Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:49, 29 June 2006

This article is currently the subject of a Request for Comment. The stated subject of the request is: 'Matter of Original Research and unverifiable sources.' Please remember to follow Wikiquette, which is particularly important when trying to resolve a dispute.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-04-27. The result of the discussion was keep (and possibly merge).

- Archive 0

Importance

Ste4k wrote: Can anyone tell me the importance of this article? Please leave a message here, and I will be happy to remove the tag that I applied. Thanks!

Ste4k wrote: My questions about importance have not been satisfied. In fact they haven't even been discussed. Please use this dicussion page to come to a mutually agreeable understanding on what basis this article claims to have any importance. This article was up for debate today, and appears to have been rushed through without allowing for an adequate number of people to have the opportunity to review it. You may have had discussions about this article before, but Misplaced Pages has many new users join the effort each day and they should have the opportunity to discuss the fundemental reasons for having an article in the first place. I have read the additions since I originally applied the tag, and they are insufficient as well as unilaterally addressed. I don't see any reason to make a big issue out of this, however. Please respectfully and mutually discuss this issue before removing the importance tag. I am sure if someone can answer my concerns, that there will be ample reason for me to remove it, myself. Thanks!

Importance " Widely debated, source of a lawsuit "

Three hours in the middle of the night is not sufficient time to be drawing such conclusions. The introductory paragraph clearly elucidates the importance of the article. Widely debated, source of a lawsuit. The Importance tag is nonsense. I'll remove it. --The Editrix 14:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k wrote: I appreciate your help, TheEditrix. Are you calling my use of the Importance tag nonsense? Or are you saying that "Importance" is nonsense? Please leave maintenance tags until we can establish a consensus on such things. Ok? Thanks. :) Could you tell me if I am understanding you correctly, please? Are you saying that the lawsuit is being widely debated? or are you saying "widely debated" and "source of a lawsuit" are two different reasons why this is important? Also, do you believe that there is a reason to be removing tags without discussing them first? Is there a hurry I am unaware of? I placed the maintenance tag on the article to indicate that the matter is unresolved. Should I have placed a WP:OR tag instead? You probably have more experience than I do at these sorts of things and your opinion would be appreciated, Thank you! :)

Original Research

Ste4k wrote: During verification of the citings of this article several were found to be unverifiable.

Contradiction

Ste4k wrote:The court case referencend supports the statement that the 'ACIM' is in the public domain. However, one of the sources cited in reference (notes) clearly shows a registered trademark ( Wapnick,Gloria and Wapnick, Kenneth Ph.D. "FACIM Publication: The Most Commonly Asked Questions about ACIM®".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) pages 102-3) The cited source with the trademark is unverifiable having no reliable published source per Item 6.3. The other cited source is a New York District court which is verifiable.

You should probably do a little research before you place your tags on articles. The book in question was written prior to the court case, and there is nuance to Judge Sweet's ruling. ACIM is now in the public domain, though Foundation for A Course In Miracles still retains copyright of the sentence numbering system in the Second Edition of ACIM (there is no sentence numbering in the first edition of ACIM), as well as copyright of the section of ACIM called "Clarification of Terms," as well as all translations of ACIM into foreign languages (the translations were done under the auspices of FACIM). Your inability to understand an article does not mean the article contradicts itself. Likely, it means you haven't devoted enough attention to understanding the article. SOURCE: http://www.acim.org/news_items/copyright_news.htm

I don't know who you are, but I do think it's funny that you would say all that without reading what the article says.

You basically just made my point for me. You act like having a maintenance tag is some kind of punishment or something, instead of realizing that it's the manner of getting help from an outside source. Your concern shows that you have more vanity interests, and a non-neutral point of view; perhaps for advertisment purposes, than you have in the actual credibility of the article. About the web site that you are referring to, it hasn't any notability whatsoever, so be advised that I will be removing it from any citings I see in the near future. I will not, however, be placing any tags on those articles to let you know, okay? Thanks, and please next time try to read more carefully before writing. Oh, before I forget, that trademark is only valid if you have the picture of the sun with it, did you know that? So that makes the trademark name as part of the Website Title: A Course in Miracles® - ACIM a violation. I can't research very well, so, I had to rely on the silly U.S. patent office. Maybe I should be wandering over there now to report it. Maybe not, who knows, all I wanted was an explanation, right? Ste4k 11:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You must have a very bleak perspective on Misplaced Pages and art of writing articles if you really believe that the only reason anyone would be concerned with the quality of an article is that they are making money off of it.

The tags you have placed are not "punishment," they are however annoying and useless because YOU are the only one who makes the outrageous claim that the OFFICIAL WEBSITES of a book DEEMED BY MANY OTHER NEUTRAL WIKIPEDIA EDITORS TO BE "NOTABLE" are not themselves notable. You have no right to remove a link to that site. And if you do, please be aware that I will replace it. Bring it on. Let's do this thing. I guarantee you I have more tenacity than you and more endurance ... all the while making absolutely no money off of ACIM and not in any way affiliated with any organization that does. My motivation is not money, but keeping ego-centric editors desperate for attention and approval of the long-time editors from destroying what could be perfectly decent articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.193.41.166 (talk • contribs) .

