 20:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I am also confused by your argument. It seems that according to your arguments, Wikipedia would not be allowed to refer to McDonald's or Burger King, since those terms are also trademarked. — goethean ॐ 20:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that both of those meet WP:CORP correct? And it's good that you noted that WP has articles on both of them, let me point out a third: Wendy's. I'm glad that you can appreciate how a tradmark distinguishes one group from the next. Notice how there isn't any particular trademark associated with the topic Fast Food. I am glad that you brought this easy analogy to mind. Thanks. Ste4k 23:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly Burger King meets this criteria, but are you saying that the use of any trademarked acronym in Wiki should automamatically be treated as POV or advertising per Wiki policy? I still don't understand. Are you're saying that this article is primarily advertising, even though it makes no attempt to sell anything? Admittedly it does attempt to explicate ACIM, but advertising and explication are two different things. I thought that that the explication of notable but otherwise difficult topics was Wiki's purpose. I apologize but I still do not understand.  :::-Scott P. 00:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This trademark only represents one group. It would be like having an article on "Fast Food" and mentioning only Taco Bell. Why is that? Ste4k 20:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a completely inaccurate statement. If you were do to any research on the topic, you would find that all sides refer to "A Course In Miracles" as "ACIM". I became acquainted with "A Course In Miracles" in the bookstore of my New Thought church. The church categorized "A Course In Miracles" on a shelf that had the sign "ACIM" at the top. The sign did not say "A Course In Miracles" but "ACIM". Secondary Source 23:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The use of "ACIM" in this article would certainly not constitute advertising. It would instead constitute an attempt to succinctly describe a book with a relatively long title. Even if using "ACIM" were indeed advertising, I am aware of no Wikipedia guideline that says that one cannot refer to the advertising slogans or acronyms of given products, copyrighted or not.

Further, I may state that this is an unsourced claim by Ste4k. I see no advertisements for ACIM anywhere, least of all ones that use the the acronym "ACIM". Lastly, Wikipedia allows for the use of advertising acronyms anyway. Please consult the article KFC. Thank you. Secondary Source 03:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look here you will note the sources for my statement. If you look at the source code at the web site here you will see the statement, "All contents Copyright 1995, Foundation for A COURSE IN MIRACLES. All Rights Reserved. A COURSE IN MIRACLES (ACIM) is a registered service mark and trademark of the Foundation for A Course in Miracles.". If you look at that page on the top you will see the tradmark being used. This web site has the same board of directors according to the court documents listed here on top of this sub-topic. The acronym is listed approximately seventy times (to date) in the article. Please see a sift of the page. Unless this document intends to give equal time to the other books by other authors using this same title, then how can it be considered to be fair use of that trademark rather than advertising? As it has been noted down below, other secondary publishers refer to the works collectively as "The Course" or "Course". Ste4k 15:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think this splitting of hairs is productive? There is a difference between "registered trademark" and advertising. I am not familiar with any rule in Wikipedia that does not allow for the use of registered trademarks. You have a bizarre little fixation on this issue. Seek help. Secondary Source 23:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The facts:

"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."

This information is public domain and is available on the internet on the U.S. Patients, Trademarks, and Copyright site:

http://www.uspto.gov/

Who123 22:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Secondary Source 23:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see

• the official policy in this regard
• the official policy regarding tone

Note: all article topics must be third-party verifiable regarding advertising. Ste4k 18:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

But the accusation of advertising must itself be grounded in some semblance of sanity. Secondary Source 09:43, 13 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)

"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)

Rationale for proposed ACIM article group restructure

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)

Your presumption is quite incorrect. Thanks. Ste4k 18:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Referring to factions

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)

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)

Once again, the trademark on "ACIM" has been revoked. If one were to do a search on "ACIM" in a search engine one would find thousands of references to many people and organizations other than FIP and FACIM that use it. -- Who123 21:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Contents of ACIM

This section could probably be reduced to a single sentence or two. It doesn't appear to be sourced and looks like original research. Ste4k 12:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

