Talk:A Course in Miracles

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 [1] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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)

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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 passage in Miller reads, "Among its critics from both religious and secular perspectives, ACIM is regarded as everything from a satanic seduction to an artifact of New Age psychobabble" (my emphasis). Andreas JN466 14:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Cwobeel's advice above is sound. As for publishing figures, I would quote Miller and the publisher (who say that their figure includes translations), and attribute both in the text. Easy. Andreas JN466 14:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jimbo does not have any form of super !vote, his opinion counts no more than any other editor's. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 7 October 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 ^yack 13:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Chris for your insight here. You were entirely correct in your post above, and fortunately it now seems things have returned back to civility in this article (at least in part thanks to yourself). There have been no more edit wars since your post. Sincerely, Scott P. (talk) 19:13, 29 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 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)