Both of you are commenting and acting in bad faith. Ste4k, you're saying that you'll remove cites you consider invalid regardless of other editors' contrary opinions; that's edit warring pure and simple. And 172.193.41.166, you're practically gloating that you intend to edit war, which would not only be wrong but counterproductive for you, since the first admin response to an edit war involving an anonymous user would probably be to semiprotect the page. Both of you need to step back and look at the big picture, or file a request for mediation. Edit warring will wind up hurting you both. Kickaha Ota 01:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that removing a clearly controversial source of citation on the grounds of policy is an act of bad faith. Policy dictates that all such occurances should be "challenged and removed" per WP:VER in a nutshell. The history of trying to follow policy on this article, however, has shown that edit warring is the intent of several anonymous addresses, and that policy is to be disregarded. I remain 0RR. Ste4k 06:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

For someone coming new to this debate, Ste4k, could you explain precisely whcih cites you removed and why you think they are invalid? JChap 03:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Urantia

Should be a cross-link to the Urantia Book lawsuit, which was argued on similar grounds. AnonMoos

Ste4k wrote:Go ahead and add it then, I will put in the contradict reason, and removed the 'inuse' tag when I saw your note.

I didn't realize until later that Misplaced Pages actually doesn't seem to have a real account of the case, but many of the legal issues seem to be quite similar (i.e. the copyrightability of alleged divine revelation). AnonMoos 09:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The matter here is that original research does not belong in the encyclopedia.

Other

What is stated in the first sentence is NOT what it says in those sources. We can either delete the sentence and three of the cited sources or edit the statement to reflect what the sources state.

It only matters:

1. that what is put in the article matches the sources.

2. that those sources are reliable.

Third Opinion

Hello. A request for a neutral opinion was recently posted on the Third Opinion page. I have not edited this article, nor do I have any acquaintance with any of the authors involved in the dispute; so I will provide a neutral opinion. Neither side is obliged to accept this opinion, but I hope that both sides will consider it.

The third-opinion request, in its entirety, was:

• WP:NOR (Diff) Talk Pertinent History Dispute.

Hmm. Admirably brief, if more than a bit cryptic. :)

I have carefully reviewed the diff in question, as well as the talk page.

I would remind all editors to please sign their comments on the talk page, as failure to do so can make discussions more difficult to follow. I would also remind all editors to be civil and assume good faith.

In the edit covered by the diff, the {{contradict}} and {{OR}} tags were removed.

The {{contradict}} tag is used for articles that appear to contradict themselves. After reviewing the article and the "Contradiction" discussion on the talk page, I would agree that the article does not appear to be contradictory. Some of the sources listed in the article contain contradictory details or positions, as would be expected for a controversial topic; but that does not make the article itself contradictory. As for the specific conflict mentioned in the "Contradiction" discussion, the two parties appear to be talking past each other a bit here, and the two court rulings cited in the article (the Denial of Summary Judgment and the Conclusion) do not quite resolve the matter. Copyrights and trademarks are very different beasts. The text of A Course in Miracles would be subject to copyright; the title phrase--"A Course in Miracles" itself--would be subject to trademark. The original dispute apparently included claims of both copyright and trademark violations. The Denial of Summary Judgment held that there were still genuine issues of fact to be decided as to both of them. The Conclusion held that the work was now in the public domain, meaning that it was no longer copyrighted; but it said nothing about the trademark dispute, suggesting that that issue had been dealt with at some earlier phase of the litigation, after the Denial of Summary Judgment but before the Conclusion. The fact that the work was no longer copyrighted would not necessarily mean that its title could no longer be trademarked; so it appears that additional research is needed here. But in any case, the fact that one cited source to the article claims that "A Course in Miracles" is a trademark would not make that fact true; so the article still wouldn't necessarily be contradictory.

As for the {{OR}} tag, that's used to flag possible violations of the No Original Research policy. The dispute there appears to be about a quote from Absence from Felicity concerning the authorship of the Course. A link to Amazon.com is included as a cite for this quote; when the user follows the link, Amazon.com says that the quoted text is not in the book. However, that appears to be because there are differences in punctuation between the quote that's encoded in the link and the quote that actually occurs in the book. If you use a shorter search phrase, "and as the story of the scribing is usually told", you will find that the quoted text does indeed occur in the book, at page 456. So the reference link needs to be fixed to correctly point to the text; but other than that the cite appears to be accurate, and the No Original Research policy does not appear to be violated.

I hope that this opinion is useful. I will keep this page on my watch list for a week or so; please post here if you would like me to make any additional comments. Kickaha Ota 19:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy and sourcing of first sentence

There is a question about the first sentence of the article that appears to have repeatedly been reverted as "vandalism". That's not appropriate, so let me throw the question back in, although in more neutral terms.

The first sentence of the article currently is: "The issue of authorship of A Course In Miracles (ACIM) has been widely debated by "students" of ACIM, as well as by theologians, philosophers, and social critics." Three sources are given for this statement (references 1, 2, and 3). Do these three sources fairly support this first sentence?

The first source begins with: "In 1965 a Jewish atheistic psychologist from Columbia University began to channel messages from a spirit she believed to be Jesus. She ultimately produced, or she says Jesus revealed to her, well over a thousand pages of revelation during the next seven years." Later on, it says "According to the dictated material, the voice of The Course was Jesus." And later still, "its followers believe it to be the revelation of Jesus." Later on, it states "We must be clear that the message of The Course in Miracles is not the message of Jesus Christ." And later still, "It is unequivocally anti-biblical and is without doubt promoted by Satanic deception."

