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

Revision as of 00:23, 6 April 2014

Revision as of 08:59, 29 June 2014

Line 216:

:: 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. [[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] ([[User talk:Scottperry|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. [[User:Tobszn|Tobszn]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Dshafer|Dshafer]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Chiswick Chap|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. [[User:Gene Ward Smith|Gene Ward Smith]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] ([[User talk:Scottperry|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. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:LuckyLouie|LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:LuckyLouie|LuckyLouie]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] ([[User talk:Scottperry|talk]]) 02:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)