Talk:A Course in Miracles/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Archive 6: Sept 7, 2006 - Nov 17, 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 13, 2006
• Archive 4: July 13, 2006- July 24, 2006
• Archive 5: July 24, 2006- Sept 7, 2006
• Archive 5.1: July 24, 2006 - Sept 9, 2006 (POV fork overlap article archive)

---

empty section stubs

so how long must those empty sections sit there with the ugly stub tags? Not a dog 04:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the stub tags are cute. I am not aware that they violate WP policy. They are sections that should be expanded. I suggest leaving them until someone wants to add material.—Who123 16:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

have to agree with not a dog. they detract from the aesthetic quality of the article for no good reason... taking them out. Zghost 08:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Methodology

This section was written to explain the Course's use of language. It was not written to describe the entire methodology of ACIM. Using the title "Methodology" is not accurate.—Who123 12:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to the GtL, maybe when you have some other methods described you can carve it into sections. Btw, why do you keep adding that trivia about the copyright stuff into the topic paragraph? It's off topic since the article isn't about copyrights and stuff but about the Course in Miracles. I mean, who cares? It's trivial and digresses the paragraph. Zghost 12:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"The use of language" is semantics. So, maybe methodology is too broad, but that's too wordy, so, how about a compromise: "Semantics". Zghost 12:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed it, but looking at it compared to the text, maybe Semantic method would be better. I'll leave that up to you. Zghost 13:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason I think that the title "methodology" is inaccurate is that it is too broad. What is being desrcibed is how ACIM uses language. As this is the only aspect of the methodology described thus far the title is misleading as it suggests that this is the entire methodology. Perhaps semantics would be best. It would be helpful if the use of male nouns and pronouns could be discussed here as this is a point of confusion.—Who123 12:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

He calls it "astonishing if not irritating or laughable"

In regard to the comments in the edit summary at Link.. "Who123 (→Criticism - This was an accurate quote. I question the validity of this source as this is mainly his personal opinion that does not appear well informed or well written.).. Criticism is always a personal opinion. The task of the project is to provide the information for the reader, not to interpret it. If you don't agree with the guy's opinion, then that just makes it all the more reason why it's a good inclusion in the criticism section, IMHO. Zghost 15:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I may have missed the quote but this is the quote I was referring to:

"Almost as irritating, or in accordance with personal mentality as laughable, may come across the fact that, for example God as source of love and the Holy Spirit are referred to as being male."

This may be laughable to him but then so would be Christianity or any other spiritual/religious work that uses male or female nouns or pronouns. It is my belief that this reflects the limitations of the English language rather than God being male. The Course describes our true identity as spirit rather than bodies. Sexual terms refer to bodies. In the English language male terms may enclude everyone such as "mankind" as opposed to "womenkind".—Who123 11:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. It doesn't matter if you agree with the opinion or not. If you'd like your own opinion inserted in the article then you should go publish a book or something and then come back and put it in as a reference. Zghost 13:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a mis-quote. The example of ACIM being laughable is that it uses male nouns and pronouns.—Who123 12:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion:
Without access to the source, I can't verify the accuracy of the quote, but while both of you should calm down, I agree mostly with Who123. If the text quoted by him is correct, then the quote deleted was a minor misquote. More appropriate would have been to correct it. I agree with Zghost on this: whether you disagree with the criticism isn't the point. If you think it's being given undue weight, the argue for its deletion on that, or delete it with that comment. If the reason is misquoting, then correct it. jesup 03:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It does not seem reasonable to include a criticism that finds a religious work laughable because it uses male nouns and pronouns to refer to God. It is not saying God is male; it is a limitation of the English language. This person would then find laughable any religious work doing this including all of Christianity and other major religions. The source is an online source and is available.—Who123 12:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion: I've now read the quote (thought it was a book reference). The quote was accurate: "Meanwhile another important question demands to be answered: Why pay attention to a book that comes across as astonishing if not irritating or laughable? Why waste our energy on a movement of students that people with ‘common sense’ regard a movement of other-worldly people?" And this is a criticism of the entire book, not the side reference to the use of male pronouns. There was previous characterization as "laughable" the fact that the 'Voice' is Christ. The male pronoun remark is in an inner paragraph, with the text "Almost as irritating, or in accordance with personal mentality as laughable, may come across the fact that, for example God as source of love and the Holy Spirit are referred to as being male.". So I would now say a) the quote was in fact an accurate quote, and b) the quote does reflect the overall opinion of the critic of the work, and c) I don't see that that critic put much weight into the male pronoun argument, since they followed it immediately with "But it is especially all the seemingly christian concepts, because next to the central concept of forgiveness, the text is teeming with concepts like sins reconciliation, redemption, Holy Spirit, The Kingdom of God, Heaven and sin." Also, the writer is not a native English speaker. So overall, on this issue, I'd say I agree with Zghost. Also, as per before, if your argument is with the quality of the criticism or that it's non-notable, make that argument here. Having read it, I think it's totally appropriate to have this link in a criticism section. Details of what text should be quoted or how the criticism is characterized can be argued, but the male pronoun argument is not a strong one.

