Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Christ as source of "A Course In Miracles"

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep and possibly merge into A Course In Miracles. While a strict numeric tally shows a fairly clear preference for merging, several convincing arguments have been offered for keeping it as a separate article. It should also be noted that the article has changed significantly since it was nominated. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ as source of "A Course In Miracles"

edit

This article has been proposed for deletion by user Zeimusu | Talk page 01:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the comments have been separated into "delete", "mixed" and "merge" sections. I think this is counterproductive, as it does not show the evolution of the discussion on this topic chronologically. Please note also that this is not a "vote" process: it is a "discussion" process. I therefore request that this is restored to the normal chronological sequence, and the term "vote" is deleted. Tyrenius 12:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that this is not a truly democratic voting process. It can more accurately be described as a process to try to generate a consensus. I have seen many AfD's in the past structured this way. In fact, this whole process used to be called Vote for deletion. I think that the name may have been changed to better reflect the greater desire for consensus rather than for division which is the most common outcome of a vote. In my restructuring I have retained all timestamps so the sequential evolution of the dialogue can be noted. Restructuring it this way helped me to follow the commentary structure. In the spirit of the new renaming of this discussion, I will retitle the sections to Suggestions for... this or that. If you want to revert it back to the previously more random structure, that's fine with me. -Scott P. 12:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer. I am not going to over-ride the decision for splitting points of view, but I do think it makes it harder to follow the conversation. I think "suggestions" instead of "votes" is a good change, and makes things less rigid. Tyrenius 13:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience with me. The last time I was involved in AfD discussions, roughly a year ago, the format was as I had first refactored it. I see the benefit of the newer format and have since refactored this discussion back to the current norm.
-Scott P. 16:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

edit
Regarding the "Idiosyncratic non-topic" accusation:
A Course In Miracles is not "New Age" and it is not merely "a book." There is nothing in ACIM about crystals, auras, chakras, meditating, incense, UFOs, aliens, etc. ACIM is a self-contained spiritual thought system that blends non-dual views of God (akin to ancient Hindu teachings) with modern day psychological insight in the tradition of Freud and Jung. It was first published in 1975 and has since sold over 1 million copies; its sales show no sign of slowing down, and it has been translated into dozens of languages [1]. And it was the basis of Marianne Williamson's book "A Return to Love" [2], which sold about four million copies in the US, and millions around the world. "A Course In Miracles" is projected by many to be as widely read as the Bible at some point.
This issue was the centerpiece of a high profile lawsuit. I'm sure that most of you, who appear largely to be uninterested in this whole genre of non-mainstream spirituality, as you have made snide and unfair comments about it, are completely unaware that this issue of authorship of ACIM became the focalpoint of a very high profile court case between Foundation for A Course In Miracles and Endeavor Academy [3][4].
Lastly, this article does not contain "original research" as it links directly to comments from other sources. At this point, the article is not fully developed. Not being fully developed doesn't qualify this article as an "idiocyncratic non-issue," but as a stub -- and that's hardly a reason to delete the article.
-- Andrew Parodi 04:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed I read this article and wanted to nominate it for BJAODN, but ACIM is notable nuttery and the lawsuit over "cannot hold the copyright to a work that was 'channeled from a disembodied entity'" probably makes this a notable topic. The parent article is very large, so I'm not sure whether some material on this topic should be merged into it. As it stands, all the unsourced references to "some people believe" ... "it is claimed that" ... make the majority of this article appear to cross WP:NOR. I would point out that this whole controversy is nothing more than solipsism, but the underlying topic seems to meet the same description. neutral, leaning toward merge (a sentence or two about the controversy, and most of the lawsuit paragraph). Barno 02:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The problem with the merge suggestion is that, as someone else noted, the main ACIM article is rather long. And though this article is itself only a stub at the moment, I anticipate it will grow a great deal after some time. Isn't it Wikipedia's general rule that overly long articles should be broken down into smaller articles? Andrew Parodi 07:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A History of this article: It actually began as a part of the main article: Did you all know that this article actually did begin on the main page ... where it was debated and edited into non-existence? The topic of this article is so controversial that many people within the "Course community" do not want to discuss it, and therefore if it is merged back into the main ACIM article it will just disappear. Are those of you who are voting for it to merge willing to keep an eye on the main page and make sure the whole thing isn't just deleted?