For one who has no interest in the contents, certainly this section would appear boring or longish. But for one who has a personal interest in the contents, I would have to disagree. Rather than claiming the info is generally inaccurate, could you please point to a specific sentence or point that is inaccurate here? Short book summaries, agreed to by several who have read a book, are generally acceptable in Wiki. -Scott P. 15:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Cite reliable secondary sources. Also remember that WP:NOT for book reviews or polot synopses (try Wikibooks or Wikinfo). This is supposed to be a brief summary of the book and its impact, stated in neutral terms. If it reads like a sales pitch then we are doing somethign badly wrong. And it does. Just zis Guy you know? 16:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k was partially correct. After reviewing this section a bit closer, I have pared it down significantly, deleting redundant info. -Scott P. 16:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Scott, please don't remove markup referring to disputes until disputes have been settled. The matter regarding this source (FIP) is still dubious since it is a primary source and because the source is not making statements about itself regarding it's notability. I don't understand why you would obscure the URL with an IP number that points to the same source (FIP). Please address all of these issues before unilaterally assuming that a dispute has been resolved here in discussion. Thanks. Ste4k 16:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Scott, removing the name of the source of this information reduces it's credibility rather than otherwise. The information is not redundant, but especially after your previous edit removed the domain name from the source. Ste4k 16:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Scott, removing the tag that notes this section as original research and then referring to original research itself is contradictory. The facts are plain that this section hasn't any reputible secondary sources. Incorrectly pointing out me, myself, as an "editor who is unfamiliar" is very close to a personal attack, is baseless, and fails to address the matters brought up here in discussion. Ste4k 16:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Original research is research without a citation. I apologize but that information was fully cited. The URL number happened to be the URL address that pops up when viewing the page in Foxfire. I fail to see the need to repeat the name of the Publisher 3 times. Once seems enough to me in the citation. It seems to me that you may be obscuring the question here, by confusing the terms "original research" with the term "citation", the term "obscure" with the term "redundant". Why do you seem to have this penchant to confuse and obscure so much about this article? -Scott P. 20:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your accusation about obfuscation is unfounded and appears to be personal rather than topical regarding this article. Removal of information regarding a reference is obfuscation by definition. As you mention information in this article does need a reliable resource and must pass WP:VER which states, (fyi), "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources." It refers to WP:RS which states, (fyi), "A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term most often refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event." and also "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher." Therefore, failing to have any reliable source for information yields only WP:NOR original research which is by defintion: "a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material placed into articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been previously published by a reputable source." The specific publisher of this specific version of this book is "Foundation for Innner Peace" and therefore is a primary source. The only information that should be included into this article from the primary source is covered by policy (fyi) in WP:RS#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves, and as stated, must be "relevant to the notability of that group or organisation". You should be aware also, that according to policy WP:VER, (fyi), "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." And this is why, as I stated before, in my opinion, other editors of this article, including myself, have indulged you sufficiently with patience regarding the matter of sourcing this article. Ste4k 20:55, 10 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)

unbalanced

As has been previously pointed out in several area of discussion, this article fails to address any except the viewpoints of one particular publisher. Until that situation is rectified, the unbalanced tag needs to remain. Ste4k 16:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You have inserted the "too long" template, the "original research" template, and now the "unbalanced" template. How many more templates do you plan to add? You have attempted to delete all associated articles, you have deleted my edits without comment, you have made many uncited and inaccurate claims about the publisher, amongst which some are discussed above. Why do you feel the need to act in these amazing ways towards this article? Could you please answer the questions above before heaping additional derogatory templates on this article? Could you please explain why you are acting in this seemingly erratic manner?