I'm also astonished by the number of edits on this page. Guys, slow down, if you're doing extensive rework discuss it first, maybe even float some proposals. There were so many edits I got lost trying to find the edits this controvery started about. jesup 13:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not opposed to including the reference. My main concern is that a certain amount of sensitivity and respect for each others religious beliefs be maintained on WP. Some might find the idea that Jesus rose from the dead or that God dictated the Koran to Muhammad laughable. Some might find atheists (those who believe God does not exist) are as laughable as theists. I do not think this is suitable for a WP article. In addition, pointing out that the author of the article was bewildered is simply saying that he does not understand the material.—Who123 16:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

(Resetting indent level) Ok, so the proposal on the table is to delete the astonishing...laughable quote based on POV reasoning. I.e. including the quote doesn't add to a neutral article. I can see that; the wording is mildly inflammatory. Summarizing the criticism (in a NPOV manner) is reasonable in a section on criticism. The current 1-sentence (or so) summaries could be expanded, though it would probably be better to write an overall cohesive paragraph or two on criticism with <ref>'s rather than a series of links and short summaries. "Wikipedia is not a link farm". Comments on this proposal, then? Proposal: leave that quotation out. Alternatively either replace it with a better textual summary or better quote (propose one here), or take a shot at rewriting the entire criticism section as a section instead of a listing of links. jesup 17:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying is that POV opinions that are derogatory (especially in sensitive areas like someone's religious beliefs) do not belong on WP. I think the references are fine. I think the other criticisms are reasonable. Perhaps this author's criticisms to ACIM could be summed up without his personal POV about it being astonishing...laughable or him being bored or bewildered by it? What is his rational criticism?—Who123 13:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Legal aspects

Copied from the section above: "Btw, why do you keep adding that trivia about the copyright stuff into the topic paragraph? It's off topic since the article isn't about copyrights and stuff but about the Course in Miracles. I mean, who cares? It's trivial and digresses the paragraph."

The legal stuff is not trivia. After the death of Bill and Helen the now invalid copyright was used to stifle Course discussion though lawsuits and threatened lawsuits. Authors could not publish their works as they first had to be approved. Even fair use was not allowed through the intimidation of lawsuits. Discussion groups could not use "A Course in Miracles" or "ACIM". Much of the Course discussion over the past number of years has involved this oppression and the lawsuit. It is important for readers to know that it is OK to use "A Course in Miracles" and "ACIM".—Who123 12:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

well, thats all covered in the sentence above that says the copyright was voided. The details are trivial. The court said it was void, and thats that. The other thing you didn't answer was where you cited that info from. The reference only has one sentence on the end that says the judge ordered it void. The article can't have more in it than the references support. When you can answer that question and explain how/why the trivial details of how a copyright is voided is important to the average Joe Q. Public, let us all know. Is it real important to you for some reason? Zghost 12:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Not every sentence needs a cite. One can simply look it up on-line at the US Trademarks site. This additional material does not discuss the copyright but the service-mark and trademark. It is not trivial to inform the public that they, as well as the copyright, have been voided.—Who123 12:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like you are disagreeing with yourself. Let me repeat what you just said and point out the heart of the matter by replacing one word: It is trivial to inform the public that they, as well as the copyright, have been voided if one can simply look it up on-line at the US Trademarks site. Let me explain that a little better... the only people that would care about such details are people that are trying to register a new copyright or their lawyers. The project goal is to create an encyclopedia. It's not to keep track of redundant trivia that only special groups of people are extremely interested in. The information itself does not support the article in any manner. There aren't any sentences that leave questions in the mind that this information answers. The flow of the intro paragraph in centered on the Course, the texts. As a topic, the Course is the theme in all of the sentences in that paragraph. The digression I was speaking of occurs when that theme changes from "What is the Course" to "How exactly was the copyright on the Course voided". And the manner in which the copyright was voided is *not* atypical in any respect. For example, the Queen of England didn't issue an edict, no buildings were torn down trying to find the filing cabinet, and Hurricane Katrina wasn't blamed on being an act of God in retribution for the voiding of this copyright. Its trivial. It wasn't the first copyright to ever be voided, and it certainly won't be the last. So, I repeat my question to you...

