Talk:A Course in Miracles

To view earlier archived discussions of the A Course In Miracles article, please see:

• Archive 1: May 17, 2004 - November 12, 2005
• Archive 2: Nov. 12, 2005 - June 29, 2006
• Archive 3: June 29, 2006 - July 1, 2006
• Archive 4: July 1, 2006- July 13, 2006
• Archive 5: July 13, 2006- July 24, 2006

To view certain passages excised from the text, as well as comments on those passages, please see:

Introduction

The fact that "A Course in Miracles" is sometimes referred to as "ACIM" or simply "The Course" is not original research. It is common knowledge for anyone who is at all familiar with ACIM. We are using these abbreviations in our discussions here. I have already posted this in these discussions and it was deleted. Please do not delete or change discussion material posted by others.--Who123 04:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

All you are saying is that based on the opinion of several editors here on WP that the statement is true. That in itslef is pure original research by defintion. I will mark the section disputed. Consider the section disputed. Adding a tag would be confusing. Also keep in mind that the statement itself about "ACIM" is confusing since an equal statement could be made "Foundation for Inner Peace" is sometimes referred to as "ACIM" by the same reasoning as you suggest for the statement; i.e. original research. Ste4k 03:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a quote from another WP article: "The Internet (also known simply as the Net)..." Internet. Do you consider this OR as well? I and two other editors do not consider this OR. Once again, it is common knowledge for anyone who is at all familiar with ACIM. The "Foundation for Inner Peace" is not referred to as "ACIM", it is referred to as "FIP". I am finding your remarks and edits pedantic (unduly emphasizing minutiae) and obstructive. You have stated that you have little or no knowledge of ACIM. Perhaps your editing time would be better served in an area where you do have some knowledge?--Who123 04:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to go work on the other article, that's fine. It is up to you and/or the other editors to demonstrate that it is not OR, not up to me to remove OR from the article. As mentioned earlier, this is disputed. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOR,WP:DR,WP:VER, and WP:RS. Ste4k 06:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not the WP policies. The problem is that you are applying them in an obsessive manner that obstructs rather than advances the article. Your use of these policies is to carry them to the extreme. Once again, look at these articles as two examples: Bible Internet.--Who123 14:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing obsessive about the correct use of article maintenance templates. The specific use of this discussion area is designated to discuss the article "a course in miracles" rather than opinions about other articles. Ste4k 22:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This section is not about article maintenance templates. It is about the Introduction of the article.--Who123 15:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The introduction is now quoted from a reliable secondary source. Ste4k 05:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Course Versions

Please allow me to present some initial information on the formation of The Course and the three primary versions to the best of my ability. This can then act as a platform for discussion. The Course began as a cooperative venture between two well respected psychologists. Helen began to hear an inner voice. She called Bill and they both devoted much of their lives over many years to bring the "dictation" of this inner voice to paper. Most of the "dictation" was written by Helen in notebooks with her own style of shorthand. She then either typed it herself or read it to Bill who typed it. It appears that some of the material Helen spoke to Bill and he typed this directly.

The earliest typed version that is known to exist is called the Urtext. The Urtext itself appears to have been derived from at least three earlier typed versions. Some of this material may be lost to time. ACIM consists of three parts: Text, Workbook, and Manual for Teachers. The vast majority of differences are in the Text.

In the Urtext "the voice" designated Bill as the editor. In late 1972 Bill finished the editing of all three parts. The Text portion was found in the A.R.E. Library and has come to be known as the HLC (Hugh Lynn Cayce) version. This is perhaps a poor name as HLC had no known input to the material although he is mentioned in it. Bill added Chapter and Section breaks and deleted material.

In early 1973, I believe, Ken Wapnick was given a copy. He further edited the material to form the Criswell version and subsequently the FIP first edition often known as the "blue book". There may have been other variations involved. The second edition contains additional material and an outline numbering system which is still under a valid copyright.

Since then there are now multiple variations both in print and online that stem from these three primary versions.

Despite much sometimes heated debate, all three versions seem to contain the essential material of The Course. Some prefer one version and some use all three.--Who123 18:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if you could provide sources for these. Thanks. Ste4k 19:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Reading this book referenced in the article would be a start:

Wapnick, Kenneth (1999). Absence from Felicity: The Story of Helen Schucman and Her Scribing of A Course in Miracles (2d ed.). New York: Foundation for A Course in Miracles. ISBN 0-933291-08-6. Discusses Helen Schucman and the pre-publication history of ACIM.Who123 20:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be confusion regarding versions of ACIM. I believe the article should address this in a short topic. I suggest this as a starting point:

---

There are three primary versions of The Course. These are the Urtext, the HLC, and the FIP first edition. There are also multiple variations of these both written and "electronic". The Urtext is the earliest publicly known version. Within the Urtext Dr. William Thetford was the designated editor. The HLC is the version edited by Bill and completed in late 1972. He added the organization of the chapters and sections. Unfortunately, original material was removed. The FIP first edition was a further edit of the HLC by Ken Wapnick. Some material was changed and some was deleted. In addition, FIP released a second edition. This second edition includes additional material and an outline numbering system. The additional material and the outline numbering system remain under copyright.

---

There has been a long discussion here on sourcing. Sourcing for this addition includes the works themselves as well as the already referenced "Absence from Felicity".--Who123 18:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You haven't mentioned any version from the Endeavor Academy at all. I suggest that you look at that article and check it for accuracy. Apparently it is pointing to this article on the premise that the version of "A Course in Miracles" written by Charles Anderson is directly related to these three versions. In my opinion, that link is ambiguous and misleading. If you disagree, then you might want to add the category cult to this article as it is listed in the other. Ste4k 03:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I just noted your addition and although it reads well, etc. It is completely unsourced. I am removing it until such a time that you can supply references. There isn't any sense in adding additional unsourced material to a very long document in the process of being pruned for verification reasons. Ste4k 04:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The EA version is new. It is included in "There are also multiple variations of these both written and "electronic"." I see no point in this article in discussing all of the derivations from the three primary versions. If this is thought to be useful then a separate article can be written on this. I appreciate the complement about the addition reading well. The addition was sourced from the primary works and the existing references. Because there is confusion about these primary versions, I believe it is an important addition. I do not appreciate your removing it. If you wanted more source material you could simply have added a comment. It is beginning to appear to me that you simply wish to obstruct work on this article.--Who123 04:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 You should understand plainly the reason that it was removed. I certainly agree that it might help balance the article, but it would take much more than simply a mention, and all material added to this article needs to be cited. Ste4k 06:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason that it was removed seems to be your attempt to do anything you can to obstruct this article. It was a concise, well written (by your own words) summary. It was cited.--Who123 14:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am incredibly concerned that, after the extensive discussion on this talk page about the importance of sources and general agreement that work should be done on the problems with the sourcing of the existing text that a new section was added that was completely unsourced. [1] As if there aren't enough links to these policies on this page already: WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:RS. These are required policies, not optional suggestions, for creating content here. JChap (Talk) 15:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This was added in part because of the confusion regarding the versions in this discussion. It was not "completely unsourced". I will not attempt to add the section again until more of the current issues are resolved particularly in regard to sources, citations, and references.--Who123 16:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• The only cite in the diff says "(see primary works and references)." Am I missing something? JChap (Talk) 16:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This book is a primary resource and including it would basically be using a self-published resource from the publisher. Ste4k 05:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of the acronyn "ACIM" is advertising.

This acronym "ACIM" is a registered trademark. Judith Skutch Whitson and her husband started the Foundation of Para-Sensory Investigations, Inc. (FPI) in October of 1971. She was a teacher and lecturer at New York University on the science of the study of consciousness and parapsychology. She was introduced to Schucman, Thetford and Wapnick in May of 1975. In June of 1976, the Foundation for Parasensory Investigation changed its name to The Foundation of Inner Peace due to Schucman's distaste for the former name. Dr. Schucman died in 1981. Two years later control of the copyright was essentially transferred to the Foundation for "A Course in Miracles" (FACIM) in 1983 when it was organized by Wapnick, the Board of Directors being himself, Judy Skutch Whitson, and her husband Robert Skutch. Due to a suit by Penguin, and TFIP, brought against the Church of the Full Endeavor for teaching students with the manuscript they had obtained, it was found that because of preliminary distribution of the work that the contents of the book are considered public domain. There is absolutely no reason to advertise on this encyclopedia.

I am not quite certain what you are trying to point out here. I am not aware of any Wiki policy which discourages or prohibits the use of trademarked acronyms if they serve a significantly useful informative purpose. -Scott P. 12:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Two small concepts. Ste4k 13:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, but I still do not understand what two concepts you are referring to. Could you please clarify? Thanks, -Scott P. 14:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Trademarks are for Brand's 2. Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV. If you click on the word, your Web Browser will be conducted to the specific topics which explain both of the concepts completely. Thanks. Ste4k 20:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I am also confused by your argument. It seems that according to your arguments, Wikipedia would not be allowed to refer to McDonald's or Burger King, since those terms are also trademarked. — goethean ॐ 20:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that both of those meet WP:CORP correct? And it's good that you noted that WP has articles on both of them, let me point out a third: Wendy's. I'm glad that you can appreciate how a tradmark distinguishes one group from the next. Notice how there isn't any particular trademark associated with the topic Fast Food. I am glad that you brought this easy analogy to mind. Thanks. Ste4k 23:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly Burger King meets this criteria, but are you saying that the use of any trademarked acronym in Wiki should automamatically be treated as POV or advertising per Wiki policy? I still don't understand. Are you're saying that this article is primarily advertising, even though it makes no attempt to sell anything? Admittedly it does attempt to explicate ACIM, but advertising and explication are two different things. I thought that that the explication of notable but otherwise difficult topics was Wiki's purpose. I apologize but I still do not understand.  :::-Scott P. 00:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This trademark only represents one group. It would be like having an article on "Fast Food" and mentioning only Taco Bell. Why is that? Ste4k 20:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a completely inaccurate statement. If you were do to any research on the topic, you would find that all sides refer to "A Course In Miracles" as "ACIM". I became acquainted with "A Course In Miracles" in the bookstore of my New Thought church. The church categorized "A Course In Miracles" on a shelf that had the sign "ACIM" at the top. The sign did not say "A Course In Miracles" but "ACIM". Secondary Source 23:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The use of "ACIM" in this article would certainly not constitute advertising. It would instead constitute an attempt to succinctly describe a book with a relatively long title. Even if using "ACIM" were indeed advertising, I am aware of no Wikipedia guideline that says that one cannot refer to the advertising slogans or acronyms of given products, copyrighted or not.