The second source begins with "In October 1965, Helen Schucman began receiving channelled messages from a speaker who would later identify himself as Jesus Christ." It then attacks the Course on the merits; but I don't see anywhere where the article explicitly makes any other claims about the authorship of the material.

The third source -- "A Course in Miracles - Satanic inspired?" is quite clear in its point of view: "'A COURSE IN MIRACLES' was received by demonic revelation."

So the first and third sources would certainly be examples of one particular theory: that the Course is demonically or satanically inspired. The second source would appear to be of more questionable use.

I certainly don't see anything here that would suggest that the article's claim about the 'wide debate' on the matter is false. But the listed sources don't cover a very broad range of opinions either.

Perhaps more to the point, the "debate" suggested by these sources seems to go to a very different plane than the debate discussed in the article itself. The article itself appears to only cover a debate between those who believe that Jesus was literally the source of the Course, and those who believe that the 'Jesus' of the Course is only a symbol. The article doesn't discuss this alternate view taken by the three sources in the first sentence: that the Course was indeed authored by a spiritual entity, but that entity was Satan or a demon, not Jesus.

So currently, the three sources listed in the first sentence seem to cut against the thrust of the article, not support it. And it seems to me that that points out a gap in the article's coverage. Perhaps "The two perspectives" need to be broadened to three: that the Course was divinely inspired, that it was demonically inspired, and that it was simply a work of man. Kickaha Ota 20:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hi KickahaOta! I can show here how I counted it up the other day. If anyone would like to double check, I'd be happy to take a look:

A. The first sentence claims that the topic matter "has been widely debated by Course students, as well as by theologians, philosophers, and social critics ", and cites the first three listed references as it's source. In those articles were found:

SOURCE 1. According to: http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/thcourse.html

Web Site www.leaderu.com

Hartgrove, Paul - Christian Leadership Ministries, Addison, TX 75001

published one article by

Author Russ Wise & his wife - w/Probe Ministries, Richardson, TX 75081

that says:

1. Forty One years ago in 1965, Helen Schucman a psychologist had dreams, saw strange images, and heard a "voice".

2. Her colleague William Thetford said write it down. She wrote down "A course in miracles" (The Course).

3. It took her seven years so she finished circa 1972.

4. Beginning in 1975, Gerald Jampolsky, M.D., a psychiatrist began to write several books based on what he "gleaned" from that work.

5. Five years later, in 1977 Foundation For Inner Peace published a pamphlet about what she wrote.

6. About 15 years later in 1991 or so, Marianne Williamson, wrote a book "Return to Love", about Helen's work and has been a guest on Oprah a few times to promote it

7. A (but no specific) number of denominations within Christendom have embraced The Course

8. As of 2003 there were over 1,500 official study groups that have utilized The Course (official?)

9. Kenneth Wapnick founded the Foundation for A Course in Miracles

10. Warren and Joy Smith write "The Light That Was Dark"

11. Warren bought "The Beautiful Side of Evil" by Johanna Michaelsen

11. Frank was their study leader and his wife's name was Trudy

Demographics:

Items:

1. Author Russ Wise
2. Person Russ' wife Wendy
3. Psychologist/author Helen Schucman
4. Psychologist William Thetford
5. Psychiatrist Gerald Jampolsky, M.D
6. Author Marianne Williamson
7. 1,500 official study groups
8. Kenneth Wapnick, a Catholic monk (theologian)
9. Authors Warren and Joy Smith

Tallies:

0 Philosophers

0 Social critics

1 Theologian

4 Authors

1 Psychiatrist

1 Study leader

1,500 official study groups

SOURCE 2.

www.watchman.org

Watchman Fellowship, Inc., P.O.Box 13340, Arlington, TX 76094

Rick Branch Sells tapes, manuals, and books.

Same characters in the story as source 1 with the exception of the following four books sales items near the end of the page.

• The New Age Movement: Space Age Heresies James Walker (tape and manual) "it does not discuss A Course in Miracles directly"
• Unmasking the New Age, Douglas Groothuis - "This book does not specifically address the Course"
• Confronting the New Age, Douglas Groothuis - "mentions the Course as an example of New Age error".
• A Crash Course on the New Age Movement, Elliot Miller. - "The Course is mentioned"

SOURCE 3

Again, same characters as in the first story, so these are the numbers I got, and they are actually kind of generous considering that only one article from an unpublished source speaks about official course students. Our job is not to worry about how dubious these sources may be, but to print the facts that they have in them, otherwise we are providing original research. About the third reference, for some strange reason, its been removed ???? Maybe I missed the meeting or something. Oh well. Clearly though now we only have two sources from Texas so we should be removing the word "widely" as well since that is the thesis statement for the article. Ste4k 11:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note: this was the OR problem specifically. Ste4k 20:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you have too much time on your hands. -- Andrew Parodi 07:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Minor edits"

Editors should always think carefully before marking their edits as "minor". A "minor edit" is one that makes "trivial changes only, such as typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes and rearranging of text without changing any content." If you mark a change as "minor" when it arguably changes the meaning of the article (even slightly), it can cause people to believe that you're trying to slip something past them. This is something that should particularly be avoided when there's an editing clash going on and people are already hot under the collar.

This edit was marked as a minor edit, but it definitely goes beyond "trivial changes" to the opening paragraph. The edits before and after this one were truly minor, so there's a very good chance that marking this one as minor was unintentional; still, I wanted to call it out, and remind everyone to provide edit summaries when making changes and to be careful when marking edits as minor. Kickaha Ota 22:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

re:Revision as of 18:26, 27 June 2006

Andrew, now that we have an agreement, and have only finished the first sentence, is this any way to assume good faith? Please be civil. Thanks Ste4k 20:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thesis statement

I found the lost reference and put it back in the first line. There are still a few problems. Niether of those references discuss debating at all. The other issue is the phrase "ACIM". It is also in neither of those sources, and would therefore be writing from the POV. I'm putting a tag on the file for OR to hopefully get some consensus on these. Thanks. Ste4k 20:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

With very rare exceptions, using an acronym does not express a point of view on the subject. I can say "SCUBA" or "LASER" without expressing any particular opinion on diving gear or coherent beams of light. Referring to A Course in Miracles as "ACIM" may (or may not) make the article more difficult to read; but unless you have evidence to show that "ACIM" is used mostly by people with a particular point of view, calling its use a violation of NPOV seems completely groundless. Kickaha Ota 01:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In this specific case, however, the acronym "ACIM" has been argued by various parties for a registered trademark at large, and it is therefore, unlike "SCUBA", considered to be like a brand name. Please see history here,and specifically here, and as well as in the court case cited itself. Regardless of whether advertising is done for financial gain, or for philosophical ideals, it is still advertising and not an NPOV. Ste4k 06:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The acronym "ACIM" is used by many people, including students of the Course and critics of the Course. There is simply no point being made here by you. -- Andrew Parodi 07:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Even assuming that "ACIM" was a brand name, that still would not require removing it from the article. Titles, trademarks and brand names are used all the time in encyclopedia articles. It would be almost possible to write a coherent article about a trademarked or branded product without using the trademark or brand name. There is no law or policy against such use, unless the use of the trademark/brand name falsely makes it appear that the owner of the trademark/brand name endorses the contents of the article, which certainly isn't the case here. Kickaha Ota 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In an ideally-written encyclopedia article, every significant point made by the article would be backed up by one or more sources. But that doesn't mean that every word that appears in the article has to come verbatim from source material. In fact, another quality of an ideally-written encyclopedia article is that it takes difficult-to-read source material and condenses it down into an easy-to-read form (without altering its meaning. Kickaha Ota 01:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In this case, on the other hand, the meaning has been significantly altered. As a thesis statement for an article which has been pointed out is the "reason for importance", I feel that this single statement should be scrutinized carefully. On the basis that the author is closely associated with this company that has this registered trademark, this appears to me as self-aggrandizing on the part of the company and an attempt to use the encyclopedia as a foot-hold on notoriaty which in fact doesn't exist. The district court handles a large volume of law suits and this article has not pointed out how this particular lawsuit is any more notable than any of the rest. It has not appeared in any newspapers, or articles written by an objective reporter. It has not recieved any sort of national attention, and these are the basic guidelines for notability. Ste4k 06:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, who exactly is the "author" you are talking about? Helen Schucman? She died in 1981 and is in no way involved with any of this (because she's dead). First, you suggest that this article needs verification of notability. Then when you are given what you request, you complain that it is really only given in an attempt to advertise the product. And if you are suggesting that I am related to the company and am making money off of ACIM, you're wrong. (And may I remind you, the "company(ies)" you refer to, either Foundation for Inner Peace or Foundation for A Course In Miracles, are not companies but non-profit organizations.) Your "guidelines" for notability are false. "Notable" is not the same as "famous." -- Andrew Parodi 07:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be taking the guidelines for notability of an article's subject, and applying them to individual sources and topics mentioned in the article. This is not correct or appropriate. If someone were to propose an article specifically about the lawsuit, that would almost certainly be rejected for lack of notability. But a relevant mention of that lawsuit in an article about a suitably notable subject would not violate the notability rules. Sources are generally checked for verifiability, not notability. Kickaha Ota 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, no source has to specifically mention the word "debate" for an encyclopedia article to fairly say that there is a debate on a particular topic. If the article includes multiple credible sources that take contradictory views on the topic and criticize each other's views, then it's clear that a debate is going on, and it's not original research to point out that basic fact -- again, a quality of an ideally-written article is that it combines its sources into a coherent whole, by pointing out similarities and differences of views expressed in the sources. Kickaha Ota 01:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, this article has only shown sources that prove to other than what it states. All of the sources agree on the idea, rather than debate it. The word debate is simply a contradiction and nearly the opposite of what the sources state. This is another example of a significant alteration of the meaning of the sources, and appears to establish a controversy which does not exist. Ste4k 06:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, what exactly are you talking about? -- Andrew Parodi 07:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The sources mentioned in the article appear to give radically different points of view about the authorship of A Course in Miracles. Are you saying that all the sources actually agree? Kickaha Ota 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty, and in all Wikipedian "good faith", I simply have the greatest difficulty understanding what Ste4k is talking about most of the time. His/her sentence structure usually contains so many misplaced modifiers that it may as well all be in a foreign language as far as I cam concerned. -- Andrew Parodi 09:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Outrageous Claim

outrageous claim that the OFFICIAL WEBSITES of a book DEEMED BY MANY OTHER NEUTRAL WIKIPEDIA EDITORS TO BE "NOTABLE" are not themselves notable.

