Talk:A Course in Miracles/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Terminology section

The Terminology section is quite interesting. Kudos to whomever added it. I do have one question, though. Are these intended to be Robert Perry's definitions (his work is footnoted immediately preceding them)? If so, it would no doubt be preferable to cite them as such. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but, the section appears to border on plagiarism. If it was a part of an article on Robert Perry's book, then that would be one thing, but it starts to delve into editorial in a manner which seems either impossible to finish, or is out of scope of an encyclopedic article. For example, I am curious why those three terms were cited rather than three others. It requires POV to determine that, true? Or, for another example, why only list three and why not list ten? why not twenty? It occurs to me that the article here is attempting to read the books for the reader instead of allowing the reader to read the books and make judgments for themselves; and I am speaking about BOTH books, that is, both Robert Perry's book as well as the Course. The problem here is that it is a minor topic that is only brought up as important by one author, and yet, simultaneously the topic sentence of the section states that this is a "notable feature" of the book: "A notable feature of The Course is its distinct and very precise choice of language." That either needs to be rethunkked or restated to show the importance of that opinion in respect to the rest of the encyclopedia. In other words, it is rather like saying that no other books are precise or distinct in language selection. Basically, the statement is wholly untrue. Wasn't there something along the lines of brainwashing equated with the deliberate redefinition of various words in the readers' psyche? In order to achieve balance and/or justification for this section that other author's opinion should either be set in parallel alongside Perry's opinion here, or the section should be removed. Since an article should not be trying to have a debate within its content, and instead, rather the reverse, in essence then, it is my opinion that this one minor idiosyncrasy of the Course does not help define the book nor help the article stay in focus. Zghost 11:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Archives dropped a month

Archive 6 is pointing at the same material as Archive 5. Zghost 06:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, somebody seems to have screwed up the archives a bit. I have fixed this as best I have time for. There appears to have been an overlap period in the summer of 2006 due to the debates that raged back then. I've archived both overlapping archives in the interest of not losing any of that material.

-Scott P. 13:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

External Link Inaccuracy

One of the external links is listed as:

• Public Domain Version of A Course In Miracles

Clicking on it brings one to a page which has a copyright notice consipicuously presented at the bottom of the page.

Zghost 07:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Source?

There is a source listed as the final external link referencing the US District Court which is the actual original document which are republished/edited by the Miracle Times sources. We should have it the other way around, and refer in our article to the original source rather than a reprint with editorial and move the Miracle Times opinions to external links. The section they reference could also use a little scrutiny in my opinion. Zghost 11:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for reversion of litigation section

On Mar 13 the litigation section was reworded to read that "the copyright on the Course was judged and ordered void". The supporting reference used did not appear to fully support this assertion.

The supporting reference only stated that, "The copyright ... number A693944 ... is void", where the copyright number mentioned referred only to the 1st edition of ACIM. Stating only that "the copyright on the Course was judged and ordered void" instead of stating that, "the copyright to the 1st edition of ACIM was judged void" appeared to possibly be an over-simplification of the facts. I have reverted this section to its earlier wording as the section's earlier wording appeared to more clearly state the actual copyright status of ACIM.

Comments welcome.

-Scott P. 11:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The initial publication date

I have reverted the opening paragraph to include the initial publication date as opposed to the date that Thetford gave Hugh Lynn Cayce a copy for personal review. Date of publication information would seem to be more pertinent in an opening paragraph. Perhaps the Hugh Lyn Cayce vignette would work better further down in the article.

-Scott P. 10:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of commonalities with Freudian and Jungian psychology

In an effort to clarify the commonalities between ACIM, Freudian and Jungian psychology, I have inserted additional text highlighting these commonalities. If it may be felt that yet further clarification is still needed, please explain.

Thanks,

-Scott P. 11:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of OR and CITECHECK tags

Rephrasing two sentences into one, using parenthesis where needed, is generally not considered to be original research. I have removed the OR and CITECHECK tags from the COURSE MATERIAL section.

-Scott P. 11:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for removal of CONTROVERSIAL and CALM tags from the ACIM discussion page header

These tags were added to this discussion page back in the summer of 2006 when one or two users (who have since been banned from Wiki) managed to create a great deal of disharmony in this article.

Some of this "disharmony" was probably also the result of a general "house-cleaning" that occurred in Wiki around the same time as the standards for required references for writers in Wiki suddenly seemed to significantly increase, and what had generally once been a far more laissez-faire attitude towards documentation requirements suddenly tightened. Over night, many sections of many Wiki articles that had previously been considered as acceptable were found to be points of contention. Now that this "documentation house-cleaning" and the other controversies that came with it seem to have been basically resolved (to the best of my knowledge) I have gone ahead and removed those tags. Comments welcome.

-Scott P. 14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Some time ago User:Ste4k generated a list of material that she removed from the article when it was entering its dark age. I later provided a link to this material embedded in the CONTROVERSIAL tag, referring to it as an 'uncited sourcebook'. Removing the tag would have removed the only link to this page. Since the article has reached a more stable form the material may have no further function, and in that case, the page should be deleted. Otherwise, it should be kept as an additional archive. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 05:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for removal of speculation that Schucman may have disapproved of the early ACIM copyright handling

Earlier wording in the "Distribution" section of this article referring to the early ACIM copyright as an "alleged oral" copyright, appears to be based on a theory that there "may have" been a rift between Schucman, Wapnick and Skutch over the handling of the early copyright. Such speculation does not appear to be borne out by the fact that a close relationship existed between these three through to Schucman's death years after the initial publication. As of yet, this speculation is based only on the "negative proof" that such-and-such a document is not known to exist. Until any positive proof of such a rift might be found, the insertion of such speculative language in this article implying the "possibility" of such a rift, does not appear to serve to clarify the circumstances surrounding the the origins of the book, ACIM.

-Scott P. 16:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to reinstate better documented support articles on Wapnick and FACIM

In the summer of 2006, during a major shift in Wiki documentation policy, two important support articles for the ACIM article were deleted in the "clean-up" effort. These were articles on "Kenneth Wapnick" and on FACIM. I would like to propose that a better documented articles on Kenneth Wapnick and FACIM be restarted. As FIP is in a sense a subsidiary of FACIM, I think that a redirect from FIP to FACIM might be in order, and that any information particular to FIP could probably be included in one or two sentences in the proposed reinstated FACIM article. Comments?

-Scott P. 15:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

FIP and FACIM are two distinct organizations. FIP is not a subsidiary of FACIM. A redirect from FIP to FACIM would not be in order.—Who123 16:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's probably better to forget about the "shift in Wiki documentation policy." If multiple, independent, reliable sources exist about each of these subjects (and I believe they probably do), we should try to write such articles. It may be advisable to start an ACIM wikiproject if there is going to be significant coverage. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for rewording of summary section

On Mar. 25th the summary section was reworded to state that the Course teaches that there is "no need for traditional forgiveness".

While the Course does enlarge substantially on the traditional definition of forgiveness, I do not believe that it claims anywhere that it "overturns" it, or that it is no longer necessary. Some of the current dictionary definitions of the word are:

1. to grant pardon for or remission of (an offense, debt, etc.); absolve.
2. to give up all claim on account of; remit (a debt, obligation, etc.).
3. to grant pardon to (a person).
4. to cease to feel resentment against: to forgive one's enemies.
5. to cancel an indebtedness or liability of: to forgive the interest owed on a loan.
6. to pardon an offense or an offender.

I don't believe ACIM teaches anywhere that any of these things are no longer necessary. Comments welcome.

-Scott P. 11:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

other teachers?

About.com mentions "A new generation of teachers, including Marianne Williamson, Tara Singh [not Master Tara Singh], Dr. Gerald Jampolsky [friend of William Thetford], and most prominently, Kenneth and Gloria Wapnick, emerged as leaders in the loosely organized movement." Why aren't they mentioned in Wikipedia? -Eep² 04:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the above were in previous editions of this article, however during last summer's edit wars over this article, many were deleted. Unfortunately the standards for referencing in this article that some seem to insist upon are rather tiresome. I have had enough difficulty just keeping a bare minimum of the most pertinent information in this article accurate and sufficiently cited to meet certain editor's apparent requirements. You can feel free to re-include references to these other teachers here, only please give ample supporting citations while doing so. Any help you might be able to provide on this page would be most appreciated. Thanks,

-Scott P. 07:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Yea, seems like some Wikipedians are really cracking down on citations lately. I edited Michael Tsarion recently and then it was immediately nominated for deletion (and The Granada Forum for speedy deletion)--damn annoying. Fortunately, I was able to find enough sources but it was a mad dash--I hate that. :/ Anyway, I'm trying to establish credibility for Tsarion and Tara Singh is supposedly his grandfather, so I'm trying to establish that link. See Talk:Michael Tsarion for more info if you're interested. -Eep² 12:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Ken Wapnick has written several books on ACIM. Check it out on Amazon. Should be easy to cite his works as references, provided of course the author has read them. Zopupa 17:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

ACIM and Monism

Regarding a request for a citation source for the assertion that ACIM is monistic: Monism holds that the universe/ reality is comprised of a single indivisible substance. ACIM holds that God and His love are one and the same, and are all that there really is. I see no contradiction here. Further comments welcome. Thanks,

-Scott P. 07:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This gets into the fine points of ACIM philosophy. ACIM uses the word "oneness". Althought it does state that God is Love, it also speaks of God's Love. It also speaks of the relationship of the Father and the Son, angels, as well as 'our creations being kept safe for us in Heaven'. This seems to suggest a diversity in oneness. I think "Attributive Monism" and "Idealism" (see Monism) apply.—Who123 17:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the characterization of ACIM as monistic. ACIM repeatedly states that the physical world is illusory and not a part of the reality of God. According to Ken Wapnick the metaphysics of ACIM is nondualistic and I have edited the summary section of the article to add a Wapnick quote and reference citation. See the wikipedia entry for nondualism for a brief description of the difference between nondualism and monism. Although monism and nondualism appear to be similar, they are actually different. In Wapnick's two part volume "The Message of a Course in Miracles" Part One, Chapter One, he states "the metaphysics of A Course in Miracles is non-dualistic, as it expresses one pre-separation state: God. In fact, the Course can be said to represent what we may call a perfect or pure nondualism. This form of non-dualism holds not only that God is truth, and all else illusory, but that God is in no way involved in the illusory and unreal world of perception." Later in Chapter three of this same volume it is stated that "A Course in Miracles is unequivocal on this point that God did not create the physical universe. No compromise is possible here without rendering ineffectual the Course's entire thought system." More information about Wapnick can be found on the FACIM website and in the many books he has published about ACIM. Wapnick has written extensively about ACIM and its meaning. Zopupa 14:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To my understanding of Monism, it would agree with ACIM that the physical world where multiplicity appears to be real is illusory, and that in the unseen world of true spirit, where there is only One, God, or one Being, that this One Being has somehow forgotten It's One-ness. Thus the appearance of the illusory world that most scientists would call 'reality'. -Scott P. 17:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for removal of cite requests in terminology section

Three cite requests were previously inserted into the terminology section. I have since removed them. I am not certain who originally wrote that section, however as one who is familiar with ACIM, I can say without hesitation that the three pivotal terms defined there using ACIM phraseology were quite accurate summarizations of ACIM usage of these three terms. I do not believe that all summarizations in Wikipedia automatically require citations, however if the person who inserted these requests might still feel that cites are needed there, then please do the leg work yourself and either remove the terminology section and explain exactly which inconsistencies you have found there that justify its removal, or insert the cites yourself. Thanks,

-Scott P. 08:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Who "wrote" the Course?

There appears to be a common perceptual mis-perception that Helen "wrote" the Course. There is little question that she was the conduit for the "Voice". Related to this is the mis-perception that all of the material for the Course is contained in Helen's shorthand notes. These mis-perceptions can be corrected by reading the "Urtext". At the end of this are included quotes from the "Urtext" that first demonstrate that some of the material was directly typed without notes. The second set of quotes highlights Bill's deep involvement with the development of the Course material. One quote, in particular, stands out where the "Voice" (through Helen) states to Bill: "Your giant step forward was to INSIST on a collaborative venture."

According to Wapnick in "Absence from Felicity", "One can truly say that the birth of "A Course in Miracles" occurred that June afternoon [of 1965] in Bill's apartment." The intense collaboration continued from then until late 1972. Both Helen and Bill devoted most of their free time during these 7 years to the development of the Course. There were 3 parties in this collaboration: Bill, Helen, and the "Voice". This is easily seen in reading the "Urtext". Whether the "Voice" was indeed Jesus Christ or a product of Helen's split mind can only be decided by each individual. To relegate Bill's part to that of a typist is absurd.

____________________________

THE QUOTES - DICTATED WITHOUT NOTES

Nov. 20, '65

(This goes after basic conflict theory.) (Dictated without notes by HS)

We have already said that the basic conflict is one between love and fear, and that the proper organization of the psyche rests on a lack of level confusion. The section on psychic energy should be re-read very carefully, because it is particularly likely to be misinterpreted until this section is complete.

115

(Dictated without notes by HS)

One of the chief ways in which man can correct his magic-miracle confusion is to remember that he did not create himself. He is apt to forget this when he becomes egocentric, and this places him in a position where belief in magic is virtually inevitable. His instincts for creation were given him by his own Creator, who was expressing the same instinct in His Creation. Since the creative ability rests solely in the mind, everything which man creates is necessarily instinctive.

122

(The following INtroduction dictated by HS without notes.)

The following is the only detailed description which need be written down as to how error interferes with preparation. The events specifically referred to here could be any events, nor does their particular influence matter. It is the process which is to be noted here, and not its results. The kind of beliefs, and the fallacious premises involved in misthought are as well exemplified here as elsewhere. There is nothing of special interest about the events described below, EXCEPT their typical nature. If this is a true course in mind-training, then the whole value of this section rests ONLY in showing you what NOT to do. The more constructive emphasis is, of course, on the positive approach. Mind-watching would have prevented any of this from occurring, and will do so any time you permit it to.

137

(Dictated directly without notes)

Though Christians generally (but by no means universally) recognize the contradiction involved in victimizing others, they are less adept at ensuring their own inability to victimize themselves. Although this appears to be a much more benign error from the viewpoint of society, it is nevertheless inherently dangerous because once a two-edged defense is used, its direction cannot be self-controlled.

143

(DICTATED WITHOUT NOTES)

Nov. 24, 1965

We have repeatedly stated that the basic concepts referred to throughout the notes are NOT matters of degree. Certain fundamental concepts CANNOT be meaningfully understood in terms of co-existing polarities. It is impossible to conceive of light and darkness, or, everything and nothing, as joint possibilities. They are all true OR all false. It is absolutely essential that you understand completely that behavior is erratic until a firm commitment to one or the other is made.

Dictated without notes.

Nov. 30

We said before that the abilities which man possesses are only shadows of his true abilities. The soul's true functions are knowing, loving, and creating. The intrusion of the ability to perceive, which is inherently judgmental, was introduced only after the Separation. No one has been sure of anything since then. You will also remember that I made it very clear that the Resurrection was the return to knowledge, which was accomplished by the union of my will with the Father's.