Further, I may state that this is an unsourced claim by Ste4k. I see no advertisements for ACIM anywhere, least of all ones that use the the acronym "ACIM". Lastly, Wikipedia allows for the use of advertising acronyms anyway. Please consult the article KFC. Thank you. Secondary Source 03:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look here you will note the sources for my statement. If you look at the source code at the web site here you will see the statement, "All contents Copyright 1995, Foundation for A COURSE IN MIRACLES. All Rights Reserved. A COURSE IN MIRACLES (ACIM) is a registered service mark and trademark of the Foundation for A Course in Miracles.". If you look at that page on the top you will see the tradmark being used. This web site has the same board of directors according to the court documents listed here on top of this sub-topic. The acronym is listed approximately seventy times (to date) in the article. Please see a sift of the page. Unless this document intends to give equal time to the other books by other authors using this same title, then how can it be considered to be fair use of that trademark rather than advertising? As it has been noted down below, other secondary publishers refer to the works collectively as "The Course" or "Course". Ste4k 15:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think this splitting of hairs is productive? There is a difference between "registered trademark" and advertising. I am not familiar with any rule in Wikipedia that does not allow for the use of registered trademarks. You have a bizarre little fixation on this issue. Seek help. Secondary Source 23:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The facts:

"The 1975 copyright of "A Course in Miracles" was voided by Federal District court judge Robert W. Sweet for the US Federal District Court in the Southern District of New York on 10/24/2003 on the grounds of general distribution prior to obtaining copyright thus placing it in the public domain, as Amended on 6/16/2004. The previously registered Trademark on the acronym, "ACIM" was canceled by the US Trademark Office on 10/25/2005 and the previously registered Service-mark on the book title, "A Course in Miracles" was canceled by the US Trademark Office on 8/10/2005."

This information is public domain and is available on the internet on the U.S. Patients, Trademarks, and Copyright site:

http://www.uspto.gov/

Who123 22:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Secondary Source 23:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see

• the official policy in this regard
• the official policy regarding tone

Note: all article topics must be third-party verifiable regarding advertising. Ste4k 18:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

But the accusation of advertising must itself be grounded in some semblance of sanity. Secondary Source 09:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that repeating the affiliated brand name upwards of 70 times in an article is a reasonable reason to claim advertising, and as stated previously, since that particular acronym is unnecessary and can easily be replaced with something else it appears that only a biased opinion would insist on using it. Ste4k 03:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

ACIM is not an "affiliated brand name". It is a quick and easy common abbreviation for "A Course in Miracles". Since you have stated that you know little or nothing about this subject I can understand why you are confused. I think you are the one biased here.--Who123 14:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect and you haven't any reliable sources to state that "ACIM" is either associated nor disassociated with the book. There is absolutely no reason to use this acronym when other non-disputed avenues exist. Using the acronym ACIM is advertising for the companys afore mentioned. Ste4k 22:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

We are only using "ACIM" as an abbreviation for "A Course in Miracles". If that is unacceptable to you then I think we can change it to "A.C.I.M" without violating the MOS. -Will Beback 02:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with referring to it as "the Course" or "Course"? It is referred to that way in both Publisher's weekly (non-pov) as well as the NY District Court, (also non-pov). Ste4k 02:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The use of abbreviations is common in language. Sometimes multiple abbreviations are used. I think these two statements are common knowledge. If one doubts that ACIM is a common abbreviation simply go to a common search engine and type ACIM. Its use is extremely common in multiple ways and by multiple organizations. A.C.I.M. is also used. It is not as easy and quick so it is not my preference but it is another abbreviation. Sometimes The Course, the Course, or the course is used. This is simply common knowledge just as the net is used for the internet. Please see the other discussion on this. If we cannot agree on something as simple as this then I do not see how any advancement can be made on this, or any article in WP.--Who123 16:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be a finished conversation. Now that the article is directly quoting reputible secondary sources you might notice that the acronym isn't ever used. Ste4k 05:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Rationale for proposed ACIM article group restructure

Apparently user User:Ste4k has decided that this article ultimately needs to be deleted and replaced with her own article at A Course in Miracles (book), and also a second article which she apparently plans to create later on to be titled something like A Course in Miracles (movement). This user has also nominated multiple ACIM related articles for deletion, some deletions of which have succeeded. A discussion about User:Ste4k's plans to effect these changes is under way at Nomination to delete Ste4k's article on ACIM (book only). The input of editors of this page at that article would be very much appreciated. To the best of my knowledge, this editor has not yet made any detailed analysis on Wiki of the actual contents of ACIM. Thanks, -Scott P. 12:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Your presumption is quite incorrect. Thanks. Ste4k 18:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, one of the reasons why I have a neutral point of view on this topic is exactly because I haven't nor do I plan to make any sort of analysis at all about the actual contents. An encylcopedic entry about a book is not an editorial or book review. Ste4k 00:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

ACIM is surrounded by bias, conflict, and heated differences of opinion; as are most religious discussions. I do not believe that any of us is without bias or has a neutral point of view. Hopefully we can work together to form a consensus to provide the reader of this article with factual information or useful differences of opinion when necessary. -- Who123 14:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually haven't seen much bias, except perhaps in citing primary sources. I haven't read any of these versions. I have read the court cases and seen a lot of web sites which are frankly all involved in selling one or another version of the book in one way or another. The first time I had ever heard of the Course was about three weeks ago. I am sure that there are several other editors that are equally as neutral. I say that basically because my first question, has still never been answered satisfactorally in my opinion. Ste4k 03:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I was not speaking of bias here but the various forms of bias in the ACIM community. Not all of the web sites are involved in selling anything. The larger ones are and they can afford larger websites and more advertising. I think it is useful to have input from those who are familiar with ACIM and the events surrounding it. Many that study ACIM are not affiliated with any of the major organizations and some of these are fairly neutral and rational. Perhaps you could restate your question here? -- Who123 17:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What question? Ste4k 03:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Referring to factions

The article section on organization should be rewritten. The FACIM is not the organization of ACIM (the acronym "ACIM" is not the FAICM's trademark as it has been revoked by the U.S. Patent Office). FACIM is only one organization involved with publication of ACIM. It is highly controversial. This section reads like an ad for the FACIM which has turned its founder and family into millionaires. This should be about ACIM and not the FACIM. I suppose Wiki could include a article about FACIM but this would basically be an ad for the organization. -- Who123 23:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

ACIM is used extensively by the group "Foundation of Inner Peace (FIP). FACIM also uses this term extensively. The acronym is used in both of their web-sites where they share the same trademark as well as it being a portion of their domain names. They both share common members on their Boards of Directors. They were co-defendents in a trial over copyright issues. In the media, the works are commonly referred to as "The Course". In the court proceedings, the works are also referred to as either "The Work", or "the Course". If you look below in this article at the references, you will notice that most of them are primary references and associated with ACIM/FIP/FACIM/Wapnick/Skutch/Skutch Whitson which are basically one entity and group. According to WP policy and guidelines, we can only use primary sources for statements that they make about themselves, specifically in regard to their notability. This means that the references being used written by Ken Wapnick and Robert Skutch cannot be used to source any material in this article except to speak about FIP, FACIM, or themselves personally. It also means that the version of the work published by FIP called "A Course in Miracles" cannot be used as a source for any material in this article unless the quoted citations are speaking about the book itself for it's own notability, or about FIP, or FACIM. If there is a preface in the book that speaks toward the notability of the book or the publisher, then that content can be used. Anything else, hasn't a reliable source and is therefore un-verifiable. Anything unverifiable, of course, is simply original research. Ste4k 18:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the trademark on "ACIM" has been revoked. If one were to do a search on "ACIM" in a search engine one would find thousands of references to many people and organizations other than FIP and FACIM that use it. -- Who123 21:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but we can only use what has already been printed, not our own research. The trademark on ACIM has not been revoked, the copyright on the Urtext, though, has been declared void. These are two different things. If it was revoked sometime in the past three days, though, then please advise. Thanks. Ste4k 22:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I just double checked: The Patent and Trademark Office database shows that both phrases are no longer trademarked. The only relevant trademark still in force is a design combining the phrase "ACIM" with a logo, which is registered to Foundation for A Course in Miracles. You may recall we already discussed this on Talk:Charles Buell Anderson. -Will Beback 01:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and as I pointed out in that discussion, two things, 1) The index that you used to call up that design was "ACIM". 2) both the FIP (who uses acim.org as their domain name) and the FACIM who both share common members on their boards of directors use the acronym ACIM as brand name and also mark this acronym with the ® registered trademark symbol even in places where they are not granted the right to do so. Basically, they use ACIM as their face value brand name regardless of the limitations set out by their registration. The issue here has nothing to do with whether they are granted permission or not. These are the same groups that were publishing without rights to a copyright as proven in court. The phrase "the Course" is short and very generic, avoids any of these issues, is used by reputible secondary sources in the media, and also by the court, and there isn't any reason not to use that for shortening the title, especially when even between you and I it is clear that some controversy exists over the use of the other acronym "ACIM". If between you and I there exists this controversy, then certainly a fair number of readers in the future will feel the same way. For these reasons and in support of NPOV, we should be using "the Course" rather than "ACIM". Ste4k 02:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that "ACIM" was an invalid trademark. It is not a trademark now. I was mistaken about doing a search on ACIM and finding thousands of hits. I just used a well known search engine and received 1,080,000 hits. To avoid using ACIM continues to support the false trademark on it. If there is confusion about the legal status of "ACIM" then the article should help to resolve this confusion rather than foster it. I suggest that each of us is free to use ACIM as we wish. We should not attempt to stifle each other. -- Who123 17:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has told you not to speak in any way that you see fit. It is pretty clear that you prefer to align yourself with the Foundation of Inner Peace rather than an unbiased viewpoint. That's your choice. The topic here, however, is about the article itself. Please re-read my statements above, it appears that you have misunderstood them. Ste4k 03:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not aligned with FIP or any faction. This is the third section where you try to force your opinion that ACIM is not a common abbreviation for A Course in Miracles.--Who123 16:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a common abbreviation among the two publishers and they establish brand name recognition using it. I have not forced my opinion at all, but rather stated it, and provided examples. If you can find some reputible secondary sources that use the acronym with the frequency that this article had earlier today, then you might be able to convince me otherwise. Ste4k 05:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents of ACIM

