Talk:A Course in Miracles/Archive 8

removing indiscriminate collection of information

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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"

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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How the unpublished material became public.

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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.

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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?

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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?

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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?

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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.

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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'

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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?

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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?

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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"

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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.

Latest comment: 11 years ago20 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The sales figures are indeed in the Miller cite [1] 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.

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@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

Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

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)