Talk:A Course in Miracles/Archive 8: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:00, 3 November 2013

Revision as of 00:20, 6 January 2014

Line 131:

: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. [[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] ([[User talk:Scottperry|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.

[[User:Dshafer|Dshafer]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:LuckyLouie|LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Qowieury|Qowieury]] ([[User talk: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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.48.168.235|96.48.168.235]] ([[User talk:96.48.168.235|talk]]) 04:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== 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?

[[User:Common72|Common72]] ([[User talk:Common72|talk]]) 19:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)