This section could probably be reduced to a single sentence or two. It doesn't appear to be sourced and looks like original research. Ste4k 12:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

For one who has no interest in the contents, certainly this section would appear boring or longish. But for one who has a personal interest in the contents, I would have to disagree. Rather than claiming the info is generally inaccurate, could you please point to a specific sentence or point that is inaccurate here? Short book summaries, agreed to by several who have read a book, are generally acceptable in Wiki. -Scott P. 15:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Cite reliable secondary sources. Also remember that WP:NOT for book reviews or polot synopses (try Wikibooks or Wikinfo). This is supposed to be a brief summary of the book and its impact, stated in neutral terms. If it reads like a sales pitch then we are doing somethign badly wrong. And it does. Just zis Guy you know? 16:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k was partially correct. After reviewing this section a bit closer, I have pared it down significantly, deleting redundant info. -Scott P. 16:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Scott, please don't remove markup referring to disputes until disputes have been settled. The matter regarding this source (FIP) is still dubious since it is a primary source and because the source is not making statements about itself regarding it's notability. I don't understand why you would obscure the URL with an IP number that points to the same source (FIP). Please address all of these issues before unilaterally assuming that a dispute has been resolved here in discussion. Thanks. Ste4k 16:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Scott, removing the name of the source of this information reduces it's credibility rather than otherwise. The information is not redundant, but especially after your previous edit removed the domain name from the source. Ste4k 16:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Scott, removing the tag that notes this section as original research and then referring to original research itself is contradictory. The facts are plain that this section hasn't any reputible secondary sources. Incorrectly pointing out me, myself, as an "editor who is unfamiliar" is very close to a personal attack, is baseless, and fails to address the matters brought up here in discussion. Ste4k 16:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Original research is research without a citation. I apologize but that information was fully cited. The URL number happened to be the URL address that pops up when viewing the page in Foxfire. I fail to see the need to repeat the name of the Publisher 3 times. Once seems enough to me in the citation. It seems to me that you may be obscuring the question here, by confusing the terms "original research" with the term "citation", the term "obscure" with the term "redundant". Why do you seem to have this penchant to confuse and obscure so much about this article? -Scott P. 20:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your accusation about obfuscation is unfounded and appears to be personal rather than topical regarding this article. Removal of information regarding a reference is obfuscation by definition. As you mention information in this article does need a reliable resource and must pass WP:VER which states, (fyi), "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources." It refers to WP:RS which states, (fyi), "A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term most often refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event." and also "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher." Therefore, failing to have any reliable source for information yields only WP:NOR original research which is by defintion: "a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material placed into articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been previously published by a reputable source." The specific publisher of this specific version of this book is "Foundation for Innner Peace" and therefore is a primary source. The only information that should be included into this article from the primary source is covered by policy (fyi) in WP:RS#Self-published_sources_in_articles_about_themselves, and as stated, must be "relevant to the notability of that group or organisation". You should be aware also, that according to policy WP:VER, (fyi), "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." And this is why, as I stated before, in my opinion, other editors of this article, including myself, have indulged you sufficiently with patience regarding the matter of sourcing this article. Ste4k 20:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be basic error in this discussion. That basic error is insisting that all sources are secondary. Please read Wikipedia:No_original_research. I point out these two paragraphs:

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.

It is quite clear that primary sources are encouraged. ACIM itself is a primary source.--Who123 16:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

unbalanced

As has been previously pointed out in several area of discussion, this article fails to address any except the viewpoints of one particular publisher. Until that situation is rectified, the unbalanced tag needs to remain. Ste4k 16:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You have inserted the "too long" template, the "original research" template, and now the "unbalanced" template. How many more templates do you plan to add? You have attempted to delete all associated articles, you have deleted my edits without comment, you have made many uncited and inaccurate claims about the publisher, amongst which some are discussed above. Why do you feel the need to act in these amazing ways towards this article? Could you please answer the questions above before heaping additional derogatory templates on this article? Could you please explain why you are acting in this seemingly erratic manner?

-Scott P. 19:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comments appear to be personal rather than discussing the unbalanced nature of this article. Under it's current title "A Course in Miracles" it is highly ambiguous and the article only speaks of one particular version of book with such a title. The acronym "ACIM" represents only one faction of the many different factional beliefs centered around the public domain writings of Helen Schucman. That particular acronym is the index at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office for a registered trademark used by one specific publishing group Foundation of Inner Peace (FIP) & Foundation for A COURSE IN MIRACLES (FACIM) that uses the acronym as much as possible for brand recognition. Please view the source at the homepage of FACIM where it is written "A COURSE IN MIRACLES (ACIM) is a registered service mark and trademark of the Foundation for A Course in Miracles.". These two particular organizations share common members on their Board of Directors and are associated closely enough to be co-complaintants in litigation against other groups interested in the Course. This court case shows one example of referring to the work as "Course". Please refer to pages 10-11, where one of the Board of Directors is identified by the court. The press refers to the same work as "the Course". Please see Garrett, Lynn (7 Mar2005). "'Disappearance' Appears Big Time". Publisher's Weekly. Retrieved 29 Jun2006. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help) for another example of referring to the Course appropriately without arousing commercial sentiment. The sects that base their beliefs on the Course are also referred by the press as "cults". Several editors here on WP also insist that the word "cult" is correct. My own opinion is that there isn't any reason to refer to various publishers by a term which is clearly controversial. "ACIM" is only one publishing group's perspective of the Course and failing to mention the other groups and/or publishers is unbalanced. Until such a time as all of the aforementioned as well as other groups affiliated with "A Course in Miracles" can be represented fairly and equally, the tag {{unbalanced}} should remain. Ste4k 21:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem intent on imagining several factions within the ACIM community. I know of only two. The Endeavor Academy group which probably constitutes less than 1% of those who study the book, and the other 99% or so. You seem intent on imagining that the public domain versions of ACIM are as you wrote, "written by different authors", and quite popular, when in fact they are all slightly resequenced versions of the same original Urtext, all written by the same original author, and edited by the same original group of editors. I know of nobody outside of the Endeavor group who considers anything other than the 2nd edition as their primary study material source. All of these facts were noted in the previous article group, yet you have attempted to significantly mistate them and alter them beyond all recognition. What type of personal agenda do you have regarding this material? -Scott P. 22:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Cite? Which are you connected with? I hear the sound of barrows being pushed... Just zis Guy you know? 22:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, Scott, please refrain from personal remarks and concentrate instead on the statements of the sources that I have named. Regardless of how many people you personally know, or your own personal regard to this article, we as editors on Wikipedia should abide by the guidelines and reproduce material already previously published by reliable sources. Your opinion regarding Endeavor Academy here appears to contradict your earlier remarks in an AfD regarding articles on this topic where you state: "Keep This person has been found to be notable by a number of newspapers TV shows, and radio shows.". Your opinion also appears to contradict your earlier statements on this very Discussion page where you state: "I agree that notable splinter groups like Endeavor Academy would seem to deserve separate mention here, but I don't see why the majority of the rather un-notable intentionally unorganized students of ACIM would deserve their own separate article." My intentions for this article are to clarify this topic on the whole so that anyone that hasn't ever heard of this topic can be readily informed, in an easily understood manner by the content of this article on the topic in the whole. I don't consider that to be a personal agenda, but rather my intentions as a Wikipedian editor. Ste4k 22:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

On this aim, I think we agree. To write an article that that can be easily understood by one who has no previous knowledge of the material. But I believe that the article should also offer helpful information that is more in depth for those who have some cursory knowledge of the material as well, as one would expect a good encyclopedia to also offer. It seems to me that the intro paragraphs are usually intended for total strangers to a subject, and the sections below are intended to be more in depth. -Scott P. 23:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The general layout you propose is fine, Scott, what are your thoughts regarding balance? Ste4k 15:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This article reads like an ad for FACIM. It begins with an image of one of its publications. There is then a long section on FACIM. This article is about "A Course in Miracles", not about FACIM. Who123 21:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the initial image of one version of ACIM. Someone added it back. There are now multiple printed and "electronic" versions. This image is nothing more than a commercial ad for FACIM and should be removed. -- Who123 04:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying there are multiple versions of ACIM extant or that there are multiple pictures of an ACIM text in the article? I see only one picture in the article. If your complaint is that your favored version does not have a picture in the article, perhaps you could insert another image of the same size or a new image containing both books? Please discuss your objections further on the talk page before making any changes. JChap (Talk) 05:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are three primary versions. These are commonly known as the Urtext, the HLC, and the Wapnick version. There are also multiple variations of these both written and "electronic". The Urtext is the earliest publicly known version. Within the Urtext Bill Thetford was the designated editor by "the voice" rather than Helen. The HLC is the version edited by Bill and completed in late 1972. He added the organization of the chapters and sections. Unfortunately, he removed important material. The last version was a further edit by Ken Wapnick after studying the HLC for only one year (today this length of study would be considered that of a beginning student). He deleted more material and changed much of what remained. I do not have a favored version. I use all three. My complaint is that the image is nothing more than advertising for the most limited of the three versions. It is also deceptive as it suggests that this is the only form both in print and available for free on the internet as public domain material. Last, it adds nothing but advertising to the article. -- Who123 12:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

For myself, I can't tell yet how many there are in number, but the contents are significantly different. Between versions, there are edits, omissions, additions, etc., so that the basic underlying flow is there, but in our own WP lingo, the best way to state it, is that there were several POV forks on the original work. According to the court, the work put forth by Schucman and Thetford, was distributed at several stages to many people without a copyright. One of the earliest of these went to the Edgar Cayce group, and is called the HLC version. AFTER that version had been given, Ken Wapnick entered the picture and made many editorial contributions. Wapnick joined forces with Skutch, and his wife Skutch Whitson who had a corporation called the Foundation for Parasensory Investigations (FPI). They later changed the name of that group to Foundation for Inner Peace (FIP), and became board members with Wapnick in the organization he founded with them called FACIM around 1983. During the years betwen 1975 and 1983 the work was distributed to many other parties without a copyright mainly by Skutch Whitson (according to the court records). The amount of POV added before those parties themselves published is debatable, but nevertheless, this is a book that discusses changing one's mind. Therefore, in my opinion, any subtle edits, even on a subliminal basis, could have drastic different outcomes in the readership of the versions. The easy way to put it is that there are several books with several authors all under the same title that carried the legacy original work by Schucman and Thetford. Even after the court case between Penguin/FIP/FACIM and NCCFE/EA, FIP having it's copyright determined void by Federal court, modified their version again, adding a preface, numbering system, and appending another section to the end. Penguin's contract was for $2.5 million to lease the copyright for a period of five years ending in December of 2000. This contract was made between Penguin and FIP. Another earlier printing of the book was funded with $440,000 by a philanthropist, and this funding was also given to FIP. Ste4k 02:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe all of the material above is accurate or relevant. It may be helpful to read this article: Bible. If we consider the contemporary Christian Bible there are many variations. They are all considered to be "The Bible" with variations.--Who123 17:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It matters little if you doubt facts that are relevent. You have stated that you are very close to this subject matter but doubt the findings of the U.S. District Court Southern District Of New York. That leaves only one of two possible scenarios. Either the U.S. District Court Southern District Of New York is biased, or you haven't any respect for their opinion. Ste4k 03:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Where does this come from? Where did I state that I doubt the findings of the U.S. District Court Southern District Of New York.--Who123 16:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment suggestion

Dear Ste4k, You seem intent on acting in what seems to me to be an irrational manner towards this article. You are now deleting the work of others wholesale without comment, making inaccurate poorly researched statements about the publishers, and seemingly refusing to listen to any reason whatsoever. I am therefor proposing that before you (or I) make any further edits to this page, that we submit for comment your recent assertion that the 1.5 million figure must be listed as "unverified", your apparent plans to assert that there is now an official 3rd edition out by the publisher, and your recent deletion of my work in the Contents section. Could you agree to this?

