Talk:A Course in Miracles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
Uncited material will be removed but may be added to the article's uncited sourcebook.
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

To view earlier archived discussions of the A Course In Miracles article, please see:


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] (book), rewritten

[edit] 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); 07:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC); 06:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Seems that the "Early editing, publication and copyright ruling" is now redunant to this newly inserted content. Also, what is the point of the "semantics" section? Seems to add little to an encyclopedia article about this book Not a dog 19:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I decided to rename "semantics" as a "terminology" section, and merged in miracle impulse Not a dog 20:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, some of it is redundant, and those parts should be removed. The use of language is an important part of the Course, although I do not currently have a source for you with which to back up that claim. My advice would be favor checking the sources for more information on use of language so that this section can be written in a more scholarly fashion above simply cutting out information. It's not because you can't or shouldn't, but because that information will simply be reinserted if it can be sourced and rendered coherently. —Antireconciler ◊talk 00:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course, many different belief systems, theories, ideologies, disciplines have paritucular meanings for particular words, so we should be careful about the attention we give to it here. IE, why is it particularly notable for an encyclopedia article? Not a dog 00:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I see what you're getting at, and I think you're right: the the use of language in the Course is not notable in and of itself. The material should be kept if it helps explain the material. Some of what is in the Terminology section does not, and you are right to remove parts of it. The concern I meant to express is simply that the article is becoming even more weighted toward being solely a historical account, that says much about the physical book, and little about what the book says. And the part dedicated to discussing the Course material is not especially well written, reliable, or accurate. Don't think I'm out to rewrite the article. I'm on your side here. I've seen enough people try to rewrite this article with their own ideas of what the Course says. I just want an encyclopedia article that is actually useful, and its because of the article's weakness in telling a coherent story about what the Course says that I recommend we focus both on getting a coherent story and a well sourced story, but until then, sub-standard information is still often serving a role in at least making things coherent. Trust me, I'm not saying you shouldn't make cuts you think are right or are right according to the rules and guidelines we're both familiar with. Your help is obviously valuable. Edit: Perhaps we can make the Terminology section a subsection within the Course material section. The Course material section looks like it could use subsectioning for organization anyway. —Antireconciler ◊talk 06:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC); 06:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the "Early Editing ... " section, which was mostly redundant with "Origins". I've moved the non-redundant parts to their appropriate sections. —Antireconciler ◊talk 06:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ali Sina

First, let's not have a revert war, shall we?

Second, does anyone have a reliable secondary source for Ali Sina being considered a notable or important critic of ACIM? If such a source exists that would make the comment seem less like original research. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who originally added this cited criticism [1], but I agree with its removal since the source (Ali Sina) apparently has been deemed non-notable for having his own article. Not a dog 13:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
That's irrelevant, actually. What matters is if independent third parties consider this a notable or pertinent criticism of ACIM. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, my original thinking was that if the person is notable enough to have his own article, then his cricitism (presumably being topically related to his notability) would automatically be acceptable. You're saying that the key issue is whether other people find his particular criticism notable? I think I understand better now. Not a dog 13:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if there is any source that says that Sina is notable as a critic of ACIM, but it should be noted that the language that is the subject of the edit war is a cleaned-up version of Sina's actual article. Sina's primary criticism of ACIM is that Schucman's Jewish heritage influenced her writing/transcription, even using the phrase "Jewish propaganda" at one point. His article on his website (which is what our article's criticism section referenced) came off like more of an anti-Semitic rant than anything else. This part was not mentioned in the summary of his criticism in the WP article. If we have to sanitize a source, can we really claim it is reliable? Sina's analysis, incidentally, is completely at odds with that of reputable scholars such as Hanegraaf, who emphasize the Course's essentially Eastern (not Christian or Jewish) cosmology. JChap2007 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that if the source was "sanitized" then claims by that source likely aren't "reliable" for inclusion. That's why I agree with removing this particular criticism (unless we find a 3-rd party noting that the criticism is sound). However, considering your last comment, just as a general comment, lets be careful not to automatically discredit an opinion/criticism just becuase some other "reputable scholar" disagrees. --Not a dog 17:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, we should not automatically do anything, but in this case we have Hanegraaf, a professor of religion at the University of Utrecht, who has written an extensive study on the New Age Movement that is well-respected by other scholars, and Ali Sina, who is known mostly as a critic of Islam and who does not appear to have any credentials of or knowledge about this particular topic, as well as an axe to grind. JChap2007 18:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/_/c/Talk%7EA_Course_in_Miracles_b9e2.html"