Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:08, 10 July 2006

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

See also Talk:A Course in Miracles (book).

Unsourced

This article does not cite its references or sources. You can help Misplaced Pages by introducing appropriate citations. The tag on the article will help attract other editors to this page to remedy the problem. Please leave the maintenance tag so that others may be helpful. Thanks. Ste4k 11:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Also please note that the tag was added by an administrator on the basis that the entire article reads like original research. Analysis of the book and its alleged significance should be on the basis of reliable secondary sources. Misplaced Pages is not the place for book reviews, they can go on Wikinfo or another sister project. Please stick to facts which are stated in neutral terms from the mainstream press, well-known religious papers and so on. Just zis Guy you know? 12:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the page looks like what Misplaced Pages calls "Original Research". This is because it is. The article was written by a (very kind) man who reads the Course and who was simply trying to provide information about it. He isn't in any way making money off of the Course. He simply likes to write articles about ACIM on Misplaced Pages. I am attempting to edit this page to make it more neutral, because, frankly, I like the thought of that. I'd like this page to be crisp and "cold" (what I mean is, I'd like this page to be completely without any flowery prose; flowery prose has its place, but usually not in such articles). -- Andrew Parodi 03:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe you ever quite understood that this is not about other people having anything against the man, or the book, or the publisher, etc. It really isn't. Its about an encyclopedia. Ste4k 01:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Flowery prose has no place on Misplaced Pages at all, actually. Neither does anything which cannot be verified from reliable secondary sources. Just zis Guy you know? 16:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The summarization found in this article is sourced directly from the book. Admittedly there is much "summarization" of the ACIM text on this page that has been agreed upon by several students of this work. The work is rather lengthy and I see no reason that a summary of the work is inappropriate here. If anyone might feel they might have a more accurate summary than found here, by all means, please edit away.

-Scott P. 12:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you read this? Ste4k 13:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have read a great deal of the work. -Scott P. 14:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, no, not the work, this: WP:NOR#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position. If you click on it you can read what it says. Thanks. Ste4k 20:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This claim of no sources appears to be written by some who have not read the material. Otherwise they would not be making a blanket request for sources but would be pointing to specific sentences which they believe to be incompatible with the source text. Unless someone is able to point out a single sentence in this article which they are certain is not supported by the text, I submit that this claim of being unsourced is rather a stab in the dark by those who are unfamiliar with the material. The article on the Christian Bible does not have a footnote on every sentence because those who read it are already familiar with the Bible enough to know that the content is supported by its source text. I would ask that if this uncourced template is to remain, that those who are placing this blanket statement support their claim with at least a single instance of material which conflicts with the source text. -Scott P. 12:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How about starting with the first sentence. It reads "A Course in Miracles (sometimes referred to as ACIM or simply the Course) is a self-study book of "spiritual psychotherapy" or spiritual transformation. The author of the book Dr. Helen Schucman, asserts that she "scribed" the book with the assistance of Dr. William Thetford under divine inspiration. It was first published prior to 1976 and has sold over 1.5 million copies worldwide in 15 different languages." It cites The Translation Program as it's source. www.acim.org is owned by the organization publishing this version of the book. That makes this source a primary source. According to WP:RS, "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher. See Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability". About the source itself, on that page (currently) there is no mention of Schucman or Thetford. There isn't any mention in the text about "sometimes referred to as ACIM", and the only "ACIM" written on that page is the trademark for the particular version of the book written by that publisher. There is no mention about X-million number of copies, etc., etc. Ste4k 12:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless the publisher's reputation has been tarnished, it is generally accepted practice in the publishing world to accept a publisher's statement at face value a factual statement of the number of copies it has published. If you might be able to somehow significantly tarnish the reputation of FIP, then perhaps its accounting of the number of copies published might be considered worthy of question. Otherwise we will have to begin deleting references to the number of books published by every book whose publisher you happen not to believe. Nobody but a publisher normally keeps such records. How else do you suppose they are normally tracked? Unfortunately someone seems to have recently deleted the article on FIP so it now becomes rather difficult to track them. Go figure. (BTW, FIP is the publsher, not acim.org.)

-Scott P. 13:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's fine, but the point here is that there is no publisher's statement made about anything in that sentence. The idea behind having a resource is that we copy what the resource says instead of just listing them as a reference. If the resource says, "Joe at worms" then we write "Joe ate worms". About tarnishing any reputation, that isn't the point at all. And about accepted practices in the publishing world, this is Misplaced Pages and the accepted practices are covered by what we call "policy and "guidelines" since those came about over a long period of time and through the process of consensus. About people keeping records of how many books were published, I think you missed the point there. Publisher's Weekly magazine has a statement about the number of books among other things for example. They are a secondary source. Do you see how that's different? About the article on FIP, it hadn't any sources at all which is one of the reasons it was deleted. The only references which it had on the bottom were "See Also" references that pointed to this article here, and other articles which were also unsourced except for pointing to this article here. FIP and ACIM.ORG are the same entity. FACIM is also the same entity. This is known. Having the same board of directors, as well as sharing the same registered trademark "ACIM®" , etc., makes anything from either of those web sites primary sources. Ste4k 20:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying that unless Publisher's Weekly (or some other such publication) repeats the actual publisher's information on their site, then the information is unrepeatable on Wiki? All publication numbers are ultimately merely a repeat of the publisher's data by default. I still don't follow you here. I apologize. -Scott P. 23:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, no, what I am saying here is that there is no publisher's statement made about anything in that sentence. Publisher's Weekly magazine has a statement about the number of books. If you need to know how they arrived at that number, you should ask their research department. It is highly likely that they were given proprietary information that they were able to verify at two sources, and would probably be under a non-disclosure agreement regarding that content. But you can contact them and find out how they arrived at that number for yourself if it interests you. Non-disclosure agreements usually have an expiration date attached. About the policies on Misplaced Pages, though, you can read them for yourself at WP:VER, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. Pay close attention to the definitions of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. You might also want to read WP:CITE and WP:FES. Hope this helps. Ste4k 00:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I have now listed the source of the publication number in the actual section to let the readership judge on its own. Now, could you please tell me exactly what you have actually found here to be inaccurate or undocumentable, as opposed to all of this tempest over a teacup about whether to list the publisher in the actual text or in a footnote? -Scott P. 15:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's be plain here, Scott, the first sentence is only one sentence in this article. Every sentence needs to be verifiable. Everything that isn't verifiable is simply opinion and original research. Original research can be deleted by any editor at any time. I am hoping that you will want to improve this article rather than squabble about it. If you haven't made yourself familiar with the policies in this regard WP:NOR, WP:VER, WP:RS, etc., I highly suggest that you read them. I am not the only editor on WP and I think that many people have been overly generous with their time and efforts considering the size of the information in this article. Ste4k 20:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Public Domain

Since this article causes so much contraversy, since it's in the public domain, why don't we just print it as an article and put a freeze on it? Seriously, couldn't we just do that? Ste4k 14:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The material is not entirely in the public domain and it is over 1,000 pages long. -Scott P. 12:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI, for material that is in the public domain, we have our sister projects Wikisource and Wikibooks. -Will Beback 15:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the public domain version is not the one that sold 1.5 million copies. -Scott P. 14:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How can that be so? Wasn't Penguin's 2.5 million dollar contract the same contract that had Penguin publish 1.5 million copies over a period of five years ending in December of 2000? Ste4k 20:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Amazing statistics you quote. Any citations for them? -Scott P. 20:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean that you haven't read anything about books with this title? I thought you mentioned earlier that you considered yourself an expert on these matters. Ste4k 20:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Needs splitting

The article probably needs splitting into A Course in Miracles (book) and A Course in Miracles (movement); the book can be described neutrally without reference to the movement, the movement would be a suitable merge target for a lot of material which AfD seems to think should be merged rather than given its own (largely uncited) treatment. Just zis Guy you know? 16:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the movement of students that this book has generated is inseparably related to the book itself, and that as such, any article about the movement would need to have an in depth treatment of the evolution of the book within it. To try to discuss the movement without such an in depth treatment would result in an incomplete article. Thus I feel that such a separation of this article would not be practical. -Scott P. 12:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There are two threads to the article, though: the book and its history, including the copyrioght dispute; and the movement and its history, which seem to me to be separable. Just zis Guy you know? 12:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The book states that it is intended as a self study guide. Nowhere does the book state that it was written with any intention of starting a movement. Therefore it seems to me that even the use of the term movement becomes possibly confusing or possibly even controversial when attempting to describe the majority of the students of this book. The majority of those who study this text have no formal organization to which they belong, but prefer to gather only to read and directly discuss the text itself. To attempt to define the dynamics of such a group without directly discussing the text in detail would seem to me to be rather difficult and conterproductive. Separate articles for what I would refer to as splinter groups such as Endeavor Academy does seem to me to be in order. -Scott P. 14:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually that is pretty much my point. The book says it's a self-study guide, but people like the Endeavor Academy have turned it into a social network and more of a belief system or religious sect. The Bible and Christianity are separate too. A bit more significant, of course, and a bit more widely discussed in secondary sources, hence a larger treatment. Have a look at Christianity, by the way - look at the references, the way it's written, the tone of the article. Just zis Guy you know? 21:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You are certainly correct that there is a major difference between the Bible and Christianity. But in so far as I know, the majority of the students of ACIM could be described in a single sentence as those who consider ACIM as their primary written source of spiritual wisdom and inspiration, but who, in accordance with the recommendations of this book, have no official membership organization. Does this sentence deserve its own article?

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.

-Scott P. 14:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I quite understand what you're saying there. Are you saying that there are several groups interested in several different versions of books that all have the same title "A Course in Miracles"? Ste4k 20:57, 8 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.

1. U.S. District Court Southern District Of New York (1996). "Penguin Books U.S.A., Inc., Foundation for "A Course in Miracles, Inc.", & Foundation for Inner Peace, Inc., Plaintiffs, against New Christian Church of Full Endeavor Ltd., & Endeavor Academy Defendents. Case: Civil 4126 (RWS) Admissable Evidence" (PDF). Retrieved 1 Jul2006. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
2. U.S. District Court Southern District Of New York (1996). "Penguin Books U.S.A., Inc., Foundation for "A Course in Miracles, Inc.", & Foundation for Inner Peace, Inc., Plaintiffs, against New Christian Church of Full Endeavor Ltd., & Endeavor Academy Defendants. Case: Civil 4126 (RWS) Denial for Summary Judgment" (PDF). Retrieved 1 Jul2006. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
3. U.S. District Court Southern District Of New York (1996). "Penguin Books U.S.A., Inc., Foundation for "A Course in Miracles, Inc.", & Foundation for Inner Peace, Inc., Plaintiffs, against New Christian Church of Full Endeavor Ltd., & Endeavor Academy Defendants. Case: Civil 4126 (RWS) Conclusion Dismissal" (PDF). Retrieved 1 Jul2006. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

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, Misplaced Pages 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)

Pruning

This article is in urgent need of serious pruning. Many sections of it read as a sermon. Where are the secondary sources of commentary, form which we can distill the encyclopaedic content? Misplaced Pages is not a place to proselytise, we are here to document what the external world understands of this concept and has written in reliable authoritative sources. Above all we are not here to publish someone's dissertaiotn on the subject of this book, which is how I think this article started. Just zis Guy you know? 12:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Pruned" material

I believe we have lost much valuable information as a result of JzG's "pruning" efforts. We should start an "A Course In Miracles (doctrine)" page for the fruit JzG dislikes. If it were not for JzG's positive intentions, I would call the result vandalism, so let's do better. I agree that there is much redundant information on this page, but the article is shifting too heavily toward contrasting ACIM with Christianity. A proper article on ACIM should describe its doctrine first, as it was meant to stand on it's own merit, and only afterward highlight obvious differences betwen ACIM teachings and non-ACIM interpretations of the standard interpretation of Christianity. JzG is assuming that a proper interpretation of ACIM is as Christian supplemental material, rather than the Christian Bible being supplemental ACIM material. He is not "playing the game", so to speak, and so long as he doesn't, this article can't be neutral, for playing ACIM's game is what it means to be charitable, and charity is what it means to be neutral. — Antireconciler 21:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Only if it can be sourced from reliable secondary sources. The major problem with it was that the whole thing was completely unreferenced and read like a dissertation or homily. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, it's an encyclopaedia distilled from the body of knowledge as presented in reliable, independent secondary sources. Read WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV. The problem is not with the truth, if truth it be, but with the fact that it is funcitonally indistinguishable from opinion. So, do start woith citations to reputable seocndary sources outside the movement. Commentary in standard texts on comparitive religion, references from psychological texts and so on. Just zis Guy you know? 21:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Understandable. Surely Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, nor should it provide incredible information, so I can understand your reasons for wanting to remove it. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. 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. These people do themselves a disservice.

— Antireconciler 03:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, special pleading for exceptions to policies explicitly stated as "non-negotiable" by our founder is not going to work. Just zis Guy you know? 18:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you correctly Antireconciler. I haven't ever read any of the books with this title, but I can read. I have found several secondary sources about various things to do with this specific version of this title. One does not need, in fact, it is in my opinion detrimental to the process to know anything at all about the subject matter as an editor. If a verifiable source is found, then it's quite an easy task to add content to an article. Just repeat what that source says. *poof* voila! Everything just falls into place. Nobody expects that to be rocket science, of course, BUT the good part is, there are many, many editors on WP that will come along and clear out the POV, the misspailings, the awkward grammar, do cite checks, rearrange for aesthetic quality, etc., etc. Anything else that doesn't come from a verifiable secondary source, is just opinion and belongs in the opinion bin under the heading original research. Ste4k 00:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a word for what you're talking about, Antireconciler. Your comment reminds me of Woody Allen's joke that he cheated on a metaphysics exam by looking into the soul of the person next to him. If we're going to chuck "scientific, objective verifiability" and replace it with "it seems true to me" why do you even need an encyclopedia in the first place? JChap (Talk) 13:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Attitudinal Healing section

Someone went through the trouble of merging Attitudinal Healing with A Course In Miracles ... but didn't really merge the contexts. The topics don't appear to relate to each other. Unless anyone wants to link the two topics more clearly, I'd like to simply get rid of the section. —Antireconciler 05:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no qualms with that. Your comments on the Afd discussion would be most welcome too. Thanks, -Scott P. 15:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this article being discussed for for deletion, too? Where is that discussion, Scott? Ste4k 12:28, 10 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)

very long

This page is 47 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size.

Attention Firefox and Google Toolbar users: You may find that long pages are cut off unexpectedly while editing in tabs; please be careful. This issue has been reported to Google, and we hope they will fix it. Ste4k 12:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Understood. I've tightened it to 44 KB by removing redundant or uninformative parts, and perhaps some redundant information on docrine should be trimmed off as well. We are certainly still working on ideas for more properly managing this information, and our solution may depend on what happens to A Course in Miracles (book). I've removed the {{verylong}} tag in light of this. Thank you for your helpful efforts, —Antireconciler 04:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Just in case you aren't able to complete the effort, I have reapplied the tag. You were able to knock it down by 3K which is good. The other article hasn't anything to do with this article. The other article is about all of the various books that stemmed from the original texts. This article is only about one specific book printed by one specific publisher, The Foundation for Inner Peace (a.k.a. FACIM and highly associated with the acronym "ACIM" which is their trademark). Ste4k 05:37, 8 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 Misplaced Pages to refer to material placed into articles by Misplaced Pages 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)

Plastering multiple templates on this page without discussion.

Dear Ste4k,
You have already plastered enough derogatory templates on this page, one at a time please. Discuss, agree, then another, but not this flurry please.
-Scott P. 16:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

He's right, though - the entire document reads like an essay. Just zis Guy you know? 16:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

All templates applied to this article are both being actively discussed on this page as well as serve the primary purpose of attracting the attention of other editors who perform cleanup to this page. There is nothing at all derogatory about a template which is being used to help improve the article. I think that you misunderstand the purpose of such templates and should be instead happy that many other editors will be notified that this article needs help. You should avoid becoming too attached to any specific article since there are WP:BACKLOG quite a few articles on Misplaced Pages that could use your attention. Ste4k 20:59, 10 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)

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)