-Scott P. 20:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you should do some more research and re-read my comments on this page. I believe that I make myself specifically clear in all regards. It is not up to me to produce for you any verifiable sources for statements that you wish to include on this page. Please refer to WP:VER#The_policy. There shouldn't be any doubt in your mind nor any reason for RfC in this regard. I do appreciate, though, your concerns over what could turn into edit-wars and I don't believe that edit-wars do anything to help an article in any way. I will agree to leave the content as is, if you agree to allow the templates to remain so that other editors may be appropriately advised about the matter of this article needing some help. But I agree on condition that you do not further add material to this article's existing content, and that you consider balancing the topic of this article with the information from the other articles concerning the other factions which you also started; i.e. Charles Anderson and Endeavor Academy, and that you propose them to be merged. I think you should also address the third and a possible fourth faction in this article so that it does not turn into the "rehash" of a court battle which has already been decided. I think this would address the concerns of at a minimum, seven editors in regard to this entire category. Ste4k 21:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My offer is only as I have stated above. Could you accept this in whole or not? -Scott P. 22:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It has already been stated that there are almost no secondary sources outside of the two groups named. That is a serious problem for Wikipedia. If it is genuinely true then the article should be deleted as unverifiable from reliable sources. So, what is required is references to secondary sources - reliable ones. Just zis Guy you know? 22:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A book search on Amazon.com, placing "A Course in Miracles" in the title bar results in 230 plus books that list ACIM in their title. I believe that at least some of these books could be considered as secondary neutral sources. Amongst these is the book by Patrick Miller. A book that has sold 1.5 million, spawned at least 230 spin offs, and yields .6 million hits in Google seems to me to be worthy of an article, and a significant article, in Wiki, written by at least some editors who have actually read the material. -Scott P. 22:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the concerns expressed about the lack of sourcing and OR in the article. To take one of many examples:

"Most theologians agree that some of the most radical spiritual principles first introduced by the historical Jesus include:

Jesus' teaching about radical forgiveness.

Jesus' radical reformulation of the old Jewish law to highlight the

need for 'brotherly love' to mean neighbor-as-self.

Jesus' teaching regarding the parental relationship between all men and "God the Father"."

There is no source whatsoever for this statement. The depth of presumption is mindblowing. Ignore for a minute the sloppiness in not limiting the statement to Christian theologians: How did the editor know what "most theolgians" think? It seems implausible that there would be such broad agreement on an amorphous, value-laden classification like "most radical." The entire comparisons section is completely OR. Only two of the subsections have footnotes and even these are problemmatic. The cited sources appear to support only the proposition that ACIM teaches X. The author then contrasts this to Christian teaching Y. This is a synthesis, which is still OR per WP:NOR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position. Any comparisons between ACIM and other religions should rely on a reliable source that compares the two. Although the original authors of this page undoubtedly worked hard to put it together, the writing process used was exactly backwards: you don't write an article on the basis of "what I know is ..." and then source it when challenged, you consult sources and then write the article on the basis of the sources. I would support removing large chunks of the article and simply starting over. JChap (Talk) 00:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What you mean to say is that the source was uncited, not that no source exists, am I correct? -Scott P. 01:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I mean to say there is no source in the article. I do think such a statement would be pretty hard to verify though. JChap (Talk) 01:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

We all write on the basis of what we know. I will find the necessary citations, thanks. -Scott P. 01:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I could not disagree more with the first sentence. Research comes before, not after, writing. JChap (Talk) 01:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The editor did do research before writing. What the editor apparently didn't do is cite the research before writing. Please note the nuance. Secondary Source 03:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As the editor did not cite, there is no way to know whether or not he/she did research unless you yourself are the editor. As your first edit was today, and I am assuming you are not the editor's sock puppet, you do not know whether research was in fact done prior to writing the article. JChap (Talk) 03:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That is incorrect. I am relatively familiar with the genre and just about everything this editor has included is more or less accurate. Unless this editor (Scott P.) is himself the author of every other source I've previously read about ACIM, it would be virtually impossible for him to have not done research before writing this article. He didn't make this stuff up. It is out there for anyone who wants to, ahem, do the research to find out. I certainly agree that it is preferable to cite sources in the articles. But accusing this editor of doing no research prior to writing this article, or of writing the article "backwards," is not fair. Secondary Source 06:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but "more or less accurate" is a pretty low standard to shoot for. I'm sure the editors of this piece (Scott and others) have done some reading in ACIM, perhaps even a lot of reading. However, there is simply no substitute for having source material on hand when writing and citing that source material for the propositions contained in the article. A major benefit of close sourcing is that it forces a writer to discipline him/herself so that the approximations and sloppiness present in a "more or less accurate" article are eliminated. This is why citing sources is not merely "preferable," but crucial. You seem to suggest that the intended reader of an encyclopedia article (who almost by definition is not very knowledgeable about the subject of the article) should go out and do research to verify the material in the article. There are two problems with that. First, it limits the usefulness of the encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is supposed to provide people with a brief overview of a topic so that they can quickly acquaint themselves with it. If the infomation is only "more or less accurate" and the reader is forced to do further research to figure it out for him/herself which information is accurate and which is not, this convenience is lost to the reader. Second, the reader (who, remember, is a novice in the subject) won't necessarily know where to look to find the sources to verify the information in question. I am very impressed by the enthusiasm of the editors who work on this article. I am confident that this can become a great article if they follow WP:V and WP:RS. JChap (Talk) 03:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is that Wikipedia editors should not accuse fellow editors of not doing research when they themselves have not done the research either. I am also suggesting that there is a very real difference between doing research and citing the sources of the research. They are two different issues. It's rude for the rest of you to say he didn't do research. It's also inaccurate. He has done research. What he failed to do in some instances is cite the research. (And the rest of you seem very uptight about which sources you will allow to be cited, which makes writing an article about a relatively new spiritual phenomenon very difficult.)

I am someone who has done research, and from looking at what he has written I can say that he is "more or less" accurate. The reason I say "more or less" is because my research wasn't done with the intention of writing an article about it, therefore I didn't keep notes. Secondary Source 06:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You and I seem to have quite different definitions of research. (Perhaps that is the reason for our disagreement?) To clarify, WP:CITE requires that the editor who originally inserts the material in the article provide the citation. It is much easier for him/her to do so than for a later editor (who may not know all that much about ACIM to begin with) to come around and chase down a cite for some material. After all, no one wants to spend hours trying to find a cite for some proposition only to find out that it is not true. The good news is that there seems to be some work proceeding on sourcing the article.

As to your statement about people being "uptight" about sourcing, it would be helpful if you could take a look at WP:RS and suggest some sources you think are appropriate for the article. I did delete some material from what seemed to me to be an unreliable source (see below). I'm not sure that this is what you are talking about, but I invite you to look at it and see if you agree. JChap (Talk) 16:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm still awaiting Ste4k's response regarding the other RfC request. -Scott P. 01:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I think Ste4k could slow down a bit, I believe his overall concern is sound- this article does a lot of talking, explaining, etc., with almost no sources. I believe much of what is in here CAN be sourced, but it will take lots of time. So, I propose that Ste4k and other editors bent on deleting a lot, instead insert lotsa "fact" requests and give other editors a month or so to reply.... I ask for a month, because 90% of the article is unsourced! Sethie 03:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Secondary Source 03:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Consider balancing the topic of this article with the information from the other articles concerning the other factions which were also started by the original author of this article; i.e. Charles Anderson and Endeavor Academy, and in the interests of balance as well as disambiguity of the title "A Course in Miracles", I propose these to be eventually merged. I think we should also address the third and a possible fourth faction in this article so that it does not turn into the "rehash" of a court battle which has already been decided. I think this would address the concerns of at a minimum, seven editors in regard to this entire category. Do you agree? Ste4k 16:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As I have studied the material over the years, the major split in ACIM is between Ken Wapnick (FACIM) and everyone else. Now that the major court battle is over, it has been my experience that those who are very familiar with all three primary versions of ACIM do not prefer Wapnick's version and do not agree with many of his thoughts in regards to ACIM. One major problem with quoting secondary sources is that FACIM used its financial wealth and legal power (derived from the now invalid 1975 copyright) to only allow publication of material that met his approval. -- Who123 04:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a relatively inaccurate statement. Kenneth Wapnick is the president of the Foundation for A Course In Miracles, which publishes many books and has many students. All you have to do is read their website Facimoutreach.org in order to see that many people do indeed trust Wapnick and FACIM (also, check the Amazon sales rank of their many books). The major split is not between Wapnick and everyone else. Wapnick has a lot of students. It's not Wapnick vs. the rest of the ACIM community. Secondary Source 06:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In response:

I agree that Wapnick has a lot of students. There would not be a split if he did not. The financial and other sources of power that Wapnick has accumulated are derived from the copyright that the U.S. Court has recently determined to be invalid. He has used that power over the years to suppress dissent through actual or threatened legal action. It is therefore not surprising that his organization (FACIM) and supporting companies such as "Fearless Books" have thrived. On the other side of of the split are many students of ACIM as well as several organizations. Some of these are:

http://www.circleofa.org/index.php

http://www.endeavoracademy.com/

http://jcim.net/

I suggest that the material on FACIM be deleted from the "Organization" section of the article. The FACIM is not the organization of ACIM. A short statement that ACIM does not have a formal organization would be much more accurate. Several organizations have formed around ACIM, however. Much of the study of ACIM is on an individual basis or in small groups both on and off the internet. This would provide a more accurate and balanced view, eliminate advertising for FACIM, place the focus back on ACIM itself, and shorten the article. -- Who123 12:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate my suggestion that the Endeavor Academy articles be merged into this article and that the third and possibly fourth version of books under this title be fairly represented in the content. I have recently found another version of the book printed in Hungary called the "Illuminate Edition". It's content does not match the content of some of the other versions of this book and in a signifant manner, but it obviously comes from the same source authors (Schucman and Thetford) Ste4k 17:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is now almost at the recommended maximum length. Which Endeavor Academy articles are you referring to? If they are on the Endeavor site perhaps they could be referenced?

