Talk:A Course in Miracles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Terminology section
The Terminology section is quite interesting. Kudos to whomever added it. I do have one question, though. Are these intended to be Robert Perry's definitions (his work is footnoted immediately preceding them)? If so, it would no doubt be preferable to cite them as such. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just my opinion, but, the section appears to border on plagiarism. If it was a part of an article on Robert Perry's book, then that would be one thing, but it starts to delve into editorial in a manner which seems either impossible to finish, or is out of scope of an encyclopedic article. For example, I am curious why those three terms were cited rather than three others. It requires POV to determine that, true? Or, for another example, why only list three and why not list ten? why not twenty? It occurs to me that the article here is attempting to read the books for the reader instead of allowing the reader to read the books and make judgments for themselves; and I am speaking about BOTH books, that is, both Robert Perry's book as well as the Course. The problem here is that it is a minor topic that is only brought up as important by one author, and yet, simultaneously the topic sentence of the section states that this is a "notable feature" of the book: "A notable feature of The Course is its distinct and very precise choice of language." That either needs to be rethunkked or restated to show the importance of that opinion in respect to the rest of the encyclopedia. In other words, it is rather like saying that no other books are precise or distinct in language selection. Basically, the statement is wholly untrue. Wasn't there something along the lines of brainwashing equated with the deliberate redefinition of various words in the readers' psyche? In order to achieve balance and/or justification for this section that other author's opinion should either be set in parallel alongside Perry's opinion here, or the section should be removed. Since an article should not be trying to have a debate within its content, and instead, rather the reverse, in essence then, it is my opinion that this one minor idiosyncrasy of the Course does not help define the book nor help the article stay in focus. Zghost 11:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Archives dropped a month
Archive 6 is pointing at the same material as Archive 5. Zghost 06:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yup, somebody seems to have screwed up the archives a bit. I have fixed this as best I have time for. There appears to have been an overlap period in the summer of 2006 due to the debates that raged back then. I've archived both overlapping archives in the interest of not losing any of that material.
- -Scott P. 13:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] External Link Inaccuracy
One of the external links is listed as:
Clicking on it brings one to a page which has a copyright notice consipicuously presented at the bottom of the page.
Zghost 07:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Misplaced Source?
There is a source listed as the final external link referencing the US District Court which is the actual original document which are republished/edited by the Miracle Times sources. We should have it the other way around, and refer in our article to the original source rather than a reprint with editorial and move the Miracle Times opinions to external links. The section they reference could also use a little scrutiny in my opinion. Zghost 11:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rationale for reversion of litigation section
On Mar 13 the litigation section was reworded to read that "the copyright on the Course was judged and ordered void". The supporting reference used did not appear to fully support this assertion.
The supporting reference only stated that, "The copyright ... number A693944 ... is void", where the copyright number mentioned referred only to the 1st edition of ACIM. Stating only that "the copyright on the Course was judged and ordered void" instead of stating that, "the copyright to the 1st edition of ACIM was judged void" appeared to possibly be an over-simplification of the facts. I have reverted this section to its earlier wording as the section's earlier wording appeared to more clearly state the actual copyright status of ACIM.
Comments welcome.
-Scott P. 11:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The initial publication date
I have reverted the opening paragraph to include the initial publication date as opposed to the date that Thetford gave Hugh Lynn Cayce a copy for personal review. Date of publication information would seem to be more pertinent in an opening paragraph. Perhaps the Hugh Lyn Cayce vignette would work better further down in the article.
-Scott P. 10:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Clarification of commonalities with Freudian and Jungian psychology
In an effort to clarify the commonalities between ACIM, Freudian and Jungian psychology, I have inserted additional text highlighting these commonalities. If it may be felt that yet further clarification is still needed, please explain.
Thanks,
-Scott P. 11:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of OR and CITECHECK tags
Rephrasing two sentences into one, using parenthesis where needed, is generally not considered to be original research. I have removed the OR and CITECHECK tags from the COURSE MATERIAL section.
-Scott P. 11:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rationale for removal of CONTROVERSIAL and CALM tags from the ACIM discussion page header
These tags were added to this discussion page back in the summer of 2006 when one or two users (who have since been banned from Wiki) managed to create a great deal of disharmony in this article.
Some of this "disharmony" was probably also the result of a general "house-cleaning" that occurred in Wiki around the same time as the standards for required references for writers in Wiki suddenly seemed to significantly increase, and what had generally once been a far more laissez-faire attitude towards documentation requirements suddenly tightened. Over night, many sections of many Wiki articles that had previously been considered as acceptable were found to be points of contention. Now that this "documentation house-cleaning" and the other controversies that came with it seem to have been basically resolved (to the best of my knowledge) I have gone ahead and removed those tags. Comments welcome.
-Scott P. 14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rationale for removal of speculation that Schucman may have disapproved of the early ACIM copyright handling
Earlier wording in the "Distribution" section of this article referring to the early ACIM copyright as an "alleged oral" copyright, appears to be based on a theory that there "may have" been a rift between Schucman, Wapnick and Skutch over the handling of the early copyright. Such speculation does not appear to be borne out by the fact that a close relationship existed between these three through to Schucman's death years after the initial publication. As of yet, this speculation is based only on the "negative proof" that such-and-such a document is not known to exist. Until any positive proof of such a rift might be found, the insertion of such speculative language in this article implying the "possibility" of such a rift, does not appear to serve to clarify the circumstances surrounding the the origins of the book, ACIM.
-Scott P. 16:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proposal to reinstate better documented support articles on Wapnick and FACIM
In the summer of 2006, during a major shift in Wiki documentation policy, two important support articles for the ACIM article were deleted in the "clean-up" effort. These were articles on "Kenneth Wapnick" and on FACIM. I would like to propose that a better documented articles on Kenneth Wapnick and FACIM be restarted. As FIP is in a sense a subsidiary of FACIM, I think that a redirect from FIP to FACIM might be in order, and that any information particular to FIP could probably be included in one or two sentences in the proposed reinstated FACIM article. Comments?
-Scott P. 15:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rationale for rewording of summary section
On Mar. 25th the summary section was reworded to state that the Course teaches that there is "no need for traditional forgiveness".
While the Course does enlarge substantially on the traditional definition of forgiveness, I do not believe that it claims anywhere that it "overturns" it, or that it is no longer necessary. Some of the current dictionary definitions of the word are:
1. to grant pardon for or remission of (an offense, debt, etc.); absolve.
2. to give up all claim on account of; remit (a debt, obligation, etc.).
3. to grant pardon to (a person).
4. to cease to feel resentment against: to forgive one's enemies.
5. to cancel an indebtedness or liability of: to forgive the interest owed on a loan.
6. to pardon an offense or an offender.
I don't believe ACIM teaches anywhere that any of these things are no longer necessary. Comments welcome.
-Scott P. 11:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