-Scott P. 19:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comments appear to be personal rather than discussing the unbalanced nature of this article. Under it's current title "A Course in Miracles" it is highly ambiguous and the article only speaks of one particular version of book with such a title. The acronym "ACIM" represents only one faction of the many different factional beliefs centered around the public domain writings of Helen Schucman. That particular acronym is the index at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office for a registered trademark used by one specific publishing group Foundation of Inner Peace (FIP) & Foundation for A COURSE IN MIRACLES (FACIM) that uses the acronym as much as possible for brand recognition. Please view the source at the homepage of FACIM where it is written "A COURSE IN MIRACLES (ACIM) is a registered service mark and trademark of the Foundation for A Course in Miracles.". These two particular organizations share common members on their Board of Directors and are associated closely enough to be co-complaintants in litigation against other groups interested in the Course. This court case shows one example of referring to the work as "Course". Please refer to pages 10-11, where one of the Board of Directors is identified by the court. The press refers to the same work as "the Course". Please see Garrett, Lynn (7 Mar2005). "'Disappearance' Appears Big Time". Publisher's Weekly. Retrieved 29 Jun2006. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help) for another example of referring to the Course appropriately without arousing commercial sentiment. The sects that base their beliefs on the Course are also referred by the press as "cults". Several editors here on WP also insist that the word "cult" is correct. My own opinion is that there isn't any reason to refer to various publishers by a term which is clearly controversial. "ACIM" is only one publishing group's perspective of the Course and failing to mention the other groups and/or publishers is unbalanced. Until such a time as all of the aforementioned as well as other groups affiliated with "A Course in Miracles" can be represented fairly and equally, the tag {{unbalanced}} should remain. Ste4k 21:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem intent on imagining several factions within the ACIM community. I know of only two. The Endeavor Academy group which probably constitutes less than 1% of those who study the book, and the other 99% or so. You seem intent on imagining that the public domain versions of ACIM are as you wrote, "written by different authors", and quite popular, when in fact they are all slightly resequenced versions of the same original Urtext, all written by the same original author, and edited by the same original group of editors. I know of nobody outside of the Endeavor group who considers anything other than the 2nd edition as their primary study material source. All of these facts were noted in the previous article group, yet you have attempted to significantly mistate them and alter them beyond all recognition. What type of personal agenda do you have regarding this material? -Scott P. 22:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Cite? Which are you connected with? I hear the sound of barrows being pushed... Just zis Guy you know? 22:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, Scott, please refrain from personal remarks and concentrate instead on the statements of the sources that I have named. Regardless of how many people you personally know, or your own personal regard to this article, we as editors on Wikipedia should abide by the guidelines and reproduce material already previously published by reliable sources. Your opinion regarding Endeavor Academy here appears to contradict your earlier remarks in an AfD regarding articles on this topic where you state: "Keep This person has been found to be notable by a number of newspapers TV shows, and radio shows.". Your opinion also appears to contradict your earlier statements on this very Discussion page where you state: "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." My intentions for this article are to clarify this topic on the whole so that anyone that hasn't ever heard of this topic can be readily informed, in an easily understood manner by the content of this article on the topic in the whole. I don't consider that to be a personal agenda, but rather my intentions as a Wikipedian editor. Ste4k 22:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

On this aim, I think we agree. To write an article that that can be easily understood by one who has no previous knowledge of the material. But I believe that the article should also offer helpful information that is more in depth for those who have some cursory knowledge of the material as well, as one would expect a good encyclopedia to also offer. It seems to me that the intro paragraphs are usually intended for total strangers to a subject, and the sections below are intended to be more in depth. -Scott P. 23:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The general layout you propose is fine, Scott, what are your thoughts regarding balance? Ste4k 15:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This article reads like an ad for FACIM. It begins with an image of one of its publications. There is then a long section on FACIM. This article is about "A Course in Miracles", not about FACIM. Who123 21:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the initial image of one version of ACIM. Someone added it back. There are now multiple printed and "electronic" versions. This image is nothing more than a commercial ad for FACIM and should be removed. -- Who123 04:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying there are multiple versions of ACIM extant or that there are multiple pictures of an ACIM text in the article? I see only one picture in the article. If your complaint is that your favored version does not have a picture in the article, perhaps you could insert another image of the same size or a new image containing both books? Please discuss your objections further on the talk page before making any changes. JChap (Talk) 05:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are three primary versions. These are commonly known as the Urtext, the HLC, and the Wapnick version. There are also multiple variations of these both written and "electronic". The Urtext is the earliest publicly known version. Within the Urtext Bill Thetford was the designated editor by "the voice" rather than Helen. The HLC is the version edited by Bill and completed in late 1972. He added the organization of the chapters and sections. Unfortunately, he removed important material. The last version was a further edit by Ken Wapnick after studying the HLC for only one year (today this length of study would be considered that of a beginning student). He deleted more material and changed much of what remained. I do not have a favored version. I use all three. My complaint is that the image is nothing more than advertising for the most limited of the three versions. It is also deceptive as it suggests that this is the only form both in print and available for free on the internet as public domain material. Last, it adds nothing but advertising to the article. -- Who123 12:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