There are now multiple versions of ACIM that have arisen from the three primary versions. Perhaps a section should be added to the article to address the versions as there does seem to be confusion in this area?

Last, this discussion section is getting very long with multiple topics. Perhaps new sections need to be added to resolve specific issues? -- Who123 18:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to archive the discussion, I'm all for it. It gets extremely tedious trying to find things.

The articles were up for deletion. The discussion is twice as long and tedious. One is a biography that, imho, hasn't any biographical information, doesn't meet WP:BIO, and is based on hair thin sources that are only complaints about the subject of the biography. I nominated it for deletion recently along with the article for the Academy, which doesn't meet WP:ORG, nor WP:CORP and is again resting only on hair thin sources all of which are basically biased against the subject. In my opinion, if the topic matter is "the Course", the subjects of these other two articles would help to balance any POV in this article on the Course, and they certainly haven't reason to exist stand alone. Also in my opinion, in order not to have this article on the Course turn into a replay of the court trial, the third and maybe other versions of the Course should also be added; i.e. in a balanced fashion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Buell Anderson. Ste4k 02:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think much has been improved. The article size is now much shorter. There appears to be less bias. The legal issues have been addressed. I am for archiving this discussion with a few issues left open: the initial image, discussion of the versions of ACIM, and the need to insist on neutral secondary sources for this particular article when IMHO there are none. -- Who123 17:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You must be looking at some other article then. This page is 32 kilobytes long, currently. There is very little if any fact in the article at all. The sources are all from the same company that produces the version of the book that is being presented. The scant few secondary resources are extremely unreliable. The article doesn't even establish why this particular version is notable in any way. The article does not address any of the other versions that have the same title, nor their etymology. There isn't any mention of any scholastic value to this work, nor is there any mention of how it has impacted society at large. I would think that with 32k of space being eaten up that the article could at least answer why it is important. Ste4k 03:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

32 KB is a major reduction from the original size and at the maximum suggested by WP. There is information in the article. We would all like to improve citation. One of the editors here is unavailable now due to his upcoming marriage. This article is not about one particular version of ACIM. It is about ACIM in general. I tried to add a short summary of the primary versions but it was removed. The article is important for those seeking some baseline general information about ACIM.--Who123 16:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes referred to ???

Regarding this reason, if "sometimes referred to" is somehow able to be sourced without OR, then sure, I guess if someone wants to waste a month trying to find that printed somewhere, it's fine with me, too. Ste4k 09:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

See "Introduction" above.--Who123 20:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, looked it over and it hadn't anything to do with my statement. Thanks though. Ste4k 03:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions For A Different Approach

It seems that if we wish to improve this article it would be better approached with a team effort rather than an adversarial one. I suggest that we agree to discuss the article from beginning to end and reach a consensus before making additional edits. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. We should be able to work together to add our strengths.

If everyone is OK with the OR template and the Introduction then perhaps we should proceed to the History. If not, perhaps we could discuss the previous items in the sections below.

Thoughts?--Who123 03:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The "normal" way that is done on articles like this is by moving most if not all of the content into sections for discussion. After consensus is agreed upon by several editors to include some specific piece of material, it is included into the article and nobody has any doubts or contention since consensus has already been achieved. I suggest that we archive this discussion again since it is far longer than the article and doesn't appear to be going anywhere. That in itself would allow for a consensus forming discussion regarding sections of the article. Ste4k 03:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: archiving - all the threads seem partly active. I suggest we don't archive any thread unless it's been quiet for at least a week. As we mostly edit in sections the size isn't critical. -Will Beback

I agree.--Who123 14:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Since we seem to agree on reaching consensus please refrain from changing the 'OR' tag to 'noncompliant' without discussion. It can be discussed under Initial Tags above. Making these sort of contested unilateral changes is not helpful. Can we agree on the initial tags and introduction for now so that we can actually work together to improve the article?--Who123 15:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Edits and questions for Who123

Dear Who123,

Why did you remove the templates that have all been explained both here in discussion as well as in the history, and not replace them with the single {{noncompliant}} template? On what basis did you remove two verified sources for this article and replace them with some personal web-site? After removing the sources, you did not remove any of the material in the article that they "might" have supported. And when adding the personal web-site, you didn't add any material to the article at all. The only thing you removed was some obvious OR. What gives? I am reverting your edits which haven't any explanation and suggest that you move questionable material here to the Discussion page in the future. By the way, if you need help on using citation templates, please see the appropriate documentation. Thanks. Ste4k 06:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If we continue to argue and work in opposition no helpful outcome will come from our energy here. I suggest that we all work together to improve the article. I agree that the article needs to be improved particularly in sourcing and citation. I believe the original author was driven from WP because of the adversarial approach to his article. Although Scott P. has said that he does not have time to work on this article due to his upcoming wedding, I would not be surprised if he also left because of this adversarial approach. Most of us have limited time to help with WP, some more so than others. If I am going to work on this article I want it to be enjoyable where people are working together to improve the article. This is far from the worst article on WP. Many are much worse.--Who123 13:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather busy working on several hundred other articles right now. Since this is your favorite topic, feel free to address the concerns as listed above, i.e. OR, POV, VER, RS, length, balance, essay, importance, etc. Do not assume that your work satisifies any of these issues based on your own bias and allow the editors who made the review to remove the tags for themselves after they are satisfied with your efforts. Thanks. Ste4k 19:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ste4k, you did not write the article. You do not own it. If you are interested in improving the article, please discuss individual items in the sections above. As you are involved in hundreds of articles, do you have the time to constructively add to this one? I think the existing three tags accurately reflect the status of this article. Please do not change them.--Who123 20:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Click on the blue links and you will see all of the discussion. In the interim, stop edit warring over tags and work on the article. Thanks. Ste4k 23:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war. Tags, by themselves, do not improve the article. Please seek consensus on this talk page rather then fussing over which tags on the article. -Will Beback 23:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well it takes two to edit as well. Those tags are valid. If you'd like me to start editing the article, please just say the word. Ste4k 23:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If we wish to further discuss the tags then let us do it in the initial templates section above. I think any major edits should be discussed first.--Who123 23:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The tags were on the article along with all the discussion listed in the links above before you ever even entered the conversation about this article. You unsubstantiated edits have only enflamed a controversial article. You have added nothing to this article in the way of content, nor have you answered to any of the problems this article has. There is no further discussion about tags which are valid. They help to improve the article and acting like they don't is purposful ignorance. Digressing the topic about your unsubstantiated edits is dubious at best and does not support your actions in the least. Ste4k 00:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't climb the Eiffel Tower dressed as Captain America, both of you. As Will said, the tags don't improve the substance of the article. JChap (talk • contribs) 00:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

JChap, I think you should be talking to Ste4k for her unilateral destruction of the article.--Who123 03:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

<---Nothing has been destroyed. All of the original research has been moved to discussion. Discuss it, provide the sources for it, etc, reach consensus and it will be included. This is the way it is done on many well written articles. If you really want this article to be well written then it needs to stick to the guidelines, and establish itself based on its credible resources. If there is any material that you think should be included, then find it listed here in discussion, provide the reference and work on consensus. If you doubt that any of the material that is quoted in the article is in error, then please click on the link in the reference section, and verify it yourself. If you believe that any of the citations are incorrectly cited, then research and verify them like I just did. You wanted me to work on improving this article, so I did. If you'd like to help, then do so. Arguing about things in discussion isn't helpful for anything. Ste4k 05:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

References

The book "Foundation for Inner Peace; Wapnick, Kenneth (Feb 1, 1997). Concordance of 'A Course in Miracles'. Viking Adult. ISBN 0670869953." is not a reference source. I own the book. It is a concordance for ACIM. It is not a reference source and I think it should be removed. (late sig) --Who123 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed it.--Who123 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I do own "Wapnick, Kenneth (Apr1991). Absence from Felicity. Foundation for a Course in Miracles. 0-933291-08-6." I believe it is a useful reference source for the article. (late sig)--Who123 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Branch, Rick (1994). The Watchman Expositor: A Course in Miracles Profile. Watchman Fellowship, Inc.. Retrieved on July 18, 2006." I did find this article on the net. It seems useful as an online reference. (late sig) --Who123 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Foundation for Inner Peace (1992). A course in miracles. The Foundation. ISBN 0-9606388-8-1." I do own this book as well as a number of other versions of ACIM. It is a primary source. (late sig) --Who123 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Williamson, Marianne (Apr 24, 1996). A Return to Love. Perennial Currents. 0060927488." This was/is a popular book derived from ACIM. (late sig) --Who123 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not own and have not read the other references. Does anyone else own these books or has anyone read them? (late sig) --Who123 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Do the editors involved with this article really wish to understand the material and work together in good faith to improve the article? If so, this will require obtaining and studying the references. I am willing to do so. (late sig) --Who123 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain what is going on here?