Since the Separation, the words "create" and "make" are inevitably confused. When you make something, you make it first out of a sense of lack or need, and second, out of a something that already exists. Anything can be that is made is made for a specific purpose. It has no true generalizability. When you make something to fill a perceived lack, which is obviously why you would make anything, you are tacitly implying that you believe in the Separation. Knowing does not lead to doing, as we have frequently observed already.

___________________________

THE QUOTES - EXAMPLES OF THE COLLABORATION

BILL

For you and Bill, it would be better to consider the concept in terms of reliability & validity.

Bill, your parents did misperceive you in many ways, but their ability to perceive was quite warped, and their misperceptions stood in the way of their own knowledge. There is no reason why it should stand in the way of yours.

You, Bill, really believe that by teaching you are assuming a dominant or father role, and that the "father figure"; will kill you.

Bill, your whole fear of teaching is nothing but an example of your own intense separation anxiety, which you have handled with the usual series of mixed defenses in the combined pattern of attack on truth and defense of error, which characterizes ALL ego-thinking.

Bill, teaching and learning are your greatest strengths now, because you MUST change your mind and help others change theirs. It is pointless to refuse to tolerate change or changing because you believe that you can demonstrate by doing so that the Separation never occurred. The dreamer who doubts the reality of his dream while he is still dreaming it is not really healing the level-split.

If you perceive a teacher as merely a "larger ego"; you WILL be afraid, because to ENLARGE an ego IS to increase separation anxiety. Do not engage in this foolishness, Bill. I will teach with you and live with you, if you will think with me.

ALL separation anxiety is a symptom of a continuing will to remain separated. This cannot be repeated too often because you have NOT learned it. Bill, you are afraid to teach ONLY because you are afraid of the impression your image of yourself will make ON OTHER IMAGES. You believe that their APPROVAL of your image will exalt it, but also that your separation anxiety will be increased. You also believe that their DISAPPROVAL of it will lessen the separation anxiety, but at the cost of depression.

Bill, if you will to be a devoted teacher rather than an egocentric one, you will not be afraid. The teaching situation IS fearful if it is misused as an ego involvement. If you become afraid, it is BECAUSE you are using it this way. But the devoted teacher perceives the situation AS IT IS, and NOT as HE wills it. He does not see it as dangerous because HE is not exploiting it.

Bill, again I tell you that when you are afraid, be still and KNOW that God is real and YOU are His beloved son in whom he is well pleased. Do not let your ego dispute this, because the ego cannot know what is as far beyond its reach as you are. God is NOT the author of fear. YOU are. You have willed, therefore, to create unlike Him, and you have made fear for yourselves.

B's course was very carefully chosen, because "abnormal psychology"; IS ego psychology. This is precisely the kind of content which should never be taught FROM the ego whose abnormality should be lessened by teaching, not increased. You, Bill, are particularly well suited to perceive this difference, and can therefore teach this course as it should be taught. Most teachers have an unfortunate tendency to teach the COURSE abnormally, and many of the students are apt to suffer considerable perceptual distortion because of their own authority problem.

Your teaching assignment (and I assure you it IS an assignment) will be to present perceptual distortions without either engaging in them yourself, or encouraging your students to do so. This interpretation of your role and theirs is too charitable to induce fear. If you adhere to this role, you will both engender and experience hope, and you will inspire rather than dispirit the future teachers and therapists I am entrusting to you.

Bill has asked lately how the mind could ever have made the ego. This is a perfectly reasonable question; in fact, the best question either of you could ask. There is no point in giving an historical answer, because the past does not matter in human terms, and history would not exist if the same errors were not being repeated in the present. B. has often told you that your thinking is too abstract at times, and he is right.

When H. reads this to you, Bill, try to listen very carefully. You have never understood what "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you" means. The reason you cannot understand it is because it is NOT understandable to the ego, which interprets it as if something outside is inside, which does not mean anything. The word "within" does not belong. The Kingdom of Heaven IS you.

What IS the you who are living in this world? Bill will probably have more trouble with this than you, but if he will try not to close his mind, he may decide that we are NOT engaging in denial after all.

The ratio of repression and dissociation of truth varies with the individual ego-illusion (tell Bill that phrase is VERY good), but dissociation is always involved, or you would not believe that you ARE here.

When I told Bill to concentrate on the phrase "here I am, Lord" I did not mean "in this world" by "here." I wanted him to think of himself as a separate consciousness, capable of direct communication with the Creator of that consciousness. He, too, MUST begin to think of himself as a very powerful receiving and sending channel, a description I once gave you symbolically. Remember that HE understood it before you did, because you are more dissociative and less repressed.

Your great debt to each other is something you should never forget. It is exactly the same debt that you owe to me. Whenever you react egotistically towards each other, you are throwing away the graciousness of your indebtedness and the holy perception it would produce.

Because you are all the Kingdom of God, I can lead you back to your own creations, which you do not yet know. God has kept them very safe in HIS knowing while your attention has wandered. Bill gave you a very important idea when he told you that what has been dissociated IS STILL THERE. I am grateful to him for that, and I hope he will not decide that it is true only for you. Even though dissociation is much more apparent in you, and repression is much more evident in him, each of you utilizes both.

Wisdom always dictates that a therapist work through WEAKER defenses first. That is why I suggested to Bill that he persuade you to deal with REPRESSION first. We have only just about reached the point where dissociation means much to you, because it is so important to your misbeliefs. Bill might do well, - and you could help him here, - to concentrate more on HIS dissociative tendencies and not try to deal with repression yet.

55

I hinted at this when I remarked on his habit of disengaging himself, and when I spoke to him about distantiation. These are all forms of dissociation, and these weaker forms were always more evident in him than in you. That is because dissociation was so extreme in your case that you did not have to hide it because you were not aware that it was there. Bill, on the other hand, DOES dissociate more than he thinks, and that is why he cannot listen. He does not need to go through the same course in repression that you did, because he will give up his major misdefense AFTER he has rid himself of the lesser ones.

Do not disturb yourself about repression, Bill, but DO train yourself to be alert to any tendency to withdraw from your brothers. Withdrawal is frightening, and you do not recognize all the forms it takes in you. Helen is right that she will experience things that will cut across all her perceptions because of their stunning knowledge. You were right that this will occur when she learns to recognize what she ALREADY knows and has dissociated.

You, Bill, will learn somewhat differently, because you are afraid of all complete involvements, and believe that they lessen YOU. You have learned to be so much more clear-sighted about this that you should be ready to oppose it in yourself RELATIVELY easily. As you come closer to a brother, you DO approach me, and as you withdraw from him I become distant to you.

Your giant step forward was to INSIST on a collaborative venture.

It should be clear that, while the content of any particular ego-illusion does not matter, it is usually more helpful to correct it in a specific context. Bill is right that you are too abstract in this matter. Ego-illusions are QUITE specific, although they frequently change, and although the mind is naturally abstract, it became concrete voluntarily as soon as it splits. However, only PART of it splits, so only PART of it is concrete.

I arranged for Bill to attend the rehabilitation meetings for very good reasons, and I want him to know them so we can share our goal there.

The reason why Bill needs this experience is because he needs rehabilitating himself. How often have I answered "help him" when you asked me to help you? He, too, has asked for help, and he has been helped whenever he was truly helpful to you. He has also gained to whatever extent he could give. He will help YOU more truly by going, if he can remember all the time he is there that his ONLY reason for being there is to REPRESENT ME.

Bill, you will see this at every meeting. But this is not why you were chosen to go. You have a fear of broken bodies, because your ego cannot tolerate them. You ego cannot tolerate ego-weakness, either, without ambivalence, because it is afraid of its own weakness and the weakness of its chosen home.

Bill, you can do much on behalf of your own rehabilitation AND Helen's, and much more universally as well, if you think of the Princeton meetings in this way:

I am here ONLY to be truly helpful. I am here to represent Christ, who sent me. I do not have to worry about what to say or what to do, because the one who sent me will direct me. I am content to be wherever He wished, knowing he goes there with me. I will be healed as I let him teach me to heal.

Since thoughts do not have to be conscious to exist, your brother does not have to be AWARE of the Holy Spirit, either in himself or in you for this miracle to occur. He may have dissociated the call for God, just as YOU have. But the dissociation is healed in BOTH of you as you see it in him, and thus acknowledge its BEING. Bill, who has made a number of vital contributions to our joint venture, made a major one a while ago, which he himself did not appreciate or even understand. If we recognize its value together, we will be able to use it together, because it is an idea, and must therefore be shared to be held.

When Bill said that he was determined "NOT to see you that way" he was speaking negatively. If he will state the same idea POSITIVELY, he will see the POWER of what he said. He had realized that there are two ways of seeing you, and also that they are diametrically opposed to one another. These two ways must be in HIS mind, because he was referring to HIMSELF as the perceiver. They must also be in YOURS, because he was perceiving YOU.

What he was really saying was that he would NOT look at you through HIS ego, or perceive YOUR ego in you. State positively, he would see you through the Holy Spirit in HIS mind, and perceive it in YOURS. What you acknowledge in your brother, you ARE acknowledging in yourself. What you share you STRENGTHEN. The voice of the Holy Spirit IS weak in you. That is why you MUST share it, because it must be INCREASED in strength before YOU can hear it. It is impossible to hear it in yourself while it is so weak in your OWN mind. It is NOT weak in itself; but it IS limited by your unwillingness to hear it.

Will itself is an idea, and is therefore strengthened by being shared. You have made the mistake of looking for the Holy Spirit in YOURSELVES, and that is why your meditations have frightened you. By adopting the ego's viewpoint, you undertook an ego-alien journey WITH THE EGO AS GUIDE. This was BOUND to produce fear. Bill's better idea needs to be strengthened in BOTH of you. Since it was HIS, HE can increase it by giving it to you.

Bill once spoke of the Kingdom in this way, because he yearns for what he has repressed. You are much more afraid of it, because dissociation is more fearful. B's better contact has allowed him the strength to retain the fear in awareness, and to resort to displacement, which he is learning to overcome with YOUR help. That is because you do not perceive HIM as dissociated, and can help him with his repression, which does not frighten you. He, on the other hand, has no difficulty in seeing YOU dissociate, and does not have to deal with repression in you, which WOULD produce fear in him.

75

Joining in Atonement, which I have repeatedly asked you to do, is ALWAYS a way OUT of fear. This does not mean that you can safely fail to acknowledge anything that is true, but the Holy Spirit will not fail to help you reinterpret EVERYTHING that you perceive as fearful, and teach you ONLY what is loving is TRUE. It is beyond your ability to destroy, but entirely within your grasp. It BELONGS to you because YOU created it. It is yours because it is part of you, just as you are part of God, because He created you.

There is time for delay, but there need not be. God weeps at the sacrifice of His children who believe they are lost to Him. The "one more thing" that Bill must learn is merely that he is NOT the one more. He is both ONE and AT ONE. If he will learn this NOW, he will be willing in accord with the last judgment, which is really only the Biblical reminder of the inevitability of self-INCLUSION. This is what "Physician, heal thyself" really means. Bill has frequently observed for HIMSELF that this is hard to do. He has, however, been perfectly aware of JUST what YOU should do about it.

96

You might ask him for me whether he does not think he might be dissociating HIMSELF from his own awareness, since he is so clear about the remedy for YOU. You might also remind him that to whatever extent he separates himself from you, he is separating himself from ME. This IS a collaborative venture. Let me therefore return his own ideas to him, so that you can share them and thus help each other to help me.

You have been chosen to teach the Atonement precisely BECAUSE you have been EXTREME examples of allegiance to your thought systems, and therefore have developed the capacity FOR allegiance. It has indeed been misplaced. Bill had become an outstanding example of allegiance to apathy, and you have become a startling example of fidelity to variability. But this IS a form of faith, which you yourselves had grown willing to redirect. You cannot doubt the STRENGTH of your devotion when you consider how faithfully you observed it. It was quite evident that you had ALREADY developed the ability to follow a better model, if you could ACCEPT it.

You, Helen, had taken this step, and because you believed in it, you taught it to Bill, who still believed in the solution of sleep. You were not consistent in teaching it, but you did so often enough to enable him to learn it. Once HE learned it, he could teach YOU how to become more consistently awake, and thus begin to waken HIMSELF. This placed him, too, in command of the journey. His recognition of the direction it must take was perfectly stated when he INSISTED ON COLLABORATION.

You, H., had taken a giant step INTO conflict, but B. turned you both forwards TOWARD THE WAY OUT. The more he teaches this, the more he will learn it.

_____________________________

—Who123 16:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Who123,

I agree with you entirely in your view that Thetford should not be represented only as a "clerical assistant". I also agree with you that most serious students of ACIM would probably prefer to hold that none other than Jesus himself "wrote" the Course and that Helen was merely the conduit.

Still, even in the notes you listed above, it appears that Helen was the one who was ACIM's "spoken-source" which still equates to her being the "author" or "writer" and Bill was the primary one who assisted her greatly in transforming the rough dialogue into a polished, marketable text. (Dr. Ken Wapnick also provided substantial assistance which enabled the transformation of the material into a published work.) Does that seem like a fair enough assessment to you?

By the way, thanks for pointing out the fact that some sections of the Urtext appear to have been first set down into writing by Bill, taking down dictation from Helen's spoken words, during some "spoken dictation sessions" as opposed to the more typical "inner dictation sessions" which Helen would independently set down into her own shorthand. I see your point where technically Bill was the first to "write" these sections, however I think that the dictionary definition we are going for here regarding use of the term "write" may be the looser definitions of the term, such as "to produce as author or composer" or "to compose and produce in words or characters duly set down", in which case Helen would be the composer or producer, and Bill would be the one who "duly set them down", but not the composer or producer. I never paid any particular attention to this distinction before and I appreciate your pointing this important distinction out.

Sincerely,

-Scott P. 10:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scott! I agree that for those with faith in the Course, Jesus Christ was the "Voice" and the true author. For a WP article, we can only go as far as the evidence supports. If we assume that the "Voice" was Jesus Christ then, as I have documented above, the course was a "collaborative venture" between Jesus, Helen, and Bill. All three were key players.

As I said above, Helen was the conduit for the "Voice". I think many that have only read the latest editions may have the impression that Jesus simply dictated it to Helen and Bill typed it. This would make Helen a stenographer and Bill a poor typist. I think the importance of reading at least the first 25% or so of the Urtext (including photocopies) is to better understand the relationship aspects between the three and how it really was a "collaborative venture". I think is also important in how it demonstrates how we have the potential to have the same sort of relationship with Jesus as Helen and Bill did. I think Ken's role should be left to another discussion, particularly considering how controversial that discussion would be.

I see that it appears that you have expanded your last paragraph in a new section. Let me read it and respond to it. At this point, from what I have seen, I still think it best to consider the origin of the Course a "collaborative venture" between the "Voice", Helen, and Bill.

I appreciate your approaching this in a calm, open-minded, and rational manner.—Who123 16:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Some definitions of the term "write"....

Hello again Who123,

-I see that you have reverted my reversion regarding your assertion that Thetford should be represented as a "writer" of ACIM. I think our disagreement here may all turn on which dictionary definition is most appropriate to use here for the term "write" or "writer". You are obviously correct that Thetford was indeed the first person to "set into writing" some portions of ACIM. However Schucman was consistently acknowledged by Thetford as the one whose dictation he was typing down, thus she was acting consistently as the "source", "conduit" or in a journalistic sense, as "the author" of the words.

-I know of no other writers or authors who have ever described Thetford as an "author" or "writer" of ACIM. This Wikipedia article has never before listed him as such. As this new description of Thetford as an author/ writer of ACIM has not yet been accepted anywhere else that I know of, I have gone ahead and reverted this assertion. While I understand your point that Thetford was in a certain technical sense a "writer" of ACIM, in the sense of authorship he was not one of its "writers", at least in my understanding, and this appears to be the the preferred definition of the term "writer" in this particular application of the word "writer".

-I would ask that before you might revert this wording again to your new assertion, could you at least please get some third and fourth opinions here from the RFC section, or else at least get a citation from an actually published author? Minimally, please ask some other Wikipedian editors what they think about this and list their comments here.

-Perhaps your finding that not all of ACIM was transcribed directly from Schucman's shorthand notes might be good to note further on down somehow in the article, perhaps in the section titled: "Drafting the Course", while making clear that Schucman was still the "conduit" or "source" for the sections that were not transcribed directly from her shorthand notes.

-Thanks,

-Scott P. 11:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scott! I read what you have written. I suspect that you might agree that the Course is not an ordinary book and that the usual terms may not apply. Perhaps it is helpful to turn to a primary source, the Urtext:

"7

(Tell B. about the idea (which is still too dim to HS) that the reason is not that you (plural) distantiate, doubt, or cannot believe. It is more of a reaction formation against a pull which you both recognize is so intense that you are afraid that you will be uprooted. But remember that a cobweb is really stronger than the iron, if you see it properly. This fear is also why you couldn’t get the point straight.)

By the way, it is not true that you are both 'just scribes'. You might remember that the Scribes were very wise and holy men and are even sometimes spelled with a capital S. If you want to go further, you might change the meaning of 'just' from 'merely' to 'honest', a term used in the Bible in association with 'might' or 'strength.' Tell B. you couldn’t make ..."

As the "Voice" refers to both Helen and Bill as scribes, perhaps this would be more appropriate than writers. I do not wish to get into an edit war so let me make this change to see how it reads. I think it is the most honest and factual.

Thanks much.—Who123 17:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Who123,

I agree again that the voice's use of the term "scribe" to refer to both Helen and Bill might deserve noting in the article, however it still seems to me that if we were to refer to Bill as a "writer" of ACIM that some might come to believe that the "voice" was channeling itself both directly through him, as well as directly through Helen. Does the Urtext seem to you to imply that this was the case? If so, where? I have gone ahead and made a Request for Comment regarding our disagreement, as we seem to be a bit at loggerheads on this question. Perhaps some other fresh voices might have some good insights for us on this.

-Scott P. 01:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scott. I am suggesting that we not use the words "writer" or "author" at all. I am suggesting that we use the terminology of the "Voice". It was a "collaborative venture" and Helen and Bill were "scribes". I think if we use "writer" or "author" then it implies that it was not a "collaborative venture". If we insist on using those terms then we are going against what the "Voice" has said.—Who123 02:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Best words to use re: Helen & Bill in origin of ACIM

I have entered an RFC in the RFC area regarding our inability to agree on which is the best definition of the words: author, writer. Comments from other Wiki editors would be most welcome here. Please refer to the last two discussion topics above for more background on this RFC. Thanks,

-Scott P. 00:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scott. I do not think we are looking for people to give definitions of "authorship", "author", or "writer". The Course is not an ordinary book. Who is the author or writer of the Christian Bible? I think the question should be framed in terms of the origin of the Course using the terms noted above from the "Voice" in a primary source. Thanks.—Who123 02:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for at least changing your description of Thetford from being a "writer" of ACIM to being a "scribe" of ACIM. Still I think that the use of this term "scribe" to describe Thetford in the intro paragraph may be a bit premature. It seems to me that newbies reading the opening paragraph seek clarity, not such esoteric phraseology. Your use of the word "scribe" here is a usage with which a typical reader of Wikipedia would probably not be familiar. Schucman was listed as an author in the copyright application. If this was good enough for Schucman, why shouldn't it be good enough for us in the intro paragraph of Wikipedia? Then later on down in the article perhaps we could elaborate as to exactly what the words "author", "scribe" and "writer" appeared to have meant for Schucman, Thetford and Wapnick in their composing of ACIM. By the way, it seems to me that Wapnick's role in composing ACIM was almost as important as Thetford's. Wapnick was the only other person besides Thetford that Schucman ever entrusted with editing ACIM. If I am not mistaken, I do believe that Schucman even called Wapnick a "scribe" of ACIM somewhere. I think that our description of Wapnick's role in composing ACIM needs to better reflect this. -Scott P. 12:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scott. I am not trying to make this complicated. My goal is truth. Most books have the author or writer clearly marked on the book. ACIM does not. This was intentional. The copyright had Helen's name on it but it was listed as "anonymous". For the copyright they had to have a human name; they could not put down "Jesus". I do not think I know more about ACIM than Helen or Bill. As I understand you, you believe that Helen is the author of the Course and this is what she herself claimed. My understanding is that Helen claimed that she was not the author of the Course. I have simply pointed out what the "Voice" in the Course actually said: the Course was a "collaborative venture" and Helen and Bill were "scribes". I do not think the word "scribe" is some obscure word that no one has ever heard. Do you have a source where Helen, in her own words, states that she was the author of the Course? Thanks—Who123 15:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Who123, I think the copyright filing where the author(s) are listed as, "Anonymous, (Helen Schucman)" should be enough documentation by Wikipedia standards. According to Schucman, the same "Voice" that dictated ACIM to her also instructed her to have the copyright filed. Following the Course's logic, if this was the "Voice of Jesus", then that same "Voice" would have been aware that Helen would have had to be listed as an author in order to get the copyright filed. Thus, that same voice would have approved the listing of Helen as the author. So, you are saying that you disapprove of what that "Voice" approved of? Namely the listing of Helen as an author?

Regarding the use of the word "scribe": In ACIM the term "scribe" as it was applied to Helen and Bill was used exclusively to describe them as assisting in the channeling of ACIM from the "Voice" into written form. I know of no other place where the word "scribe" implies any form of channeling. Thus, this seems to me to be a word definition usage that might be a bit unfamiliar to a typical Wikipedia reader, especially in an intro paragraph. -Scott P. 18:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, do you have a source where Helen, in her own words, states that she was the author of the Course? There is no author listed on the book. I do not understand why you object to the words of the "Voice" from a primary source: the Course was a "collaborative venture" and Helen and Bill were "scribes".—Who123 19:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a source for that assertion? If it is a claim by these people, then we cannot assert that as a fact, but as an opinion. Thus, we cannot declare them as "scribes", rather we can say they describe themselves as scribes, and cite a source to support it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is from FIP: "Helen Schucman and Bill Thetford were an unlikely team in scribing A Course in Miracles." On the same page: "As Helen wrote: "It represented a truly collaborative venture between Bill and myself..."" [1]—Who123 19:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scott, long time no speak... I personally do not see a problem on using "writer" or "author". The fact that Helen claims that it was from a "voice", may not be so relevant. Someone had to write it, and by the sources provided, she did. Right? Or am I missing something? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, good to 'see you'! Thanks for your input here. This disagreement was originally about whether or not Thetford should be listed as one of the authors/ writers of ACIM. I held that only Schucman should be listed as such in the intro paragraph, Who123 held that both Schucman and Thetford should be listed as such. Now Who123 doesn't want either of them to be listed as such, but rather wants to have both listed only as "scribes" in the intro paragraph. Thus it goes. I hope all is well with you. Please feel welcome to assist further with this dialogue. -Scott P. 18:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I see... In this case it would be better to refer to third party sources, rather than our opinions. I would be surprised if these people have been described as "scribes". I would argue that "writers" could be a good compromise, as it does not have the connotations of authorship, and avoids stating the opinion that they were just mediums. We could also say how they describe themselves, by attributing the statement to them, such as "XYZ described himself/herself as a conduit for the "Voice", and not as the author", that is if we can find such a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi. I think in the spirit of compromise, stating in the introduction that Helen and Bill were "writers" would be fair.—Who123 19:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as I have noted above, no other publication, not Thetford himself, and not Wikipedia has ever described Thetford as a "writer" of ACIM. Please note that Webster's dictionary definition #1 for the word "writer" is: "especially.....an author". As such, it seems to me that the word "writer" does connote "author". Jossi, you may not have thoroughly read through this dialog thread as your proposal is not a compromise, it is a preference to choose against my original stated objection. Again, to list Thetford as a writer author of ACIM seems to me to be Original Research in this instance, unless a proper supporting citation could be provided, no? -Scott P. 21:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Scott, as noted above this citation from FIP confirms that they were a team in "scribing" the course and Helen confirms this: "Helen Schucman and Bill Thetford were an unlikely team in scribing A Course in Miracles." On the same page: "As Helen wrote: "It represented a truly collaborative venture between Bill and myself..."" I agree that "writers" is not the most truthful; they should both be presented as "scribing" the Course. [2]—Who123 21:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:SELFPUB, what we can say is that "According to Helen Schucman, the scribing of the books represented a "truly collaborative venture" between her and William Thetford. In the lead we can use the word writer, that is more neutral. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, are you suggesting merely that we use the word "writer" to describe Schucman, as that is how she allowed herself to be described in the copyright application, or are you suggesting that Wikipedia be the first publication to proclaim that Thetford was also a co-writer (author) of ACIM? I suspect that both Thetford and Schucman would disagree to such a description of Thetford, were either of them still alive. This would also require ample citation to keep from being considered as OR. Could you please clarify whether or not you are proposing that Wikipedia give Thetford the title of "writer of ACIM"? -Scott P. 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Scott, I am not familiar with the subject enough to make such a call. But from the source, we can simply attribute that claim to Schucman. We are not saying that he was a writer, we are just describing what she said. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, as noted above, this part of the citation is from FIP (a secondary source) and confirms that they were a team in "scribing" the course: "Helen Schucman and Bill Thetford were an unlikely team in scribing A Course in Miracles."[3]—Who123 22:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that FIP can be considered a secondary source in this instance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the same wording at the beginning of the William Thetford article could be used in this article with the citation I provided above?—Who123 23:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll accept the term "scribes" in the intro. I am amazed at how many words were used to determine what the best word to use might be in a single instance!!! The care being put into this article is evident. Thanks Jossi & Who123 for your input here. -Scott P. 11:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Scott. I think this is a more truthful reflection of the roles of Helen and Bill in the origin of the Course as a "truly collaborative venture".—Who123 11:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the photo at FIP [4] available to be used in this article?—Who123 12:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The only concern about using the word "scribe" is that it would be puzzling to our readers. Ther is no context for that term, that is pretty unusual. Also, it asserts the viewpoint (the authors) that the book was indeed dictated by a "Voice". This does not work. Not at all. We need to provide context and avoid making assertion of facts based on what primary sources say about themselves. Least we can do is to attribute that assertion to them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not find the word "scribe" puzzling and it is the word used in ACIM, by Helen, and by FIP. Sometimes I am puzzled by even common words and when I do I look them up in the dictionary. In addition, here, the reader can simply click on the link for more information on the scribing. The cite I provided includes that both Helen and FIP think that both Helen and Bill are scribes. There is not a quote from Bill saying this. In reading ACIM and all sources that I have seen, the "Voice" was the third part of the collaboration. As I noted at the very beginning (up two sections) only the individual can decide if this was Jesus or a split in Helen's mind.—Who123 18:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course you don't: Your are familiar with the subject, and I may adventure and say that you believe that a voice can speak to people and that they can scribe what the voice says (note I am not challenging your beliefs, just trying to present my argument here). But think of the reader that never heard of any of these beliefs... What will they understand (or not) when you talk about X and Y were "scribes" of this book? Probably not much. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, I am familiar with this subject. I understand the difficulty here in the fine choice of words that are both accurate and something a reader not familiar with the subject can grasp. In thinking about this during this discussion, I have tried to place my mine in a state prior to reading ACIM. When I do this I think of it of an old term where people would hand copy books, particularly religious books, before the printing press. In terms of the divine speaking to a person and then writing words this is not unfamiliar. One well know example are the 10 Commandments. I decided to look at another article about which I have heard but am not familiar with (String theory). I do not understand quite a few words in the introduction even though I have a science background. Considering everything in mind, IMO, "scribes" is the most accurate word and if the reader does not understand this one word, they simply have to click on the link. Does this help? Do you have a better idea?—Who123 22:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never read that Moses was the "scribe" of the 10 commandments. In any case, I have made my argument already. As you aree the expert on the subject, you may want to pay attention to these that are not, as these would be the likely people to benefit from this article, if they understand it, that is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not claim to be an expert. Perhaps we will get a better suggestion with time. Thanks—Who123 01:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to make the necessary corrections to the lead. The beginning of the lead needs also tweaking. It starts with "A Course in Miracles (also referred to as ACIM or the Course), is a book considered by its students to be their "spiritual path." We ought to describe first what the book is, and then who uses it and what students think of it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A book and a quote

The best book that I have read on the origin of ACIM is Robert Skutch's "Journey Without Distance". Perhaps this reference should be included in the section on origins or intro? I find the article does not convey the importance of ACIM in certain circles. Cayce and A.R.E. are highly respected. The first printed book review of the Course comes from A.R.E. (part of which is quoted in Skutch's book): "The three books comprise one of the most remarkable systems of spiritual truth available today in the world of metaphysics. It is a 20th-century book of revelation , the scope of which is virtually without limit. Anyone who is searching for God, and who has studied the literature of metaphysics, new thought or the mysteries of religion East and West, should read A Course in Miracles."—Who123 18:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Source & wording for ACIM (see above sections)

I have agreed to allow Thetford to be listed as a "scribe", but not as an "writer" or author of ACIM. The previous version of the intro paragraph claimed that FACIM described Thetford as a "writer" of ACIM, but this was not documented. Until documentation can be provided that Thetford "wrote" ACIM, this claim cannot be made by Wikipedia. Case closed.