The above was stated by an anonymous person. It is an untrue statement. I have never stated anything of the kind. I have asked repeatedly that the importance of this article be shown to me, and been repeatedly refused. This is not the same as me making any sort of statement about the article. This is a question and deserves an answer. Please list here "many other neutral WP editors" who consider this book to be notable. Thank you. Ste4k 06:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

For a list of the Misplaced Pages editors who consider this to be a notable topic, please consult the deletion discussion page. A link is provided at the top of this page.

You have repeatedly been given examples of why this topic, and ACIM itself, is notable (over 1 million copies sold, translated into over a dozen foreign languages, over 1,500 study groups worldwide, one of the most popular New Thought and New Age publications of recent decades), and you have repeatedly ignored such examples.

You are the only editor who continually has doubts about the notability of this topic. The notability of this article is established for 98% of editors who work on this page and who have voted with regard to the deletion nomination. Therefore, this is specifically your own issue. I wish you well with resolving your own issues on your own. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.68 (talk • contribs)

"98%" is an overstatement, and your comment about "your own issue" comes across as rather snarky. Please remain civil. Kickaha Ota 16:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your statements if you wish to be considered seriously. The notability of this topic and the notability of this article are two different things, and the number of editors on this article are actually listed in the history. Ste4k 06:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the number of editors on this article are listed in the directory. However, you asked for a list of editors who believe this article is notable. That list can be obtained by visiting the deletion discussion page and reading that 98% of those who have voted believe that this article is notable (and I would wager that the majority of those editors listed in the history of this article also believe this article is notable or else they wouldn't have contributed to it). You seem to believe that you deserve some sort of special treatment. You don't. Misplaced Pages works based on consensus. The consensus is that this article and topic are notable. -- Andrew Parodi 07:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The notability of the debate/controversy/discussion/frank-exchange-of-views over the divine/mundane/diabolic inspiration of A Course in Miracles is indeed a very different thing from the notability of A Course in Miracles itself. If the topic of the "Authorship of A Course of Miracles" article were not independently notable (separate from the Course itself), it would be appropriate to delete it or merge it back into the main "A Course in Miracles" article. However, the "Authorship of A Course in Miracles" article has been submitted to the AfD process twice; the first time it was kept, and the consensus the second time appears to be to keep it again. That reflects a consensus of the Misplaced Pages community that the topic is worthy of an article. Kickaha Ota 16:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k's anti-ACIM agenda

Ste4k has recently submitted deletion nominations for all of the following A Course in Miracles-related articles: Attitudinal healing, Helen Schucman, William Thetford, Foundation for Inner Peace, Foundation for A Course In Miracles, Community Miracles Center, Gary Renard, Kenneth Wapnick. And in the article Authorship of A Course in Miracles, Ste4k will not accept ANY websites as “verifiable” websites with regard to ACIM, including http://www.acim.org/ and http://www.facim.org/, both of which are the official websites of California-based non-profit organizations. This editor's deletion attempts are merely personal bias masquerading as adherence to Misplaced Pages policy. -- Andrew Parodi 08:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That may well be so; but it would be more appropriate to raise in a user-conduct RfC. Bringing it up in the context of an RfC for a particular page seems needlessly personal. Kickaha Ota 16:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This note was just posted to the Talk:A Course in Miracles page regarding Ste4k: He also attempted to delete the ACIM section on the forgiveness page. Please note that good intended edits are welcome. speet 12:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC) -- Andrew Parodi 22:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Response received regarding Ste4k

I thought other editors may find this interesting. This is a copy and paste of a response I received on the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gary Renard regarding Ste4k:

I had a similiar problem with Ste4k nominating an article for deletion just because she had issues with it. Not sure she understands what AfD is for, she hasn't responded to any of my comments. --Nscheffey(T/C) 08:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please click on the above link to read the comment in the original context. It appears there is a trend here with this editor. -- Andrew Parodi 08:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, please try not to inflame the debate on this article by bringing up editors' past actions. This discussion is about this article, not about the editors involved. Personal comments about editors should be made in user talk pages or in a user-conduct RfC. Kickaha Ota 16:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think I was making a "personal" comment about this editor. I didn't say that he/she lives in a certain part of town I don't like, attends a church I don't like, or has a daughter who dresses in a way I don't like, etc. All I did was relate this editor to the very thing that editors do: edit. I related this editor's history as an editor to his/her current behavior as an editor. There is a correlation between his/her past behavior on other articles/issues and his/her current behavior with this article. I think that was important and educational to understand. If Misplaced Pages didn't want editors to be aware of fellow editor's behavior, they wouldn't archive edit histories. Understanding the history of an editor seems to be a major part of Misplaced Pages. -- Andrew Parodi 23:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

However, these comments are not useful to resolving specific disputes regarding this particular article. It would be better to directly refute his arguments, rather than imply that he is a loose cannon or is editing in bad faith. As Kickaha says, it is better to discuss these issues on Ste4k's talk page, or if (s)he won't respond or that doesn't solve the problem, submit the dispute to RfC. Talking about it on the article's talk page (or in AfD) just clouds the issues. JChap 03:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, we simply have differences of opinion. My opinion is that this editor has nominated all of these pages for deletion based on one simple thing: that he/she doesn't like the topic and doesn't think the topic is notable. This editor is well enough acquainted with Misplaced Pages rules to know that stating something like this outright would work against him/her, so he/she tries to cloud it all by dressing it up in legitimate terms. All I am attempting to do is reveal that the real issue is not that this editor doubts the notability of this topic, but that he/she doesn't like the topic. That's not grounds for deletion. And I think I've made my point now. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi 05:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Notability and Importance

It should be pointed out somewhere in general that the idea of notability for this book comes not from the matter of the book's ability to be competitive in the market, but rather that this book as an outside event has affected the public itself in some way that gives or gave this particular book's name, rather than it's owners, a significantly increased amount of publicity. There is a distinct lack of any objective unrelated information regarding this book, and the article makes no effort to establish any. According to the Association of American Publishers, the book publishing industry nets sales of over $20 billion each year, currently. What market share does this particular book represent? and what group does the publisher of this book belong? Has this publisher any notability for other books? Is the publisher of this book a member of the American Publishers Association? Sources for articles are required to be reputible. On what criteria are the sources in this article based? Ste4k 08:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

These comments would be more properly addressed to the article on A Course in Miracles itself. Kickaha Ota 16:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Books are known to be important by their impact on society at large, rather than the number of copies printed and sold. What known reputible Universities and Colleges use this book as a standard primer for education? Of the number of students in America alone, what percentage would you say have heard about this book, and on what basis do you form your opinion? Ste4k 08:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

These comments would be more properly addressed to the article on A Course in Miracles itself. Kickaha Ota 16:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles about books generally speak a little bit about their content and always note the Publisher and Author, why is this book different?

This article is not about the book itself; it is about a particular controversy concerning the book. General discussions about the book, its publisher and author would go in the article concerning the book. Kickaha Ota 16:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Per the mentioning that this particular book has sold more than a million copies: How many other books have sold more than one million copies? What is the reliability of the single source that mentions this? I looked around on amazon.com and found no mention of this book among the Best Sellers lists, historically, or otherwise. Ste4k 08:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

These comments would be more properly addressed to the article on A Course in Miracles itself. Kickaha Ota 16:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

These questions are asked in good faith, and hope to improve the quality of this article. Questions like the above are asked of anyone who uses an encyclopedia regarding the reliability of its content. To quote from an encyclopedia on a report for students and professionals alike, is to give testimony that one fully believes its article as a source. I don't understand why these questions should be ignored, when they provide the author of the article the opportunity to make plain reasons why the public at large should trust the reliability of the encyclopedia. This article should strive to answer these questions rather than ignore them. Ste4k 08:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, you have WAY too much time on your hands, buddy.

If anyone is interested, please read this page where this same editor debated that an article about Big Brother 6 should be deleted. This editor has a history of behaving in this unusual manner: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Big Brother Australia series 6 -- Andrew Parodi 09:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks are against policy and not productive. Comments about an editor's past behavior should go to the user's talk page or a dispute-resolution mechanism such as a user-conduct RfC. When discussing a particular article, insulting an editor and discussing the editor's past actions on other articles is very inappropriate -- it encourages bad faith, hardens positions and drags the discussion off the subject. Kickaha Ota 16:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's your personal interpretation that this was a personal attack. It wasn't. It is my personal opinion that only someone with too much time on their hands would make a long list of reasons that a book is not notable when in fact it has already been deemed notable by many other people. Additionally, it is my opinion that only a person with too much time on their hands would insert that long list on the wrong talk page.

I don't agree that discussing an editor's past behavior is inappropriate, particularly when understanding the editor's past behavior makes understandable the editor's current behavior. In fact, you see discussion of editors' past behavior all over Misplaced Pages. Isn't that why we keep records of who made which edits, so that we can understand the past bahavior of articles and editors? This editor even tried to remove the references to A Course In Miracles on the forgiveness article. I think that this needs to be kept in mind. Putting things in context is the very point of an encyclopedia. All I have done is put this editor's conduct in context: This editor has a history of doing this with articles.

The good thing is that at least now I know that this editor isn't motivated by a particular bias against ACIM per se. I had previously thought that perhaps this editor is a conservative Christian who thinks that ACIM is a cult or devil worship or something. Now, I realize that this editor simply doesn't understand that deletion talk pages are not the places to resolve content disputes. -- Andrew Parodi 23:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"You have way too much time on your hands, buddy" is a personal attack, plain and simple, regardless of the circumstances. If you believe that that's a matter of "personal interpretation", then I sincerely think you need to step back and try to regain some perspective here.

It's not just what you say that counts; the way you say it counts too. If you said something like "You have a pattern of bringing up the same objections over and over again", or "You keep trying to delete things you don't agree with", then that would be a neutral statement -- it might or might not be true or relevant to this discussion, but it would be a reasonable sort of statement to make. It leads to further discussion about what's appropriate or inappropriate. "You have way too much time on your hands" is not that sort of statement; it's a personal attack. To quote WP:NPA, There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. "But I really think it's true" does not justify a personal attack. Kickaha Ota 23:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You can say it is a personal attack all you like. In my mind, a personal attack makes a statement about the person himself/herself, describing the person's personal attributes, e.g., "You are ugly", "You are fat", "You are stupid". I didn't do any of that. I made a comment with regard to the amount of leisure time this person has, which in itself leads to a relatively impersonal conclusion because it is known that usually when people have too much leisure time they fuss over insignificant issues; and I think most would agree that fussing over the notability of a book already deemed by many editors to be "notable" is in effect fussing over something insignificant. -- Andrew Parodi 23:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If you have not already done so, please, please read Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Don't make assumptions about what it says; read it carefully. "You have too much time on your hands, buddy" isn't significantly different from "You have no life", which is specifically listed in the policy as exactly the sort of "I'm better than you" comment that cannot be tolerated in Misplaced Pages discussions. You keep on bringing up details to explain your belief that the statement is true, and I'm not going to address those details, because even if I accepted them completely, it doesn't make any difference. Personal attacks are poisonous to meaningful discussion, even if they are true and sincere -- maybe even especially if they are true and sincere. That is why the policy is so clear that there is no excuse for making personal attacks on Misplaced Pages. Please, read the policy -- and pay particular attention to "Alternatives", "Community Spirit", and "A misguided notion -- kicking them while they are down". Kickaha Ota 01:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

