| Revision as of 19:17, 26 June 2006 editKickahaOta (talk | contribs)2,279 edits Third Opinion← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:45, 13 April 2022 edit undoIznoRepeat (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users50,076 editsm unsubst or remove substed template in support of TemplateStyles migrationTag: AWB | ||
| (129 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{Talk header}} | ||
| {{old XfD multi |result1='''Keep (and possibly merge)''' |page1=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jesus Christ as source of "A Course In Miracles" |date1=27 April 2006 | |||
| |result2='''Keep''' |page2=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jesus Christ as source of "A Course in Miracles" |date2=23 June 2006}} | |||
| {{archives|1= | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| }} | |||
| == Importance == | == Importance == | ||
| The case was closed. The book is out of print. There is no further copyright. The case received no noticable media attention. So why is this important? ] 13:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <sup> ] ] 04:28 </sup> ] '''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! | |||
| <sup> ] ] 07:42 </sup> ] '''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. --] 14:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <sup> ] ] 01:59 </sup> ] '''wrote''': I appreciate your help, ]. Are you calling ] of the Importance tag ]'''?''' Or are you saying that "]" is nonsense'''?''' Please leave maintenance tags until we can establish a ] 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 ] 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 == | |||
| <sup> ] ] 18:19 </sup> ] '''wrote''': During ] of the citings of this article several were found to be unverifiable. | |||
| == Contradiction == | |||
| <sup> ] ] 19:52 </sup> ] '''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 ( {{cite web|url=http://www.facim.org/cgi-bin/facimcart.cgi?a=prod&p=b-14e|title=FACIM Publication: The Most Commonly Asked Questions about ACIM®|author=Wapnick,Gloria and Wapnick, Kenneth Ph.D.}} pages 102-3) The cited source with the trademark is ] having no ] per ]. 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 ] 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''': '''''' | |||
| ==Urantia== | |||
| Should be a cross-link to the Urantia Book lawsuit, which was argued on similar grounds. ] | |||
| :<sup> ] ] 19:46 </sup> ] '''wrote''':Go ahead and add it then, I will put in the contradict reason, and removed the 'inuse' tag when I saw your note. | |||
| :The matter here is that ] does not belong in the encyclopedia. | |||
| 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. | |||
| <center>This dispute is '''not''' about topic matter content. It doesn't matter if the topic is true or not.</center> | |||
| :It only matters: | |||
| ::'''1.''' that what is put in the article matches the sources. | |||
| ::'''2.''' that those sources are reliable. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hello. A request for a neutral opinion was recently posted on the ] 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 case was decided, not closed. The book is still in print and selling well, according to Amazon. ] 21:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The third-opinion request, in its entirety, was: | |||
| Thanks Gene, I have also seen now (since my earlier statement) at least two other versions of this book online. I am wondering what authenticates and/or distinguishes for example the version sold by Amazon now, and the versions which came from earlier manuscripts. Editorial comments, pov statements, etc., are bound to have been introduced by various parties. The case in question was dismissed, and was in regards to Penguin books et. al. suing another party for copyright violation. The court case shows that the decision blames the loss of copyright on the mishandling of early distribution by the FIP. The question I have now is whether one form of the book should be stated by the encyclopedia as having any more credence than another. In this particular instance, for WP to make that assertion, appears to be more disputable than a NPOV statement of fact. Following the ], I think it would be best to avoid including misleading or false information, and provide zero information instead. ] 12:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * ] ] Dispute. | |||
| ==Merge nomination== | |||
| Hmm. Admirably brief, if more than a bit cryptic. :) | |||
| I just nominated this article to be merged with ]. I realize that it is consensus that this article should be kept as per two votes. But the first vote, after all, resulted in what was in reality a consensus to ''merge''. I think that since some people are trying to make a more coherent page about A Course In Miracles by merging all of the other articles, this one should be merged as well. Again, strictly speaking, the first consensus was to merge. ] 04:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| :I think it's a great idea. There are only perhaps two problems with original research in this Authorship version. First, in the first sentence the cited resource says absolutely nothing about the number of languages the book has been translated to. | |||
| This article says: "A Course in Miracles (The Course) is a book of spiritual philosophy and practice claimed to have been channeled, or "scribed", by New York psychologist Helen Schucman and first published in 1976. It has since sold over one million copies worldwide and has been translated into over a dozen foreign languages." | |||
| 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. | |||
| The cited source says: "A Course in Miracles,the 1976 three-volume set of books that became a spiritual curriculum for many individuals and study groups. Course remains a cult favorite, retaining a spot above 500 in the Amazon rankings and selling an estimated 1.5 million copies." | |||
| In the edit covered by the diff, the <nowiki>{{contradict}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{OR}}</nowiki> tags were removed. | |||
| Second, this article says: "In 1996, Penguin Books and Foundation for Inner Peace, which at that time asserted copyright later transferred to FACIM, sued ..." | |||
| The <nowiki>{{contradict}}</nowiki> 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 and the ) 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. | |||
| The cited sources of the article to be merged into say: "Judith Skutch Whitson and her husband started the Foundation of Para-Sensory Investigations, Inc. (FPI) in October of 1971. 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. ...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. " | |||
| As for the <nowiki>{{OR}}</nowiki> tag, that's used to flag possible violations of the ] 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. | |||
| Notice that the dates in the first statement and the word "later" do not align correctly with the sources. ] 05:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 02:45, 13 April 2022
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Authorship of A Course in Miracles redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
 Archives |
Importance
The case was closed. The book is out of print. There is no further copyright. The case received no noticable media attention. So why is this important? Ste4k 13:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The case was decided, not closed. The book is still in print and selling well, according to Amazon. Gene Ward Smith 21:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Gene, I have also seen now (since my earlier statement) at least two other versions of this book online. I am wondering what authenticates and/or distinguishes for example the version sold by Amazon now, and the versions which came from earlier manuscripts. Editorial comments, pov statements, etc., are bound to have been introduced by various parties. The case in question was dismissed, and was in regards to Penguin books et. al. suing another party for copyright violation. The court case shows that the decision blames the loss of copyright on the mishandling of early distribution by the FIP. The question I have now is whether one form of the book should be stated by the encyclopedia as having any more credence than another. In this particular instance, for WP to make that assertion, appears to be more disputable than a NPOV statement of fact. Following the guidance of Jimbo, I think it would be best to avoid including misleading or false information, and provide zero information instead. Ste4k 12:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Merge nomination
I just nominated this article to be merged with A Course in Miracles (book). I realize that it is consensus that this article should be kept as per two votes. But the first vote, after all, resulted in what was in reality a consensus to merge. I think that since some people are trying to make a more coherent page about A Course In Miracles by merging all of the other articles, this one should be merged as well. Again, strictly speaking, the first consensus was to merge. The Deletrix 04:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's a great idea. There are only perhaps two problems with original research in this Authorship version. First, in the first sentence the cited resource says absolutely nothing about the number of languages the book has been translated to.
This article says: "A Course in Miracles (The Course) is a book of spiritual philosophy and practice claimed to have been channeled, or "scribed", by New York psychologist Helen Schucman and first published in 1976. It has since sold over one million copies worldwide and has been translated into over a dozen foreign languages."
The cited source says: "A Course in Miracles,the 1976 three-volume set of books that became a spiritual curriculum for many individuals and study groups. Course remains a cult favorite, retaining a spot above 500 in the Amazon rankings and selling an estimated 1.5 million copies."
Second, this article says: "In 1996, Penguin Books and Foundation for Inner Peace, which at that time asserted copyright later transferred to FACIM, sued ..."
The cited sources of the article to be merged into say: "Judith Skutch Whitson and her husband started the Foundation of Para-Sensory Investigations, Inc. (FPI) in October of 1971. 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. ...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. "
Notice that the dates in the first statement and the word "later" do not align correctly with the sources. Ste4k 05:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)