Content deleted Content added
Move content from unstandardised name (Talk:A Course in Miracles/Archive 08) Tag: Disambiguation links added |
|||
Line 79:
-[[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] 15:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
::FIP and FACIM are two distinct organizations. FIP is <b>not</b> a subsidiary of FACIM. A redirect from FIP to FACIM would <u>not</u> be in order.<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
: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. [[User:ObiterDicta|'''ObiterDicta''']] <small>( [[User talk:ObiterDicta|pleadings]] • [[Special:Contributions/ObiterDicta|errata]] • [[Special:Emailuser/ObiterDicta|appeals]] )</small> 17:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 118:
-[[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] 07:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:This gets into the fine points of ACIM philosophy. ACIM uses the word "[[Oneness|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.<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
::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. [[User:Zopupa|Zopupa]] 14:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Line 295:
_____________________________
<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
:Hi Who123,
Line 314:
::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.<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
== Some definitions of the term "write".... ==
Line 342:
: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.<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
::Hello Who123,
Line 349:
::-[[User:Scottperry|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.<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
==RFC: Best words to use re: Helen & Bill in origin of ACIM==
Line 357:
-[[User:Scottperry|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.<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
::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. -[[User:Scottperry|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<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
::::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?
Line 367:
::::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. -[[User:Scottperry|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".<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
::::::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. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 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..."" [http://www.acim.org/TheScribes/SectionIntro.htm]<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
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? [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 18:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Line 379:
::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. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 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.<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
::::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? -[[User:Scottperry|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. [http://www.acim.org/TheScribes/SectionIntro.htm]<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
:::::::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. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 22:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Line 391:
:::::::::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. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 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."[http://www.acim.org/TheScribes/SectionIntro.htm]<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
:::::::::::I do not think that FIP can be considered a secondary source in this instance. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 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?<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
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. -[[User:Scottperry|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".<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
:Is the photo at FIP [http://www.acim.org/TheScribes/SectionIntro.htm] available to be used in this article?<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
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. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 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.<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
::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. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 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?<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
::::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. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 00:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::I do not claim to be an expert. Perhaps we will get a better suggestion with time. Thanks<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
: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. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 18:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Line 420:
== 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."<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
== Source & wording for ACIM (see above sections) ==
Line 428:
-[[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] 12:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
:Either can Schucman. I think it best to stay with the word the references provide: "scribes".<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
== Mysticism ==
Line 434:
Seems A Course in Miracles is a form of mysticism and should be categorized as such. --[[User:Remi0o|R]][[Special:Emailuser/Remi0o|e]][[User_talk:Remi0o|m]][[Special:Contributions/Remi0o|i]] 06:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
:I agree. See [[Mysticism]].<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
::Do we have any [[WP:RS|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. [[User:ObiterDicta|'''ObiterDicta''']] <small>( [[User talk:ObiterDicta|pleadings]] • [[Special:Contributions/ObiterDicta|errata]] • [[Special:Emailuser/ObiterDicta|appeals]] )</small> 16:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 447:
::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. [[User:Warlordjohncarter|John Carter]] 15:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
:::For what its worth, I believe this article belongs in the Jesus catagory.<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
::::It would be worth much more if you provided a rationale for its inclusion. [[User:ObiterDicta|'''ObiterDicta''']] <small>( [[User talk:ObiterDicta|pleadings]] • [[Special:Contributions/ObiterDicta|errata]] • [[Special:Emailuser/ObiterDicta|appeals]] )</small> 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 454:
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.... [[User:Sethie|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.<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
: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.<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
::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. [[User:Warlordjohncarter|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. [[User:Sethie|Sethie]] 01:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 462:
::::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 [[WP:PR|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. [[User:Warlordjohncarter|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.<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
::::::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. [[User:ObiterDicta|'''ObiterDicta''']] <small>( [[User talk:ObiterDicta|pleadings]] • [[Special:Contributions/ObiterDicta|errata]] • [[Special:Emailuser/ObiterDicta|appeals]] )</small> 17:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Line 473:
-[[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] 07:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC) ''<small>-This discussion copied from archive as it remained as an active discussion after the archive was closed- -[[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] 17:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)</small>''
:This gets into the fine points of ACIM philosophy. ACIM uses the word "[[Oneness|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.<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
::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. [[User:Zopupa|Zopupa]] 14:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Line 485:
: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. [[User:Sethie|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.<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
:::Whether he is ignorant or not is ''your'' opinion. If he is indeed a scholar of religion, his criticism has value. [[User:Not a dog|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.<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
Line 500:
:::::::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![[User:Sethie|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).<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
::::::::: 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! :) [[User:Sethie|Sethie]] 17:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Line 518:
-[[User:Scottperry|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.<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
Line 546:
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.
:<span style="color:grey;">—</span>[[User:Who123|<
Line 725:
:I found a 1100-word article on this issue in the Proquest archive, which I can send to anyone who wants to email me.
:*{{cite news|title=Who Owns the Words of Jesus?: Copyright holders protecting draft of book, but followers claim unedited version is voice of Christ|first=PEGGY |last=FLETCHER STACK|work=The Salt Lake Tribune|date=February 19, 2000|page=B.1}}
:There's an excerpted version on the web [http://www.neirr.org/cimnews.htm here], but I haven't checked to see what's missing. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<
== Is Footnote 1 a reliable reference? ==
Line 1,014:
== The edit warring must stop ==
{{Ping|Scottperry}} {{Ping|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. [[User:Chris the speller|<
: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, [[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] ([[User talk:Scottperry|talk]]) 19:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Line 1,033:
*''''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. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 21:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
**the "psycho-babble and satanic" ''is'' Miller's analysis of how others have reacted to the book.-- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 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). [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small>[[User_Talk:Jayen466|<
*'''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. [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small>[[User_Talk:Jayen466|<
{{Archive bottom}}
::Jimbo does not have any form of super !vote, his opinion counts no more than any other editor's. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 17:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
| |||