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

Revision as of 00:22, 29 September 2014

Revision as of 00:23, 3 October 2014

Line 257:

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, [[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] ([[User talk:Scottperry|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, [[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] ([[User talk:Scottperry|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. [[User:Afterwriting|Afterwriting]] ([[User talk: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, [[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] ([[User talk:Scottperry|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". [[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] ([[User talk:Scottperry|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. [[User:Afterwriting|Afterwriting]] ([[User talk: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, [[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] ([[User talk:Scottperry|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! [[User:Afterwriting|Afterwriting]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Afterwriting|Afterwriting]] ([[User talk: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, [[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] ([[User talk:Scottperry|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. [[User:Afterwriting|Afterwriting]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] ([[User talk:Scottperry|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. [[User:Afterwriting|Afterwriting]] ([[User talk: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#We_need_one_or_more_impartial_observers.27_brief_input request at the Help Desk] for some fresh eyes on this question. Thanks, [[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] ([[User talk:Scottperry|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! [[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] ([[User talk:Scottperry|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. [[User:Afterwriting|Afterwriting]] ([[User talk: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, [[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] ([[User talk:Scottperry|talk]]) 17:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

:::::Thanks, [[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] ([[User talk:Scottperry|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. [[User:Afterwriting|Afterwriting]] ([[User talk:Afterwriting|talk]]) 08:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Still, thanks for trying.[[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] ([[User talk:Scottperry|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, [[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] ([[User talk:Scottperry|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. [[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] ([[User talk:Scottperry|talk]]) 13:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

:support, per [[WP:EL]]. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;;;">TRPoD <small>aka The Red Pen of Doom</small></span>]] 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, [[User:Scottperry|Scott P.]] ([[User talk:Scottperry|talk]]) 01:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)