For myself, I can't tell yet how many there are in number, but the contents are significantly different. Between versions, there are edits, omissions, additions, etc., so that the basic underlying flow is there, but in our own WP lingo, the best way to state it, is that there were several POV forks on the original work. According to the court, the work put forth by Schucman and Thetford, was distributed at several stages to many people without a copyright. One of the earliest of these went to the Edgar Cayce group, and is called the HLC version. AFTER that version had been given, Ken Wapnick entered the picture and made many editorial contributions. Wapnick joined forces with Skutch, and his wife Skutch Whitson who had a corporation called the Foundation for Parasensory Investigations (FPI). They later changed the name of that group to Foundation for Inner Peace (FIP), and became board members with Wapnick in the organization he founded with them called FACIM around 1983. During the years betwen 1975 and 1983 the work was distributed to many other parties without a copyright mainly by Skutch Whitson (according to the court records). The amount of POV added before those parties themselves published is debatable, but nevertheless, this is a book that discusses changing one's mind. Therefore, in my opinion, any subtle edits, even on a subliminal basis, could have drastic different outcomes in the readership of the versions. The easy way to put it is that there are several books with several authors all under the same title that carried the legacy original work by Schucman and Thetford. Even after the court case between Penguin/FIP/FACIM and NCCFE/EA, FIP having it's copyright determined void by Federal court, modified their version again, adding a preface, numbering system, and appending another section to the end. Penguin's contract was for $2.5 million to lease the copyright for a period of five years ending in December of 2000. This contract was made between Penguin and FIP. Another earlier printing of the book was funded with $440,000 by a philanthropist, and this funding was also given to FIP. Ste4k 02:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment suggestion

Dear Ste4k, You seem intent on acting in what seems to me to be an irrational manner towards this article. You are now deleting the work of others wholesale without comment, making inaccurate poorly researched statements about the publishers, and seemingly refusing to listen to any reason whatsoever. I am therefor proposing that before you (or I) make any further edits to this page, that we submit for comment your recent assertion that the 1.5 million figure must be listed as "unverified", your apparent plans to assert that there is now an official 3rd edition out by the publisher, and your recent deletion of my work in the Contents section. Could you agree to this?

-Scott P. 20:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you should do some more research and re-read my comments on this page. I believe that I make myself specifically clear in all regards. It is not up to me to produce for you any verifiable sources for statements that you wish to include on this page. Please refer to WP:VER#The_policy. There shouldn't be any doubt in your mind nor any reason for RfC in this regard. I do appreciate, though, your concerns over what could turn into edit-wars and I don't believe that edit-wars do anything to help an article in any way. I will agree to leave the content as is, if you agree to allow the templates to remain so that other editors may be appropriately advised about the matter of this article needing some help. But I agree on condition that you do not further add material to this article's existing content, and that you consider balancing the topic of this article with the information from the other articles concerning the other factions which you also started; i.e. Charles Anderson and Endeavor Academy, and that you propose them to be merged. I think you should also address the third and a possible fourth faction in this article so that it does not turn into the "rehash" of a court battle which has already been decided. I think this would address the concerns of at a minimum, seven editors in regard to this entire category. Ste4k 21:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My offer is only as I have stated above. Could you accept this in whole or not? -Scott P. 22:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It has already been stated that there are almost no secondary sources outside of the two groups named. That is a serious problem for Wikipedia. If it is genuinely true then the article should be deleted as unverifiable from reliable sources. So, what is required is references to secondary sources - reliable ones. Just zis Guy you know? 22:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A book search on Amazon.com, placing "A Course in Miracles" in the title bar results in 230 plus books that list ACIM in their title. I believe that at least some of these books could be considered as secondary neutral sources. Amongst these is the book by Patrick Miller. A book that has sold 1.5 million, spawned at least 230 spin offs, and yields .6 million hits in Google seems to me to be worthy of an article, and a significant article, in Wiki, written by at least some editors who have actually read the material. -Scott P. 22:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the concerns expressed about the lack of sourcing and OR in the article. To take one of many examples:

"Most theologians agree that some of the most radical spiritual principles first introduced by the historical Jesus include:

Jesus' teaching about radical forgiveness.

Jesus' radical reformulation of the old Jewish law to highlight the

need for 'brotherly love' to mean neighbor-as-self.

Jesus' teaching regarding the parental relationship between all men and "God the Father"."

