Revision as of 09:02, 26 June 2006 editSte4k (talk | contribs)3,630 edits +RfC Instructions← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:02, 26 June 2006 edit undoSte4k (talk | contribs)3,630 edits rv. vanNext edit → | ||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
|} | |} | ||
{{Controversial}} | |||
{{oldafdfull|votepage=Jesus Christ as source of "A Course In Miracles"|date=]|result='''keep''' (and possibly merge)}} | |||
Revision as of 09:02, 26 June 2006
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.
|
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
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.