Talk:A Course in Miracles/Archive 8
Redirect page
Redirect to:
removing indiscriminate collection of information
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"
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How the unpublished material became public.
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.
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)
- 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)
- 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
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?
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?
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?
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
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
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
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.
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
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)