What is happening? Can someone explain what is going on? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Moving all of this original research to discussion preserves it and allows it to be included after the challenges have been met. Please see WP:VER. Thanks. Ste4k 02:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Apparently Ste4k is intent on the destruction of the ACIM article using any means she can.--Who123 03:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but please assume good faith. The article no longer has the "tags" you didn't like, is now NPOV, completely cited and sourced, and the discussion you desired has all been laid out. If you would like to address any of those specific issues, please do so striving for consensus among at least three editors, refrain from personal attacks, and keep your discussion pertinent to this article. Thanks. Ste4k 03:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4K, may I say that this is quite an unusual way of going about this? You may want to ask these editors that worked hard in adding the material to provide references, before doing what yoy are doing, and if in a reasonable time period, let's say 10 days, they do not provide sources, you may then remove material. Also note that primary sources about the subject are allowed in the article in a comesurate manner. I am reverting all your deletions and asking editors to provide references by July 28th. At that time you may discuss with other involved editors what needs removing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually Jossi, your comments here appear to contradict the comments you made earlier to me on your talk page nearly three weeks ago on this exact topic. If you aren't yourself familar with WP:VER please note WP:VER#The policy and note that your reversion is including unsourced and uncited material, all of which has been moved here (per the guidelines) to discussion. Regarding unusual, it is actually the normal way of doing things, and if you would like some examples, I would be more than happy to point a few out. The number of editors that actually included the bulk of the material is "one" and perhaps "two". Neither of them are participating in the discussions anymore. The reasonable time period of 10 days appears moot since in the actual time period which has been for three weeks, has been quite enough since nothing has changed at all regarding the problems except bickering over "tags". If you'd like to justify your including uncited resources and removing well cited resources, please do so here. Thanks. Ste4k 06:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have started adding references, and you are deleting them. Help me to assume your good faith, by restoring the edits I made and the two references I provided. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Provide the references alone, including the massive amount of material that has been moved to discussion makes no sense. Add a reference, then quote it and cite it. Please feel free to do that. Ste4k 06:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at the reference you were including. It is a primary resource and there are particular restrictions on those. Those references are all listed here in discussion. Feel free to participate in those sections. Ste4k 06:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

And please do not wikilawyer on me, OK? I am very familiar with WP content policies, as well as familiar with how collaboration works in this project. Also, please do not tell me or other what to do, rather discuss things and gain consensus on how to move forward together with others. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

How does that differ from what you are telling me? I have invited you to discuss and build consensus on the various sections of OR. They are all listed here in discussion. Ste4k 06:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see #Self_Published_Resources_.231 regarding the references you were adding. Thanks. Ste4k 06:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said, that is a very unusual way to go about it. Please do not wikilawyer... I know WP:RS, and primary sources are allowed explicitly in this case, if attributed. Look, I will not lose sleep about this article. But you may find yourself very lonely in this article if this is your attitude... I most definitively will not edit war with you about this. Have fun, my friend... but without me... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Before I leave you, please note that a short search on the databases I have available, shows me that there are plenty of third-party sources out there to be able to create a good article about this subject. But I guess, that the environment here is not conducive for editors like me to put any effort on this. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There may be plenty of resources, but the one you just added was a primary and discussed below in the section you started called "references". I provided one reference today (the court) and converted two previously considered "external links" into reliable resources by verifying them, researching their ISBN numbers, and quoting them. The environment here is conducive. Reverting good research and citation efforts on the other hand, is not conducive. For the past three weeks, I have been trying to work in such a non-conducive environment on this article. It is now much more compliant to policy, wouldn't you agree? Ste4k 06:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, I don't dislike the idea of removing sections and sources to the talk page for separate evaluation, but it should have been discussed first and not just sprung on everybody as a surprise. JChap (talk • contribs) 02:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

They could have been copied one section at a time as we were all ready to discuss the section if that is what we agreed on first. Consensus is so important. See the "Straw Poll" below.--Who123 02:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

References needed

Editors are requested to provide references within 10 days (by July 28). If sources are not provided, material in the article may be deleted. Note that primary sources about the subject are allowed in the article (i.e. citing from the course book itself, or official websites). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, regarding this inclusion the source clearly listed there as www.acim.org, which of course is the publisher. This is a primary resource, not neutral at all. The court case itself is available online. Please see WP:CITE#Intermediate_sources:_Say_where_you_got_it in regard to intermediary sources. Also note that acfip.org is a private website owned by Michael Dawson. Is this person of academic standing in this field that you know of? Ste4k 06:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a recurrent problem with this article. There are almost no sources outside the small group of individuals already named, and they seem to spend half their time arguing with each other! Is there no credible external academic reference we can cite? Just zis Guy you know? 12:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

While we're discussing this issues let's please forestall major changes to the article. -Will Beback 20:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Course_in_Miracles&diff=64721892&oldid=64715231 You mean forestall, and then change your mind, right? When you all figure out if policy is consensus or not, let me know. I've never seen such a ridiculous facade of hypocrisy in my life. Ste4k 23:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There are encyclopedias of religion, journal article, books on the subject that can be cited, official websites, etc. We just need to move slowly and add references where needed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

And all of that has been sorted out into discussion, and the article is now back full of OR in the meantime which violates policy, is full of disinformation and advertising, and absolutely useless to the general public. Don't waste any more of my time preaching policy, please. Ste4k 23:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Neither of the two of you has contributed any material to this article. You have only deleted reputible NPOV sources like the District Court of New York, a European Academic, and a third party author of a book. You have included reams of OR doctrine, based on a single primary source, and neither of you has answered to any of the points listed above in discussion for inclusion. Its all up there, and you haven't justified even ONE statement. Ste4k 23:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I second Jossi's idea on a deadline for providing sources. Any material not sourced by that date should be deleted. This is, of course, conditional on the editors being allowed to work without being subject to mass deletions or distractions. JChap (talk • contribs) 02:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am strongly opposed to setting any artificial deadline. This is a reasonable article that is referenced. Could the article be improved? Yes. It should take place in the time it takes. If we continue with edit wars over the templates, massive deletions, deceptive straw polls, and the like then this time may be long indeed.--Who123 22:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

But once this all settles down, we need to impose some deadline for getting unsourced material out of the article or it will just remain indefinitely. We shouldn't be just assuming it's accurate. If a piece of information is accurate, and we're not distracted by other things, we should be able to verify (by finding reliable sources) such information. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, for reasons above I do not agree with setting an artificial deadline. I think the problem is in "once this all settles down". It appears to me that one editor is doing everything they can to keep things from settling down. They are just being disruptive and obstructive. How do we get this to settle down?--Who123 23:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that someone changed my comment. Please do not delete or change another user's comment in any way.--Who123 23:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of unsourced original research Straw Poll

Straw poll

This poll is listed under WP:POLLS. This survey does not determine who "wins" or even what course of action this article may take. The positions "Move", and "Remain" are primary answers for the question, the position "Other" is for alternatives to either "Move" or "Remain".

For everyone who wishes to participate, please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) under the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment (please, no more than a sentence). Extended commentary should be placed below in the "Comments" section. Ste4k 00:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Question: Should original research, unreliable sources, questionable links, and unsourced statements be moved to discussion, or remain in an article?

Poll complete The results were that people believe that deleting material is better than moving it to discussion. Thank you all for participating. Straw polls are supposed to be used to get a broader perspective from the community. All that occurred here was the same people that want to push their POV around jumped right in and made a huge long messy discussion that scared any prospective onlookers off in a hurry. Go figure. Standard tactic among this crew. Ste4k 03:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ste4k, please do not delete material from the article. JChap (talk • contribs) 03:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ste4k, how in the world did you come with the results above? I continue to see your lack of good faith as an editor. You appear to be doing all that you can to destroy the ACIM articles. The results were: Ste4k, stop unilaterally changing the article. You seem unable to work with others and use constant manipulation to achieve your ends. I do not think you are a suitable editor to work on the ACIM articles.--Who123 03:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Are you kidding? Wrongly worded poll, wrong tally. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Move

• Move as poller, who spent four and half hours preserving the material and moving it to discussion per the guidelines. Ste4k 01:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Remain

• Remain per my comment below. I quote an earlier remark where I show why original research is logically necessary in this case. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 01:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Other

• Oppose wording of poll, disparaging it in strongest possible terms. A poll with such biased and disputed phrasing cannot produce useful information. --Aquillion 15:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Misleading poll wording. This is an article about a book. We can work through it and add a few sources were needed on items that may be controversial. Massive deletion of material, even if moved to talk page is vandalism. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Deceptive poll. As editors our goal should be to present the best information that we can at the time. By moving almost all of the material the reader is left with almost nothing. It seems like vandalism to me. I am for slowly working on the material to improve it. This should all be done in discussion and by consensus first. I believe in working in a pleasant, fun environment rather than one of opposition and conflict.

The poll itself is nonsense as stated. It appears to be effort by the user to excuse herself from her vandalism of destroying the article. The user is using this to deflect what she did. It is another waste of everyone's time and energy.

My vote is to remove Ste4k from being allowed to edit this or other ACIM articles. modified response--Who123 15:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

This "poll" is an embarassment. No one is going to vote that "original research" should be included in an article. This is a diversion from the real issue: Ste4k's massive removal of information. The silver lining: perhaps this will draw more attention to Ste4k's behavior.--Nscheffey^(T/C) 00:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Is the question asked in a non-neutral fashion? Three other editors have already shown what they prefer...
  1. Will Beback three times
  2. Jossi
  3. Who123
• ...Ste4k 01:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Not relevant. I'll second Will Beback's reversion of 6:12, 19 July 2006. I believe Who123 also supports this reversion, if I may speak for him. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 01:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Now I'm confused, the original statement was that nobody would vote. I supplied my reasons for believing they would. How is that not relevant? You voted. Ste4k 02:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, my mistake. I thought you were highlighting differences between editors reversions as evidence for the question being non-neutral. It makes more sense to me as you say it now. In any case, it is good if we can agree on an acceptable historical instance of this article for a short time (which is the current one as I write this). It should give us a common ground to work from, which we can say, "this is what I mean by original research and unverifiability," rather than discuss this amidst a war of reversions. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 04:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was commenting on the way you phrased your "poll".

People are voting that your wholesale removal of information should be reverted, they are not voting that original research should be included in articles. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 05:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• The question reads, "be moved to discussion, or remain in an article". Your statement says, "...``original research`` should be included in an article. This is a diversion...". Ste4k 05:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, trying to decipher your point. No one here is voting that original resource should remain in articles. Your "poll" is phrased very misleadingly. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 05:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Correct, no one here is voting that original resource should remain in articles. That is not what the question asks. And the question is not a diversion as you originally stated. Ste4k 06:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)  

That is what the question asks and you are a diversion. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 06:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• This was a very poor poll. It is designed to confuse. I agree that people have expressed in their votes about the wholesale removal of information.--Who123 13:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• One of the reasons the straw poll is defective is that we cannot reach consensus on original research, unreliable sources, questionable links, and unsourced statements without discussion first.--Who123 13:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Major edits should first be discussed and consensus gained. Long articles should not be cut down to stubs based on one editor's views. -Will Beback 01:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Consensus, major edits, one editor, like this and this? Notice the discussion was a week later. Ste4k 01:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The actions of an editor two years ago are not justification for your actions today. -Will Beback 05:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Justifying the inclusion of "massive amounts" of original research by condoning the actions of an editor two years ago disagrees with your recent statements regarding reliable resources. Ste4k 06:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Dramatica is a very different topic from A Course in Miracles, with a different context. The Course, as you insist we call it, has been purchased by hundreds of thousands of people, and has inspired movements, books, TV coverage, etc. On the other hand, ED is a spoof website with a narrow target and an inconsequential audience. -Will Beback 18:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So you feel that some articles are different than others when it comes to policy? I don't. They are all the same to me. You can call the Course whatever you'd like, I prefer to refer to it in the same neutral tone as Publisher's weekly, and the U.S. District Court. If the Course has been purchased by so many people, then why isn't there a reliable secondary source quoted as saying so in the article? You removed the reliable secondary sources that I provided. Since neither article has any reputible sources, they are the same to me, i.e. non-compliant, and especially for an article this size. Back to the question then, why do such large amounts of OR/POV remain in the article rather than being discussed in an organized and productive manner, compliant with policy, off of the article and in the discussion area where the first step in dispute resolution is to occur? Nothing was deleted, nothing destroyed, everything that was moved off of the page had a clear and concise reason for doing so, was preserved in the discussion area where each and every section, statement, chunk, external link, etc., could be discussed and consensus built upon. Edit wars avoided, no more "unsightly tags", these were the very things that you yourself and Who123 were striving for. True? Ste4k 20:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to see how edit wars have been prevented when you have revert warred over this unilateral action and have stuffed the talk page with so much text and so many questions. This poorly conceived straw poll is inciting more drama, not improving the article. What is missing here is an effort to act in a collegial, collaborative manner. -Will Beback 20:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both comments by Nscheffey, Will Beback, and Antireconciler. BTW, A number of references are books. Which ones do users have in their possession?--Who123 01:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

 

• Why an encylopedia article on ACIM must by necessity contain original research.

No one should be lead into misinformation at the hands of article writers who write to validate their own opinions instead of from a true objective desire to spread genuine knowledge. Such actions bring down the credibility of the entire encyclopedia, and thus its effectiveness.

So, it's understandable to want to quote only reliable secondary sources outside the movement, for these will be objective, able to see outside ACIM's world and look in safely, untouched. And in ACIM's world, only the perfectly inclusive is true, and as such, to stand outside the movement and look in as an outsider ... well, this will be necessarily to miss the point, for this perspective is an impossibility for ACIM, and so ACIM will naturally be misperceived by a view from nowhere that tries to say anything meaningful about it. For one cannot understand by standing on the outside looking in objectively. Only those inside will understand, for inside is all there is to those inside, and the man on the outside is inside not knowing it. If ACIM IS true, then the man on the outside who is inside not knowing it is speaking as if he knew what it was like to be inside but cannot for the fundemental reason that the error he makes cannot be contained as if it were an isolated instance by the principle of explosion, which is a natural consequence of the law of noncontradiction. Where Wikipedia has demanded an outside, separate, objective view, must the system fail where separation means nothing, for no concept is more critical for ACIM to make any sense at all, again, by the aforementioned principles.

Where separation means nothing, then, allow us to plea an exception to Wikipedia's rules, which must fail in such instances. Perhaps if we post a disclaimer in the "main tenets" section that the information is in principle unverifiable and unintelligible by objective outside means, we will be able to post valuable information of such a nature on Wikipedia. Otherwise, we have done ourselves a disservice. Despite the demise of logical positivism, many will still believe that scientific, objective verifiability is what it means for a statement to be meaningful. They should reconsider.

JzG has called this "special pleading." No. Engage what I have said on it's own grounds or fail to understand. Isn't that exactly what I've been saying this whole time? —Antireconciler ◊ talk 01:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Antireconciler, I think what you say is very true. I do not demean science and it has it role. Spirituality simply does not fall within the realm of science. I think we can use primary sources (the various versions of ACIM) as well as secondary sources. Unfortunately, the secondary sources are few and not without bias. This means some interpretation of the primary source (which is all a secondary source is). ACIM is decentralized and this makes it more difficult to pin down. One of the teachings of ACIM is to seek our inner teacher which is not dissimilar to 'the Kingdom of Heaven is within you.' This makes it even more difficult to pin down. I think our role as editors is to try to present to the reader the best introduction to ACIM that we can. Other areas such as factions or detailed information should be split off into linked articles.--Who123 02:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why this means an article on ACIM must contain original research. Discussing the belief system laid out by A Course in Miracles is not original research since the concepts have been previously published (in the book itself). I think much of what has been removed could be replaced and sourced to the orginal text of A Course in Miracles. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 04:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Nscheffey, I think you have a good point. I'm not sure how to answer, so let me explain it to myself, for everyone. My main point is that no one can "stand on the outside" of the ACIM system and understand it. This is because supposing yourself outside of ACIM contradicts the foundation of ACIM, which is that no one can be on the outside, that is, separate. It is like Parmenides of Elea says, who argues that Being(-with-a-capital-B) is One. Then, what use is the view from outside the system, which by the system does not exist? And to look in on the system from a view from nowhere, well, quickly do all manner of contradictions follow. Please don't mind my language. None of this is complex unless you make it that way. Complexity requires a multiplicity in multiplicity of arrangements. "Being is One" is the opposite of that. So, who writes of the system is a part of the system, else, contradiction. Even though I say, "you are a part," I don't mean you are a separate division of it. Unless "Being is One" is incoherent, I must mean you are identical to it, an expression, or extension of it. This is an important distinction, so please pay attention. Then, to understand the system is to understand that you are a part of it first. To be a part of a system and then write about it, collecting passages from the primary text as you find them meaningful, this I call original research. This is not to be unobjective in its subjectivity. A personal subjective perspective can simultaneously be objective and shared. This is a trivial consequence of "Being is One." Naturally a multiplicity of true perspectives that are not identical is what it means for reality to be divided. This is, by our hypothesis, an absurdity, and an absurdity without it, for nothing makes sense without it. This is the opposite of complex. That what is unverifiable is simultaneously verifiable, what is original research is simultaneously thouroughly unoriginal ... this is what ACIM means, because ACIM means Being is One. This is not complex, and because it is not complex, you will not have difficulty understanding it. If you are having difficulty, it is not for the system you have it, but for some notion you must already support. This is as obvious as daylight and cannot possibly be missed. Naturally, I don't mean any attack on science. Unless "Being is One" is nonsense, ACIM includes science, and not in part. I can not say, "science is applied to the realm of the world, ACIM to the spiritual." What can separate, divided realms with different laws mean? Surely nothing. Law is one ... which is the Law. It should be clear, then, why heralds of WP:Ver are taking no action at all. What are they doing? No really. What are they doing? (pause 5 seconds and reread) They are doing nothing. They are splitting the indivisible. Is doing the impossible meaningful? Only if dreams are first! And I tell you, dreams are not meaningful because they are not real. If they were real, they wouldn't be dreams. Is this making more sense? If so, I need say nothing further to convince anyone that verifiability heralding here is like a triangle with four sides. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 05:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Antireconciler, I understand what you are saying both from an intellectual and experiential standpoint. I would like to continue this discussion but is this the best place and time?--Who123 13:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nscheffey. There are sufficient sources for a good article. If there aren't, WP shouldn't do an article on this. WP:OR and WP:V are unlikely to change soon. Let's not have another long, fruitless discussion. JChap (talk • contribs) 05:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that we have the sources. I do not think the article is bad at the moment. There is always room for improvement, however. I do not think we need to be in a rush. I think we need to agree on a format. I suggest starting with the beginning of the current article and going through it a section at a time to the end.--Who123 13:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My confidence is limited to there being enough outside, reliable sources in existence, per the bibliography and source list in the Virginia article, to write a good verifiable article. Are we there yet? Ehhhhh, not so much. I'm going to try to run down some of the listed books in the Chicago Public Library over the weekend and there are copies of different versions of ACIM online, so there should be enough material for an article. JChap (talk • contribs) 00:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think all the moved sections have made this discussion far too long and difficult to navigate. Can we discuss archiving much of the material including all of the moved sections?--Who123 02:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• In response to the question "Should original research, unreliable sources, questionable links, and unsourced statements be moved to discussion, or remain in an article?", Original research should be tagged with {{fact}}, and if it isn't referenced in a day or two, it should be moved to the talk page. Unreliable sources should be removed if they fail to meet WP:RS. Questionable links are a grey area. If they don't comply with WP:RS then they shouldn't be in the article. Unsourced statements should also get the fact tag, and or moved to discussion.--MONGO 06:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Is moving material from the article to the talk page within 48 hours a WP policy? I disagree with this notion. This particular subject is a difficult one. One key member has stated that he is just about to be married and does not have time at the moment. Time is limited for all of us, some more so than others. I think the improvement of this article should proceed at its own pace, a section at a time. Nothing is served by prematurely removing material.--Who123 13:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• This nonsensical poll was just an effort to deceive and deflect.--Who123 16:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

The talk page is too long. I want to archive out any section to which there has not been a post in more than a week. Any objections? We should save the material Ste4k has moved here for now. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If we are going to archive this should be done by consensus. I do not think any of the material that was moved here from the article should be kept.--Who123 00:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I understand the need for consensus. That's why I asked the question here and did not just go ahead and do it. What is your objection to keeping the material from the article? You and I have both commented on some of it in the last few days, so it seems inappropriate to archive those comments. Also, we need to work through the material at some point because much of it is problemmatic. JChap (talk • contribs) 00:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

My concern are two. This page is too crowded. It is hard for everyone to know what is going on because there are so many topics. I like the suggestion about moving everything to a temp page (see below). I have one request. I would like to add in (for now) the short bit I added on ACIM versions to help with that confusion. If this is not acceptable then please leave it on the page so that it does not get lost. I am glad that we finally seem to be moving. :) --Who123 01:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

be bold JChap, feel free in all good faith. Ste4k 00:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the stuff that Ste4k copied from the article is so voluminous I suggest we move it to a temp page while we review it. Talk:A Course in Miracles/temp That'd keep it together without overwhelming this page. -Will Beback 00:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. If everyone else agrees, I'll do it. JChap (talk • contribs) 00:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 00:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Why bother, its all in the article. You'll be working with two sets of data. One will be changing live, the other will be sitting pretty much dead in the water like it is now, and what else is there to talk about on a discussion page besides the article, hmm? That's two articles, now Will, that you and your boy have successfully run me off of. later. Ste4k 03:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Archive it now, I say. Clear the lot and start again. Just zis Guy you know? 18:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears we have consensus (or could I just be dreaming?). I will archive, moving the disputed text to a separate page. JChap (talk • contribs) 21:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please leave the "Straw Poll" as is as it forms the basis for which direction we wish to go: 1) Original article 2) Stub.--Who123 21:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And done. Sections with posts less than a week old (including the straw poll and the "versions" section were kept. JChap (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And it's still too long. None of the conversations above the "References needed" section seem to be active. Should these be archived as well? "Course Versions" could be moved to the temp page. JChap (talk • contribs) 22:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think everything above the Straw Poll should be archived unless I am missing something. I would like to keep the versions section if that is OK with everyone. A smaller tag at the top would be nice too. Thanks for all the work.--Who123 17:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am going to try to archive inactive discussions to make the page shorter. I will try to keep anything active. Any help or suggestions are appreciated.--Who123 19:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Page Protection

I do not believe under current conditions that any constructive work can be done on this article. I think it should be reverted to the last revert by Will Beback and then protected.

How do we protect a page?--Who123 16:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

The version preferred by Ste4k is a good starting point - and I emphasise starting point - for a proper article; it has none of the original research which has been so much a problem with this article in the past.

Starting from this foundation, I suggest that people expand the article including only verifiable, cited content. That is: content which can be verified from reliable secondary sources, and for preference sources completely unconnected with the warring factions of FACIM and their ilk. We do not need a dissertation on the book, nor do we need to be told how unique and precious it is, unless we can cite independent commentators who say that. We can say "According to Oprah..." and that is well and good. We should not say "According to Joe Schmoe..." where Joe Schmoe is one of the competing vendors of programmes based on the book. This is an encyclopaedia, not an advertisement hoarding.

So, I'm not endorsing Ste4k's content, but I strongly endorse her approach, which is to prune back to what is verifiable and verifiably neutral, and work up from there, preferably a paragraph at a time. By this method we should get a good article. I see plenty of evidence that editors here do actually want to produce a good article. Just zis Guy you know? 17:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• There was a recent vote in the "Straw Poll", I believe, to retain the most recent version by User:Will Beback. Are we not going to work by consensus?--Who123 18:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am sure the original author spent a great deal of time writing the article and citing it. I do not believe that we should "throw the baby out with the bathwater."--Who123 18:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• If we wish to start over then we should start from a blank page. What is currently posted is inaccurate and poorly cited. Let us just look at the beginning:

The reference is from a review of another book. The small section on ACIM has no references for its claims.

The first sentence describes a version of the book from 30 years ago that is no longer available.

The word "cult" is used. Where is the reference for that?

I suspect 2005 was not much different than 2006. The Amazon ranking today: "Amazon.com Sales Rank: #2,569 in Books".

--Who123 18:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Start afresh if you'd prefer. I want to see the back of the original research. Start with a stub and work up, by all means, and debate line by line on Talk. I'm told that some great articles have started out that way. As long as we stick with what is verifiable from neutral secondary sources I'll be happy. Will's version was much better than a lot of what had gone before (by virtue of being much shorter); I think the itme has come to be really bold and essentially kick out the original content altogether, since it was anything but neutral. I freely admit to being biased in that I thought the earliest versions I saw were quite nauseating, I have a low tolerance for people erecting their soapboxes on Wikipedia's street corner. Anyway, start small and expand with references will work just fine for me. I'm really looking forward to reading a balanced and neutral article on this! Just zis Guy you know? 20:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Guy, where is your new sig for your new name? Congrats on the recent promotion (? :) ) to Administer. I think at this point we have to decide which way to go before proceeding. In the "Straw Poll" I think we voted to work with the original article. Do we go by this consensus? Perhaps the Administrators need to talk? If consensus is that we start with a stub then we first need to remove the current poor references and any material not supported by solid references.--Who123 20:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed names and took up the mop a while back :-)

Polls Are Evil^TM. Honestly, every time I read this article I have the strong urge to simply delete it out of process. There is so much arm-waving and hyperbole left from the original fan-page. As I said, I don't endorse the text at all, what I endorse is the approach: to ruthlessly remove anything which is not verifiably neutral, by reference to independent secondary sources, and build up slowly to an article which tells the story right, so that anyone - believer or sceptic - will see it as fair. The orignal article would have been fine on Wikinfo, but not here. But I'm not wedded to any version in particular, what I want to see is the neutral article which - if I were not in the middle of moving house - I would want to research myself. This subject has piqued my interest and I'd really like it to inform me without trying to either sell me the damn book or persuade me that they are a bunch of charlatans ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 20:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Since I have already pointed out that the first reference does not meet WP policy, would someone please remove it (I do not know how to use this WP reference system)? I will delete the initial material that does not have a reference.

After that, I will await other editor's opinions on whether we start with the original article or take it down to a bare stub.--Who123 21:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As the result of the "poll" was inconclusive (One vote for move, one for remain and a majority that did not like the poll) I don't think we can take any action based on that. My preference would be to start anew, as it would be easier to just write a new article than to try to "fix" an effort that may have been well-intentioned but that in the end was nothing more than a soapbox. JChap (talk • contribs) 21:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Should we not do another poll to address this underlying issue so that we can work by consensus from this point on? Thanks.--Who123 22:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

At this point I am just as interested in the process as the result. I think the key is conflict resolution through discussion and consensus. Ultimately issues will require some form of vote. This is a microcosm of the world. It is an example of democracy within the policies of WP. We do not want the tyranny of the minority or the tyranny of the majority. BTW, What exactly is a straw poll? Do our votes need to be straw polls?--Who123 23:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• I have another idea. I think our main motivation should be the reader. If we decide to start over with a stub, perhaps we should do this on another page like A_course_in_miracles_build and leave the full article up for the readers?--Who123 17:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Poll on Where to Start

Please see edit wars above. There are two ideas on how to begin this project. One is that we begin with the current very short article (stub). The other is that we begin with the original article in the last reversion by Will Beback.

Please sign all comments with ~~~~

Which version of this article should we start with after it is unlocked?

Current Stub Article

(votes and comments please)

Original Article

(votes and comments please)

• Original Article per my prior comments: essentially Wikipedia:Policy trifecta, meta:Inclusionism. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 02:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Original Article. I have given this a great deal of thought considering both options (as well as starting with a blank page). This is my vote for several reasons. The first is the reader. I believe we should provide the reader with the best information we have at present. The second reason is that someone has put a great deal of time and energy into writing the article in the first place. I do not think we need to waste time and energy by reinventing the wheel. I would prefer to start with what we have and improve it.--Who123 02:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Other

(votes and comments please)

Comments

The last thing we need right now is another poll with loaded wording. Let's see, would you rather have a "very short" article or the "original" one? Let's do research and then write. Wikipedia articles don't need to be built in a day. JChap (talk • contribs) 20:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you find the wording loaded? It seems simple and clear. It sounds like this is a vote for "other". Do you wish to remove the current stub and start from scratch? I think this is the first thing we need to decide, not the last.

Results

Although it is difficult to come up with solid results based on only 3 votes, it appears the vote is to restore the original article. When this is combined with the recent comment of someone passing by I am going to do so.

This is certainly open for additional voting and discussion.--Who123 16:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is difficult to come up with results based on a loaded poll with only two people voting, a "random" passerby and most of the editors who work on this page distracted by an RfC. You shouldn't have acted unilaterally to revert only 30 minutes after unprotection. The passerby's comments may apply to the version he was commenting on, but it is also an accurate descrption of the current version, which is unsourced and full of POV. Do you have a plan that has a realistic chance of fixing that? If not we should just do the page over, starting with research and then writing, with close citation. JChap (talk • contribs) 17:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Merged articles

The contents of several articles were merged in here, but now that material has been lost. As soon as the page is unprotected we should seek out that material and re-merge it.

• Authorship of A Course in Miracles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Foundation for A Course in Miracles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Attitudinal Healing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ACIM church movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There may be others, these are what I could find. -Will Beback 19:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should retrieve the articles. I would like to re-visit whether each article should be merged or stand alone with a link from the main page. It also depends on the vote on the new poll in terms of which article will be the beginning. In any case, I think the information should be retrieved and perhaps placed on the sandbox page.--Who123 20:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, some of those may need to be revisited. I also think the A Course in Miracles (book) AfD was irregular and should be reviewed too. Those reviews should be done through Wikipedia:Deletion review. -Will Beback 21:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The material from Attitudinal Healing was maybe a pair of sentences that I deleted earlier because they really were usless. The original article must have been a very short stub. I also think it was nonsense that the material from A Course in Miracles (book) was deleted. If there is not a more effective means of reintegrating the material, I have a copy of it at its prime. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 02:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, some of the mergers were very minor, but we should at least mention the topics. The "A Course in Miracles (book)" AfD deleted the name, but the contents should certainly be included here. On reflection I suppose there's no need to review the AfD, since the name wasn't helpful. Any admin, myself included, can dig out the deleted material from A Course in Miracles (book), in case Antireconciler's copy isn't complete. That stuff (at least the NPOV, verifiable material) should go in here too. -Will Beback 08:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I see. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 23:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Related RfC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ste4k includes mention of activity on this article. Interested users are invited to comment. -Will Beback 21:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Worst article in all of Wikipedia

I came to this page looking for more information about this book and I'm really embasassed for Wikipedia after reading it. Considering how much discussion has taken place on the talk page, the article is tiny and extremely poorly written. The first sentence should at least give an idea of WHO/WHAT/WHEN/WHERE. The external links should at very least include www.acim.org. I vote this as the worst article in all of Wikipedia. Excuse me while I go vomit. Cacophony 01:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This page has undergone some major changes lately.

An older version might have more information for you. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 03:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Because of the poll and this comment I have restored the article as per the last restore per Will Beback.--Who123 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

How Do We Proceed From Here?

What is our next step? --Who123 18:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)