Talk:A Course in Miracles/Archive 9

Criticsm Section removed

I've gone ahead and removed this section. It was very non neutral and full of speculation without establishing the relevance of the speculation. If reinstated, needs more careful sourcing and very careful wording to ensure neutrality.TheRingess (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverted censorship by The Ringess. That a few sentences of the criticism section arguably fail NPOV does not justify deleting the entire section. Christian perspective critiques of the Course and Thetford's long term work on CIA mind control programs are not 'speculative' and I'm sure that many people would consider them to be quite relevant. 203.220.104.199 (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This was not censorship. The section is full of non-neutral opinions and irrelevant speculations. Also, links to threads in forums hardly count as reliable sources. Am re-removing until a more neutral version with careful sourcing, no opinions, and relevant material is added.TheRingess (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Also has links to widely distributed and well footnoted journalism articles (Hardy), refs to well known cult busters (Kramer and Alstad), a piece by Thetford's biographer (Jesseph) and other material that is at least as authoritative, relevant and NPOV as any of the rest of the ACIM entry. If you object to the fact that some wanker has inserted his personal opinions into the criticism section, why not edit it out instead of censoring *all* relevant criticism of ACIM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.104.199 (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2009

I did not see any relevant criticism in that section. For example, the relationship between the MKULTRA program and ACIM seems purely speculative. Whether or not the author channeled the material or not, is also irrelevant, relevant is the claim that the material was channeled. That some Christian ministers also object is irrelevant. Ditto the experiences of a few anonymouse members. Better to put back only relevant material in appropriate sections other than a criticism section rather than blindly put material in that violates Wikipedia policies.TheRingess (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That Thetford spent most of his adult career working on CIA mind control projects such as MKULTRA and BLUEBIRD is a well documented fact, as is the fact that he co-directed the still classified MKULTRA Subproject 130 at the same time as the early edition of ACIM was being propagated and the Tiburon community was being set up. As ACIM represents itself as the channeled voice of Jesus Christ, the opinions of practicing Christian ministers would also be relevant information to people wondering whether ACIM is compatible with mainstream Christianity. 203.220.104.200 (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that is a well documented fact, but the relationship between his work there and the course seems at best speculation and at worst innuendo. We need more documentation on how his contribution to the course related to his work with MKULTRA, until then we only seem to have one author's opinion that whatever he contributed was negative. Very pov. Also to include the opinions of certain practicing Christian ministers who feel strongly one way about the course and not include the opinions of other Christian ministers who feel differently (unless we have evidence that all christian ministers feel the same way), is very non-neutral. How the coures might or might not relate to mainstream Christianity is not really a subject for a criticism section, but the subject for a section that deals specifically with that topic. As I said, only including some opinions and not others in a non-scholarly fashion is very pov.TheRingess (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless the CIA opens its files tomorrow I can't imagine what better documentation you could reasonably demand than Jesseph's pro-Thetford biography that details his CIA CV, the unclassified budget line items for Subproject 130, Thetford's own papers on the the PAS of MKULTRA chief psychologist John Gittinger and the structure and form of ACIM itself. And how many other Wikipedia *CRITICISM* sections also demand balancing opinions from those who are pro? Exactly how many Christian priests and ministers opinions do you think need to be included before its no longer POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.104.200 (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You're missing my point regarding Thetford. Until we have detailed documentation that links Thetfords work in the CIA to his contribution to the course, we have only 1 author's opinion. Please see WP:RS. His work with the CIA belongs in his biography, published research on how that work relates to the course belongs here. It doesn't matter what other criticism sections do, they may also be wrong. We don't need opinions, we need scholarly published research that details the relationship between the course and mainstream christianity.TheRingess (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

So doubtless for consistency's sake you will now go and edit the Scientology page. After all, unless there is detailed documentation linking Hubbard's science fiction writing with Scientology it could no more be relevant to mention that than mentioning that one of the founders of ACIM was a professional brainwasher. However you are clearly a fanatic and I don't have the energy to fight edit wars with the likes of you, so I guess your censorship will stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.104.240 (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF.TheRingess (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I entirely concur with the comments made by 203.220.104.240 "That a few sentences of the criticism section arguably fail NPOV does not justify deleting the entire section." and "If you object to the fact that some wanker has inserted his personal opinions into the criticism section, why not edit it out instead of censoring *all* relevant criticism of ACIM?" TheRingess, you are free to flag specific statements with a POV tag, and to flag and later remove unsourced or poorly sourced claims after a reasonable time has elapsed, but simply deleting the entire section is not appropriate, consensus-driven editing. --Wormcast (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I am free according to Wikipedia's policies to delete material that does not meet the pillars of Wikipedia. Believe me, I waited a reasonable amount of time before deleting. Why don't we discuss each item that you feel is relevant here and if it's neutral, properly sourced then we can consider re-adding it (one relevant, reliably sourced item at a time). Why wait? You and I seem to be the only ones that care. Also, the wanker phrase that you copied above, neither reflected nor summarized my stance. Or we can seek a third opinion or we can take it to mediation, etc. You might wish to read WP:AGF before accusing other editors of censorship. Take care.TheRingess (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking back at the history of the article, I see that on 23:53, 25 February 2009 you added a criticism tag to the "Criticism" section. You then proceeded to wait until 00:20, 26 February 2009 before proceeding to delete the entire section. Do you really consider 27 minutes a "reasonable amount of time" to wait before deleting an entire section representing the contributions of many editors? As far as AGF, I began my own assessment of the appropriateness of your deletions by reviewing the rather extensive discussion above, in which you repeatedly refused to acknowledge the (imhpov) reasonable arguments against said deletion by 203.220.104.200. This discussion alone rather calls into question your assertion that "You and I seem to be the only ones that care." --Wormcast (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

All arguments of timeliness aside, I made what I felt (imhpov) were perfectly valid counterarguments to each of the anonymous editors arguments. For my effort to discuss the material and my concerns, I was labeled a "fanatic" and the anonymous editor, rather than read and respond to my valid arguments chose to forgo all discussion. Once again, why wait any longer, why not begin anew a reasonable discussion of the items and add back only those that we can agree are neutral, reliably sourced? Why wait? In other words, in my opinion, the discussion should not be about me or you, but should be about the material.TheRingess (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I propose, I'm going to pull out items that I think don't belong and give my reasons why. I'm going to place them in subsections, with the sentence as the section title. In this manner we can hopefully come to a consensus about each item.TheRingess (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Skeptics contend that the likely source is either a complete fabrication or the result of psychosis

My first reaction when reading that was, so what? This statement would be true of any material that anyone claimed to have channeled. Channeling does not seem to be a phenomenon largely reported on by reputable journals. Nor are "channelers" certified by any board (at least as far as I know). In other words, no organization/magazine, appears to be seriously investigating and debunking or verifying claims of channeling. So the claim of channeling mentioned in the material, remains exactly that a claim. Wikipedia states it as such, for Wikipedia to do anything but, would be a violation of neutrality. So why does this sentence belong under criticism. It could be rewritten to be "There is no proof that the material was channeled." (no proof that it wasn't either, or at least no proof published in a reputable journal). It seems to me to be more of a statement of fact applicable to all claims of channeling than an actual criticism (it makes no mention of the material, just the source). The sentence does seem to allege that the author suffered from psychosis, but that seems to be something that is more appropriately stated in other sentence and backed up by a medical journal that diagnosed the author and then published that diagnosis. The article already links to channeling, so the reader can form any hypothesis they want regarding the possible explanation of the source of the material.TheRingess (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy fanaticists find much to question with the origins of ACIM

Not very neutral here, who are these fanatacists? Why are they fanaticists? Not a very neutral word. What do they question? Why should we care? Is this a criticism or simply a vague statement. Why not expand and add to the history (or origins section). Also, the source given is to an anonymous discussion on a forum. Not a very reliable source. My take, is someone needs to do some serious research here, get more reliable sources and be specific about the concerns before this material is ready for any section.TheRingess (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

CIA material

I'm going to lump a paragraph or two here. The material here is more about the MKULTRA program than it is about the course. There is no detail given as to the extent to which Thetman's involvement with the CIA (real or not) influenced his contributions to the course. It doesn't belong here but either on Thetman's biography or the CIA article. There just seems to be an attempt to create guilt by association here, hardly neutral. Nor do the sources given seem to give any details on Thetman's work and how it influenced the course. The accusation of brainwashing is exactly that, an accusation, an opinion by one person. There does not seem to be any reliable source that supports that allegation. Hence more unreliable, pov material.TheRingess (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Zero context

A visitor to this page would be hard pressed to explain why the subject is notable. There's no context whatsoever! A good two or three paragraphs on its relevance when originally published in the 70s would be great. Shii (tock) 04:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

3rd Opinion

Hi all, I came here from WP:3O. I've had a quick look through the article. I think it needs a lot of work anyway (parts of it read as if taking the author's somewhat offbeat claims at face value), but with respect to the criticism section, I believe it is inappropriate to include in its current form. Standalone criticism sections are discouraged, as they tend to be clothes-pegs for wild, poorly cited and/or POV claims, and trolling in general. That certainly applies to at least parts of the current version of the criticism section. I would suggest it be rewritten with the title of "critical reception", which at least is neutral in tone and implies something more substantial than forum posts as the source. This could include the saner and better referenced of the "criticism", and would also add some idea of the effect this book had when it was released back in the 70's, as discussed by the user above.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion. I've expressed some of my thoughts above and would really like to get a dialog going with the editors who've objected to my removing it as I still have lots of thoughts on whether or not most of the material is actually criticism.TheRingess (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Jesus should not be listed in infobox as "author"

I've just edited the ACIM infobox at the top of the article, which formerly listed the author of ACIM like this: "Jesus - Scribe: Dr. Helen Schucman." I've changed that to simply read "Dr. Helen Schucman." Since I have a feeling this might arouse some controversy, I'll explain my reasoning. I think it highly inappropriate to state in the infobox (where there's no room for explanations or qualifications) that Jesus was the author of ACIM. That, obviously, is a highly subjective/questionable claim and cannot be verified. Furthermore, following Jesus' name with "Scribe: Dr. Helen Schucman" is essentially an endorsement of what ACIM adherents claim about the origin of the ACIM writings; it definitely doesn't reflect a neutral point of view.

Also, "scribe" seems to be a term that's only used by people who are familiar with ACIM (at least, I've never heard anyone else use it that way). It makes sense to use and discuss that term in the article, but it doesn't seem appropriate to just glibly use it in the infobox.

I think most people would agree that the term "author" refers to the person who actually wrote the material down, especially when there is no evidence that anyone else had a hand in it. I understand that many ACIM adherents believe that Jesus was the source of Helen Schucman's writings, but you can't just categorically state this in the infobox. Dr. Schucman is the only known author.

I notice that the Seth Material article lists the author of that material as simply "Jane Roberts," not "Seth - Channeler: Jane Roberts" or anything like that. 75.42.91.141 (talk) 06:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

How the Library of Congress lists the author of ACIM

Can anyone tell me exactly how the Library of Congress lists the author? ThePlanter (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

They list it two different ways that I can find. From my search, they list the bound books without an author. There is also a listing for an earlier Braille edition where they appear to have listed it as "by Foundation for Inner Peace," which now gets listed under "Related Names" on the bound volumes. It appears that no author is their preferred listing. And to TheRingess, fwiw, I admire your staunch evenhandedness in the face of high emotion.PMonaghan (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

J. Gordon Melton and W.J. Hanegraaf

Has anyone read the referenced material regarding ACIM written by these authors? ThePlanter (talk) 06:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Can A Course in Miracles attain featured-article status?

If the answer to this question is yes, then how can this be achieved? If the answer to this question is no, then why not? Finally, what is the purpose of this article? ThePlanter (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

External links section update

It seems to me that the DMOZ link template could use some contextualization. Until I did the followup on the DMOZ project, the link showing on the external links section was somewhat cryptic. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power by Kramer and Alstead

For those editors who care about NPOV, the book above includes a whole chapter on channeling featuring the CIM as exhibit one. These authors make a compelling case that the Course is pure mental programming...that is brainwashing. I hope to see some balance in this article so that gullible people who believe in Wikipedia's editorial 'balance' don't get fooled by such pitiful but popular pablum. 128.111.95.107 (talk) 03:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

So, what is the book actually about?

I read the article and have no idea... --74.138.229.88 (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

:Read the book, find out, and then write a summary for the article.TheRingess (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, why should I expect an encyclopedia article about a book to explain what the book is about? Silly me... --74.138.229.88 (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

:::I think that the section entitled "Principles, themes, philosophy, theology, psychology and mythology" gives a pretty good summary of the main talking points in the book. Perhaps we should simply copy the book in it's entirety into this entry. Maybe that would give a better explanation of what the book is all about. cheers.TheRingess (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That section just comes across as mumbo-jumbo to me. It's also potentially a copyright violation since all of the phrases are apparently copied from the book. Especially for jargon-heavy topics like this book, a fundamental goal of an encyclopedia article is to explain the subject in layman's terms. But look, what is with the snark? If you aren't interested in improving the article why are you even commenting? --74.138.229.88 (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No more snark. My last and only suggestion is to be bold and edit the article. good day!TheRingess (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is a very boring collection of facts

At present this article is little more than a very boring collection of facts about the writing and publication history of the book ~ most of which is not notable or interesting. The article contains NOTHING about the actual ideas contained in the book. This is what the article should principally be about. Afterwriting (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added the "rewrite" tag to the article again as it badly requires being rewritten. Please don't remove it until the article has significantly improved in content and standard. Afterwriting (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

no, the article should not be merely a regurgitation of the content of the book. we are not a third grade book report. we are an encyclopedia. we present what the academic mainstream has found worthy of covering.

if you want a hollywood blockbuster or an Oprah book chat, you will need to go elsewhere. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

And exactly how did I suggest that this article should be "merely a regurgitation of the content of the book"? I did no such thing. So please do not make erroneous and silly comments in such an offensive manner. This is a controversial book and some treatment of the ideas which makes it so controversial is required in an encyclopedia. This should be obvious to you. Afterwriting (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Afterwriting is absolutely correct. I am not sure what argument TRPoD is making, but I am unpersuaded by it. It is false or oddly limited at best to say that we only present "what the academic mainstream has found worthy of covering". The reader who comes to this article today reads a series of judgments telling them what to think, but no actual information to allow them to think for themselves. It strikes me as very uncontroversial to give, per Afterwriting's suggestion, a basic summary of "the actual ideas contained in the book". This will then be consistent with how we treat such subjects universally throughout Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

What Afterwriting said was : "This article is a very boring collection of facts " "The article contains NOTHING about the actual ideas contained in the book. This is what the article should principally be about." (emph added) An encyclopedia article that is boring facts. Imagine that. What it really needs is some explosions and some titties. That will make it not boring. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

And Afterwriting was right in what he said. The article should principally be about the actual ideas in the book. There are many models that can be used to illustrate this point: Dianetics for example, or for something more high-brow, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. I am aware of no valid argument for excluding information informing the reader what ACIM is about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

So, Red Pen, are you "respectfully disagreeing" with all of the previous comments, including the comment by Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia? Scott P. (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic WP:CANVASS effort there Scott, but I think you'll find that Jimbo was only the co-founder. Now how about some suggestions from you along the lines that Jimbo has given? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 07:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey RtD, Jimbo was the chief money-man/ finance-officer, the chief big-idea guy, the personnel manager etc. He was fortunate enough to have found the expertise of Larry Sanger to assist him with editorial work, whom some list as the co-founder. I for one consider the guy in the founder's seat on the Board as the founder. You and all others are free to call him whatever you want.

Regarding the article, similar efforts to hide, delete, or totally "trash" info about the ideas presented in the ACIM book have been attempted with this article in a seemingly endless battle for years. I brought this question to Jimbo because I felt that perhaps a greater clarity of Wikipedia's policies on the question of when to allow the thoughts presented in a book to be accurately voiced in an article about that book, would have been helpful for other similar situations as well. I have no issue with allowing the voice of "criticism" of this thought system to be heard loud and clear in this article, but not if such a "voice" is presented in an "unbalanced" way. Within this article, the "voice of the thought system of ACIM" has the right to, and ought to be, balanced against the "critical voice", allowing the readers (not the editors) to make their own well informed decisions about the material themselves. I'm going to try to figure out if Red-Pen legitimately got his belief that Wikipedia is only supposed to present the "academic mainstream viewpoint" in all instances from some poorly written Wikipedia Policy, or not. If he legitimately got it from poorly written Wikipedia policy, then I'm going to attempt to assist in re-writing that policy so that it might better reflect Jimbo's view as stated here.

So.... back to your question about the article. I'm going to attempt to re-assemble what is left of this poor tattered article after years of relentless attempts to trash the article, like the one just experienced. I happen to hold a full time job elsewhere, so I may not have as much time as yourself to immediately "hop-to-it" as you seem to be hoping. If anyone might have any "objections" to my intended course of action, please let me know here on this talk page in the next couple of days, or I will assume that you don't. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, while the article currently is not great shape, and I never said it was, it is lightyears better than the version before i started where the article actually insinuate that the book was written by jesus and was all "sourced" to ACIM promoters. we are NOT going back there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo, the article should state (with attribution) what the basic ACIM claims are, i.e. ACIM claims that..., according to ACIM... and so on. It is like neutrally describing Christianity, not as the godly truth, but stating that most Christians believe in the resurrection of Jesus, in the Trinity and such, in order that the readers of the article understand what Christians believe. At least the Flat Earth article does say what the basic claims of Flat Earth supporters are, who claimed what, when and where. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• I wish to weigh in as well here with unequivocal agreement as to the content of the book being outlined herein. The essential premise is that our world is not real, akin to a dream from which we must awaken to rejoin the one from which we came, and that the focus point to achieve this awakening (like taking the red pill in the Matrix) is faith in Jesus. This thusly moves Christianity in a much more cybernetic/pandeistic direction. DeistCosmos (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
• here's one.

thanks for the link, but i am not really seeing anything in the book that is not already covered in the article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

E.g. we could say what ACIM means by "miracle", it redefines the term in a quite odd way, it is not teaching stage magic. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's some possibilities:

According to source: "ACIM is Christianity improved: Jesus wants less suffering, sacrifice, separation, and sacrament. He also wants more love and forgiveness."

According to source: ACIM is "the most complete presentation of New Thought metaphysics," which says in summary: “Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists. Herein lies the peace of God.” Further according to source, "the miracle image is used as the basic metaphor--the miracle being understood as an example of correct thinking which attunes an individual's perception to the Truth."

Blessings! DeistCosmos (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Synopsis requested

Please, could someone provide a summary of the main thoughts expressed in the book, as suggested above. I created a section for it at A Course in Miracles#Content of A Course in Miracles, but as I haven't read the book (yet), I can't be of much help there. I'm sure readers like Jimbo and myself would like some more comprehehensive info on what the book is about, and not only its publication & reception history. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I had never heard of the book before, and I'd really like to know more about it. Our article in its current state falls far short of being an encyclopedia article as it is missing fairly basic but crucial information.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Here are websites summarizing the points and ideas of it :

• http://www.circleofa.org/library/articles/sixteen-point-summary/
• http://acimexplained.com/a-summary-of-a-course-in-miracles/
• http://www.thecourse.org.uk/sum.html

ACIM is generally panendeistic (intersection of Panentheism/Pandeism) -- in effect God becomes the world (which, really, is just an illusion all in the mind of God), and gives us a symbolic key 'Jesus' to guide those who wish to escape the materialistic illusion and return to the spiritual reality. In ACIM afiak the only such key discussed is Jesus, which is at the same time all of us collectively. Miracles are simply moments of realization of our illusoriness. Interestingly, one thing which the Course does not explain (essentially writing off as unknowable) is why this illusion of separateness from God came to be in the first place. Vedanta and Pandeism would suggest that this was a decision on the part of the creating God, purposed to create an entertaining or educational experience. ACIM characterizes it as a moment of ego-madness on the part of the Creation, but which is in turn simply one part of God's mind. DeistCosmos (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC) ACIM is a pure non-dualism, comparable perhaps to [Advaita Vedanta], but it goes one step further in that, whereas in Advaita the original moment still is thought to have an objective cause (one such explanation being that the universe-Maya- is Brahman playing a game), in the Course the original moment is designated as a "tiny, mad idea" (ACIM:T-27.VIII.6:2), and everything else a dream resulting from taking that tiny mad idea seriously. It should be noted that any thought system that would provide an external cause for the world, inevitably accords the world, the cosmos, the universe a level of reality that it does not have in the view of A Course in Miracles. The Course is certainly not 'panendeistic,' for that statement would accord way too much reality to the physical world. To the Course everything happens in the mind, and the world is a dream-reality which is designed to replace and deny who and what we really are as a part of the mind of God, in a state of complete and utter oneness. What makes the Course unique is that it does not lose itself in abstract philosophical speculation, even though the metaphysics are quite profound and well developed. Instead, the Course is geared to being a practical guide for its readers to return to the reality of what they really are and not get wrapped up in their stage identities in Shakespeare's sense, of "all the world's a dream, and all the men and women merely players." The path it represents is an undoing of identification with the body and the world, and a return to our reality in the mind. Rogier van Vlissingen 12:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vliscony (talk • contribs)

NPOV issues

The "Contents" section presents WP:FRINGE claims as if they were factual, instead of merely being claims made by the authors of the book. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Two more websites for explanation of ACIM

Hello, My first 'talk page' post on any subject. I have been studying and practicing the teachings of ACIM since 2006. However, as with everyone's experience and knowledge, the influences to my understanding and practice of the principles of ACIM and non-duality are innumerable. I will offer what help I can. To that end, I offer 2 more links that provide an explanation and the purpose for ACIM. www.acim.org and www.facim.org. www.acim.org is the website maintained by Judith Skutch Whitson who published ACIM in 1975 (http://www.acim.org/AboutFIP/index.html). acim.org is copyright holder of ACIM. The facim.org website was created by Ken and Gloria Wapnick (http://www.acim.org/AboutFIP/index.html) EAJG (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)EAJG

Sorry, but we are not a link farm and so they are inappropriate per WP:EL, and they also fail under our sourcing requirements of WP:RS. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Apologies. I saw the three links above: 'Here are websites summarizing the points and ideas of it:' and assumed that it was ok. Besides the two websites I referenced were created and maintained by people involved with the original editing (Ken Wapnick) and initial publication. acim.org is responsible for publishing translations from English. It's obvious from reading all accounts about Wapnick, he was very close friends with Schuchman and Thetford. EAJG (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The mind boggles as I read all this. Unclear to me how you could do this article without reference to the sites that represent the original material, but includes other sites that may or may not accurately reflect the material. It seems to me that a reference to acim.org and facim.org is more relevant than the second-order references that are provided now, in sofar as they represent the original publisher, and the principal teaching organization, the founder of which (Ken Wapnick) assisted Helen and Bill in preparing the book for publication originally. As relates to the facts of the how the book came to be the most important reference material is absent, being both a biography of Helen Schucman, and a history of the genesis of the book itself: Rogier van Vlissingen 10:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vliscony (talk • contribs)

The mind boggles at the thought that we would use fringe, primary sources as the main pool of sources for the article. We present the mainstream academic view of the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

But perhaps the best thing to do, after all, would be to abandon reliance on website altogether and find what books have been penned (and published by big houses) on the subject. Pandeist (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

References

dropped references?

Hello, user:Nikkimaria. In your edit notes, you mention only "org," but the history shows a diminution of 887 characters. The newly named "References" section is missing the following references.

• A Course in Miracles- Original Edition (CIMS Edition, 2006, based on the HLC rough draft). ISBN 978-09764200-7-1
• A Course in Miracles- Sparkly Edition (DCVP Edition, 2005, based on various rough drafts). Sparkly Edition
• A Course in Miracles- Urtext Manuscripts (2009, based on various rough drafts). ISBN 978-0-981-69845-8.
• A Course in Miracles The Movie. (2010) Featuring Kenneth Wapnick, Gary Renard, Jon Mundy, etc. UPC 729440700065.
• The Gifts of God. By Schucman, Helen (1989). Published by Celestial Arts. ISBN 0-89087-585-5. Contains 114 poems that share the spiritual content of the Course as well as the prose poem "The Gifts of God," which summarizes the teachings of the Course.

I am no expert on this subject, but it seems this edit removes the pivotal works for which the subject is notable. Was this intended? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes - I thought it would be helpful to include a Further reading section listing relevant works for readers who want more information, but these don't fit. The first four you mention could potentially be covered in a Publication history section if you feel this is necessary, but it's not typical to include citations to multiple editions without more explanation - the initial publication details are included in the infobox. The final one is poetry (which is typically not included in Further reading), and I don't see any indication of the notability of this particular derivative - do you have any sources to indicate its significance? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

None at all. As I said, I am no expert. I hit this page by accident a while ago, made grammar corrections, and it wound up on my watch list. I got curious because so much text had been removed, so I checked for vandalism. It's all cool. Thanks. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Chart illustrating metaphysics of ACIM

Is it acceptable to include a one page chart in this article that illustrates the metaphysical concepts of ACIM developed and copyrighted by www.facim.org? It's used as a teaching aid by the staff of the Institute for Teaching Inner Peace through ACIM Teaching Center (Temecula, CA).--EAJG (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)EAJG

No. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 12:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Wapnick quote

The alleged quote from Kenneth Wapnick about the course being viewed through literal christian teaching, as referenced by reference 16, is not credible at all. This comes from a now out of print magazine/journal. This was a publication of 3 or 4 ghostwriters who would use pseudonyms to write article after article attacking anything "new age" related they could find. This was not from an interview or anything of the sort. This quote is dubious to say the least. It is copied and repeated all over the internet. Each instance of this references only that baseless source, coming from a out of print anti-new age magazine from the 90s. It needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.248.162.150 (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

A magazine does not need to remain in print to be a reliably published source. Anonymous or pseudononymous writers under the auspices of a reliable publisher are still reliable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)