Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:39, 29 September 2014

A Course in Miracles - Original Edition was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 05 January 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into A Course in Miracles. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the A Course in Miracles article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Religious texts (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts HIDDEN ERROR: Usage of "infobox" is not recognized Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Spirituality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance).

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5.1, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Please provide documentation (not opinion) of "dubious" nature of the "Let Us Reason" site.

Editor Afterwriting, True, the "Let Us Reason" site is a "religious site" reporting on a religious topic. Just because it is a religious site does not automatically make it "dubious". Proof of intentional misrepresentation being carried out at that site would support your claim that it is a "dubious" site. Please provide documentation of such before deleting a ref based solely on opinion. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The sourced website is completely unacceptable for referencing purposes and fails every possible standard of acceptability on Misplaced Pages for inclusion as such. This is so obvious that you should have realised this yourself in the first place. See WP:NOTRELIABLE. Also, I did not say that the site itself was "dubious" ~ only the claim made by the site about Robert Schuller. Afterwriting (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Again please, as per WP:NOTRELIABLE, in order for a site to be properly deemed "unreliable" or "dubious", such a site must be shown to have a proven track record of poor fact checking. Your logic seems to be simply that all religion based sites are by default "dubious". If you could please provide any actual documentation that the site you feel is "dubious" has an unreliable track record in checking facts, then I would gladly agree with you. Without any documentation whatsoever to that effect, your opinion on this question of "dubiousness" unfortunately must remain as only that, your own personal opinion. Since you feel that the site in question "fails every possible standard", then I would presume that the documentation of this single "standard failure" should be an easy matter for you. Until you can actually document your opinion here, I would ask that you please observe the 3 revert rule and not revert a third time. As always, documentation should always prevail over mere opinion. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: If you might personally doubt that Schuller could have ever personally endorsed ACIM, please do a Google search on the terms: "Robert Schuller" and "Course in Miracles". Scott P. (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

As you obviously have some difficulties understanding what is an unreliable source ~ especially when it concerns claims about a living person ~ then I would ask you to stop editing until you do actually understand. The reference is clearly unacceptable and will continue to be removed as it is also clearly a BLP violation ~ and for this the three revert rule does not apply. This has nothing to do with it being a "religious site". And I could not care less whether Schuller has ever had any association with ACIM. Find a reliable source that claims that he has been and it can be considered. Afterwriting (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

While there are hundreds of references showing Schuller's support of ACIM, every single one of them that I could find came from a religious based site. "I would agree with your apparent belief that religious-based sites probably don't make as "high quality" references as say perhaps "science-based sites". Still, when that is all that's available, one has to make the best of things. In this most recent edit, I've tried to pick out a more "scientific looking" reference here for the Schuller thing. I hope this works for you. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

What kind of nonsense is your statement that "I would agree with your apparent belief that religious-based sites probably don't make as "high quality" references as say perhaps "science-based sites"? Please point me to any comment of mine which supports this false and ridiculous comment! Afterwriting (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed your new reference. It does not provide any evidence that Schuller has ever used ACIM in his teachings ~ only that someone else who has was a speaker at his church. This is not even close to being the same thing. Afterwriting (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The subtle difference between Schuller having allowed ACIM to be taught in his church, and him specifically endorsing it, has been addressed. I believe the reference supporting the teaching of ACIM in Schuller's church is of a higher quality than the original reference was. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Your unreliable reference has been removed once again. No evidence has been provided that ACIM was ever taught in the Crystal Cathedral by anyone. That is pure speculation. All we know is that someone associated with ACIM once spoke there. Nothing has been provided to suggest that he actually said anything even remotely related to ACIM. This really should be obvious. Afterwriting (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Afterwriting, Did you read the sentence from the ref that you deleted that goes"… for awhile, Schuller even hosted “A Course in Miracles” study groups in his church"? What do you make of that? Scott P. (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