There is no source whatsoever for this statement. The depth of presumption is mindblowing. Ignore for a minute the sloppiness in not limiting the statement to Christian theologians: How did the editor know what "most theolgians" think? It seems implausible that there would be such broad agreement on an amorphous, value-laden classification like "most radical." The entire comparisons section is completely OR. Only two of the subsections have footnotes and even these are problemmatic. The cited sources appear to support only the proposition that ACIM teaches X. The author then contrasts this to Christian teaching Y. This is a synthesis, which is still OR per WP:NOR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position. Any comparisons between ACIM and other religions should rely on a reliable source that compares the two. Although the original authors of this page undoubtedly worked hard to put it together, the writing process used was exactly backwards: you don't write an article on the basis of "what I know is ..." and then source it when challenged, you consult sources and then write the article on the basis of the sources. I would support removing large chunks of the article and simply starting over. JChap (Talk) 00:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What you mean to say is that the source was uncited, not that no source exists, am I correct? -Scott P. 01:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I mean to say there is no source in the article. I do think such a statement would be pretty hard to verify though. JChap (Talk) 01:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

We all write on the basis of what we know. I will find the necessary citations, thanks. -Scott P. 01:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I could not disagree more with the first sentence. Research comes before, not after, writing. JChap (Talk) 01:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The editor did do research before writing. What the editor apparently didn't do is cite the research before writing. Please note the nuance. Secondary Source 03:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As the editor did not cite, there is no way to know whether or not he/she did research unless you yourself are the editor. As your first edit was today, and I am assuming you are not the editor's sock puppet, you do not know whether research was in fact done prior to writing the article. JChap (Talk) 03:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That is incorrect. I am relatively familiar with the genre and just about everything this editor has included is more or less accurate. Unless this editor (Scott P.) is himself the author of every other source I've previously read about ACIM, it would be virtually impossible for him to have not done research before writing this article. He didn't make this stuff up. It is out there for anyone who wants to, ahem, do the research to find out. I certainly agree that it is preferable to cite sources in the articles. But accusing this editor of doing no research prior to writing this article, or of writing the article "backwards," is not fair. Secondary Source 06:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but "more or less accurate" is a pretty low standard to shoot for. I'm sure the editors of this piece (Scott and others) have done some reading in ACIM, perhaps even a lot of reading. However, there is simply no substitute for having source material on hand when writing and citing that source material for the propositions contained in the article. A major benefit of close sourcing is that it forces a writer to discipline him/herself so that the approximations and sloppiness present in a "more or less accurate" article are eliminated. This is why citing sources is not merely "preferable," but crucial. You seem to suggest that the intended reader of an encyclopedia article (who almost by definition is not very knowledgeable about the subject of the article) should go out and do research to verify the material in the article. There are two problems with that. First, it limits the usefulness of the encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is supposed to provide people with a brief overview of a topic so that they can quickly acquaint themselves with it. If the infomation is only "more or less accurate" and the reader is forced to do further research to figure it out for him/herself which information is accurate and which is not, this convenience is lost to the reader. Second, the reader (who, remember, is a novice in the subject) won't necessarily know where to look to find the sources to verify the information in question. I am very impressed by the enthusiasm of the editors who work on this article. I am confident that this can become a great article if they follow WP:V and WP:RS. JChap (Talk) 03:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is that Wikipedia editors should not accuse fellow editors of not doing research when they themselves have not done the research either. I am also suggesting that there is a very real difference between doing research and citing the sources of the research. They are two different issues. It's rude for the rest of you to say he didn't do research. It's also inaccurate. He has done research. What he failed to do in some instances is cite the research. (And the rest of you seem very uptight about which sources you will allow to be cited, which makes writing an article about a relatively new spiritual phenomenon very difficult.)

I am someone who has done research, and from looking at what he has written I can say that he is "more or less" accurate. The reason I say "more or less" is because my research wasn't done with the intention of writing an article about it, therefore I didn't keep notes. Secondary Source 06:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You and I seem to have quite different definitions of research. (Perhaps that is the reason for our disagreement?) To clarify, WP:CITE requires that the editor who originally inserts the material in the article provide the citation. It is much easier for him/her to do so than for a later editor (who may not know all that much about ACIM to begin with) to come around and chase down a cite for some material. After all, no one wants to spend hours trying to find a cite for some proposition only to find out that it is not true. The good news is that there seems to be some work proceeding on sourcing the article.

As to your statement about people being "uptight" about sourcing, it would be helpful if you could take a look at WP:RS and suggest some sources you think are appropriate for the article. I did delete some material from what seemed to me to be an unreliable source (see below). I'm not sure that this is what you are talking about, but I invite you to look at it and see if you agree. JChap (Talk) 16:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm still awaiting Ste4k's response regarding the other RfC request. -Scott P. 01:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I think Ste4k could slow down a bit, I believe his overall concern is sound- this article does a lot of talking, explaining, etc., with almost no sources. I believe much of what is in here CAN be sourced, but it will take lots of time. So, I propose that Ste4k and other editors bent on deleting a lot, instead insert lotsa "fact" requests and give other editors a month or so to reply.... I ask for a month, because 90% of the article is unsourced! Sethie 03:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Secondary Source 03:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Consider balancing the topic of this article with the information from the other articles concerning the other factions which were also started by the original author of this article; i.e. Charles Anderson and Endeavor Academy, and in the interests of balance as well as disambiguity of the title "A Course in Miracles", I propose these to be eventually merged. I think we should also address the third and a possible fourth faction in this article so that it does not turn into the "rehash" of a court battle which has already been decided. I think this would address the concerns of at a minimum, seven editors in regard to this entire category. Do you agree? Ste4k 16:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As I have studied the material over the years, the major split in ACIM is between Ken Wapnick (FACIM) and everyone else. Now that the major court battle is over, it has been my experience that those who are very familiar with all three primary versions of ACIM do not prefer Wapnick's version and do not agree with many of his thoughts in regards to ACIM. One major problem with quoting secondary sources is that FACIM used its financial wealth and legal power (derived from the now invalid 1975 copyright) to only allow publication of material that met his approval. -- Who123 04:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a relatively inaccurate statement. Kenneth Wapnick is the president of the Foundation for A Course In Miracles, which publishes many books and has many students. All you have to do is read their website Facimoutreach.org in order to see that many people do indeed trust Wapnick and FACIM (also, check the Amazon sales rank of their many books). The major split is not between Wapnick and everyone else. Wapnick has a lot of students. It's not Wapnick vs. the rest of the ACIM community. Secondary Source 06:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In response:

I agree that Wapnick has a lot of students. There would not be a split if he did not. The financial and other sources of power that Wapnick has accumulated are derived from the copyright that the U.S. Court has recently determined to be invalid. He has used that power over the years to suppress dissent through actual or threatened legal action. It is therefore not surprising that his organization (FACIM) and supporting companies such as "Fearless Books" have thrived. On the other side of of the split are many students of ACIM as well as several organizations. Some of these are:

http://www.circleofa.org/index.php

http://www.endeavoracademy.com/

http://jcim.net/

I suggest that the material on FACIM be deleted from the "Organization" section of the article. The FACIM is not the organization of ACIM. A short statement that ACIM does not have a formal organization would be much more accurate. Several organizations have formed around ACIM, however. Much of the study of ACIM is on an individual basis or in small groups both on and off the internet. This would provide a more accurate and balanced view, eliminate advertising for FACIM, place the focus back on ACIM itself, and shorten the article. -- Who123 12:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate my suggestion that the Endeavor Academy articles be merged into this article and that the third and possibly fourth version of books under this title be fairly represented in the content. I have recently found another version of the book printed in Hungary called the "Illuminate Edition". It's content does not match the content of some of the other versions of this book and in a signifant manner, but it obviously comes from the same source authors (Schucman and Thetford) Ste4k 17:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is now almost at the recommended maximum length. Which Endeavor Academy articles are you referring to? If they are on the Endeavor site perhaps they could be referenced?

There are now multiple versions of ACIM that have arisen from the three primary versions. Perhaps a section should be added to the article to address the versions as there does seem to be confusion in this area?

Last, this discussion section is getting very long with multiple topics. Perhaps new sections need to be added to resolve specific issues? -- Who123 18:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to archive the discussion, I'm all for it. It gets extremely tedious trying to find things.

The articles were up for deletion. The discussion is twice as long and tedious. One is a biography that, imho, hasn't any biographical information, doesn't meet WP:BIO, and is based on hair thin sources that are only complaints about the subject of the biography. I nominated it for deletion recently along with the article for the Academy, which doesn't meet WP:ORG, nor WP:CORP and is again resting only on hair thin sources all of which are basically biased against the subject. In my opinion, if the topic matter is "the Course", the subjects of these other two articles would help to balance any POV in this article on the Course, and they certainly haven't reason to exist stand alone. Also in my opinion, in order not to have this article on the Course turn into a replay of the court trial, the third and maybe other versions of the Course should also be added; i.e. in a balanced fashion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Buell Anderson. Ste4k 02:02, 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)