Is it real important to you for some reason? Zghost 13:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The information is not about how the copyright was voided. It is about the service-mark and trademark. It is important to anyone who wishes to use "A Course in Miracles" or "ACIM". If they were not voided this article could not be titled "A Course in Miracles" and "ACIM" could not be used in the article.—Who123 13:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Order of importance?

Regarding the edit here Link with the comment in the summary "Organized by importance" ... Importance according to who? Alphabatizing the order is pretty standard and NPOV. Ordering a list in your own order of importance is by definition inserting your own POV into the article. Wiki articles need to strive for NPOV, not the contrary. Zghost 13:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

More POV??

Regarding the edit at Link with the comment in the edit summary "clarify" ... That is not a clarification. Before your edit, the sentence stated a simple neutral fact. After your edit, your own POV considered the fact to be criticism and the sentence now leans toward your POV. If you are trying to beef up the criticism section, it would be a better idea to find some more books/articles to reference than to insert your own POV. Zghost 13:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a critical remark. You moved it from the criticism section where it belongs.—Who123 12:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Owning the article?

One should not attempt to own an article.—Who123 13:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Looking at your project wide contributions you might want to consider working on something else besides this article. I noticed that you intend to start an edit war instead of resolving matters in discussion. Zghost 13:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a controversial article. There have been multiple edit wars. I did not start them. You have made hundreds of edits in the past few weeks without discussion on the Talk page. Although I do not agree with all of them, I did not act on them. I made several recent edits and you reverted them. I was the one that brought several issues to the talk page. You appear to wish to own this article and make it exactly as you wish it. I am all for discussion.—Who123 13:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a threat. Here's a little advice: articles are not controversial; people are. Seriously dude, chill out and check out this page. Zghost 13:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What sounds like a threat to you? None was intended. I am simply suggesting that you allow others to edit articles and not try to own them. Please do not call me "dude".—Who123 15:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I read nothing above that looks like a threat. HighInBC 17:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Reads to me like he is threatening to do more of the same "multiple edit wars" of the past citing my "hundreds" of edits... "I did not act on them, [but I can and will]". About the discussion, he still hasn't answered my questions, (nor Not a Dogs from earlier), but went ahead and put his POV back into the article, regardless. Owning an article? Yeah, he's made it pretty clear that this one article is more important to him than the project as a whole. Count me out. You can bicker with him if you want to. I've got better things to do with my time. Zghost 01:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

(Usually) no need to get into an edit war if your information is the more accurate, and you have the time and patience to lay it out as such. Unfortunately, you are correct that sometimes this takes much time and effort for such a careful presentation of such information, but ultimately, with enough time and patience, it seems to usually work.

-Scott P. 02:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion:Both of you are guilty here. Zghost is guilty for wholesale-reverting who123's edits. Remember: assume good faith, and even if you disagree with edits, prefer to make them better or retain good parts of them over wholesale reverts. Who123 is guilty for escalating that into an edit war and implying that he might retaliate. My suggestion: try to work together, and avoid mass-reverts. jesup 03:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not imply that I was going to start an edit war and did not start one. I was simply pointing out that Zghost has made hundreds of edits in the past few weeks and had reverted the few that I had made. To me, this was simply pointing out Zghost's desire to own the article. I think people should work together rather than edit war.—Who123 12:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Who123, I thank you for attempting to dialogue here first before simply deleting material. If I might ask, exactly what edits do you feel could be done better? Exactly how do you feel that they might be improved?

In my estimation, it is usually easier to first get right to the point and to discuss specifically how one feels the article might best be improved, or made more accurate than to do anything else first. For example, it seems that if someone else may have inadvertently inserted inaccurate information, it would be easier to first state here exactly what information you feel is more accurate and why, than to simply tell the other that you feel their information is inaccurate. For me, the first type of approach has sometimes seemed to keep the discussion more civil and informative for all, whereas the second type of approach has tended to usually end up in bad feelings and "edit-war" type of behavior. I am glad that you have started this dialogue thread here and that you are obviously trying to work this out here on the discussion page first.

-Scott P. 13:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scott. I agree that any editing that causes controversy should be brought to the Talk page. This is the approach I have taken all along. If there is a specific area of controversy then let's bring it to the talk page for discussion with a short specific title. Working on WP should be a pleasant and rewarding experience. As this article has been so controversial for so long I think the tag on this Talk page should remain for now.—Who123 13:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigh..... I had hoped that the tone of "dispute" and "heated debate" might have been gone beyond here by now. This talk page was generally an area of consensus for years up until last July when I got married and didn't have the time to attend to it and others started arguing and having edit-wars here. I still very much hope that a tone of civility and consensus might be able to return to this page at some time in the very near future so that those sad tags could soon be removed by a consensus of the current editors. I hope to be able to devote more of my time to this article over the next few months.

-Scott P. 14:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scott. I understand your disappointment and frustration. I used to check on this article from time to time and it remained mainly unchanged. I dropped in when this all started when one editor (now banned) seemed to be on a quest to delete all ACIM related articles. You left for your wedding (hope all is great) and I was left as the only one trying to keep the article from being destroyed. I think the article as is, is fairly good. I think it could use some expansion in regards to more detail on its theology and how it uses psychology & relationships in its spiritual path. I think at this point there can no longer be OR or uncited material.—Who123 16:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The best article is the most accurate one. The best editor is the most accurate editor. Ideally, all of Wiki is simply owned by the principle of accuracy. It seems to me that it is only when inaccuracy begins to creep into an article that the contents of an article begin to seem "threatanable". That and fifty cents for a cup of coffee.... -Scott P. 19:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Reinsertion of image and more

For unknown reasons, the image of the most widely circulated edition of ACIM was removed from this article, I have re-inserted it and also rearranged and rewritten a bit of it in an effort to add to the informativeness, readability and accuracy of the article. Any comments would be most welcome.

Thanks,

-Scott P. 19:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scott, I added the important legal information that was left out (in a shortened fashion). The FIP edition is not the only written version currently in print in English. Thanks.—Who123 13:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleting references to the FIP edition of ACIM

Hey Who123, It appears to me that information about the only widely distributed print edition of ACIM is noteworthy information and enhances the accuracy of our article. Why did you delete this information from the article? Certainly the other editions bear noting here too, but I cannot see why you seem to prefer to delete this informaion about the only edition available via traditional book distribution channels such as bookstores and Amazon.com, and that most Course students are the most familiar with while apparently wanting to highlight only informaion about the far more obscure print versions which I believe are only partial (excluding the workbook) and are only available via private offerings outside of traditional book distribution channels. Could you please explain what your logic is here so we might be able to better justify your deletion of this information?

What other regular full print editions are available via traditional book distribution channels that I am unaware of? I would imagine that Endeavor Academy may have some obscure print offering that is not available via traditional book distribution channels and is not ISBN listed, but I don't see why such a private offering should take priority here over the FIP edition that is now in print and has sold 1.5 million, and is available in most bookstores? Could you please explain youre deletion and your logic here more fully?  (The comments, observations and/ or pertinent supporting facts of other editors would be most appreciated here too.)

-Scott P. 13:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scott. My main intention in my recent edit was to add fair and unbiased information about the major versions and legal information. I believe that all of the major versions are all included equally. We do not need to add bias to the FIP 2nd Edition do we?—Who123 16:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Who123, I inquired as to you why you deleted the FIP edition publication information and you replied that you were intending to 'add information'. I am not certain I understand you here. You stated that 'The FIP edition is not the only written version currently in print in English.' yet when I asked you, "Which other editions are in print and distributed through the normal system of publishers and bookstores?' you have not yet answered.

To the best of my knowledge, the FIP edition is the only in-print edition that:

Is distributed through the standard network of publishers and bookstores. Has sold 1.5 million copies. Is regestered with the library of congress. Has an ISBN number assigned to it. Is available at most bookstores. Is widely accepted by most ACIM students as The ACIM' version, not simply An ACIM' version.

Please forgive me but it seems to me that you may be attempting here to promote these rather obscure recently discovered (in the 90's) draft versions as promoted by Endeavor Academy by your logic and actions here. Am I mistaken?

Thanks,

-Scott P. 19:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scott. I am not associated with EA. I am not trying to promote any specific version. I think including all the extra information about the FIP version biases the article by promoting that version. I am sorry for the confusion but the information added was on the servicemark and trademark, not on the versions. I believe that 'The FIP edition is not the only written version currently in print in English.' is true. I am not sure what "normal" system of publishers and bookstores is any longer. I buy a lot of stuff online and what used to be "normal" no longer is. Thanks.—Who123 13:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think most editors here would still agree that unregistered vanity publications and such are still not on a par with duly published, registered and circulated books. Written drafts, which could be a handwritten highschool term paper for all we know, do not normally carry the same editorial significance as duly published books. I am not certain why you seem to think otherwise.