With regard to "the way you say things" being important, I don't know if you know the backstory here, but I tried to resolve all of this with this editor on his/her own talk page. I was met with the insult of "why are you contacting me on my talk page about some article"? When I explained that as it was only this editor who was calling attention to these minor details, and noted that I preferred to keep it off of the talk page because everything here was so heated already, I was met with more hostility and told that I was "harrassing" him/her. Then I was told that the only reason I was interested in this page was that I was personally "attached" to it; and I was advised that this was not what I should do with articles. (Nevermind the fact that ANY Misplaced Pages editor would be frustrated to see the article he worked on be nominated twice for deletion. Nevermind the fact that it would irritate most Misplaced Pages editors to have someone come in and say that the article is unverifiable, when more than a dozen other editors had already agreed that it is verifiable.) Then this editor accused me of not being able to read (which is a personal insult). Then this editor proceeded to nominate just about every ACIM-related article for deletion. -- Andrew Parodi 23:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That's very unfortunate, but still not an excuse for personal attacks. Step back and relax a little. If your views on an article are reasonable and reflect consensus, they'll win out over time; that's the way a wiki (almost always) works. Articles may be tagged and nominated for deletion and who knows what else, but if those acts don't reflect consensus, they'll wind up being undone. Nominations will fail. Random editors will come along and scold people for policy violations. Things will work out. Kickaha Ota 02:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In other words, if I seem frustrated here, I think it's relatively reasonable that I am. And if my patience is running low with this situation, it's because I've already exhausted every attempt to be civil with this person. But thank you for paying attention to this article and situation. It's a breath of fresh air to have something of an arbitrator here. -- Andrew Parodi 23:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm by no means an arbitrator; heck, I'm still a n00b. It's just easy for me to come across as being reasonable and neutral, because I don't have any emotional baggage tied up in the topic. If I can mediate the dispute, that would be wonderful; but I have no enforcement powers or Mandate From On High -- just a detached opinion. Kickaha Ota 02:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I can honestly say that the only "emotional baggage" I have in any of this is that I want to be (a) a good writer, (b) a good contributor to Misplaced Pages. My logic, which I think is pretty sound, is that I can do both by contributing to Misplaced Pages by editing or creating articles about topics with which I am relatively familiar. This is why I work on articles about A Course In Mircles. This is why I have created this article. So, if I have reacted emotionally (and I probably have, because I'm a relatively emotional person; I'll blame that on being half-Italian), the emotional reaction comes from the anger I've felt in seeing my attempts to contribute to Misplaced Pages be nominated for deletion twice. I don't really care if anyone else thinks ACIM is from satan, Jesus, or if it is symbolic, or whatever. I just want to help create good articles. I thought I had helped do to that, only to have it nominated twice for deletion. -- Andrew Parodi 05:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that it hardens "bad faith" to enlighten people as to the past behavior of an editor. It is called "education". This editor has a history of using deletion attempts inappropriately. This is important to know. It makes sense out of our current and unusual situation wherein this editor has nominated just about every ACIM-related article for deletion. Previous to discovering that this is a trend for this editor, I was baffled. -- Andrew Parodi 22:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you've made that point. And "very inappropriate" was probably an overstatement; I apologize for that. But now you've made that point, and everyone is aware of the issue and can make their own judgments accordingly, so let's try to focus on the immediate problem so we'll have some hope of solving it amicably. Kickaha Ota 00:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And please note that I did indeed contact this editor on his/her talk page BEFORE talking about this on THIS talk page, and I was met with a very hostile response -- and I was told to NOT contact him/her on his/her talk page, and it was also suggested that he/she didn't even care enough about the article he/she commented on to even remember it; this editor referred to this page as being "some article". There was no way of dealing in a civil manner with this person unless others got involved, which thankfully has finally happened. So, thank you for stepping in here

A list of the other ACIM-related articles this person is attempting to have deleted: ACIM church movement, Helen Schucman, William Thetford, Attitudinal healing, Foundation for Inner Peace, Foundation for A Course In Miracles, Community Miracles Center, Gary Renard, Kenneth Wapnick. I think that seeing the trend in this situation is very important, as this is a very unusual situation. -- Andrew Parodi 22:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The tenacious pursuit of an agenda doesn't seem to be very unusual on Misplaced Pages. :)

Which is why I don't get much involved in much of Misplaced Pages but rather stick to articles that hold a particular interest for me. -- Andrew Parodi 00:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, 'sticking to articles that hold a particular interest' can easily be construed as 'the tenacious pursuit of an agenda'. And thus the cycle of Wikiwierdness continues. :) Kickaha Ota 02:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My only agenda is to create good Misplaced Pages articles. And I think it is relatively reasonable that I would attempt to create good Misplaced Pages articles within genres that I am relatively familiar with. You won't see me working on articles about astrophysics anytime soon because I know virtually nothing about the topic.