-Scott P. 12:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Either can Schucman. I think it best to stay with the word the references provide: "scribes".—Who123 20:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Mysticism

Seems A Course in Miracles is a form of mysticism and should be categorized as such. --Remi 06:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. See Mysticism.—Who123 13:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we have any reliable sources describing it as such? If so, it would be useful to the reader to include a paragraph or so in the article explaining the aspects of it that are considered mysticism. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

channeled category?

scribed = channeled? --Remi 03:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion in Category:Jesus

I acknowledge that the article states that the information in the course came directly from Jesus himself. I wonder however whether the Category:Jesus is necessarily the best place for inclusion of this article, or whether some subcat might be preferable. My personal hope for the Category:Jesus is to trim the main category to those articles which specifically relate to the life of the historical Jesus, to make it more workable for the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Jesus work group. I think perhaps creation of a new subcategory, perhaps like the similar Category:Marian visionaries, for articles related to the, as it were, post-mortem appearances of Jesus might be better. Thoughts? John Carter 15:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have consensus to limit the category on that category's talk page? You are aware of course that the Incarnation, Resurrection, Transfiguration and the various miracles ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels are not historically verifiable. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of the procedures involved, for which I apologize. I will seek such concensus now. And, for what it's worth, some sort of pruning is clearly required. Right now, Category:Jainism is a second-or-third level descendant of the Category:Jesus, which I think most people would say is at least a little odd. Anyway, thanks for the response. John Carter 15:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, I believe this article belongs in the Jesus catagory.—Who123 16:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be worth much more if you provided a rationale for its inclusion. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Christianity and book rating at talk of this talk page

My understanding of ratings is that the person giving them needs to give their feedback and how they arrived at the conclusion. Neither rating did this, so I am removing them.... Sethie 02:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand this entry. What "ratings"? Where is the WP policy on ratings? What is being removed? Thanks.—Who123 12:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I see. The WikiProject tags for Books and Christianity were removed. I do not understand why. Where is the WP policy on WikiProjects? Thanks again.—Who123 12:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, nothing is "needed" to be done in wikipedia. The templates are there to indicate to projects which deal with subjects relating to specific articles that a given article exists, and what the current state of the article is. This way, those projects have a better idea what content is out there, what needs improvement, and which articles most require improvement. While the templates often (but nowhere near always) are constructed to allow for comments regarding why a certain rating was given, they cannot be said to ever require it. John Carter 15:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie by no means knows everything... and not sure what purpose is served by someone dropping by, giving a grade and leaving without any further comment. He read "If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses)" noticed the person didn't do that and didn't see the point. Maybe he was wrong. If anyone feels strongly about putting them back, Sethie won't fight it. Sethie 01:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the person who placed the ratings initially was me. Basically, I rated the article as a "B" class. Of the three "higher" classes, GA, A, and FA, only the middle one can be given without formal review. I have also found it to be the case that it generally helps to have multiple people review the article before committing to giving it the "almost there" A grade. The "B" class basically means close to or at GA class without formal GA review. Maybe if someone asked for a peer review of the article they could probably get more details, but as I remember I basically gave it a "B" because "A" articles are extremely rare and I can't give out GA or FA without engaging the review process. Not sure if that helps, but that was the reasoning behind it. John Carter 01:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the WikiProject tags for Books and Christianity should be restored as this article qualifies for both. I am not familar with the rating system so perhaps a neutral rating could be given pending more formal review.—Who123 02:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Placing a Wikiproject tag on the talk page of an article merely means that the members of the Wikiproject want to collaborate in helping to improve/maintain the article. If the Christianity project folks want to do this, the more the merrier (usually). I agree with Sethie, though, that a rationale should be provided for the rating. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

ACIM and Monism

Regarding a request for a citation source for the assertion that ACIM is monistic: Monism holds that the universe/ reality is comprised of a single indivisible substance. ACIM holds that God and His love are one and the same, and are all that there really is. I see no contradiction here. Further comments welcome. Thanks,

-Scott P. 07:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC) -This discussion copied from archive as it remained as an active discussion after the archive was closed- -Scott P. 17:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This gets into the fine points of ACIM philosophy. ACIM uses the word "oneness". Althought it does state that God is Love, it also speaks of God's Love. It also speaks of the relationship of the Father and the Son, angels, as well as 'our creations being kept safe for us in Heaven'. This seems to suggest a diversity in oneness. I think "Attributive Monism" and "Idealism" (see Monism) apply.—Who123 17:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the characterization of ACIM as monistic. ACIM repeatedly states that the physical world is illusory and not a part of the reality of God. According to Ken Wapnick the metaphysics of ACIM is nondualistic and I have edited the summary section of the article to add a Wapnick quote and reference citation. See the wikipedia entry for nondualism for a brief description of the difference between nondualism and monism. Although monism and nondualism appear to be similar, they are actually different. In Wapnick's two part volume "The Message of a Course in Miracles" Part One, Chapter One, he states "the metaphysics of A Course in Miracles is non-dualistic, as it expresses one pre-separation state: God. In fact, the Course can be said to represent what we may call a perfect or pure nondualism. This form of non-dualism holds not only that God is truth, and all else illusory, but that God is in no way involved in the illusory and unreal world of perception." Later in Chapter three of this same volume it is stated that "A Course in Miracles is unequivocal on this point that God did not create the physical universe. No compromise is possible here without rendering ineffectual the Course's entire thought system." More information about Wapnick can be found on the FACIM website and in the many books he has published about ACIM. Wapnick has written extensively about ACIM and its meaning. Zopupa 14:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To my understanding of Monism, it would agree with ACIM that the physical world where multiplicity appears to be real is illusory, and that in the unseen world of true spirit, where there is only One, God, or one Being, that this One Being has somehow forgotten It's One-ness. Thus the appearance of the illusory world that most scientists would call 'reality'. -Scott P. 17:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms

I readded part of the Criticisms section. It is entirely appropriate to include sourced/published criticisms within an article (part of ensuring a balanced treatment of the subject). And these are particularly notable, especially since one of them is from a former ACIM teacher. Not a dog 21:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie concurs, they seem reasonably notable, and Sethie likes how you sumarized a couple different ones briefly... if people want to find out more, they can. Sethie 01:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The only criticism that I think should be removed is: "Anton van Harskamp, a German scholar of religion, says that the Course contains, "...endless variation on some universally meant insights in life..." that, "...brings readers of the book, [or] in any case this reader, [to] a mood in which bewilderment and boredom take turns"." This is lame. It is a personal opinion in which the author states that he does not understand the material and is, of course, bored by it. It speaks more to the ignorance of the author rather than the material itself.—Who123 02:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether he is ignorant or not is your opinion. If he is indeed a scholar of religion, his criticism has value. Not a dog 12:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Anton van Harskamp states that he was in a state of "bewilderment". My dictionary defines this as confusion. If we stick with the authors own words then I think we can say he, personally, was bewildered or confused by the material. My opinion is that this is not a valid critism.—Who123 14:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If you read the quote it is clear that by saying the reader was in a state of "bewilderment," he meant that the text was convoluted. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

ObiterDicta is correct on this. Not a dog 20:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sethie proposes we look at the man and not try to verify or deny the veracity of his words, nor evaluate his mental state! :) A a look at the article linked to shows a pretty impresive bibliography at the end of the article, and this page does list him as faculty and a proffessor. [[5]]

Maybe we need to find a different quote from him, however, Sethie is actually stoked to find an actual academic who has looked at the course!Sethie 16:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That is good but did he just look at it to arrive at his state of "bewilderment" or did he really put the time into studying it to end his state? ACIM is a very difficult read that is very hard to understand with a simple read. I am sure we could find professors that would find the bible (or any serious religious text) boring and/or confusing. Is that listed as a criticism in those articles? Just my 2 cents (which are getting worth less and less day by day).—Who123 03:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

lol good one. All Sethie knows is that this is what he said.... and it sounds like you almost agree with him! "ACIM is a very difficult read that is very hard to understand with a simple read." Granted this is quite different from what he wrote, however, it sounds like a similar ball-park idea to what he was trying to express! :) Sethie 17:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Upon reading the cited source of Prather's comments I was very surprised at how those comments had been taken out of context and thus misrepresented the tone of the essay. In the cited essay Prather does not denigrate ACIM, rather he expresses disappointment in the human propensity to either misinterpret or fail to live up to the philosophy's tenets due to the ego. He rather humbly includes himself as an example of an ego at large. Prather's criticisms/comments about some particular individuals who were present at a specific gathering or meeting had been taken out of context and generalized to a much larger group of students of ACIM by the wikipedia author's insertion of his/her own phrases "ACIM students often become" and "with many ultimately" preceding the quotes. The author's choice of quotes from this rather lengthy article imply a critical bias that just isn't there. Read the Prather essay for yourself. It is a lament of how even the best religious and philosophical teachings can be misunderstood and misused by individuals. Also how formal organization of such teachings almost always leads to organizational splits and conflicts, which Prather attributes to personal ego. Anyway, my point is that the "criticisms" section is supposed to contain criticisms of the topic itself (ACIM), not comments or criticisms of how the behavior of specific individuals might illustrate the misunderstanding or misuse of the topic. [It would be equally disappointing to find in the criticisms section of the wikipedia Islam entry quotes from a muslim cleric explaining that his practice of Islam made him act violently and destructively. Individuals are responsible for their behavior, not religions or philosophies.] Is Prather a true critic of ACIM? If so, there should be ample evidence of this from multiple sources. I don't see the evidence based upon the cited article and other Prather works I've read. Perhaps a distinction needs to be made between form and content, i.e., the organizations affiliated with ACIM and the ACIM material itself. If the author intended to express that Prather is a critic of the ACIM affiliated organizations, that should be clarified. Prather expresses admiration for the teaching itself and possibly criticism for the organizations, but let's not confuse form with content. Anyhow, I am sure that there are enough real critics of ACIM out there that this kind of contrivance is unnecessary. I believe that citing the Prather article as evidence that he is a critic of ACIM is inaccurate and misguided so I edited this section to give a better depiction of the tone of the article. Wikipedia users deserve clarity and accuracy of information. Zopupa 15:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking up on that! Sethie 22:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with criticism for the course as long as it does something to add to the knowledge of the course and dosen't call the course Heresy, or tries to represent it as brainwashing.Tcrichards (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion re reinstating the Kenneth Wapnick article...

I have recently contacted the administrator who deleted the Kenneth Wapnick article in the summer of 2006. I feel it is time to reinstate this article. Your opinion regarding this request would be appreciated on this administrator's talk page. The discussion can be found at: Request to rescind your decision to delete the Kenneth Wapnick article on July 6, 2006. Any followup comments that you might have regarding this re-instatement request on the admin's talk page would be most appreciated.

-Thanks,
-Scott P. 16:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC) .

Hi Scott. I do not spend as much time on WP as I used to. I am not opposed to having additional ACIM related articles including ones about Ken, Judy, Robert Perry, and more. It has been some time, but as I recall, the article about Ken was very poor, had little sourced information, and seemed very self-serving. As you know, there is much controversy regarding Ken and the course and whether he was helpful or not. Many disagree with his interpretation of the course. Many consider his behaviour to exemplify the actions of the ego as discussed in the course. Best wishes.—Who123 16:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

IMPORTANT UPDATE Re: the Kenneth Wapnick article discussion

As the administrative closer who originally chose to delete the Kenneth Wapnick article has asked that a discussion be opened at Reconsidering inclusion of an article on Kenneth Wapnick, the discussion on re-instating this article has now moved to this new location. Please post any further comments regarding this article there. Thanks, Scott P. 02:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have created a wapnick page for us to work on User:Sethie/wapnick, along with a talk page for discussing how we can improve the article User:Sethie/wapnicktalk Sethie 01:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOSBIO and academic titles

Thetford and Schuchman's academic titles seem to have reappeared in the article. Just for clarity's sake (and to avoid an edit war over this, let me reproduce the relevant language from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Academic titles:

Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead.

Removal of these titles is not intended to slight the two scribes in any way, simply to comply with the Manual of Style. Please do not add them again. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Kenneth Wapnick & the article

There is much controversy regarding Kenneth Wapnick and the Course. Many do not agree with his interpretation. Many consider his behaviour to exemplify the actions of the ego as discussed in the course. I believe that any information included in the article with Wapnick's opinions should be balanced with those of another such as Robert Perry to avoid bias, or avoided altogether.

It was mentioned in the article that Wapnick abandoned his Jewish faith and converted to Catholicism. This is not true. The only reason Wapnick began the process was apparently to become close to the Catholic monk Thomas Merton. Wapnick retains his Jewish origins.

In Journey Without Distance - The story behind A Course in Miracles, Robert Skutch describes how Wapnick forced his way into 'the inner circle' through Helen. Wapnick's actions and writings seem to show his desire to eliminate William Thetford and replace Thetford with himself.

—Who123 17:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

To Who: You make some rather astonishing claims regarding Wapnick. 1) Please cite your sources for the “many” who disagree with Wapnick’s interpretation. It is a given that there will be “many” who disagree with any interpretation of a philosophy or spiritual path. If there are many specific, documented skeptics you are referring to then please list them here. This is rather unimportant, but I am curious. 2) I have read "Journey Without Distance" and have a different impression than yours. Could you please specify where it is described how Wapnick “forced” his way into the “inner circle”? As I recall, what I read describes “Father Michael” introducing Wapnick to Bill and Helen of his own accord because he was impressed by an article of Wapnick's that he had read (given to him by Bill); (Chapter 6) then Bill invited Ken to look at the Course but he “politely demurred” when he saw the length of the text as he was about to leave for Israel and could not give it his full attention. Wapnick later decided that he did want to review the text when he had more time. I would be happy to look this up and quote it verbatim. Since Skutch dedicates his book “lovingly” to “Helen, Bill, Ken and Judy” it would be unusual for Skutch to characterize Wapnick as someone who "forced" himself upon others (assuming the “Ken” in the dedication is Wapnick).

3) Your comment that “the only reason” Wapnick considered converting to Catholicism was to become close to Thomas Merton is a very strong statement and suggests somewhat obsessive behavior on Wapnick's part and omniscience on your part about Wapnick’s motives. How could anyone but Wapnick know his own motives? Citation of sources would be appreciated. 4) You also appear to be denying Wapnick's conversion to Catholicism! However, "Journey Without Distance" (which you appear to have read?) describes his conversion and baptism (page 86) and according to his own words excerpted from his book "Forgiveness and Jesus" (this is cited on the website www.miraclestudies.net, and I intend to verify the source myself) he was baptized as a Catholic. Am I missing something here? What's your source? (Incidentally, is this the kind of misstatement of fact that you would characterize as "self-serving"?) This same citation of "Forgiveness and Jesus" states that he briefly visited Merton's Trappist monastery in Kentucky and then traveled to Israel to spend an extended amount of time there in two monasteries. This seems to contradict the idea of an obsession with Merton. Why travel to Israel when Merton was located in Kentucky? Wapnick does state that he was very influenced by Thomas Merton's books, but I fail to see evidence of that as his sole reason for converting when in fact Wapnick himself gives several reasons for his conversion. By the way, of course Wapnick “retains his Jewish origins” as a person's "origins" by definition cannot be changed.

As for “controversy” and “interpretation”, these are always based upon subjective opinions. You don't explain what "controversy" you're referring to. I am ignorant about the controversy regarding Wapnick and genuinely curious to know. If you could kindly point me in the direction of some of your many sources I would appreciate it. I am looking for true controversy, not simple disagreement with his theories. Anyone adhering to any of the currently popular ACIM "teachers" theories could and probably would find the theories of other "teachers" to be controversial. This however does not justify misstatements or twisting of fact about a specific "teacher". Regardless of personal opinions about which ACIM teacher is the “best”, Wapnick warrants an article for purely objective reasons: his unquestionable role in bringing ACIM to publication, his important ongoing work in assisting with translations of ACIM and his subsequent extensive writings on the subject. Please cite sources or this discussion will degenerate into a volley of personal opinion. Let’s strive for accuracy. Individuals’ opinions on this matter should not stand in the way of an objective article on Wapnick. Also, perhaps the objective way to handle the fact that there are multiple popular teachers of ACIM is to add a section to the ACIM article on that subject, listing each teacher and briefly summarizing their theories or interpretation of ACIM. This will merely prove (as have many other philosophies and religions) that each person will have their own interpretation. However, it may be useful to students of ACIM to assist them in finding the teachers and theories that best suit their current stage of development.Zopupa 21:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: Your comments above state that "many" find Wapnick's behavior to "exemplify that of the ego". Again, who are the "many"? Please specify. This kind of comment or accusation is interesting. I don't know who set themselves up as the experts, but who among us is qualified to make the judgment that someone is acting from the ego? Perhaps a psychiatrist or psychologist? Judging others' behavior is a slippery slope and is one of the things the Course cautions against. I would be especially wary of "teachers" who criticize the behavior of other "teachers". As for your claims that Wapnick desired to "eliminate" Thetford, well, again, you must be omniscient. But who can tell? According to the Course our ego wants to "eliminate" all other egos. That is one of the things we are supposed to forgive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zopupa (talk • contribs). Zopupa 23:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(To original poster): Some of the most unusual comments I've ever read. There is no indication anywhere that Dr. Wapnick wants to eliminate Thetford. Why would he want to do such a thing and how could he do such a thing? And Journey Without Distance contains absolutely no reference to Dr. Wapnick forcing his way in to any inner circle. He was already in the so-called "inner circle" because he was there when the Course was being scribed. Any anger towards Dr. Wapnick really just stems from the copyright controversy, which had been entrusted to him; which is mentioned in the article. -- Copy Editor 06:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Summary

The sentence "The Course teaches 'forgiveness' as the one practice that will lead to spiritual awakening" to me seems to suggest a claim to being the only path to spiritual awakening. It might be useful to include somewhere that ACIM characterizes itself as one of many paths and not per se the most suited for everyone.

Also, in the archives of this page I've seen some discussion concerning the definition of 'forgiveness' as ACIM uses the term. To me it definitely looks like ACIM makes a big point of purposefully and actively redefines the term 'forgiveness' as NOT granting pardon for an offence or stopping to resent enemies, but instead as not judging for yourself (or letting go of prior judgement), by leaving all judging to the holy spirit (or "love's presence in oneself"). The point being that in the holy spirit's judgement no offences or enemies are ever percieved so no pardons need be granted nor resentments stopped. Would not the summary be more clear and telling if it would mention this in some way?

Orebor 14:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You make two extremely important and accurate points regarding 1) That ACIM clearly states it is just one of many paths and 2) The meaning of forgiveness. It is my understanding that whenever our ego "forgives" a perceived offense it is actually based upon a form of judgment (judgment that someone did something negative that requires forgiveness), but that it is a first step in the right direction to breaking down the ego's anger, resentment and defensiveness. We need practice in forgiving, this will help us to weaken the ego and move on to attempting to see reality with the eyes of the spirit and "overlooking" offense and error because we realize that they do not actually exist except in the eyes of the ego. Both of these points can be supported with multiple citations taken directly from ACIM and from teachers' commentaries. I will try to find some supporting quotes. Zopupa 23:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of all but one external link, please do not do this.

While links for purely commercial advertising purposes are not permitted in Wikipedia, links to large related student organizations, and other such things are. Please do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. There is room enough in Wikipedia for links that might be found to be helpful to the reader and which are not of a primarily commercial nature, but rather intended as a reference to anyone who would wish to study ACIM, whether from a scholarly point of view, a critical point of view, or as a student of ACIM. Please respect this.

Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

elaboration

maybe "Author and Yogi, Joel Kramer, states that the Course could be considered a classic authoritarian example of programming thought to change beliefs." should be elaborated upon or taken out.

why? how? what is his logic? --Emesee (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I elaborated a bit on this per your suggestion. I didn't want to take the quote out as I think his criticism, while perhaps a bit off the mark, is still somewhat noteworthy, and therefor worthy of keeping.

Scott P. (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Why omit Alstadt? By the way, I consider their criticisms of ACIM one of the weakest parts of their book. Andries (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgiveness as means to authoritarian - apparently the logic behind the claim...

It comes into a bit more into focus. Please see: Forgiveness#Forgiveness_as_a_foundation_for_authoritarian_control --Emesee (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality template rationale

The "Disputed-Neutrality" template was placed on this article on Mar. 20 without any supporting reasoning provided for the template insertion on this talk page. Unless some reasonable rationale for the template insertion is provided here for discussion by April 1st, the template will be removed.

Scott P. (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making me aware of this mistake, I can't say that I am well enough aware of the subject material to make definitive statements against the neutrality. From reading over the article the general tone (inherent POV of authors) does not seem to fit up to the standards of Wikipedia at the time, this is what I was referring to when stating neutrality issues. You can remove the tag and I will go over the article when I get the chance in the near future, sorry for any confusion.Bronayur (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag, and will look forward to your specific comments about exactly which parts of the article you feel could stand improvement regarding POV issues. Thanks,

Scott P. (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thetford

To point out that there are differing perspectives on Thetford:

"Those individuals we know intimately who we believe are close to being awake, seem to have no interest in contrasting themselves with other people. Generally speaking, they live simple, ordinary lives. They are comfortable if not restful to be around. Their time is usually devoted to unimportant things and their hearts to "unimportant" people. They have no inflexible concepts or rigid patterns and there is nothing particularly unusual about the subjects they choose to talk about or anything outstanding in the personal mannerisms they exhibit. They are easily pleased, and often they are happy for no apparent reason. Because their own egos are no longer destructive, they find other people's egos amusing and endearing. Above all, they are equal and familiar. They would not be good subjects for a magazine profile. And yet, into the mundane, everyday circumstances of their lives, they quietly pour their comfort and their peace.

Bill Thetford was such a person. He didn't talk the Course. He didn't write books about the Course. He very seldom made public statements about the Course, and then only because someone had pleaded with him to do so. What Bill did was quietly and happily live the Course. And even though he saw that this was the best approach, he never said to his Course friends: "You can either teach the Course or live it, but you probably won't succeed in doing both." In this way he was truly a "teacher of God" because he taught in the way the Manual defines teaching." (emphasis added) source, already referenced in the article

However its worth keeping in mind that Thetford not only spent much of his career working on very nasty mind control programs (including ACIM?) but continued to illegally work on MK-ULTRA Subproject 130 until 1978 - several years after the Church and Rockefeller Commissions had publicly exposed its excesses and ordered it closed down. Sounds pretty unethical to me. You could even say 'sinister' (though perhaps not in the theological sense that Groeschel would have meant had he really said it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.105.31 (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This may or may not be appropriate to integrate. However, considering one reference refers to him as "perhaps this most sinister person [the commenter ever met]"... well, there are differing opinions about the late man. --Emesee (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It turns out that this quote was a misinformation or a misquote. Please see: Setting the Record Straight: How Did Father Groeschel Really Feel About Bill Thetford?. Accordingly, I've since deleted this misquote as a reference in the article.

Cheers, Scott P. (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Last few paragraphs of the criticism section...

At its heart, the origins of ACIM remain suspect and subject to validation. The work claims to be a channeled book. [6] There is debate about the true origins of this work. It has been established that Schucman was a distinguished clinical psychologist working at Columbia University. By her own admission, the environment was extremely stressful and challenging. The origins of her voice were never verified or explained.

Some claim that the likely source is either a complete fabrication or the result of a complex delusional syndrome. The criticality of the origins of Dr. Schucman's work is worthy of discourse as it provides a necessary critical aspect to understanding the writings

Despite the anti-religious labeling by many critics of Schucman and her work, there is value in determining the state of mind of the author and whether her own extensive knowledge and mental condition were the actual generating elements for the work.[7]

These are the last three paragraphs of the criticism section. Aside from the last sentence of the first paragraph here, it seems like it may be Wikipedia:NOR#Synthesis_of_published_material_which_advances_a_position and maybe outside of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. What do others think? --Emesee (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, agree that on the face of it this looks like a synthesis but I'm less sure about breach of NPOV. After all, the claim that JC dictated a 'corrected Bible' to a couple of psychologists engaged in CIA mind control research is a very big one. I'm yet to see anything approaching the sort of evidence such a massive claim would require to make it credible (yes, I have read the book). So I hardly think that casting doubt on the source is really a departure from NPOV. Giving the claim any credibility at all seems a candidate for NPOV breach to me. After all, can you imagine anyone who is not a committed ACIM acolyte believing it?

The NPOV requirement is for the article to be neutral. The purpose of a Critisism section is to provide balance to the rest of the article. A Critisism section does not need to be neutral by itself. Some minor cleanup, however, may be needed. Rlsheehan (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw this ~40 seconds ago. Thank you for the replies. There are definitely people around here who are more familiar with policies than myself, so... its appreciated. If someone who is thoroughly familiar with the policies about synthesis, is a third party, and would be willing to thoroughly scrub the article of synthesis if they find that it needed, it would be appreciated, at least by "some". : ) Emesee (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality in a criticism section is only considered as non-neutral is represented as the originators (author's) position. There is significant criticism of ACIM from within traditional Christian circles, academics and the psychological community. Stating that individuals question the origin of the text written by Schucman is a fact - neither neutral or positive. Jettparmer (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"skeptics"

if you search wikipedia namespace for past references for the skeptics dictionary, it seems this is considered a borderline acceptable source and should be written into the artcle. "The skeptics dictionary says...".. --Emesee (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur with the notation of the Skeptic's Dictionary. However, where a specific author is noted - I think the preference is to acknowledge their work. Jettparmer (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Grossly NPOV or just a bad lead?

Either the lead, or the whole text, seems grossly NPOV (the lead if it doesn't accurately reflect the body, the whole text if it does). It seems to exist to promote the book or write from an in-universe perspective. There's some sort of weird promotion happening that makes it hard to understand what the aritlce is even about. It's a book? Written by whom? What is its real-world impact? What's it about? What kind of real-world attention has it received? I will try a bit of re-writing, but it may be hard. WLU (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It could probably use some work by a third party. Emeseee (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are a third party and feel strongly my last edit was in err...

please consider reverting it. Please be respectful, civil and polite about all this, which I'm sure you all will. Don't need to leave a note on my talk page... we can talk about it here, if at all. Or move it over to Wikiversity to explore. Emeseee (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What is ACIM actually about?

A lot of this article is devoted to minute and uninteresting details about the history of the work and who exactly was involved in its generation, but this is primarily not notable. Roughly two sentences actually describe the contents of the work, and what one can expect to find if they actually open the cover. If I was interested in learning about ACIM and cranked the lever on the Wikipedia machine, wouldn't I be more interested in the contents than a documentary on the book's generation? If I looked up "popcorn", should I expect more information about what popcorn is and how it works, or a biography of the inventors of popcorn? Hmm. 204.76.128.217 (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

removing indiscriminate collection of information

I am removing the section "Principles, themes, philosophy, theology, psychology, and mythology" per justification in the most recent archive and because it appears to be an indiscriminate and unexplained list of quotes from the book. --Allen (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

removing incorrect statements about the "Clarification of Terms"

removed "and also the addition of a 'Clarification of Terms' section, which had been written earlier by Schucman." Not so. At least by the the 5th printing of the first edition (Sept. 1978) which I own, the "Clarification of Terms" was added to the Manual for Teachers. A further statement about the copyright on the "Clarification of Terms" was removed from the Copyright Litigation section, as it was contradicted by the statement right above it that "It was found that the contents of the FIP first edition, published from 1976 through 1992, are in the public domain." Coursian (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

How the unpublished material became public.

The material in question was taken from the Library of Congress, which is a federal violation, and copied. This is an observable fact in the phenomenal world. Regardless of opinion on copyright, this still is the case. ThePlanter (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, no more silliness, but it should be kept in mind.

It must be emphasized at some point that this article cannot be written as it should be written, at least not in our lifetime. Although I will dispense with the "silliness" it might be helpful to recognize a light-heartedness that takes the edge off this intensely emotion-laden subject. Again, this article cannot be written by the public, nor should it. However, having said that, current and future students of A Course in Miracles have the right to know that the Course is and always will be about changing the mind. It (the book) is a symbol of a thought in the mind and has absolutely nothing to do with a book, or words on pieces of paper. It cannot be written about by people who don't understand this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePlanter (talk • contribs) 22:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can edit a Wikipedia article, but they need to follow our policies and guidelines. That means that it will be written by people who don't meet your criteria. I note that you are a WP:SPA, a single purpose account. This may be a benefit or it may be detrimental: "Evidence that the user seems to be editing appropriately and collaboratively to add knowledge in a niche area, may suggest the user is likely to be an editor with a preferred focus (not usually a concern). By contrast evidence that a user is also editing to add promotional, advocative, or non-neutral approaches, or has a personal or emotional interest in the area of focus, possibly with limited interest in pure editing for its own sake, is more likely to suggest the user has the kinds of concerns described in the introduction." If you really think that the article shouldn't be written by the general public, you're likely to be disappointed. Dougweller (talk) 07:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I note that the original stub of this article was submitted April 18, 2004. Dougweller, how long does it usually take the public to write an article that meets your criteria? ThePlanter (talk) 13:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Who are the public? Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely you understand what I'm asking, Dougweller. It has been almost seven years since this article was first submitted. Does it meet Wikipedia's criteria and/or standards for an acceptable and well-written article? How long does that process normally take? Certainly, this article does not qualify for featured article status or even good article status. Or does it? How would you rate this article? ThePlanter (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a serious question, I don't understand what you mean by 'general public' - as opposed to ? I don't think there is any normal time, many, probably most, never reach our standards for GA. I will say that the article should not be written for students of a CinM but for the general public, ie lay readership. Dougweller (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Has that been accomplished? Does the article read for the general public? ThePlanter (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll tell you this. It will never become a GA beginning with this sentence "A Course in Miracles (also referred to as ACIM or the Course) is a book that represents a spiritual thought system in the mind, described as the right mind, which is the correction for the ego thought system (also in the mind), described as the wrong mind." It's rather convoluted, and not very clear. Do we really need to be told that "a thought system" is "in the mind"? What would it mean for it to be somewhere else? The statement is either tautological or it raises unexplored questions. Articles should be written as clearly as possible. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. There is really no such thing as "the general public". There are individual editors who may have different skills. Some may be good at condensing and clarifying prose. Some may have detailed knowledge of the specific topic; others may be able to place it is a wider intellectual or historical context. Ideally editors will do this without engaging in original research or pushing their own opinions (WP:NPOV) at the expense of accuracy and fairness. But each article is edited by whoever comes along. It might remain in a poor state for years, and then be transformed. Or is might start off brilliant and then get messed up by an idiot. That's just the downside of the system. Paul B (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I reworked a previous version of the lead, stripped of it's "sales points", to create a simpler and more objective encyclopedic version. Note that we don't cite religious writings as a source to describe themselves. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. ThePlanter's lead may have been crystal clear to him/her but my guess is that only adherents would understand it. Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

'Scholarly' studies

Does this section belong here? Neil Vahle, though he has a PhD, was editor of New Realities and of Unity Magazine and with all due respect I'd say not distanced enough to be objective. Carol Howe's book is self-published. The other books are self-published also by Course organisations. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Will delete the scholarly studies section on or around January 5, 2011, since the authors of these scholarly works do not meet Wikipedia standards, unless someone objects. Will then begin going through each reference to see if they meet Wikipedia's standards and will either delete or keep accordingly. ThePlanter (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Curious. Does this mean that any theologian who is otherwise a scholar is disqualified as a legitimate Wikipedia expert because s/he is a church leader? There is no connection between Unity as a spiritual movement or church and A Course in Miracles; in fact, some Unity churches don't allow the Course to be taught at all because of its claim to be a channeled work, which is not in keeping with Unity principles. While it may be worth specifically noting self-published books, in an era when major publishers are declining publication of a great many worthwhile works, and when many solid authors self-publish because it makes better economic sense, throwing the baby out with the bathwater seems injudicious at best. Dshafer (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Can an informative article about A Course in Miracles be written by Wikipedians for the lay person?

Good morning Lucy, Doug, and Paul (I like the name Paul, it's my brother's, but I promise not to play favorites!). I hope you all had a great Christmas.

Regarding the topic, you could also substitute "proper" or "accurate" or "verifiable" for the word "informative". You could also substitute the term "general public" for the term "lay person".

By the way, Lucy, I'm the one who wrote the opening line of the article as you have reverted it, not quite the way I wrote it originally, but it'll do for now.

You are the experts here. Explain to me why this article can and should be written in a manner so that someone who has absolutely no idea what we are talking about gets an accurate assessment of what A Course in Miracles is when they log onto this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePlanter (talk • contribs) 17:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I came here from the BLP discussion board and had the same impression of the article. Please tell us about the book and why it is important. There is now way too much weight given to controversies about the authorship and copyright, etc. Borock (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I just wrote an answer and somehow Lucky's post booted mine out when I pressed the save button. Oh well! To answer your question, I can't tell you about the book here, but I can say that there is a wealth of information in the archived discussions about ACIM. There have been some excellent contributions and, quite frankly, if a lay person wants to know about ACIM from Wikipedia, they should read the archived discussions. Having said that, I think the article should be deleted. Again, it can't be written here for many reasons, one of which is that even Wikipedia editors who have made sincere well-intentioned efforts to construct the article have failed. You will see that for yourself in the archived discussions. I can't write the article either, even though I am familiar with the topic. I think if you personally want to know why it's important, then you should begin research yourself and see where it takes you. ThePlanter (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

ThePlanter asks: "Explain to me why this article can and should be written in a manner so that someone who has absolutely no idea what we are talking about gets an accurate assessment of what (the article subject) is when they log onto this article. " You might want to look at the founders statement of purpose for the most straightforward answer to this. Otherwise, if you wish to pose rhetorical questions or discuss the whys and whats of Wikipedia core policies and goals at length, you might try Wikipedia:New contributors' help page/questions or Wikipedia:Village pump. Article Talk pages are generally reserved for discussing specifics of how to improve the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a BLP problem in the copyright section?

I've asked for more eyes on this, see WP:BLPN#A Course in Miracles#Copyright litigation. Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I found a 1100-word article on this issue in the Proquest archive, which I can send to anyone who wants to email me.

• FLETCHER STACK, PEGGY (February 19, 2000). "Who Owns the Words of Jesus?: Copyright holders protecting draft of book, but followers claim unedited version is voice of Christ". The Salt Lake Tribune. p. B.1.

There's an excerpted version on the web here, but I haven't checked to see what's missing.   Will Beback  talk  22:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Is Footnote 1 a reliable reference?

Footnote 1 is a link to the Foundation for Inner Peace (ACIM.org). Is this website considered promotional? Should the footnote and the material it references be removed? Will remove same on or about February 10, 2011, if nobody objects or defends this reference. ThePlanter (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Upon researching Wikipedia policy, pillars, etc., it appears that the link to the Foundation for Inner Peace is a reliable reference and should be included in this article. ThePlanter (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Commenting on Allegedly Sacred Texts Will Always be Problematic Here

I am a student of spiritual topics as well as a teacher and writer about them. I have been a student of A Course in Miracles for about 15 years and a teacher of its material for nearly a decade. I have read a great many topics on spirituality on Wikipedia and often encounter the issue that was raised here earlier about the likelihood that a community of laypeople who may or may not be at all familiar with the contents of A Course in Miracles being able to write accurately and intelligently about it.

This work claims to be channeled (or, if you prefer, divinely inspired). As such, it is viewed by many but not all of its readers and students as a sacred text on a par with the Bhagavad Gita, the Torah, the Sutras of Buddhism, and the Christian scriptures. One can easily find instances on Wikipedia of articles which not only purport to convey factual information about such articles but also a great deal of subjective commentary on the contents of such books. It is perhaps too simplistic to say that one can write about such material from a more-or-less factual perspective (who wrote it, what does it say, what does it claim for itself?) or from an interpretive perspective.

A Course in Miracles has had some obvious and visible impact on the world, both as a psychological approach and as a spiritual tradition or teaching, so it doesn't seem to me to be consistent with Wikipedia's aim of providing information on as many important or useful topics as possible to suggest that this article ought to be deleted.

To the extent that it contains information which is accurate about the book, its origins, history and contents, this article can serve a valuable purpose. Furthermore, I would suggest that someone who is not entirely familiar with or immersed in the material could nonetheless write, edit and judge the value and quality of such content because it is self-referential. In other words, if I can say, "The Course purports to be spoken in the voice of an incarnation of Jesus," and I can cite where the Course says that, I am on pretty safe ground. I've attributed the quotation to this source (better, of course, with a more complete citation). If, on the other hand, I said, "Jesus is the voice of the Course," I'd be offering my view on the veracity of the Course claim. That may or may not be appropriate in this article or in a companion piece of commentary if such a piece existed.

Personally, I'd like to see this article confined to a description of the contents and claims of the Course itself, with opinions, criticisms, endorsements, amplifications and the like placed in an accompanying article or series of articles that serve as commentaries on the Course and its teachings. I think that brings us the best of both worlds. BTW, I think the same thing about other Wikipedia articles on spirituality where the topic is a body of work that claims sacred status or whose followers do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshafer (talk • contribs) 23:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I Reworked the Section on Reception

Actually, I feel like the entire section labeled "Reception" should be removed from the article. I note that the same topic does not occur in most if any of the other discussions on the spirituality topic area on Wikipedia, and that here it has been used primarily as a thinly veiled attempt to legitimize only detractors' opinions. I am, however, not sufficiently experienced as an editor on this site to feel comfortably simply deleting an entire section.

Keeping that in mind, I pared back on the comments to focus them on what at least seemed reasonably objective and fact-based charges. An entire sentence devoted to an ad hominem attack on Marianne Williamson, who is merely a teacher-author on the subject of the Course and not an integral part of its development or history, I felt was totally inappropriate.

I treated the entire paragraph reciting Theologian Anton van Harskamp's bigoted perspective the same way. A cursory visit to the cited page on his site reveals that he is virulently anti-Course. His credentials as a theologian do not give him a claim or an aura of objective analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshafer (talk • contribs) 23:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

And I've reverted you. Sources do not have to be neutral or objective, and a comment on an uthor doesn't seem inappropriate to me. Dougweller (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Where reliably-sourced criticism exists, there's nothing wrong with the inclusion of a "Criticism" section that contains nothing but the opinions of detractors. I am puzzled why the section once labeled "Criticism" was revised to read "Reception". Also, I think the material sourced to Bob Larson's book is appropriate for inclusion as a reliably sourced critique of ACM that is not specific to Marianne Williamson. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted to leave the primary criticisms intact, while also inserting a duly documented counter-claim. I hope that this might serve to create a more balanced section here. Scott P. (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Changing Criticism to Reception is becoming standard practice across Wikipedia. A criticism section in the strict meaning of the word could contain any commentary on the book, positive or negative. However, the word, in standard American English usage at least, now means negative criticism. A reception section is much more Neutral POV. In this section, any and all published commentary on a work can be put. Some will be positive. Some will be negative. Some will be neither. Also, a reception section could contain published references to general reception, such as number of copies of book purchased or number of followers of the book's theories. Has the general reception waned in recent years? etc. While most of the reception paragraphs will strongly embrace one POV or another (by definition), a general reception paragraph would restrict itself to objective facts and avoid words like "welcomed" or "embraced". It should not be a celebration of success. It should simply answer the question "How important is this book to the world, when it was first written and since?" using objective metrics. A good Reception section will also contain an introductory paragraph that tries to sum up the rest of the section without supporting one view over another. The introductory paragraph of this article as it now stands is a good example. The book is controversial, with fervent supporters and detractors, and the paragraph gives a quick overview of the controversy. Qowieury (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Bringing fresh eyes to this discussion, I was quite put off by the fact that the "Reception" section as reworked cites several negative criticisms of the work in question and expands them to paragraph-length in some cases, while citing a single positive comment. This seems almost irrefutably biased to me, but I am a long-time student/teacher of the subject matter and lack the requisite credentials to qualify as a scholar under Wikipedia's quite narrow definition (which I've questioned elsewhere as well). If Wikipedia's real intent is to provide objective information on the subjects it covers, and if the primary criterion that determines objectivity is the sheer number of qualified scholars that can be located who comment on a work, then it seems to me Wikipedia is doomed to repeat some of the mistakes of traditional encyclopedias which seldom if ever allowed for minority viewpoints on any subject that even smacked of controversy. That would be a loss indeed. Dshafer (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If you disagree with the reception section, do the research and add to it. If you find published references to reception of ACIM, you can add it with citation. The people who researched the negative reception are not obligated to research positive balance, that is the benefit of a wiki. If you think it is unbalanced, balance it, but only with citations and not by taking out other people's work (as if the truth was served with less information) Qowieury (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Reworked copyright section to better reflect copyright status of primary publisher of this book

Since the FIP has published millions of copies of this work, and Endeavor Academy has only published thousands, I found the wording of the copyright litigation section which made no accurate mention of the current copyright status of the primary publisher's edition to be a bit misleading. The section had apparently been rewritten earlier by editors who may have been partial to the Endeavor Academy edition which does not include much of the materials found in the FIP edition. Scott P. (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Rationale for removal of the "need more references" templates.

After briefly skimming through the article and finding 22 carefully documented footnotes and 12 references, I was unable to see any particular section that seemed to lack proper documentation. Admittedly I may have missed something, but I sometimes find these types of rather vague article-wide templates to be sometimes overly vague and underly helpful. Could whoever placed those templates on this article please be more specific as to exactly which points in the article they may find to be insufficiently documented? Thanks. Scott P. (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Reception

The reception section is controversial by nature. A responsible article has to include it, even though the defenders of the book may not want to see any criticism. This section was recently worked on by Trinityret and then further worked on by Scottperry. Trinityret added citations showing the Groeschel is opposed to the book. Scottperry then added an uncited sentence saying that Groeschel was for the book before he was against it. This could become a BLP problem. Any sentence that states that an author once held views which contradict his published views needs a published citation. Even if someone once heard that such was the case, or even if it is stated that such was the case on a personal website, these things are not enough to overcome the burden of proof needed to call into question the consistency of an author's views.

The Groeschel section in reception is particularly necessary since someone had already brought his name into the article. He seems so peripheral to the issue at hand that the only reason I can see him being mentioned in the earlier part of the article (which Trinityret also reworked) is the fact that he is more well-known than the subject of the article. Before Trinityret's revisions, a neutral person might have thought that Groeschel worked on this book.

Now that cited sources by Groeschel have been worked into the article, the previous parts about him working with the authors stands as some balance. Perhaps the language could be softened somewhat where it is not a direct quote from Groeschel's work, but any suggestion that Groeschel supported this book or agreed with it, when his published comments are so strongly negative, needs to come from a published source. If that published source is someone other than Groeschel, it should only be cited in the article as "Such-and-Such has claimed that Groeschel supported ACIM." and should be placed closely to his strongly critical words. Qowieury (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thetford claimed that after having discussed ACIM with a father Michael (Groeschel?) that this father then felt that an introduction to Kenneth Wapnick was in order. Clearly this priest would not have been so eager to assist others in collaborating in the study and sharing of ACIM if he had initially felt the work was such a negative thing. I think that this is a reasonable assumption unless specific documentation about his initial reaction being otherwise could be found. I've tried to rework the reference in this section to Groeschel to more clearly show exactly what Groeschel's early involvement in ACIM was. Thanks. Scott P. (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Fr. Groeschel's first name is Benedict, not Michael. So this Fr. Michael might be a different person. Also, where was this claimed? Reasonable assumptions are not allowed on Wikipedia. Your reasonable assumption is someone else's unreasonable assumption. Fr. Groeschel's cited quotes are so harsh that most people would consider it an unreasonable assumption that he ever supported the project. I have never read the course in Miracles. I do not know anything of what it is about except what I learned from this article. I am stressing an important point of Wikipedia: we do not make claims about people, particularly living people, without being able to defend that claim. Qowieury (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

So I watched the youtube video that you put up. He does mention Fr. Michael. Could he just have forgotten Fr. Benedict's name or changed it for some reason? Perhaps, but this is clearly not a citable source to prove that Fr. Benedict was involved. I would ask you before you make any further edits to the sections related to Fr. Benedict Groeschel, why is his support so important? He was clearly against ACIM in 1993. He never published anything to support it, that I am aware of. Even if the correct name were in the video, it would still not be clear what had happened, it would be merely hearsay. As it is, I would consider this video evidence that the earlier section which states that they were introduced to each other by Fr. Benedict ought to be deleted without further citation.

I was contacted by someone who works with Fr. Benedict. They had heard that his name was being associated with ACIM on something called "Wikipedia" and they wanted to know how they could contact the publisher to have his name removed. I told them how to edit the page themselves. They made changes as Trinityret, and I said that I would curate the page to make sure that their changes were not unfairly undone. I am going to continue watching this page. Please do not add anything about Fr. Benedict supporting ACIM at any time in the future. If you continue making such changes, which amount to libel, this has to become a Biographies of Living Person (BLP) problem. Let the book stand on its own without making tenuous claims that Fr. Benedict supports it or supported it in the past. As I stated before, if you ever find a published comment by Fr. Benedict supporting ACIM, I will fully support you in adding it to this article. I deleted the unrelated youtube video, and the unnecessary comment that went with it. I will leave the part about Fr. Benedict introducing the two in the article if others want it, allowing that the Fr. Michael reference may be incorrect. I changed the earlier edit you made to something more neutral. TrinityRet's edit was perhaps unsupported. Even though I know that it was the result of someone asking Fr. Benedict, it does not have a citation. Your edit suggested the opposite of the original. I hope that my current edit is absolutely neutral to the available published evidence. Qowieury (talk) 08:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the duly referenced information currently available, I'm happy with your edits. I tend to doubt that Thetford made a mistake in his recollection, as he is not known to have muddled up any other things of this nature in all of his other recollections. I also tend to believe that Groeschel was also involved at this early stage in some capacity as in the copyright court transcript Wapnick goes into great detail about his dealings with Fr. Groeschel. It's my guess that there is probably simply another Fr. Michael who was also involved at the early stages, but that we don't yet have any further documentation about. Perhaps someday that will surface. Thanks for your work on this. Scott P. (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed References to Fr. Groeschel's Role in Development of the Work

I removed from the section on Editors all references to Fr. Groeschel. His role in the emergence and publication of the work was at best minimal and seems totally insignificant. His role was limited to introducing Dr. Wapnick to Helen Schucman and Bill Thetford and then later to writing some remarks critical of the work. He does not seem to me to qualify as a scholar whose criticism should be included at all, but that question aside, giving him a place of such prominence in the story of the editing and publishing of the work seems to me to distract rather than to elucidate. Dshafer (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

We have a highly independent reliable source that says that Groeschel had a minor role in the development of the manuscript, and we report this accordingly. I don't share your opinion that it's given undue prominence. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"Highly independent reliable source" is missing the word "published" which is essential to the work of Wikipedia. As the earlier section currently stands, it is an improvement from before. It now cites a court document (although that document wrongly suggests that Groeschel is a former priest). What is stated is verifiable from published sources. It makes no unreasonable claims, and it is balanced by the reception section. Overall good work. If minor role only means that he showed a copy to someone once, that was testified in court.

Since the part of the transcript that was quoted in the footnote includes the incorrect statement that Fr. Benedict is a former priest, I added a [sic] by it. Fr. Benedict left the Capuchins to help found a new order, the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, but never left the priesthood. Qowieury (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Urtext in public domain

The Urtext version of A Course in Miracles is in the public domain. There are three editions that are in the public domain. The Criswell edition, the Cayce edition and the Urtext. The Urtext is incorrectly identified as not in the public domain. But if one access's the Urtext reference one finds out that it is indeed in the public domain. This needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.168.235 (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible that more detail on the actual contents of the book could be included?

Sorry if this comment falls foul of wikipedia rules/conventions, I am a wikipedia novice and this is the first time I have ever edited a talk page. I also apologise if this sounds like a stupid question given some of the other comments written above. Basically, I am a bit disappointed that I can't work out much of what is in the book from this article. The introductory paragraph is fine (it says that it is about practical lessons in 'forgiveness'), but then it doesn't really elaborate on that. Are there any examples that can be quoted? By comparison, in the article on the book '7 habits of highly effective people' it actually lists the 7 habits! There is also a section on 'reception' with associated criticism and endorsement, but little elaboration on the grounds of the criticism. Just quoting someone saying that it contains "severe and potentially dangerous distortions of Christian theology" isn't very informative. This sounds just like a rather generic attack which might arise in many inter-denominational disagreements. Just what are the grounds of the criticism? One could say that I should go and find out by researching further myself (or maybe even try reading a copy) but isn't this kind of 'potted summary' what Wikipedia is all about? Common72 (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Bob Larson Lost His Credibility (Re: Evangelical Critic of A Course In Miracles)

Rev. Bob Larson, evangelical Christian author cited in Wikipedia as a recent critic against the new Christian Psychology book, A Course In Miracles, was recently exposed on The Anderson Cooper Show (as seen in the video segment cited below[1]). Larson was found to be engaged in some fraudulent exorcist performances that included the exploitation of his congregation for profit. According to Rev. Darrell Gene Motal. and Anderson Cooper, Larson has been observed manipulating and coercing his congregation members, making them believe that he could perform these public exorcisms on stage, and that anyone could perform these demon-possession exorcisms, regardless of their age, and (despite the careless disregard for the obvious risks to an individual, which are inevitable unless the person is a mature priest with the religious education and training that is required. There are also increased risks to a person's mental and physical health if they attempt to perform an exorcism, when they have not been purified mentally and physically through biospiritual purification methods.

On The Anderson Cooper Show, Rev. Motal openly challenged Rev. Larson, stating that his deliverance strategies have been primarly targeted toward recruiting the younger female members of his congregation. Larson arranges to teach young girls to perform exorcisms on individuals who suffer from physical, mental and spiritual illness - on the condition that they pay him large sums of money for these exorcism training services. According to Rev. Motal, Larson currently offers a spiritual coaching - demon exorcism course - that teaches young girls how to become exorcists for $249 per week. He also sells metal crucifixes for "at least $100 each" to be used during these exorcisms. Rev. Motal claims that Larson's tax returns reveal that he has been making a very large profit from his exorcist trainings and stage performances. He states that Larson was observed on stage demanding money from his congregation members. Motal also states that Larson was observed forcefully interjecting his own thoughts about how they should think and feel on stage. Larson has been observed loudly yelling at the demons within the person, and emotionally pressuring the individuals to go along with the show, act the part, and even claim that they were fully demon possessed. Larson has frequently coerced his congregation members onto the stage, publicly humiliating them, rather than treating his clients in a private and confidential Christian Counseling setting. Bob Larson is an evangelical who apparently has misused his religious power by manipulating the innocent and faithful members of his congregation, especially his young women followers.

According to Rev. Motal, Larson enforces his own beliefs and inserts his own ideas into a person's mind, telling them what to believe about the cause of the demon possession, which he claims is due to their sin. Larson uses methods that instill guilt and fear-based thinking rather than releasing the fear. He also makes assumptions that the mental or spiritual disorder is caused by a person's sins, their family's sins, and their ancestor's sins, when there is no logical basis for this belief, which only blames the victim of demon possession. Larson has been observed harshly judging and blaming the individuals who suffer from these Dissociative Disorders and Possessive Trance States.[2] [3] [4] He does not teach the individual to heal themselves through other methods that would actually work, (such as biospiritual purification with flower essences, nutritional therapy, natural healing). He also does not teach the individual how to achieve their own mental and spiritual self-healing through Christian Psychology, but instead teaches them that they must rely on an exorcist, or a young female spiritual coach.

When a Christian religious leader uses his position of power in order to gain influence over his congregation for profit and exploitation, it goes against the ethical and legal standards of spiritual psychotherapy; it also diverges from the common practices of mainstream Christianity. Rev. Larson's method of yelling directly into a person's face and cursing the demons within the person appears to be quite extreme, especially considering the fact that Larson publicly humiliates the members of his congregation and actually judges them for their sins on stage. These extreme methods only increase a person's feelings of guilt and leads to further self-condemnation. Sin is nothing more than error, and mistakes can be corrected. But punishment, blame and judgment are not a correction. Truth cannot be forced and must come from within, since all correction is self-correction (acim). Yet, Larson identifies an individual's sin as the cause of the possession. He then proceeds to blame the person who is suffering from spiritual sickness, instead of demonstrating non-judgmental empathy, compassion and positive regard, according to the code of ethics upheld by Christian Counselors and Licensed Professional Counselors.

Although Larson's intentions may be good, his loud and harsh methods of public 'exorcisms' only serve to heighten these fearful experiences, since yelling in a person's face and blaming them for various sins actually increases the person's emotional trauma and psychosis, rather than decreasing paranoid thinking and behavior. Fear combined with a strong religious belief system can create a guilt complex, and in some cases the fear itself can be so extreme that it creates an emotional possession of the mind which often develops into an anxiety and panic disorder. Individuals who are undergoing Dissociative Disorders and Possessive Trance States are especially vulnerable, especially when they are entirely trusting the statements of a religious leader who claims to have the power to heal them.

In his writings, Bob Larson has severely criticized the new Christian Psychology book, A Course In Miracles. Like many evangelicals who are fearful of the popularity of this amazing book, which teaches the individual how to overcome fear by choosing to focus on eternal love instead. This book teaches the individual that love heals the mind, and that fear is an illusion of the ego that leads to projections and distortions about reality. Larson has not taken the time to read and understand this book, ACIM, and now that he has been exposed by Rev. Motal and Anderson Cooper, Rev. Bob Larson no longer has any credibility as a so-called Christian critic, especially in regard to the value and authenticity of this one book, which is undoubtedly the most important Christian Psychology book of our times, A Course In Miracles. Janette Tingle (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

References[edit]

1) "Bob Larson EXPOSED on Anderson Cooper Show" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Hsjfs1iLI

2) Dissociative Disorders and Possessive Trance States - "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders," 5th Edition, American Psychiatric Association's (APA), (2013).

3) Lukoff, David. "DSM IV Religious and Spiritual Problems." (2000) - http://johnemackinstitute.org/2000/01/dsm-iv-religious-and-spiritual-problems/

4) Peteet, John R. ed., Francis G. Lu, , M.D., and William E. Narrow , M.D., M.P.H. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Publishing, "Religious and Spiritual Issues in Psychiatric Diagnosis:

A Research Agenda for DSM-V" American Psychiatric Association's (APA, (2001). - http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleID=1109021

I just deleted the criticism by Larson from the "Reception" section. Thanks for pointing this out. Sorry it took so long to do it! Scott P. (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Reinserted deleted data about most recent edition

Typically, the listing of a recent major edition containing significant revisions is considered important, noteworthy, and valuable information in Wikipedia. Please leave this information in place. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, so sorry if my infobox update misrepresented the publishing info, I've adjusted it accordingly. If you still think it requires further adjustment, please fix the publication data but do not revert the actual parameter changes. Thanks!— TAnthony^Talk 19:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Blow by blow accounts of copyright hearings not necessary

By removing the blow-by-blow accounting of the copyright trial, I think the article is vastly improved. Also, by keeping it clear that the FIP edition remains the first edition published, and by far the most widely and broadly distributed, this helps to remove seemingly confusing and contradictory language from the article. Scott P. (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Non-FIP editions section image removal explanation

Until the copyright questions regarding this image can be resolved per Wikipedia policy, I have removed this image. Also, the FIP edition is not a non-FIP edition, and should not be a part of that image. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Rationale for "most popular" wording

I think that the fact that the Fip sales number in the millions, while other editions count their sales in the thousands, is ample proof of this, however I see no need to make such a numeric comparison in the lead. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The CIMS ACIM is not the 'entirety of ACIM'

I have reworded the sentence where it was claimed that the CIMS-ACIM is the 'entirety of ACIM'. It doesn't include the Clarification of Terms, let alone the supplements, etc. Scott P. (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Scott. You are correct and this is something students should know Much appreciated. Spiritdejoie (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Proof the FIP edition is the most popular?

Please check out the Amazon "Best Seller's Rank" for the books in question. You will see that the FIP 3rd edition by far outsells any other edition.Scott P. (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of interest for Spiritdejoie

Spiritdejoie, You really should not even be editing here, since you are essentially the publisher of the CIMS edition. Please be careful about your use of superlatives in your description of your work, such as your use of the word "always". Wikipedia is not really a place to advertise or promote. Scott P. (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not the publisher of the FIP edition and it's also not my purpose to promote one edition or the other. Clarity and factual data is my goal. Spiritdejoie (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I apologize, I thought you were the publisher. Still, aren't you somehow directly affiliated with the publisher? Thank you kindly for your willingness to work for truth, facts, and verifiability above all else here. Scott P. (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

contents of the work?

there is really a part missing that talks about the actual contents of the work. Tobszn (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the nature of the "Reception" section and some of the observations in the Discussion about this article, I imagine it would be well nigh impossible to write such a piece that wouldn't be deleted by one of the editors responsible for approving the content. The idea of including a description of the content of a work that claims to be sacred is complex enough and difficult to do objectively, but when that work has been slapped with the label "controversial," I don't think I'm going out on a very long limb in suggesting that it would be difficult at best to write such an article that would pass muster here.Dshafer (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a small amount, not very well written and in some respects inaccurate, about content. I edited it. Chiswick Chap removed the edit, claiming it was unsourced and "original research". This is obvious nonsense, as the source was given--direct quotation from the introduction to the workbook. I did not source "Third Testament", though this could be done, because "nondualisic philoophy" was unsourced. Gene Ward Smith (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Please remain civil. The primary source given only covered a fraction of the paragraph, leaving the rest unsourced. However, so many edits have happened since that it's a moot point, except to say that the article still needs better sourcing, and some paragraphs remain entirely unsourced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thetford did do some edits to the 1976 FIP edition

Wapnick assisted Schucman and Thetford in the editing of the 1976 edition. Thetford continued to make editorial contributions to the 1976 FIP edition, as evidenced by his involvement in the reworking of the Principles of Miracles section in that edition. Apparent attempts to imply that either Thetford or Schucman were in any way displeased with an edition to which they both contributed edits, the FIP 1st edition, would normally require some kind of significant and clear documentation of their specific intentions or statements.

Are not these many rather lengthy, indirect, and convoluted lines of thought that all seem aimed at trying to prove that there "might" have been some kind of an open disagreement between Thetford, Wapnick and Schucman about what should or should not have gone into the FIP 1st Edition, but for which there seems to be no clear or hard proof, mere speculation? Should these poorly documented points of views and theories even be reported on in Wikipedia?

It seems to me that the value of studying the Non-FIP editions might be better highlighted by your working to focus more on presenting properly documented descriptions of the specific and clear differences of writing styles that have been found, instead of attempting to lay out your apparent belief that there "may have been some open differences of opinion" between Thetford, Schucman, and Wapnick, about what should have gone into the FIP 1st edition, this, despite the fact that no clear documentation has yet been found that might support such a belief that such a discord might have existed. Scott P. (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge and redirect from 'Original Edition' article

I have merged what I could salvage from the 'Original Edition' article and created a redirect. I don't think there is much else that could be used as it's mainly uncited (or just cited to ACIM or organisations, i.e. not really traceable). On the merge results here, the External links may need pruning down, and it may be they could be replaced with simply the names of the organizations involved. But that's a matter for normal editing, on which I have no opinion, beyond observing there should not be external links embedded in the main text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This article also seems largely sourced to ACIM itself or ACIM connected sources. The article's content should reflect how much (or how little) the topic's been covered in reliable and objective sources. Are there any reliable and objective sources that cover ACIM? LuckyLouie (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

There is some diversity of sources, and a Reception section, but more would certainly help. Notability is not in much doubt as the book has sold some millions of copies, and on the other side has attracted substantial controversy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not questioning its notability. The reason I ask is because the lead section reads like "key points ACIM wants you to know about ACIM" rather than an objective third party summary of what's contained in our Wikipedia article. LuckyLouie (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I am a self-confessed student of ACIM, and therefore admittedly probably biased. That having been said, you may find that the thought system taught in ACIM is so diametrically opposed to most forms of conventional wisdom, that it may become somewhat difficult for most reviewers to remain fully neutral about the subject. Most reviewers seem to either support or oppose, but very few seem to be merely neutral. Scott P. (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Implying that Schucman "never" wanted ACIM to be published by a company like Penguin not well documented

In "Absence from Felicity" Wapnick explained that the reason that ACIM was first published by the non-profit FIP foundation was to assure that no interference from a large commercial publisher might attempt to alter the message. Once the book had already established its "marketability" beyond a doubt in its original format, after 20 years of publication, I think it is quite reasonable to assume that the danger of commercial publisher interference had passed, thus if following the logic, probably Schucman would not have been opposed to this, so long as the integrity of the message was still safe. By implying that Schucman "never" wanted ACIM to be published by a commercial publisher seems to me to be a somewhat inaccurate and insufficiently documented implication. Scott P. (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing on these legal matters should be sourced to assumption, speculation, or inference. Anything that is so sourced should be removed at once. BTW that's an inconveniently long section heading!Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

CC, thanks for your rolling up your sleeves here with this article and helping out. Obviously, you are a far more neutral party here than am I. I'm not sure exactly what you meant by the above. Did you mean that the implication they made that Schucman "never" wanted ACIM to be published by a for-profit-corporation was "too much of a reach" there or not? (That is, should I remove the portion that makes the implication or not?) BTW, sorry about the overly long section title.... Scott P. (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I'm lost in double negatives. The rule is that if a reliable source says "X wanted Y" we may publish it with that source as a reference. If on the other hand the source says "X considered Y" and your judgement of X's character is that this means X must have wanted Y, that's WP:OR. If a reliable source is speculating that "X probably wanted Y" we may publish it by saying 'Source S suggested that X probably wanted Y', again with a reference; this is not WP:OR as the probably is in the written evidence. Hope this helps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you CC. I apologize for the myriad of double negatives. I've found that objectivity has not as easy for me, when I've been working on something that for me is at "nose length" away from my face (being a student of ACIM myself). Your objectivity here has been very helpful. Scott P. (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright section was redundant

I have removed the copyright section due to the fact that all of the facts were already present in the Non-FIP section, and the two supporting links had several inaccuracies in the "supporting material" e.g. 2nd edition published in 1985? Scott P. (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The creation of the "List of works based on ACIM"

In order to try to keep the length of the main article as short as possible, not getting cluttered with various links to related works, I have created a page called a List of works based on "A Course in Miracles", and attempted to move and condense links to these various works there. This page is now linked to in the article's "See also" section. I have no doubt that this list will grow over time. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Please provide documentation (not opinion) of "dubious" nature of the "Let Us Reason" site.

Editor Afterwriting, True, the "Let Us Reason" site is a "religious site" reporting on a religious topic. Just because it is a religious site does not automatically make it "dubious". Proof of intentional misrepresentation being carried out at that site would support your claim that it is a "dubious" site. Please provide documentation of such before deleting a ref based solely on opinion. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The sourced website is completely unacceptable for referencing purposes and fails every possible standard of acceptability on Wikipedia for inclusion as such. This is so obvious that you should have realised this yourself in the first place. See WP:NOTRELIABLE. Also, I did not say that the site itself was "dubious" ~ only the claim made by the site about Robert Schuller. Afterwriting (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Again please, as per WP:NOTRELIABLE, in order for a site to be properly deemed "unreliable" or "dubious", such a site must be shown to have a proven track record of poor fact checking. Your logic seems to be simply that all religion based sites are by default "dubious". If you could please provide any actual documentation that the site you feel is "dubious" has an unreliable track record in checking facts, then I would gladly agree with you. Without any documentation whatsoever to that effect, your opinion on this question of "dubiousness" unfortunately must remain as only that, your own personal opinion. Since you feel that the site in question "fails every possible standard", then I would presume that the documentation of this single "standard failure" should be an easy matter for you. Until you can actually document your opinion here, I would ask that you please observe the 3 revert rule and not revert a third time. As always, documentation should always prevail over mere opinion. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: If you might personally doubt that Schuller could have ever personally endorsed ACIM, please do a Google search on the terms: "Robert Schuller" and "Course in Miracles". Scott P. (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

As you obviously have some difficulties understanding what is an unreliable source ~ especially when it concerns claims about a living person ~ then I would ask you to stop editing until you do actually understand. The reference is clearly unacceptable and will continue to be removed as it is also clearly a BLP violation ~ and for this the three revert rule does not apply. This has nothing to do with it being a "religious site". And I could not care less whether Schuller has ever had any association with ACIM. Find a reliable source that claims that he has been and it can be considered. Afterwriting (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

While there are hundreds of references showing Schuller's support of ACIM, every single one of them that I could find came from a religious based site. "I would agree with your apparent belief that religious-based sites probably don't make as "high quality" references as say perhaps "science-based sites". Still, when that is all that's available, one has to make the best of things. In this most recent edit, I've tried to pick out a more "scientific looking" reference here for the Schuller thing. I hope this works for you. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

What kind of nonsense is your statement that "I would agree with your apparent belief that religious-based sites probably don't make as "high quality" references as say perhaps "science-based sites"? Please point me to any comment of mine which supports this false and ridiculous comment! Afterwriting (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed your new reference. It does not provide any evidence that Schuller has ever used ACIM in his teachings ~ only that someone else who has was a speaker at his church. This is not even close to being the same thing. Afterwriting (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The subtle difference between Schuller having allowed ACIM to be taught in his church, and him specifically endorsing it, has been addressed. I believe the reference supporting the teaching of ACIM in Schuller's church is of a higher quality than the original reference was. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Your unreliable reference has been removed once again. No evidence has been provided that ACIM was ever taught in the Crystal Cathedral by anyone. That is pure speculation. All we know is that someone associated with ACIM once spoke there. Nothing has been provided to suggest that he actually said anything even remotely related to ACIM. This really should be obvious. Afterwriting (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Afterwriting, Did you read the sentence from the ref that you deleted that goes"… for awhile, Schuller even hosted “A Course in Miracles” study groups in his church"? What do you make of that? Scott P. (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

As the reference does not pass muster for reliability it cannot be used regardless of the actual facts. Therefore the reference and any information that it claims cannot be included in the article. Afterwriting (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Afterwriting, you and I seem to be going around in circles about this. I hope you don't mind, but I've put in a request at the Help Desk for some fresh eyes on this question. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: So that other editors can more easily see what we are talking about, I have just reinserted the cite you are questioning. By the way, your most recent removal of it left incorrect grammar and punctuation in its wake. Please leave the cite this time until at least one or two others have had a chance to review it for themselves. Thanks, and thanks for your ever so high estimation of my writing abilities! Scott P. (talk) 08:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the unreliable reference as required. It clearly and obviously fails all criteria for reliability and therefore must be removed. It also has BLP implications. But I am glad that other editors might have a look at this article. I stand by comments about its current inadequate state. Afterwriting (talk) 09:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

After doing a bunch more digging, and after actually buying a Kindle book online, I think I now have a reference that you will accept. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The contentious claims made in a self-published polemical book have been removed as they fail the required criteria for reliability and are, therefore, also BLP policy violations. Afterwriting (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Still, thanks for trying.Scott P. (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

For those editors who may feel that the ACIM article reads too much like a "fan article ", you are most welcome to help to try to "un-fanify" it. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

External links simplified

As was the practice for years, in order to keep the external links section from becoming unwieldy, I have simplified it back to a DMOZ listing. Scott P. (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

support, per WP:EL. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that helpful link WP:EL. Some editors seem to have been trying to use the external links section for self-promotion. Perhaps, if we are lucky, with the guidance provided by WP:EL, we may be able to avoid that issue in the future without having to resort to DMOZ. I will give it a try.

Thanks again, Scott P. (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Requesting "constructive" suggestions for rewriting the article

In June of this year, a user placed a "complete rewrite" template on this article's main page, yet offered no "constructive suggestions" as to how this might be accomplished on the article's talk page. If anyone might have any such suggestions as to how best to improve the quality of this article, please make any such suggestions here. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

sales figures verified

The sales figures are indeed in the Miller cite [8] see page 63-65 ish. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Publishers are typically the relied on as reliable sources of publishing info unless otherwise proven to be unreliable.

Before insisting that this publisher is unreliable because they are "too close to the material", please provide an example where Wikipedia policy prohibits using a publisher for publishing statistics when that publisher has "not" been proven to be unreliable. There is no unreliability associated with this publisher, therefore, it seems to me that Wikipedia's traditional practice of normally trusting publishers to provide accurate publishing statistics should still stand. Might you possibly be more interested in detracting from the subject of this article than in actually arriving at truth here? You seem to possibly have a slight "bone to pick" with this material, no? Scott P. (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPS nope, publishers, or anyone else is not considered a reliable source for self aggrandizing claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Please distinguish between numerical fact and self-agrandizement. Proof would be helpful here. Please stop stooping to this edit war behavior and use facts instead.Scott P. (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

it is not a "numerical fact" - it is a claim. an unverified claim of mass quantities of sales that are widely used in promotional advertising "billions and billions served". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Typically publisher's statistics go unchallenged, unless somehow someone has facts to dispute them, of which you apparently have none. As it turns out, just look at the Amazon Sales Ranks for this book. You'll see that it generally places in the top 1,500 best sellers. Not exacty chicken sh**. You need to present rival info before you can say all publishers are full of "you know what" without any facts to back yourself up.Scott P. (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

well they havent gone unchallenged here. now you are REQUIRED to provide a reliably published third party source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you miss the Amazon sales rank? What is your third party challenge, aside from your own personal point of view? Scott P. (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

and amazon is not a reliable source either. the primary source claim has been challenged and you have failed to provide an appropriate reliably published third party source to support your claims. You need to do so or remove the claims

POV is when one side of a discussion is either not represented, or is under-represented. Please allow for balance in the intro

By insisting that two negative sentiments be listed in the intro opposite a single positive one, this becomes a bit POV, no? Please, you are edit warring and insisting on POV edits. You can do better than this. Scott P. (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not present a false "balance" - we present the views of the subject in proportion to how the academic mainstream presents them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Or perhaps how Red-Pen presents them..... If you could find an article that states, with sound references and facts, that the "Academic mainstream views ACIM as this", then by all means. Until then, I'm afraid it is only how one Red-Pen sees it, not the "Academic mainstream". Scott P. (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

i have provided my sourcing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So far, your only source is your edit war behavior. Facts facts facts my friend. :-) Scott P. (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

uhhhh, facts is: claim is sourced to Miller. i am not sure how you didnt see that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I asked you where you got that "Mainstream Academia" had this view, not where you got the Miller quote. Your denial, refusal to document anything, your trying to change and confuse the subject, and your edit warring behavior is quite awful. Why? Scott P. (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Because i have read ACIM and fallen under satans spell. either that or because I dont want Wikipedia to be used as a promotional platform and follow the reliable third party source requirements rather than self promotional claims to attempt to present the article topic as it is seen by the academic reviewers .

Why are you so keen on presenting a promotional view and what policies and sources support you? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I have provided facts, you have provided only opinions to counter these. Please, you have not yet provided a single new fact to support your opinions here. What kind of editing is that? Scott P. (talk) 05:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

you have not provided "facts" - you have provided a link to a site closely related to the subject of the article - one that is not a valid source for unduly self serving claims, particularly claims that have been challenged and require a reliable source before the claims are restored.

I have provided "facts" in the form of third party sources for the content that I wish to be included and shown you the policies that support my actions. you have not provided any policy based rationale to support the removal. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Last word. Hah! :-) Scott P. (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The edit warring must stop

@Scottperry: @TheRedPenOfDoom: You have both far overstepped WP:3RR and must stop changing the article until a resolution is reached on this talk page. The RFC is a good step that was taken. Please read WP:SEEKHELP and consider using one or more of the noticeboards listed there. If any more changes are made to the article before conflict resolution is reached on this talk page, you will likely be banned from editing and/or the article will be protected from editing. Chris the speller ^yack 13:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Chris for your insight here. You were entirely correct in your post above, and fortunately it now seems things have returned back to civility in this article (at least in part thanks to yourself). There have been no more edit wars since your post. Sincerely, Scott P. (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

RFC- Niche publisher reliability, mainstream academia views

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A discussion has been held as to whether or not the book, A Course In Miracles, has been properly classified by mainstream academia as "psycho-babble and satanic", and as to whether or not publisher volume figures published by niche publishers are inherently unreliable, even if backed by Amazon sales rank numbers. Scott P. (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• 1) as a WP:SPS, the publisher's claims fall under the "unduly self serving" and Amazon of course does not qualify as a third party reliable WP:RS either.
• 2) the view of ACIM as a "satanic seduction" is well documented in one of the few third party sources in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• About 1) Amazon sales rankings are untrustworthy and inherently false or unreliable? Where do you get that? It was simply pulled out of your hat, unless you can show us where else you might have gotten it from. Scott P. (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

A secondary source has been used for this info now, so the publishing data is now a moot point.Scott P. (talk) 08:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• About 2) "Scientific" opinions about "Satanic seduction" normally belong right up in the "intro section"? Where did you get that? Normally such "unscientific sentiments belong in the "Reception" section, the last I heard, unless perhaps someone wants to grind an axe or something?.... Scott P. (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Saying that a source doesn't meet WP:RS is not the same as saying that its inherently false, and secondary sources are absolutely more valuable 99% of the time. Sales figures should be supported by secondary sources, both for verifiability, and also to establish due weight. In this case Amazon isn't secondary, and in my opinion, is not useful here. As for the other point, leads should summarize the body, and I see nothing inherently wrong with using quotes to accomplish that. What is this about "scientific"? Why the scare quotes? Grayfell (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• 'Comment (Came here from the RFC listings) - The ""psycho-babble and satanic" and other descriptors should be fully attributed to the sources that made these comments for NPOV reasons, and only if these sources are reliable. Some books have their supporters and detractors, and readers would like to know who these are. For example, that comment was made in a book by a Kenneth Boa (http://www.kenboa.org/), an evangelist author that may see this book as contrary to Christianity and hence sacrilegious. These comments should go in the "Reception" section if there is enough material for such a section, bun not on the lede, unless these descriptions have been made by a significant number of sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • the "psycho-babble and satanic" is Miller's analysis of how others have reacted to the book.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    • The passage in Miller reads, "Among its critics from both religious and secular perspectives, ACIM is regarded as everything from a satanic seduction to an artifact of New Age psychobabble" (my emphasis). Andreas 466 14:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Cwobeel's advice above is sound. As for publishing figures, I would quote Miller and the publisher (who say that their figure includes translations), and attribute both in the text. Easy. Andreas JN466 14:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jimbo does not have any form of super !vote, his opinion counts no more than any other editor's. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)