-Scott P. 14:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The earlier versions are not "vanity publications". I do not think the Urtext or the HLC should be placed on a par with "a handwritten highschool term paper". I am not giving my POV that one version is more special than another. I am just in favor of a NPOV. Thanks.—Who123 14:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Urtext is a handwritten and partially typed draft that was never properly published. Drafts and duly published works are not normally treated as being on the same par in most scholarly works as far as I know. Why do you wish to portray a handwritten draft as being no different than an in-print literary work? The self-printed work put out by EA, that as far as I know is printed on their mimeograph machine, is not carried or "in-print" anywhere else. It also does not carry significant parts such as the Clarification of Terms. Neither does this self-printed work carry an ISBN in as far as I know. Why do you feel that we should not mention these sorts of things in the article? I think the readership is capable of interpreting this publication information on its own without it having to be censored, don't you?

-Scott P. 15:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of terminology: "edition" vs "draft" vs "version"

It seems to me that we may be suffering here from a certain unclarity in the specific usage of the word "edition" in this article. Normally, in the book publishing world, the word "edition" refers to an ISBN registered, book-store carried, print release. Vanity publications and other publications that are not ISBN registered and are not carried by bookstores are usually not included under this definition as used in the publishing world. It seems to me that these unregistered, private promotional drafts of ACIM that are carried primarily by Endeavor Academy and by Tom Whitmore, and by nobody else that I know of, should properly be referred to only as earlier drafts of ACIM, and not as bonafide "editions", until after they have successfully passed through the same process that all other "published books" normally pass through before they are properly referred to here as truly "published books".

It seems to me that by attempting to represent these drafts as if they were on a full par with an actually "published" book that is properly registered, and truly distributed does a great disservice to confuse the readership and to mislead them into believing that what really amounts to obscure early drafts of ACIM that are being promoted by Endeavor Academy are no different from what most folks would consider to be the only actually in-print "published" edition of ACIM. This seems to me as if it may be an attempt by some folks who may be associated with EA to use Wikipedia to promote their own narrow interests as against the interests of the Wikipedia readership which is to simply find out the facts of the full, duly "published" edition as they are.

Additional comments welcomed here....

-Scott P. 23:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scott. First, I am not associated with EA. I think the term that is commonly used is "version". There are multiple versions both online and written. The only time "edition" is used (I think) is to refer to the FIP editions.—Who123 13:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for finally acknowledging the difference here. Can I assume by your acknowledgement of this then, that you would agree with me that the rather obscure pre-publication drafts of the FIP edition that EA is promoting are far less culturally significant than the FIP edition? You see, the FIP edition is the edition on whose coat-tails EA is riding, in trying to promote these rather obscure pre-publication drafts that they have uncovered.

It seems to me that this article is not well served by your deletion of a well documented acknowledgement that the FIP edition is by far and away the best known, most widely circulated, and only truly print-published edition. If you are a student of ACIM, I am rather surprised that you seem to be unaware of this fact and that you seem to be trying to delete it from this article. I have been a student of ACIM for the last 17 years, and have participated in ACIM study groups from Florida to Michigan to New York to California. If you are not at all associated with EA, your actions seem amazingly aligned with their agenda of promoting these early drafts. Can you please explain?

Thanks,

-Scott P. 13:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the FIP first and second editions may have been the most that were printed in the past but I do not have a citation to document this and I do not think it is pertinent to this article. The world is different today and more people may read various online versions now; I do not know and I do not think it can be known. To add additional material to make the 2nd FIP edition special is to promote it. It is not unbiased. It seems that the article should mention the various major versions equally. Once again, I am not associated with EA. I believe that they have their own version that they are promoting and selling. I do not know which of the primary versions it is based on. I have not seen it. All I am doing is trying to comply with the WP policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thanks.—Who123 14:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to the citations that you deleted from the article for this information. Again, you have mentioned that you are familiar with the material, yet you appear not to be aware of the fact that the FIP edition is the only commercially and regularly distributed edition of this work, and you have for unknown reasons deleted this information from the article. Why do you insist on deleting out such information and trying to imply that there is no difference between the only commercially available print edition and a self-printed unregistered short-run exclusively offered by Endeavor Academy? Please forgive me but I am growing a bit tired of your strange line of reasoning which you do not seem to be able to justify here. Why do you seem to be so vigorously promoting an abridged and unregistered self-printed work? Please explain.

-Scott P. 15:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel that I am just repeating myself. Once again, I have no connection with EA and I am not promoting their version. It is not even mentioned in the article. I am simply advocating that the article mention the primary versions in an unbiased way without promoting any particular version.—Who123 17:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Who 123,

I propose a compromise, the article could read:

The 1st and 2nd edition as published by the FIP have sold over 1.5 million copies. Two small private printers privately offer print-editions of earlier versions of ACIM, namely Endeavor Academy which offers a reworked version of FIP's first edition (this version omits the "Clarification of Terms" section), and the 'Course in Miracles Society' which also offers a limited print-edition of the earlier Hugh Lyn Cayce edition (which omits both the Clarification of Terms section and the Workbook section). Additionally, the earliest known publicly available draft version of the book, the Urtext version is available online at the Miraclevision.com site. An online copy of the second edition is also available at the Miraclevision.com search site.

Thanks,

-Scott P. 18:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge

The article Miracle Impulse is little more than a dictionary definition, and should be merged to A Course in Miracles. Not a dog 10:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should just be removed?—Who123 11:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• I learned of miracle impulses through A Course In Miracles but I believe there are other sources for the idea as well. Just as confession, absolution, crucifixion and other aspects of topics of a spiritual nature are not merged into specific religions, it seemed that the topic of miracle impulses could stand on it's own. The article will be expanded with context added, and it is my hope that other editors will help expand the article as well. Miracleimpulse 13:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If there are enough terms like this they might be combined into one article, something like "Concepts of A Course in Miracle". -Will Beback 17:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

One other term that comes to mind is holy instant. But although miracle impulses and the holy instant are talked about in the course, they do not originate there. Both could have their own article linked to A Course in Miracles, in my opinion. Miracleimpulse 10:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

ACIM versions

Dear Who123,

I wish I could better understand why you seem to me to have some sort of negative feelings about the FIP editions of ACIM, yet I do believe you when you explain that you are not associated with EA. If someone somehow came across an early draft of a Shakespear play, then wrote an article about Shakespear in which the early draft and the final work were treated as if there were no difference and essentially equal in quality and cultural impact, don't you think that that author would be doing his readers a disservice? I just cannot get my mind around why you seem to feel that the 2nd FIP edition and these early drafts ought to be treated similarly. I know that Robert Perry has expressed some personal reservations about Ken Wapnick's editorial abilities. Could this have anything to do with your views re the relationship between the FIP editions and the earlier drafts?

I honestly do feel that unless the article clearly acknowledges the fact that the FIP editions have always been by far the most widely distributed version of the Course and as such are considered by the great majority of ACIM students to be the 'standard' editions, that unless this information is clearly and prominently incorporated into the article, then we will be doing a grave disservice to those who might be wanting to know more about ACIM. This seems to me that it would be like telling first year freshman english students that they should consider first reading early Shakespear drafts before they begin studying his finished works.

Perhaps you are of the same mind as Robert Perry, but the fact that 1.5 million readers have voted with their wallets to support the FIP editions and not any other, seems to me to be proof enough that the FIP editions do stand out far above any of the earlier drafts. Still I wouldn't mind hearing why you feel otherwise.

Thanks,

-Scott P. 02:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
(The above was transferred from my Talk page) —Who123 11:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scott. It seems that we should be able to sort this out. I am not associated with any faction regarding ACIM including Robert Perry. I do not have negative feelings of the FIP editions. I have both the first and second editions. I think all three of the primary versions have advantages and disadvantages. I agree with you in that I believe there have been more FIP versions sold than any other, although we would need a cite for this to include it in the article. I do not know which versions people are most likely to get now as the earlier versions are now available to be downloaded for free. I suppose more material could be added to explain the advantages and disadvantages of the versions. This may be beyond the scope of the article and it would all have to be cited.

I think the Bible would be a better analogy than the Shakespeare analogy. I think many people would find it very exciting to find the earliest writings that formed the Bible. 1.5 million readers did not vote with their wallets because there was no choice before and so no vote. Now people have that choice. Some seem to prefer one version over another. Where I am coming from is WP's NPOV policy. Now that various versions are available, I do not think the article should be biased in directing the reader to one version over another. Does this make sense?—Who123 11:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Who123,

I like your Bible analogy, but along that same line, consider the need in a Wikipedia article to clarify the relationships between say the KJV Bible and the sections of the Bible found in the 'Dead Sea Scrolls'. If we were to posit that these two versions of the Bible need to be treated in Wiki as if there were absolutely no difference, this would seem to me to possibly do a disservice to the readership.

Also it seems to me that there is a significant difference between ACIM and the Bible. All earlier drafts of ACIM are simply that, earlier drafts that were all agreed upon by the same group of editors, namely Helen, Bill and Ken. This is not so with the Bible. The Bible has had numerous undocumented edits by numerous unknown hands.

It seems to me that to claim that: the earlier drafts of a published book, that the editor/authors never chose or agreed to publish, are somehow fundamentally equal to the finished version that they finally chose to relaease for a successful publication, would need a good unbiased supporting citation documenting this claim of fundamental equality. Either this, or in Wiki we would now need to start treating all early drafts of all published books as if there were no fundamental differences between these and the finished publications. Could you be dissatisfied with the editorial process that Helen, Bill and Ken all agreed upon and could you then be attempting to express your dissatisfactions with their editorial process here?

-Scott P. 12:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note...

I've not been by here for a while and have only just read the changes made by several editors in the last couple of months. Well done! The article is vastly better than it was. Kudos to all for some very hard work, especially in finding sources of critique and evaluation independent of the promoters. Guy 10:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Eastern concept of 'Enlightenment' vs: the goal of ACIM

I have removed R. Perry's claim that the goals of ACIM are identical with the Eastern goal of 'Enlightenment'. Perry does not appear to understand that ACIM's goal is not purely internal, but also includes the need for one's ability to master 'forgiveness' which could be viewed as somewhat external. Eastern enlightenment is typically viewed as an individual and internal accomplishment whereas the teaching goal of ACIM also stresses the importance of also achieving a certain harmony with one's brother through 'forgiveness'. This distinct element is essentially absent from most Eastern views of 'Enlightenment' and Perry fails to recognize this important difference.

-Scott P. 15:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not have time to complete this round of editing that I plan to complete in the near future. There no longer seem to be any objections to clarifying the fact that the FIP publications are distinctly different from all earlier draft versions of ACIM by nature of their widespread distribution, recognized copyrights, general acceptance, and the greater amount of 'inner dictation sections' that they contain. As such, I will add these references and others soon. Thanks.

-Scott P. 15:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

While the methods of eastern religion may be different from ACIM, I think ACIM explicitly states that the end of all paths are the same, so it could only be from a perspective external to ACIM's system that we could say the ends are not in fact the same. ACIM seems to go to great lengths to collapse the student's perception that there is a difference between an internal and and external world, which might make our former claim about ACIM inconsistent. Also, even if eastern religions do not expressly state that there is no difference between individual and universal enlightenment, perhaps we should not equate ommission with denial, and thus assume difference over arbitrariness. I don't mean to dispute your decision, rather, I'm glad for your investment in the article. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 00:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the Bodhisattva pledge, typically taken by monks in some sects of Buddhism, would be an example of an identity in Eastern religion between individual and universal enlightenment. JChap2007 01:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

facts?

I have "factified" all of the claims that look like OR to me. One source is given at the end of the paragraph, but it is unclear if all the ideas in that paragraph are from that book? If so, then let's name the source at the begining of the paragraph or something so it is clear where these ideas are coming from? Sethie 03:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on memory, many of the ideas there come from the Hanegraaf book (although I did not write that particular paragraph). It's one of the few scholarly works on the New Age Movement, by the way. JChap2007 16:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah.... what I am after is clarity. As it reads now, the paragraph has about five claims and states them as facts

1)(it) is atypical. now cited 2) It teaches true other-worldliness 3) it has been characterized as a Christianized version of non-dualistic Vedanta where the world is just an illusory chimera that offers violence, sorrow and pain. (at least phrae "has been characterized is there, but who characterized it this way) 4) This is very rare in the New Age movement. 5) Students of the Course seek the ultimate goal of existence in a radically different mode of being than that found in this world.

None of these are actual facts- they are all opinions. If they are going to be in the article, and what I am after is a clear presentation of who said them and that they are merely claims, by a specific group/person/author. Sethie 18:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not still have the Hanegraaf book, but you could find it at any decent research library. Normally, a source footnoted at the end of a paragraph would indicate that the information in the paragraph came from the source, but you are right to be skeptical given the history of this article and I wouldn't advocate simply attributing such claims to Hanegraaf until we have confirmation. JChap2007 20:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I was tempted to assume this was the case, and the way the paragraph was worded and the number of claims withinin it left me hesitant. Sethie 00:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed (2), and cited (3). (4) and (5) are vague enough they should be removed, but I've left them for now. If you can't find Hanegraaf, the encyclopedia entry for the Course in Melton is also useful. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 00:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your work and i have clarified the wording on one of them, I'll let the rest sit for awhile. Sethie 01:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistency

As stated, I think the fourth paragraph in the Course material section is anomalous.

Consider:

1. This passage from the article: The Course fully accepts the Freudian concepts of the conscious mind, the unconscious mind.
2. This passage from the reference for the passage from the article: Like Freud, the Course views the mind as a veritable battleground, filled with conflict between the conscious and unconscious [...]
3. This passage from the Text (my italics): T-7.VIII.4. You cannot perpetuate an illusion about another without perpetuating it about yourself. 2 There is no way out of this, because it is impossible to fragment the mind. 3 To fragment is to break into pieces, and mind cannot attack or be attacked. 4 The belief that it can, an error the ego always makes, underlies its whole use of projection.

Boiled down, we have the following:

• The Course fully accepts the Freudian concepts of the conscious and unconscious mind.
• The Freudian concept of the conscious and unconscious mind is that it is a veritable battleground, filled with conflict.
• The Course states that it is impossible to fragment the mind.

Additionally, let's stipulate,

• Only a fragmented mind could be a battleground.

It is clear that these statements form an inconsistent quartet. At least one must be false. If it is the reference which is in error, we should be sure to be clear about what we mean when we talk of the "Freudian concepts of the conscious mind [and] the unconscious mind," and explicitly reject the reference's interpretation of Freud. If it is not the reference which is in error, the article as it is written must be.

—Antireconciler ◊ talk 06:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ummm. Well, it is true that you think they form an inconsistent quartet, but it is true that within the framework of the Course they do?

Nothing personal, but I don't see you (or me) as meeting WP:V so your or my thoughts about the Course or Freud, how they are in alignment or how they aren't in alignment doesn't really matter in terms of an article. What does matter is the Course says, what Freud says and what someone who meets WP:V says about the two of them together. Find someone who sees the inconsistency you think you see and sight them. That would be within the scope. Sethie 20:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite right, and I'm afraid you've misunderstood my intention. I don't wish to challenge the references. Nor am I proposing that we change the article concerning this. I'm discussing the article, not changes I want to make to it. The inconsistency is a formal inconsistency. That means it is not subject to differing interpretations or frameworks. I've noted your thoughts. Thanks for sharing. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 05:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... :) I was assuming you were raising this with certain changes in mind. My boo-boo. Sethie 17:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

(book), rewritten

As a tribute to Ste4k, I want to revive the material formerly at A Course in Miracles (book). It contained a well-written and well-sourced (!) account of the history of the Course's primary literature. At the same time, I think it is too unrelated to the A Course in Miracles article to warrent a merge. Without objections, I will create a page at History of A Course in Miracles, place the material there, and add a link to it in the Origins section of the A Course In Miracles article. I welcome any feedback. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 07:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How is A Course in Miracles (book) "too unrelated" to A Course in Miracles. What is the latter without the former? Not a dog 20:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well said not a dog... given that the current Course page is much shorter then the previous- I say- put it on this page and then if the page gets too big we move it. Sethie 20:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right. The article is almost nothing without history, and so history should go there. The two articles are not "unrelated" as a matter of the Course being something more than its history, but unrelated as a matter of one being dry and uninteresting, and the other (the current article) being somewhat more tolerable. You can judge for yourself though. I'll copy and paste the article into the origins section. An interested wikipedian can then go about making the sources play nice with each other, as I have no such interest myself. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 05:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge Notes

• The merged article A Course in Miracles (book) was deleted some time ago. Do your history.
• I've pasted the length of ACIM (book) into the "Origins" section of ACIM. The merged article covers the information that used to make up this section, but the former, shorter, Origins section may still be worth integrating, so I've commented the former section out for now rather than deleting it.
• ACIM (book) used a different (probably older) citation style, where its reference information was placed in the reference section with {{cite}} tags, rather than integrating them in the main body as ACIM does and relying on the <references/> tag at the end. The <ref> tag in ACIM (book) was instead used for collecting footnotes. Something should be done about this mismatch.
• ACIM (book) features a "quote barrier" where its author was not confident in the information proceeding after it. I've left it in, but it should be removed when we can match up and verify the sources.
• ACIM (book) contained several images whose links had to be removed from the article because the images themselves were no longer on Wikipedia. If we can find the original source of the images, they should be reincluded if possible, most noteably, Skutch Whitson and Thetford.
• If you find the new Origins section too dry, my former offer of spliting the article still holds.

—Antireconciler ◊ talk 05:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)