The history of this article has been quite frustrating. First, I introduced it as a brief paragraph in the main article. In the main article, it was debated - rather hotly - until I decided to move it to its own article. Soon, it was suggested (by someone unfamiliar with ACIM) that it be merged back into the main article ... and now someone is suggesting it be deleted, and in response to the deletion request it is being suggested that it be merged again.
I suppose we can just go round and round with this one. We can merge it back, it can disappear, and I can start another article on this topic.
The main problem here is that most of you voting on what to do with this article are not ACIM students and therefore can't grasp that this issue has any importance. The other problem is impatience. Doesn't it take time for a stub to develop into a good article?
--Andrew Parodi 09:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears from your comments that this is a POV fork created because of content disputes at A Course In Miracles. This goes against the content forking guidelines.--Isotope23 15:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the case at all. How can this be POV when I present two different opinions? I just don't get where you people are coming from. I make the claim that some people think Jesus is the literal source, THEN I SOURCE THAT CLAIM. Then I make the claim that some people think Jesus is the symbolic source, THEN I SOURCE THAT CLAIM. You all just don't "get" what the article is about because the topic is out of your league. So frustrating to have people vote on a topic that they don't even understand or care about. And deleting this topic because few are interested in it is a LAME IDEA. How many people are interested in the article about Pearl Lange?Andrew Parodi 21:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the Original debate over merging back into main ACIM article: This article needs to be merged....
Please also note: Many of you have commented on my use of the words "some people" and on an apparent lack of sources. I have since edited the article to remove such phrases as "some people," replacing such phrases with direct references to organizations and teachers such as Kenneth Wapnick, Helen Schucman, Endeavor Academy, Foundation for A Course In Miracles, and Circle of Atonement. And I have also highlighted in quotations various comments made by Kenneth Wapnick on this topic, comments that are sourced and can be read at their original locations on the web. Please take into account that the article you are now voting on is not the same article that the nominator read. I sincerely think that if you all delete or merge this article you will be costing Wikipedia an article that will be very valuable and helpful.
--Andrew Parodi 10:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As this article has several links and NOTES it does not qualify as "original research."
--Andrew Parodi 10:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Claims like: "In this view, the Course is not seen as the result of a literal communication between Helen Schucman and the disembodied spirit of the historical Jesus Christ who died more than 2000 years ago" are not sourced. They are OR. While there are some links, which come from the same organization (and an amazon link selling the organization's work), they do not support the opinions presented. It reads like an ad. Arbusto 20:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such comments are indeed sourced. Read the damned articles I link to. People such as Endeavor Academy and Robert Perry make it very clear in their articles that they believe the historical Jesus Christ of 2000 years ago is the source of ACIM. How are you missing this? Do I need to put a note and reference at the end of every damned sentence? Do I have to start sourcing words like "the" and "2000"? Andrew Parodi 21:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article contains TEN OUTSIDE SOURCES and is not "original research"
To start, the term "original research" as used on Wikipedia is imprecise. I am currently taking a college class on writing research papers, and the bulk of the class is devoted to understanding how to list the sources upon which one's research paper is based. Explicit in this class is the rule that in doing research one must cite one's outside sources. It's odd that on Wikipedia the term "original research" is apparently used to denote an article lacking reference to outside sources. But I'll set that argument aside.
With regard to the use of the term "original research" as found here on Wikipedia, this article still does not qualify. Please find below the ten outside articles and references linked to this article:
  • Source 1: FACIM Outreach Question #97 wherein we find the quote: "Jesus is a symbol in our mind of the Atonement -- the correction for our delusional thought system of separation, sin and attack."
  • Source 7: FACIM OUTREACH question #65 wherein we find the statement: "(It) is important for students of the Course not to confuse the voice Helen Schucman heard and identified as JesusÆ, with the Jesus of traditional Christianity, nor to associate it with any particular image in form. The Course uses the term Jesus and the Holy Spirit as symbols reflecting the part of the mind of the Sonship that holds the memory of God. They are not real persons...."
  • Source 8: Absence from Felicity", Kenneth Wapnick's biography of Helen Schucman wherein we find the statement: " At first blush, and as the story of the scribing is usually told, it would seem as if the person of Jesus stood within Helen's mind with a microphone, dictating to her-word for word, in English!--the three books of the Course. It must be remembered, of course, that on one level this was Helen's experience. But similar to the misperception of the sun's rising and setting every day, one's experience , though valid for the individual, nonetheless, should not be taken for the actual truth, let alone as a model in form for other people's experience.".
  • Source 10: Jesus: Symbol and Reality, book by Kenneth Wapnick, Ph.D wherein we find the quote: "The distinction between symbol and reality is shown to be crucial to one's spiritual growth as a student of A Course in Miracles. Confusing the two ensures that one remains a spiritual child, never developing the mature relationship with Jesus that leads to the love and peace that is beyond all symbols, and that alone is our true reality."
I realize that A Course In Miracles is not everyone's cup of tea. And I am the first to admit that the originally nominated article was not very well written. (In part, it was not well written because I had gotten tired of working on an article that caused so much controversy. I was tired of the battle.) And I realize that to some of you, this article is "notable nuttery." Fine. That's your perspective and you're entitled to it.
But if you are all going to vote to delete this article, can you please base your vote on legitimate reasons? This article contains TEN OUTSIDE SOURCES. Please take note of this. Thank you.
-- Andrew Parodi 05:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed , Keep or Merge. It's not fair to condemn it as NOR, as there are 7 references given and this is obviously a topic of debate that exists beyond the authorship of this article. Describing it as "BJAODN" and "notable nuttery" is completely POV. Wiki is here to record what other people are saying, not how we see things, and a lot of people take this seriously. Is any "religious" topic "notable nuttery?" Some might think so. Comments such as "some people believe" are weasel words, which may or may not also fall foul of NOR, but do not necessarily do so. They may merely indicate the author is not entirely familiar with writing guidelines. OK, so it needs to be cleaned up. There is no intrinsic bar to solipsism, as far as I know. It does indeed concern a "single new age book", but one which was a best-seller in its field, popular and influential. Negative comments about this topic can also be included in the article, provided they are properly referenced. Tyrenius 03:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WP:NPOV policy applies to article content, not to project discussions. Nonetheless I apologize for mixing personal opinion with editorial discussion. As a person (not in my role as editor) I consider all religions large and small to be nuttery. As a WP editor I consider those religions which have verifiable notability (regardless of illogicality) to be worth serious attention, including balance against POV editing by adherents. The fact remains that I got a good laugh out of "copyright to a work that was 'channeled from a disembodied entity'", and almost as much from the underlying argument. The improvements in documentation would lead me to change my vote to "neutral, leaning toward Keep" if a partisan editor hadn't refactored this AfD discussion contrary to the AfD norm. Barno 14:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then you may be interested to find that A Course In Miracles is not a religion. It is merely a book that you read. Some people have started churches around it, but there is nothing in the book that talks about the need to start churches. The book designates itself as a self-study book intended for the individual to read on his own. Further, the Course has little resemblance to any religion because it denies a creator God; I attended a workshop with Kenneth Wapnick two years ago at Foundation for A Course In Miracles wherein he referred to A Course In Miracles as being "atheistic", because the Course says God did not make the physical world and has nothing to do with it. Andrew Parodi 06:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is not a "POV fork". It caused controversy on the original page because it is a controversial issue, which you and the others would understand if you were to read the links I provide in the article and above. It was later decided that it was too controversial, and therefore too expansive, for the main page. Controversy is not the same as a POV fork. There are many controversial issues that are given their own pages. And as this issue (whether Jesus is the source of A Course In Miracles) resulted in a lawsuit between a major publisher (Penguin) and two non-profit organizations (Foundation for A Course In Miracles and Endeavor Academy), and is important to tens of thousands of people around the world, it is indeed a notable issue. Andrew Parodi 11:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That's exactly what I was thinking. The article needs a better title. However, I have two quotes highlighted from the "literalists" and I provide links to more articles by them. It's not that this is a POV fork, but that I've had a harder time finding more comments from the literalists. Andrew Parodi 00:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jesus_Christ_as_source_of_%22A_Course_In_Miracles%22&oldid=1137949163"