If people are to avoid articles concerning topics that they are familiar with, what that basically means is that articles will be written by people who don't know much about the topic of the article. What that basically means is that Misplaced Pages will have mediocre articles. I suppose this is where that conflict mentioned on the Misplaced Pages article comes into play: one of the complaints about Misplaced Pages is that it values consensus over credentials. I don't really see it as that unusual that I, someone with more credentials than the average person in the area of ACIM-related topics, would want to improve Misplaced Pages by working on ACIM-related topics.

I suppose this is where the "assume good faith" rule comes in. From my perspective, this other editor assumed bad faith from the get-go. He/she assumed I was "too close" to the article, and then assumed (and downright accused) me of having a financial stake in all of this. -- Andrew Parodi 04:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Addendum I should also note that the main way that I have "stuck with" this article has simply been to attempt to keep it from being deleted entirely. I don't see how that can be construed as being "too close" to the article and topic. I am the one who started this article, but I did so mainly because I wanted to learn about the topic. I don't have any particular point I'm trying to impress upon anyone else. I think this is evidenced by the fact that I am the one who interjected the new part of the article that mentions that some people believe ACIM is the result of communication with satan. I don't think a biased person with a non-neutral agenda would interject a comment that completely opposes what they believe (I am a "student" of ACIM; I don't believe that ACIM is the literal result of communication with Jesus; I'm not too sure the historical Jesus Christ ever even existed; and I certainly don't believe in "satan").

Prior to this ugly situation, all I was really doing was copyediting the article, that is, removing badly written sentences that were impossible to understand. I was actually hoping someone else would come along and write this article, because I'm tired of the battle. But I don't think that wanting to keep this article from being deleted is in any way indication that I have an agenda. Actually, if I have an "agenda" it would be this: my agenda is to keep articles with potential from being deleted, particularly when they are nominated for deletion on flimsy ground regarding content disputes. -- Andrew Parodi 05:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It would probably have been better to start a request for mediation, or a user-conduct RFC if mediation failed, at the time communications broke down. As things are, continuing to bring up past grievances -- whether justified or not -- in the context of a new grievance is much more likely to aggravate the grievance than it is to solve it. Kickaha Ota 00:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In point of fact, I had only just ended a dispute with another editor, a dispute that ended up having to be arbitrated. It got so ugly, that I swore off ever working on this article again! Obviously, I've broken that promise. But the thing is, I am only human. Shortly after that arbitration failed, this article was slapped with its second deletion attempt. Then I had to contend with this editor saying that this topic is unverifiable. Then I had to contend with him/her saying that my requests for direct communication were "harassment". You have to admit, this is a very unusual situation, so if my response has seemed a bit unusual, it's not entirely the result of any irrational behavior on my part. It's the result of a very unusual topic that for some reason generates quite a bit of controversy from every side. -- Andrew Parodi 04:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: Are you going to come to my defense the next time that this editor accuses me of having a financial interest in ACIM, suggesting that it is a financial interest that makes me care about these articles? That is a completely inaccurate statement on this editor's part, and yet so far I see no one coming to my defense on that issue. And, despite this editor's claimed love of citation and verifiable evidence, he/she has absolutely NO evidence that I am in any way involved in any money making venture off of ACIM. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi

Yes, an accusation like that would be very inappropriate for a wide variety of reasons. If I were an arbitrator in charge of placing sanctions on a user, it would be appropriate to go back through all your past interactions and see what policies were violated in the past, who provoked who more often, and so on. But I'm not an arbitrator. I still think that the problem in front of us -- the dispute over this particular article -- has some hope of being solved without requiring drastic measures. But if the aggrieved editors insist on re-airing all their old grievances as well, then it seems inevitable that this will end up in arbitration, and that's no good for anybody. Kickaha Ota 00:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. For the most part, I stick to myself on Misplaced Pages. I just copyedit for the most part, or start articles here and there. I don't get much involved in the "administrative" aspect, which means I don't know how to get conflict resolution, etc. I get overwhelmed trying to find things in Misplaced Pages because the database is so huge. When I am faced with a conflict, the only thing I know how to do is take the issue into my own hands, which is what I did by presenting this person's past behavior. Had I not presented this person's past behavior, you most likely wouldn't have taken my complaints seriously. In other words, I did all I knew how to do. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi 00:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken about that. I didn't take your complaints seriously because you presented your past grievances; I took your complaints seriously because they seemed to be reasonable complaints that were fairly grounded in Misplaced Pages policies. Heck, the only reason I noticed this article at all was because of a Third Opinion request and a Request for Comments that were filed by Ste4k, the person you're arguing with. So if presentation of grievances were what did the trick, presumably I'd be on Ste4k's side. Kickaha Ota 02:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, whatever got you here, I'm glad you're here. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi 04:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k's continued claims of Original Research and Unverified Claims

I just removed his/her "OR" tag. We have already discussed that for most Misplaced Pages editors, this page contains verified sources. It is also largely agreed upon that this page does not contain original research. I am going to continue to remove this tag because I believe it is the right thing to do. Can someone talk to this person and tell them to stop? This is pointless, tedious, and a waste of everyone's time. -- Andrew Parodi 07:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

1. "Whois Leaderu.com". Retrieved (25 Jun2006). {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
2. "WHOIS Search provides domain registration information from Network Solutions". Retrieved (25 Jun2006). {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
3. "Association of American Publishers". Retrieved 28 Jun2006. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics