Talk:A Course in Miracles: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:56, 26 July 2006

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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

To view certain passages excised from the text, as well as comments on those passages, please see:

Talk:A Course in Miracles/temp

Introduction

The fact that "A Course in Miracles" is sometimes referred to as "ACIM" or simply "The Course" is not original research. It is common knowledge for anyone who is at all familiar with ACIM. We are using these abbreviations in our discussions here. I have already posted this in these discussions and it was deleted. Please do not delete or change discussion material posted by others.--Who123 04:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All you are saying is that based on the opinion of several editors here on WP that the statement is true. That in itslef is pure original research by defintion. ~~I will mark the section disputed.~~ Consider the section disputed. Adding a tag would be confusing. Also keep in mind that the statement itself about "ACIM" is confusing since an equal statement could be made "Foundation for Inner Peace" is sometimes referred to as "ACIM" by the same reasoning as you suggest for the statement; i.e. original research. Ste4k 03:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a quote from another WP article: "The Internet (also known simply as the Net)..." Internet. Do you consider this OR as well? I and two other editors do not consider this OR. Once again, it is common knowledge for anyone who is at all familiar with ACIM. The "Foundation for Inner Peace" is not referred to as "ACIM", it is referred to as "FIP". I am finding your remarks and edits pedantic (unduly emphasizing minutiae) and obstructive. You have stated that you have little or no knowledge of ACIM. Perhaps your editing time would be better served in an area where you do have some knowledge?--Who123 04:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to go work on the other article, that's fine. It is up to you and/or the other editors to demonstrate that it is not OR, not up to me to remove OR from the article. As mentioned earlier, this is disputed. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOR,WP:DR,WP:VER, and WP:RS. Ste4k 06:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is nothing obsessive about the correct use of article maintenance templates. The specific use of this discussion area is designated to discuss the article "a course in miracles" rather than opinions about other articles. Ste4k 22:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This section is not about article maintenance templates. It is about the Introduction of the article.--Who123 15:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction is now quoted from a reliable secondary source. Ste4k 05:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited first line of intro to make it clearer and hopefully resolve conflicts.--Who123 02:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Course Versions

Please allow me to present some initial information on the formation of The Course and the three primary versions to the best of my ability. This can then act as a platform for discussion. The Course began as a cooperative venture between two well respected psychologists. Helen began to hear an inner voice. She called Bill and they both devoted much of their lives over many years to bring the "dictation" of this inner voice to paper. Most of the "dictation" was written by Helen in notebooks with her own style of shorthand. She then either typed it herself or read it to Bill who typed it. It appears that some of the material Helen spoke to Bill and he typed this directly.

The earliest typed version that is known to exist is called the Urtext. The Urtext itself appears to have been derived from at least three earlier typed versions. Some of this material may be lost to time. ACIM consists of three parts: Text, Workbook, and Manual for Teachers. The vast majority of differences are in the Text.

In the Urtext "the voice" designated Bill as the editor. In late 1972 Bill finished the editing of all three parts. The Text portion was found in the A.R.E. Library and has come to be known as the HLC (Hugh Lynn Cayce) version. This is perhaps a poor name as HLC had no known input to the material although he is mentioned in it. Bill added Chapter and Section breaks and deleted material.

In early 1973, I believe, Ken Wapnick was given a copy. He further edited the material to form the Criswell version and subsequently the FIP first edition often known as the "blue book". There may have been other variations involved. The second edition contains additional material and an outline numbering system which is still under a valid copyright.

Since then there are now multiple variations both in print and online that stem from these three primary versions.

Despite much sometimes heated debate, all three versions seem to contain the essential material of The Course. Some prefer one version and some use all three.--Who123 18:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be helpful if you could provide sources for these. Thanks. Ste4k 19:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this book referenced in the article would be a start:

Wapnick, Kenneth (1999). Absence from Felicity: The Story of Helen Schucman and Her Scribing of A Course in Miracles (2d ed.). New York: Foundation for A Course in Miracles. ISBN 0-933291-08-6. Discusses Helen Schucman and the pre-publication history of ACIM.Who123 20:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be confusion regarding versions of ACIM. I believe the article should address this in a short topic. I suggest this as a starting point:

There are three primary versions of The Course. These are the Urtext, the HLC, and the FIP first edition. There are also multiple variations of these both written and "electronic". The Urtext is the earliest publicly known version. Within the Urtext Dr. William Thetford was the designated editor. The HLC is the version edited by Bill and completed in late 1972. He added the organization of the chapters and sections. Unfortunately, original material was removed. The FIP first edition was a further edit of the HLC by Ken Wapnick. Some material was changed and some was deleted. In addition, FIP released a second edition. This second edition includes additional material and an outline numbering system. The additional material and the outline numbering system remain under copyright.

There has been a long discussion here on sourcing. Sourcing for this addition includes the works themselves as well as the already referenced "Absence from Felicity".--Who123 18:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't mentioned any version from the Endeavor Academy at all. I suggest that you look at that article and check it for accuracy. Apparently it is pointing to this article on the premise that the version of "A Course in Miracles" written by Charles Anderson is directly related to these three versions. In my opinion, that link is ambiguous and misleading. If you disagree, then you might want to add the category cult to this article as it is listed in the other. Ste4k 03:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noted your addition and although it reads well, etc. It is completely unsourced. I am removing it until such a time that you can supply references. There isn't any sense in adding additional unsourced material to a very long document in the process of being pruned for verification reasons. Ste4k 04:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The EA version is new. It is included in "There are also multiple variations of these both written and "electronic"." I see no point in this article in discussing all of the derivations from the three primary versions. If this is thought to be useful then a separate article can be written on this. I appreciate the complement about the addition reading well. The addition was sourced from the primary works and the existing references. Because there is confusion about these primary versions, I believe it is an important addition. I do not appreciate your removing it. If you wanted more source material you could simply have added a comment. It is beginning to appear to me that you simply wish to obstruct work on this article.--Who123 04:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should understand plainly the reason that it was removed. I certainly agree that it might help balance the article, but it would take much more than simply a mention, and all material added to this article needs to be cited. Ste4k 06:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that it was removed seems to be your attempt to do anything you can to obstruct this article. It was a concise, well written (by your own words) summary. It was cited.--Who123 14:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am incredibly concerned that, after the extensive discussion on this talk page about the importance of sources and general agreement that work should be done on the problems with the sourcing of the existing text that a new section was added that was completely unsourced. [1] As if there aren't enough links to these policies on this page already: WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:RS. These are required policies, not optional suggestions, for creating content here. JChap (Talk) 15:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was added in part because of the confusion regarding the versions in this discussion. It was not "completely unsourced". I will not attempt to add the section again until more of the current issues are resolved particularly in regard to sources, citations, and references.--Who123 16:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only cite in the diff says "(see primary works and references)." Am I missing something? JChap (Talk) 16:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The primary works are primary sources. I think we can either change this or add better sourcing later. I think it helps with some of the confusion. Having it is better than not having it. May I ask people to indulge me on this one small addition for now?--Who123 20:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This book is a primary resource and including it would basically be using a self-published resource from the publisher. Ste4k 05:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

The book "Foundation for Inner Peace; Wapnick, Kenneth (Feb 1, 1997). Concordance of 'A Course in Miracles'. Viking Adult. ISBN 0670869953." is not a reference source. I own the book. It is a concordance for ACIM. It is not a reference source and I think it should be removed. (late sig) --Who123 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it.--Who123 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do own "Wapnick, Kenneth (Apr1991). Absence from Felicity. Foundation for a Course in Miracles. 0-933291-08-6." I believe it is a useful reference source for the article. (late sig)--Who123 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Branch, Rick (1994). The Watchman Expositor: A Course in Miracles Profile. Watchman Fellowship, Inc.. Retrieved on July 18, 2006." I did find this article on the net. It seems useful as an online reference. (late sig) --Who123 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Foundation for Inner Peace (1992). A course in miracles. The Foundation. ISBN 0-9606388-8-1." I do own this book as well as a number of other versions of ACIM. It is a primary source. (late sig) --Who123 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Williamson, Marianne (Apr 24, 1996). A Return to Love. Perennial Currents. 0060927488." This was/is a popular book derived from ACIM. (late sig) --Who123 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not own and have not read the other references. Does anyone else own these books or has anyone read them? (late sig) --Who123 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do the editors involved with this article really wish to understand the material and work together in good faith to improve the article? If so, this will require obtaining and studying the references. I am willing to do so. (late sig) --Who123 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on Where to Start

Please see edit wars above. There are two ideas on how to begin this project. One is that we begin with the current very short article (stub). The other is that we begin with the original article in the last reversion by Will Beback.

Please sign all comments with ~~~~

Which version of this article should we start with after it is unlocked?

Current Stub Article

(votes and comments please)

Original Article

(votes and comments please)

Original Article per my prior comments: essentially Wikipedia:Policy trifecta, meta:Inclusionism. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 02:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original Article. I have given this a great deal of thought considering both options (as well as starting with a blank page). This is my vote for several reasons. The first is the reader. I believe we should provide the reader with the best information we have at present. The second reason is that someone has put a great deal of time and energy into writing the article in the first place. I do not think we need to waste time and energy by reinventing the wheel. I would prefer to start with what we have and improve it.--Who123 02:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other

(votes and comments please)

Comments

The last thing we need right now is another poll with loaded wording. Let's see, would you rather have a "very short" article or the "original" one? Let's do research and then write. Wikipedia articles don't need to be built in a day. JChap (talk • contribs) 20:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you find the wording loaded? It seems simple and clear. It sounds like this is a vote for "other". Do you wish to remove the current stub and start from scratch? I think this is the first thing we need to decide, not the last.

Results

Although it is difficult to come up with solid results based on only 3 votes, it appears the vote is to restore the original article. When this is combined with the recent comment of someone passing by I am going to do so.

This is certainly open for additional voting and discussion.--Who123 16:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merged articles

The contents of several articles were merged in here, but now that material has been lost. As soon as the page is unprotected we should seek out that material and re-merge it.

Authorship of A Course in Miracles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Foundation for A Course in Miracles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Attitudinal Healing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ACIM church movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There may be others, these are what I could find. -Will Beback 19:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should retrieve the articles. I would like to re-visit whether each article should be merged or stand alone with a link from the main page. It also depends on the vote on the new poll in terms of which article will be the beginning. In any case, I think the information should be retrieved and perhaps placed on the sandbox page.--Who123 20:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some of those may need to be revisited. I also think the A Course in Miracles (book) AfD was irregular and should be reviewed too. Those reviews should be done through Wikipedia:Deletion review. -Will Beback 21:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The material from Attitudinal Healing was maybe a pair of sentences that I deleted earlier because they really were usless. The original article must have been a very short stub. I also think it was nonsense that the material from A Course in Miracles (book) was deleted. If there is not a more effective means of reintegrating the material, I have a copy of it at its prime. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 02:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some of the mergers were very minor, but we should at least mention the topics. The "A Course in Miracles (book)" AfD deleted the name, but the contents should certainly be included here. On reflection I suppose there's no need to review the AfD, since the name wasn't helpful. Any admin, myself included, can dig out the deleted material from A Course in Miracles (book), in case Antireconciler's copy isn't complete. That stuff (at least the NPOV, verifiable material) should go in here too. -Will Beback 08:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 23:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should recover each of the deleted articles and then determine if they should be merged or submitted for Wikipedia:Deletion review.--Who123 21:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related RfC

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

Worst article in all of Wikipedia

I came to this page looking for more information about this book and I'm really embasassed for Wikipedia after reading it. Considering how much discussion has taken place on the talk page, the article is tiny and extremely poorly written. The first sentence should at least give an idea of WHO/WHAT/WHEN/WHERE. The external links should at very least include www.acim.org. I vote this as the worst article in all of Wikipedia. Excuse me while I go vomit. Cacophony 01:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page has undergone some major changes lately.

An older version might have more information for you. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 03:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the poll and this comment I have restored the article as per the last restore per Will Beback.--Who123 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How Do We Proceed From Here?

What is our next step? --Who123 18:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should agree on an outline for the article and then do research. I am not happy with the current version of the article for reasons we have already discussed. JChap (talk • contribs) 22:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to go in this direction. Would you be interested in starting this in another page under the archives section at the top?--Who123 00:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just archived the material not under current discussion. I have left some unnessary material on how we arrived at this point.--Who123 20:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. JChap (talk • contribs) 22:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See "Course Versions" section. I would like permission to include the small portion between the lines to the article.--Who123 20:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only if after citations to reliable sources have been included. JChap (talk • contribs) 22:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should next proceed with the "Merged articles" section. Suggestions?--Who123 20:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem with the article continues to be its POV and its lack of sourcing. We should fix these problems before proceeding. If the article doesn't show significant improvement in these respects in a week, I am inclined to revert to Guy's last version and just start over. JChap (talk • contribs) 22:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article should comply with WP's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research policies. I am not convinced yet that it does not. References are cited. Although some claim that the article does not comply (and they may be correct), many of the references are books. How many have obtained these books in order to refute them?

Setting an artificial time limit is, IMO, unrealistic. The person who has written many of the ACIM articles reports that he is about to be married. It will take time. I do not think we need to be in a rush here, I think we need to get it right.

I do not think we want to begin edit wars again by reverting to a blank page. If someone wishes to write their own article then perhaps that could be done on another page.

I think stating what the "real problem" is, is a POV. My first concern is retrieving missing information.--Who123 00:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:CITE and WP:RS. Very few passages contain citations. These need to be fixed. Much of it is classic OR. Example: Unique aspects of ACIM. Who thinks they are unique? Unless this has been published in a secondary source, it is OR and inappropriate for inclusion here. If you would like to work from the existing text, I could put tags in where citation is needed and you could go through and find citations for this material. Anything uncited in a month would be subject to removal. If you want to proceed on the basis of the existing text, I think this is a fair compromise. I would prefer to start over. JChap (talk • contribs) 00:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write this article. I am interested in preserving the information. From Wikipedia:Notability see:

The recent fundraising page says, "Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity. "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper" (from Wikipedia:Importance).

It seems that the fund raising page should be honored.

I am not interested in assuming responsibility for providing citations to your satisfaction. This has been a long standing stable article. I do not see the danger in taking our time and doing it right. I do see a danger in depriving the reader from useful information. It is so much easier to create than destroy.--Who123 00:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know that it is, in fact, information (as opposed to speculation, conjecture, etc.) because it isn't cited and cannot be verified. Once citations are provided and it can be verified, then let's call it information. Also, the standards to which you refer aren't mine, they are found in WP:CITE. A month is more than generous as a timeframe. If the material can be sourced, the work can be done in a month. I'm not an enemy of the article. I want to have a strong article that meets WP criteria and will work with you on citing. Obviously the Course itself can be a source. Do you have anything else I can look at? JChap (talk • contribs) 01:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. Except that the book cannot be a source for things like "unique aspects", terminological misunderstandings, practical study and lifestyle... well, you get the idea. Just zis Guy you know? 21:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should wait for the resolution of the RfC and the RfA with the involved editors. As Scott Perry is a major contributor, perhaps we should allow him the chance to enjoy his upcoming wedding. I suggest this be placed on hold for now.--Who123 15:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing's turned into a circus. No argument there. I think we can leave material in until that has died down and Scott gets back. I would like to proceed in the meantime trying to source the article and adding a section discussing ACIM's impact. JChap (talk • contribs) 15:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been involved in a RfC before so I do not know how this compares to others. You had asked me about the references. I think (as has already been mentioned) they will be hard to come by. I think the various versions are primary sources. The Urtext has not been published in book form that I am aware of, only on the net. I think "Wapnick, Kenneth (Apr1991). Absence from Felicity. Foundation for a Course in Miracles. 0-933291-08-6." is an excellent source. Wapnick arrived on the scene shortly after the HLC version was finished. He is one of the few people still alive from the early days. In the stub article, Ste4k included one court document that I recall. When I tried to check its source I was taken to the court site for that district of NY. I did not see the pdf file. There are numerous court documents that would be good secondary sources. Do you know if they are online at the NY court site?

I have not studied the article in detail. Do you think it would be useful to start from the beginning and go through it a section at a time? I think this approach might be fun.--Who123 20:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Step 1 has to be to remove anything which is uncited and reads like original research. As far as I can tell that's everything after the History section. Just zis Guy you know? 21:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We should make it clear how anything we say is either cited or follows very trivially from simple laws of logic. Afterall, other articles don't have to cite extremely basic laws of logic to back up what they say. Logic is taken for granted. I say we take logic for granted here as well. In that case, we will need to cite and reference that ACIM does actually say that its fundemental doctrine is that only what is coherent is real. Everything else will either be a simple corollary, or be cited. A lot of this article follows via trivial logical laws, but what doesn't should be removed. That way, there won't be original research, and the article will be compliant. This appears to be a small task, however. Most of the article follows from very simple logic, and repeats itself many many times. According to Wikipedia:Abundance_and_redundancy, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Can anyone make the argument that our repeating ourselves so many times is bad? If not, I don't know what many editors are talking about when they carry on about original research. In most cases, if you show me were it is, I'll show you how it is a trivial corollary of what has already been said, and if you dispute it, you must dispute the original cited principle the Course endorses. But if you dispute it, you must dispute that the source doesn't actually say what it says, and that's why we have references, so you can look it up yourself. Alright! Does everyone understand now? I did recently vote to keep original research in this article but now I see that Wikipedia can't allow this. Fortuanatly, almost none of it is original research. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 23:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Abundance_and_redundancy refers to material in different articles. Obviously, one article should not repeat itself. As the reader I want to be able to read a concise description of the subject. That's what an encyclopedia article is. If none of the material is original research, {{sofixit}} by citing to sources. An additional problem with much of it is that it reads like a tract. As I discuss below, there is nothing necessarily wrong with that in the abstract, it just does not belong on WP. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough ... apply the guideline to sections then, which seems natural. Material from different sections may overlap, and this should be okay. This will also explain our article's length to some extent. And I agree, an article in an encylopedia should contain just enough information to allow the reader to understand the cited point. It's natural to dedicate an uncited sentence to explaining an obvious point, which despite its obviousness, some miss anyway. Sometimes it takes a number of sentences to make the material further accessable, even though the point explained might be considered obvious. Surely WP should be very very accessable, though, and so it may take a great many sentences to say the same thing enough times in enough ways to get everyone onboard, and yet none of it would be original research because it is saying the same thing in different ways. None of it is new or original. None of it would be unique synthesis or analysis or new ideas, statements, or concepts. What would be the point of an article on ACIM if it was not accessable enough to get most people onboard with the one a priori statement that is not even different in the first place, being a priori. If you are not agreeing, it must mean I need to write even more statements of the exact same nature, not fewer. Somehow the audience is not understanding the (should be) cited point. An enclyclopedia should put cited points in context that they can be seen as coherent and understandable, and yet we are still not one in our understanding. Ah, we must need more explanitory material. Original research would just make new points to add to the confusion and would be totally counterproductive. How could we hope to understand one point if I kept adding new ones? That's why we have to stick to a single point, as most of the article (which to you might seem uncited for your thinking they are new points) does. The point is that they are not new points. That's the point. Are you seeing now how your claim that much of the article is original research is making much of the article look like original research to you? How this is what it means to beg the question? —Antireconciler ◊ talk 00:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your response to my point about not repeating things was itself repetitive. Perhaps this was intended as a joke ;-)? Anyway,

Wikipedia:Abundance_and_redundancy says that articles, not different sections of the same article, can "overlap" in terms of the information they provide. Per general rules of good writing, the same article should not repeat itself. Remember, the reader of an encyclopedia article doesn't want to read the same information over and over again. A well-written article will convey information clearly and concisely.
The point of the article shouldn't be to "get everybody on board" with ACIM, but to explain its beliefs and impact. It's an encyclopedia article, not a tract. (Now I'm repeating myself.)
Any "further explanation" of a cited point should come from other sources. Surely, there have been books explaining all this.

I am happy to see you working on the article. Perhaps you and other ACIM students could work on explaining ACIM beliefs (in line with WP:CITE of course) while the rest of us could start on secondary source material to discuss the movement's history/impact? JChap (talk • contribs) 00:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On point 1, you are right that a section is not an article. I was appealing to the motive for the guideline, rather than the guideline itself. Hopefully we would anticipate how particular instances of something could be generalized. If the rule is that twice twenty apples is forty apples, hopefully we could also say that twice twenty apple slices is forty apple slices without dispute that the rule strictly has to do with whole apples. Yes, it says apples and not apple slices. Now I'm going to generalize appropriately, noting that the rules that apply to a good article apply to a good section. However, I think we will notice that this is not important to make my overall point. Tell me if I'm wrong, but you are thinking that how dare I use guidelines misleadingly to promote a viewpoint. It is good that that is not what I am doing, because I don't like to see them misused either. Again on point 1, if it were true that the reader of an encyclopedia did not want to read the same information in more than one way, an encylopedia would have no use for analogies, cross-referencing, examples, or other material used to disambiguate and sharpen what is being said. Although the explanitory material is repetitive, that does not mean it does not serve a clear function. A sharp idea has multiple associations with other things, because that is what it means to understand something as I'm sure you can verify in your own experience. We agree that what serves no function to aid the understanding in an encyclopedia has no use, so it is good that this does not apply to much of what is said in this article. On point 2, you will discover upon inspection that I did not say that an encyclopedia article on ACIM should get everyone on board with ACIM, whatever that means for you. An encyclopedia article should get everyone on board with understanding the very beliefs and impacts you believe an encyclopedia should explain. It is good we agree. On point 3, you are thinking that when I talk about further explaination, that I am refering to original material because I am making new points. If I was making new points in my further explanations, I would certainly need additional sources. You will find that I have already said that I am not making any new points. If I can cite that all apples are fruits, I am not making a new point in explaining this by saying that if I had an apple, I would have a fruit. It is an immediate logical and evident consequence, yet you must be thinking that if I make such a claim, all immediate logical and evident consequences would be evident without mentioning them. If that was true, then everyone would find mathematics to be utterly easy and trivial, but this is not the case. On your proposal, I don't know what the difference is between an ACIM student and a non-ACIM student, so I don't know how you are coming to the conclusion that I am one, and that you are not. However, I will naturally help were I think help is wanting. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 02:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Supposedly, the author worked from sources but just did not cite those sources. If people familiar with the teachings are able to go through and put in the correct citations, I'm inclined to let them do so. I've just gone over the article again and it appears that parts of it describe the basic teachings, albeit with titles like "unique aspects" and "comparisons." If this is true and they could be scrubbed of any OR synthesis, the material might be acceptable in a "Beliefs" section. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have studied the article in some detail. I have to concur with Guy that at least some and perhaps most of it is not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. No comment on its general quality, you understand. I have looked around a bit and think there is sufficient secondary source material to write an article on this subject. The article should focus on the beliefs of ACIM and its history and impact. The current version of the article reads more like a recruitment tool, inviting people who may be interested in one of the ACIM organizations to "refer to the external links below." Religions have every right to prozelytize and there's nothing wrong with that. But it's just not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be spinning our wheels here. I am going to read the article a section at a time and post it as a new section. If I make an edit I will document it and we can discuss it. I am not good at how to cite sources and do not know how the WP software works so I will just put it in parenthesis for now. Hoe does that sound?--Who123 02:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History + Litigation

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

@@ Line 227: / Line 227: @@
 We seem to be spinning our wheels here. I am going to read the article a section at a time and post it as a new section. If I make an edit I will document it and we can discuss it. I am not good at how to cite sources and do not know how the WP software works so I will just put it in parenthesis for now. Hoe does that sound?--[[User:Who123|<font color="#1E90FF" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Who</strong></font><font color="#9400D3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><strong>123</strong></font>]] 02:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
+== History + Litigation ==
+I think we can pull these from the stub article by Ste4k.
+I do not know how to do the references. Can someone do this?--[[User:Who123|<font color="#1E90FF" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Who</strong></font><font color="#9400D3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><strong>123</strong></font>]] 02:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)