As the reference does not pass muster for reliability it cannot be used regardless of the actual facts. Therefore the reference and any information that it claims cannot be included in the article. Afterwriting (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Afterwriting, you and I seem to be going around in circles about this. I hope you don't mind, but I've put in a request at the Help Desk for some fresh eyes on this question. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: So that other editors can more easily see what we are talking about, I have just reinserted the cite you are questioning. By the way, your most recent removal of it left incorrect grammar and punctuation in its wake. Please leave the cite this time until at least one or two others have had a chance to review it for themselves. Thanks, and thanks for your ever so high estimation of my writing abilities! Scott P. (talk) 08:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the unreliable reference as required. It clearly and obviously fails all criteria for reliability and therefore must be removed. It also has BLP implications. But I am glad that other editors might have a look at this article. I stand by comments about its current inadequate state. Afterwriting (talk) 09:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

After doing a bunch more digging, and after actually buying a Kindle book online, I think I now have a reference that you will accept. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The contentious claims made in a self-published polemical book have been removed as they fail the required criteria for reliability and are, therefore, also BLP policy violations. Afterwriting (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Still, thanks for trying.Scott P. (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

For those editors who may feel that the ACIM article reads too much like a "fan article ", you are most welcome to help to try to "un-fanify" it. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

External links simplified

As was the practice for years, in order to keep the external links section from becoming unwieldy, I have simplified it back to a DMOZ listing. Scott P. (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

support, per WP:EL. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that helpful link WP:EL. Some editors seem to have been trying to use the external links section for self-promotion. Perhaps, if we are lucky, with the guidance provided by WP:EL, we may be able to avoid that issue in the future without having to resort to DMOZ. I will give it a try.

Thanks again, Scott P. (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Requesting "constructive" suggestions for rewriting the article

In June of this year, a user placed a "complete rewrite" template on this article's main page, yet offered no "constructive suggestions" as to how this might be accomplished on the article's talk page. If anyone might have any such suggestions as to how best to improve the quality of this article, please make any such suggestions here. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

sales figures verified

The sales figures are indeed in the Miller cite see page 63-65 ish. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Publishers are typically the relied on as reliable sources of publishing info unless otherwise proven to be unreliable.

Before insisting that this publisher is unreliable because they are "too close to the material", please provide an example where Misplaced Pages policy prohibits using a publisher for publishing statistics when that publisher has "not" been proven to be unreliable. There is no unreliability associated with this publisher, therefore, it seems to me that Misplaced Pages's traditional practice of normally trusting publishers to provide accurate publishing statistics should still stand. Might you possibly be more interested in detracting from the subject of this article than in actually arriving at truth here? You seem to possibly have a slight "bone to pick" with this material, no? Scott P. (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPS nope, publishers, or anyone else is not considered a reliable source for self aggrandizing claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Please distinguish between numerical fact and self-agrandizement. Proof would be helpful here. Please stop stooping to this edit war behavior and use facts instead.Scott P. (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

it is not a "numerical fact" - it is a claim. an unverified claim of mass quantities of sales that are widely used in promotional advertising "billions and billions served". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Typically publisher's statistics go unchallenged, unless somehow someone has facts to dispute them, of which you apparently have none. As it turns out, just look at the Amazon Sales Ranks for this book. You'll see that it generally places in the top 1,500 best sellers. Not exacty chicken sh**. You need to present rival info before you can say all publishers are full of "you know what" without any facts to back yourself up.Scott P. (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

well they havent gone unchallenged here. now you are REQUIRED to provide a reliably published third party source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you miss the Amazon sales rank? What is your third party challenge, aside from your own personal point of view? Scott P. (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

and amazon is not a reliable source either. the primary source claim has been challenged and you have failed to provide an appropriate reliably published third party source to support your claims. You need to do so or remove the claims

POV is when one side of a discussion is either not represented, or is under-represented. Please allow for balance in the intro

By insisting that two negative sentiments be listed in the intro opposite a single positive one, this becomes a bit POV, no? Please, you are edit warring and insisting on POV edits. You can do better than this. Scott P. (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not present a false "balance" - we present the views of the subject in proportion to how the academic mainstream presents them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Or perhaps how Red-Pen presents them..... If you could find an article that states, with sound references and facts, that the "Academic mainstream views ACIM as this", then by all means. Until then, I'm afraid it is only how one Red-Pen sees it, not the "Academic mainstream". Scott P. (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

i have provided my sourcing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

So far, your only source is your edit war behavior. Facts facts facts my friend. :-) Scott P. (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

uhhhh, facts is: claim is sourced to Miller. i am not sure how you didnt see that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I asked you where you got that "Mainstream Academia" had this view, not where you got the Miller quote. Your denial, refusal to document anything, your trying to change and confuse the subject, and your edit warring behavior is quite awful. Why? Scott P. (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Because i have read ACIM and fallen under satans spell. either that or because I dont want Misplaced Pages to be used as a promotional platform and follow the reliable third party source requirements rather than self promotional claims to attempt to present the article topic as it is seen by the academic reviewers .

Why are you so keen on presenting a promotional view and what policies and sources support you? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I have provided facts, you have provided only opinions to counter these. Please, you have not yet provided a single new fact to support your opinions here. What kind of editing is that? Scott P. (talk) 05:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

you have not provided "facts" - you have provided a link to a site closely related to the subject of the article - one that is not a valid source for unduly self serving claims, particularly claims that have been challenged and require a reliable source before the claims are restored.

I have provided "facts" in the form of third party sources for the content that I wish to be included and shown you the policies that support my actions. you have not provided any policy based rationale to support the removal. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Last word. Hah! :-) Scott P. (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

RFC- Niche publisher reliability, mainstream academia views

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Religion and philosophy When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

A discussion has been held as to whether or not the book, A Course In Miracles, has been properly classified by mainstream academia as "psycho-babble and satanic", and as to whether or not publisher volume figures published by niche publishers are inherently unreliable, even if backed by Amazon sales rank numbers. Scott P. (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• 1) as a WP:SPS, the publisher's claims fall under the "unduly self serving" and Amazon of course does not qualify as a third party reliable WP:RS either.
• 2) the view of ACIM as a "satanic seduction" is well documented in one of the few third party sources in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• About 1) Amazon sales rankings are untrustworthy and inherently false or unreliable? Where do you get that? It was simply pulled out of your hat, unless you can show us where else you might have gotten it from. Scott P. (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

A secondary source has been used for this info now, so the publishing data is now a moot point.Scott P. (talk) 08:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• About 2) "Scientific" opinions about "Satanic seduction" normally belong right up in the "intro section"? Where did you get that? Normally such "unscientific sentiments belong in the "Reception" section, the last I heard, unless perhaps someone wants to grind an axe or something?.... Scott P. (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Saying that a source doesn't meet WP:RS is not the same as saying that its inherently false, and secondary sources are absolutely more valuable 99% of the time. Sales figures should be supported by secondary sources, both for verifiability, and also to establish due weight. In this case Amazon isn't secondary, and in my opinion, is not useful here. As for the other point, leads should summarize the body, and I see nothing inherently wrong with using quotes to accomplish that. What is this about "scientific"? Why the scare quotes? Grayfell (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• 'Comment (Came here from the RFC listings) - The ""psycho-babble and satanic" and other descriptors should be fully attributed to the sources that made these comments for NPOV reasons, and only if these sources are reliable. Some books have their supporters and detractors, and readers would like to know who these are. For example, that comment was made in a book by a Kenneth Boa (http://www.kenboa.org/), an evangelist author that may see this book as contrary to Christianity and hence sacrilegious. These comments should go in the "Reception" section if there is enough material for such a section, bun not on the lede, unless these descriptions have been made by a significant number of sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • the "psycho-babble and satanic" is Miller's analysis of how others have reacted to the book.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The edit warring must stop

@Scottperry: @TheRedPenOfDoom: You have both far overstepped WP:3RR and must stop changing the article until a resolution is reached on this talk page. The RFC is a good step that was taken. Please read WP:SEEKHELP and consider using one or more of the noticeboards listed there. If any more changes are made to the article before conflict resolution is reached on this talk page, you will likely be banned from editing and/or the article will be protected from editing. Chris the speller  13:59, 28 September 2014 (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 Misplaced Pages.--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 Misplaced Pages? 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)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Book articles
• WikiProject Books articles
• Start-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• Start-Class Spirituality articles
• Low-importance Spirituality articles
• Start-Class Religion articles
• Low-importance Religion articles
• Start-Class New religious movements articles
• High-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment