Talk:Charles Buell Anderson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-01. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

[edit] Archives

/Archive1

[edit] cite research

I modified the cite listings to include their author, actual title and use the cite-web template. I then sorted them to group the author's names. Evidently the first three are web sites written by the author of this article which is considered autobiographic in nature. See: the first diff. Ste4k 17:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Autobiographic? It'd only be autobiographical if Scott Perry is Charles Anderson. -Will Beback 17:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The other editor, Robin has had a close enough relationship to the bio-subject to be considered a primary source and his additions would therefore be considered autobiographical in nature. Ste4k 21:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attack?

From my Talk page: "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Buell Anderson After nominating these two pages for deletion, some questions were asked by another admin. I researched deeper into these articles and found that they are basically attack pages in disguise as a bio. I have spoken to one other admin in IRC. But, I thought I should let you know what's up. The admin who initially was asking questions is named Will Beback. I left him a note on his page as well, and also there is some discussion in talk pages of the article and the AfD. Ste4k 17:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)" Just zis Guy you know? 17:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added the signature to make the remark clearer (at first glance I thought you'd written it). If there is attack material in the article I don't see it. However with theological debates you sometimes have to be an insider to understand what is or isn't an attack. -Will Beback 18:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There are several small problems with article itself, but the attacks lie within the cited sources. Basically they refer to the man as a pedophile among other things, and haven't any data whatsoever related to this article. The "atomic" article looks to be in good faith, but its simply another single user account with an ISP and really isn't any information at all that can be considered reliable. I didn't read through the letter there, but it's purpose was more than likely to justify the top segment on Nagasaki. Per the court case area, the statements are patently false according to the court case documents which may be found on other articles. Simply put, the subject of this article was sued by Penguin books, the case was dismissed, but he, the defendant, still had to pick up the court and attorney fees. He wasn't the initiator of that action whatsoever. The original authors of this page may be discovered in its history. They are also the editors that provided the cites to their own web-site resources. In any case, there aren't any valid SECONDARY sources for this article. And the primary source that remains would be the Endeavor web site which cannot be used for autobiographical reasons and vanity. Since there are no sources and no matching information in this article, and also because it is clearly simple abuse, it should be deleted. The man does not meet WP:BIO in any way, shape of form, and the organization he started doesn't meet WP:ORG. Ste4k 20:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere in our article do we call the subject a "pedophile". If that is the basis for saying that this is an attack then you haven't read the article. What makes you think that we cannot use the subject's autobiographical writings as a source? Your contention that this is an attack article appears baseless. -Will Beback 21:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You are proving my point. The cited sources are where the attacks are made. If those sources are removed, the attack is then defeated. What remains is only a single primary source. And primary sources cannot be used for information. This leaves us with nothing at all except for two articles from CBS which we discovered this morning. Those are reputible sources, but they are not biographical about this subject. A new article could certainly be produced from them, however, the subject would need to be about Rick Ross's claims rather than about this man since even CBS uses the language correctly to state that "Rick Ross says... " and "According to Rick Ross,..." etc. If you know where we can find some biographical information about this man, then great! But there isn't anything here in the sources that we have, so our only real choice according to WP:VER is "Remove unsourced material about living persons immediately if it could be viewed as criticism". Have you read the cited sources yet? Ste4k 21:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I disagree with your discounting of all the sources. -Will Beback 20:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

okay. which do you think meet WP:RS? Delete the sources in the list below that we can both agree cannot be used: Ste4k 21:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ross, Rick. Endeavor Academy. Retrieved on [[3 Jul 2006]].^{[dubious – discuss]}
  • See above -Will Beback 22:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • CBS calls Rick Ross an expert on cults. So I will concede that he is. However, this article is a biography about Anderson. There isn't any biographical data at the web site cited here by this source. Without any data all, we end up with an empty article. Either that, or we have only original research. As I mentioned before, if someone would like to write an article about complaints against the Endeavor people, then that's their affair and perhaps they could use some of these references. Do you agree? Ste4k 23:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
      • In this instance we're not using Ross as a source, just as a repository of sources. Many of the articles that he links to mention the subject.-Will Beback 00:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I examined each of these sources and none of these articles provide any biographical data about Anderson whatsoever. Of the lot of them, most of them are letters to the editor of The Echo from its readers and are complaining about some other man from Austrailia they refer to as "Hector". There isn't any information in any of them which either belongs in a biography about Anderson, or is currently being used in the article we have on Anderson. The only two highly reliable references on the page are the two reprinted articles from CBS News. It clearly makes much more sense to get the news from the horse's mouth in this case, and refer directly to the articles archived by CBS. Do you agree? Ste4k 08:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
          • We can certainly link directly to those articles that are still available elsewhere. Ross's compendium is valuable because some are hard to locate. -Will Beback 20:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
            • I fail to see how any of the majority of those articles are valuable. None of them have any biographical data about Anderson at all. None of them supply any notability to Anderson. A link to one of the articles from CBS was added to the bio by another editor, recently, and today I added a specific citation from one of the articles on Ross's site that did have material already in this bio. The article itself was written by a reader of the Byron Bay Echo and not by an "author" or a writer for the paper. The burden of proof is on the author of the biography. What proof do we have that Kalie Picone is a reliable source for data? I agree that her article is difficult to locate, but that only points out further it's lack of reliablity and verifiability. This person wrote a letter about their opinion in 1991 which was fifteen years ago. How do we know that she hasn't changed her mind? It's pretty clear that according to her letter that she is prone to change her mind. And do you really want me to believe that you would write a biography article based on the hearsay of a letter to an editor of a local newspaper? So, again, regardless of whether Rick Ross is an expert on cults, the actual authors of the articles themselves must be shown, with burden of proof, to be reliable resources or their data cannot be included in the article. Do you agree? Ste4k 00:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• anonymous. CULT BUSTERS - INDEX PAGE WELCOME. Retrieved on [[3 Jul 2006]].
  • This appears to be a multi-person operation and so would likely qualify as a reliable source. -Will Beback 22:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually for the same reason it is an unreliable source. It describes itself on the front page as "Cult Busters" is a web-site and a Yahoo Forum". That message is also signed by Robin Evans whom we know by his own claim is a primary source as well as a particularly biased source of information. Again, "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher." If there is any biographical data on this site we cannot use it unless it is actually found published by another reliable publisher. Do you agree? Ste4k 23:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
      • How do we know that the webmaster is a "particularly biased source of information"? Why wouldn't this site be considered a reliable publisher? If used, it'd be more likely as a secondary source, IMO. -Will Beback 00:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
        • The owner of the web-site doesn't even register their name with the Internet registrar. Please make note of the guidelines for authority as well as the guidelines for evaluating sources. This site on the whole is unverifiable information. About Robin "Bodhi" Evans, though, he claims for himself that he is biased, and that he knew the man personally which makes him a primary resource, rather than secondary. Ste4k 08:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
          • None of the guidelines you cite require that webmasters obtain the domain names using their personal names. Where does the webmaster claim he is biased? Biased sources are allowed, they just have to be treated in a neutral fashion. -Will Beback 20:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
            • In this case the bias is not allowed since this bio article was edited by this person on the web site himself. Have you even read some of the notes on this very discussion page? About the web site, however, according to WP:RS Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. So, again, if this source is to be used for anything, it can be for an article about Robin Evans, but it cannot be used for an article about somebody else, like Anderson. And again in WP:RS specifically not about Anderson, because anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym. So in this case, we can say that Robin Evans has not been previously published by credible third-party publications, and so may not, even if he is an expert from personal experience, be considered an exception to this rule. Also, again, he hasn't even anything to add as far as pertinent material to a basic biography. Therefore, not only is using this resource against the guidelines, but the information is superfluous and moot. On top of all that, [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not] a soapbox. Wikipedia was not made for opinion, it was made for fact. So what is the purpose of having this link? It is prohibited by the guidelines as a resource, and the content prohibited by policy, and it doesn't even have any biographical data about Anderson. Ste4k 23:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The very first source is a link to a book which is in the public domain. The author of the site is the same as the author of this pseudo-biography. It hasn't any reason to be used as a source of material for Anderson's biography. To determine this simply, go to the site and in the search-box type in "Anderson". It returned zero hits for me. Can we agree that this cannot possibly be any sort of source material for Anderson's biography? Ste4k 21:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Harry Lofton's site is another searchable site for the same material as the first. I type in "Anderson" and it returned to me: "Sorry, no matches were found containing Anderson." along with a short list of five links to hardware ads. Can we agree that this cannot possibly be any sort of source material for Anderson's biography? Ste4k 22:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual assault allegations

I have removed allegations of sexual assault. The only souces for these allegations are forum threads. As Charles Buell Anderson is a living person we should be very careful of making serious and disturbing allegations based on gossip from internet forums. SilkTork 21:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have removed those from the list in the subtopic above as well. I am still waiting for other explanations about how any of the rest of them meet WP:RS. Thanks. Ste4k 21:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV to use the trademark

Please remember that using the registered trademark is not only considered POV but is specifically incorrect regarding the person that this article is about. Thanks. Ste4k 22:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. You can use a registered trademark all you want as long as you're not using it as a mark of trade. The notion that people can control what others are allowed to say about them by trademarking their own name and the names of their works and then exerting some mythical all-encompassing "registered trademark" power has appealed to many a scoundrel. Sadly for them, the law doesn't work that way. (And what's this nonsense about it being "POV" to use the trademark? How ludicrous can you get?) -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Your misinterpretation of the laws involved regarding "A Course In Miracles" show only that you haven't bothered to read much about this man, or his involvement in this case. The District Court of New York has already established that the version of "The Course" which is associated with Charles Buell Anderson is not the same version of the course which you just linked again into his biography, and which is known at large by the trademark "ACIM". I appreciate that you at least brought the matter to discussion, but ADDING material which is patently false to an article carries with it the burden of proof of the author. Since this is your addition, I suggest that you remove it unless you can prove the opinon of the New York District Court incorrect. I removed it because I have read the court's opinion on the matter and per policy and per Jimbo Wales: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." Ste4k 02:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that all references to "A Course in Miracles" in this article or the Endeavor Academy article are false? Or is it just the use of the letters "A", "C", "I", and "M", to refer to the course which is false? Do you have a link to the judgement you referring to, or a citation for it? -Will Beback 02:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The link that Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs) added points to the specific article about the book which is associated with the trademark "ACIM". For a full discussion and references, please see, A Course in Miracles (book) and read the citations. Be aware that the article itself has not yet linked the point where Anderson originally got his copy of the earlier manuscripts. Basically what it means is that if a casual reader looked up Anderson for some reason, they would first read this bio-article, then notice the "See Also" section on the bottom referring to the book that he was sued for copying, rather than the version of the book he teaches from. The suit in question was dismissed and copyright to the various earlier versions that were distributed fell into public domain. We do not have an article anywhere on WP that covers Anderson's acquisition or use of the book. To put that "See Also" link on the bottom of his biography would be to purposely mislead and steer the reader and associate Anderson with the other book. Ste4k 03:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to add a proper account of this dispute to the article? That'd be a help. -Will Beback 03:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Research on that matter has been difficult because only four of the court documents are available by web that I have found so far. Only yesterday (UTC) was the information about the litigation merged in from before. Trying to find Anderson's actual legacy regarding how he obtained a copy and which copy he obtained is something that would properly segue what we have so far to the litigation. This entire category has been referred to by others as a walled garden and recent initiatives to clean up that garden and present a factual understanding have been met with considerable resistance as well as assumptions of bad faith, etc. If both this biography and the article on the institution are removed, we can be rid of smoke and mirrors provided by the walled garden and continue the efforts toward reporting the truth. Please refer to comments made in AfD which was just reopened today in that regard. Ste4k 03:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This court opinion [1], says that the copyright on ACIM is invalid. What court case covers the trademark? -Will Beback 03:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The trademark is only being used by one particular group which refer to themselves with name-brand style recognition in several ways and continue to publish an "encased" edition of the book. The "encased" edition has the original public domain material but has added a considerable preface as well as extended comments and in that design being published as copyrighted material. This occurred after the court case was settled and the court case lasted approx. five years. Therefore, the book which is being marketed with the ACIM brand recognition, is not the same as the original book which Anderson was sued for using. The trademark may be seen registered at the publishers web site http://www.acim.org/ and may be verified at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with serial number 76640604. The "ACIM" group of people speak about this themselves on the web site of their publishing arm. Basically there are several groups that have motive to compete for market share in one manner or another. Pointing people from one groups page to the other group was initially done by a person intimately associated with the "ACIM" group and the initial reason for creating this bio appears only to be to discredit Anderson under a veil of what looks like a biography. Ste4k 04:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. The PTO says that the trademark consists of the acronym ACIM combined with a starburst pattern, and that no claim to exclusive use is made for "ACIM" used separately from the logo. So the word "ACIM" is not trademarked. As to your larger point, you are regularly imputing motives and involvement to other editors. Doing so is bad practice as it leads to uncivil behavior. It may also lead to users questioning your own motives and involvement. It's better just to focus on the edits and leave the editors out of it. -Will Beback 04:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That the organization at acim.org is misuing their trademark hasn't anything to do with establishing it for brand name recognition. On their web site it can be seen plainly that they use the trademark in other ways such as labeling the name of the book "A Course in Miracles®" as well as in the the title of documents (view the source code for that page). In anycase, that is irrelevent to the point that in regards to this biography, there are two different groups, and two different books, and that the current link: A Course in Miracles points from Anderson's article to the book that is produced by the people that sued him. It is misleading the general readership, and removing the link should be done for the sake of disambiguity as well as for NPOV; i.e. why should an article about Anderson be leaning toward the idea that the other book is the "correct" version? A neutral point of view is simply to provide zero information rather than misleading or false information, per Jimbo as discussed in WP:VER"

Jimmy Wales (2006-05-16). "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". WikiEN-l electronic mailing list archive. Retrieved on 2006-06-11.

Jimmy Wales (2006-05-19). "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" (followup post clarifying intent). WikiEN-l electronic mailing list archive. Retrieved on 2006-06-11.

And Anderson has nothing to do with the other book discussed in the article of that link.Ste4k 05:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"ACIM" (which you deleted) does not have the same trademark status as "A Course in Miracles". What is the correct title for the book Anderson uses? Would proponents of the Endeavor Academy agree with your interpretation? -Will Beback 05:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no trademark assigned to the title "A Course in Miracles". The correct title for the "book" Anderson uses can only be sourced to the proponents themselves (currently) which of course would agree with their own interpretation; i.e. that being found on their web site. All of the various publishers all want to use the same name. The content of the various books, however, are distinctly different. The contents of the version mentioned in A Course in Miracles is not the content that is associated with Anderson or Endeavor. Ste4k 07:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Whomever wants to add that link needs to prove by way of reputible resources that the book being referred to in article A Course in Miracles is the same book that relates to the author Anderson, otherwise, per policy, the link should be removed:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

... or are these rules just for show and tell? Doesn't anyone follow them? Ste4k 05:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's prima facie true that books with the same title, and by the same author, are the same book. The text they call "A Course In Miracles" is presumed the same as the book others call "A Course In Miracles". If there are differences in the text then those can be mentioned, for example "ACIM (unauthorized version)" or "(1975 edition)". Also, setting policy quotations larger or placing them in pink boxes does not improve their relevancy. Let's avoid fancy formatting on the talk page, please. -Will Beback 07:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In this case however, the original contents of the books have changed so the FIP/FACIM has a different authorship than before. So we have two books with different authors, and different contents, but the same title. Keep in mind that the original person who saw the book up to the 1975 version died in 1981, two years before FIP/FACIM even existed. The "ACIM" version being published by FIP/FACIM, has added content to both the beginning, and the end, and is publishing that book under a new copyright. This much we know and can state in an article citing secondary sources other than FIP/FACIM - Old book. What the state of Anderson's copy is, however, cannot even be stated without original research. There are no secondary sources which have any information on that topic. Can you give me one good reason to either associate the Anderson pages with FIP/FACIM, or for that matter, not to simply delete them altogether since a) The biography hasn't even the basic information and b) The institution does not pass WP:ORG? Ste4k 08:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a source for one version of the ACIM being significantly different than the other? From the two links you provided I can't tell much besides the two editions being in different shades of blue. From what I've read eslewhere the differences may concern peripheral material. -Will Beback 08:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The old book, had three parts. 1. The text. 2. The Workbook 3. The Manual. Please refer to the court documents which describe the original manuscript and please read again the article A Course in Miracles (book) you will find the citations for the court documents on the bottom. As stated above, after the court case closed, even as claimed by FIP/FACIM on their website, and which can be verified by the books being sold on Amazon, both the old, and the new, they added two sections to the original public domain text, workbook, and manual, called 1. The preface, and 2. The clarification of terms. They have now been publishing the book under copyright in this form. They did this after the court trial, and after the original author had died. The original author's work is still in the public domain. It is in their marketing interests to associate their trademark with the acronym "ACIM" and also in their interests to discredit Anderson which should be clear from the litigation. Anderson has his own copy from before the book was printed. He was sued for using it in his teachings at his institution. Since that time, we do not know anything more about his copy, or its changes. What we do know is that it is considered a different book and he has just as much right to modify it as the other publisher's have done. Since we do not have any facts on Anderson, it would be completely POV, and OR to make assumptions. The burden of proof is for including material on WP. Do you have any sources that show that Anderson's book is the same as the new copyrighted version currently in print which the A Course in Miracles wikilink points to? If not, then the link should be removed by policy, but even once more, for the safety and concern for the encyclopedia because this is a biography of a living person whom is quite capable of participating in a million dollar lawsuit successfully. Do you have a reason to justify including this link and taking that sort of risk on your own authority? I don't, and I removed the link. Ste4k 10:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, may I ask who the two different authors are supposed to be? There is considerable debate about the authorship of ACIM, so it is an important point. -Will Beback 09:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is debate about the authorship and it has not become a fact, then we should not print anything, since whatever we would determine would only be debatable, non-encyclopedic, original research and forever POV. The criteria for inclusion is specific. If we do not have a valid source then we also have no article. Ste4k 10:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant viewpoints, not choose the only "True" one. We have a reliable source (a federal court case) that there is adebate as to whether Jesus or Schucman wrote the ACIM. I'm assuming that you are positing a third author. If so, who would that be? -Will Beback 10:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This is all nonsense. Because Anderson's group made their own version of ACIM, A Course In Miracles is a valid 'see also' link. It's not associating him with a particular version, it's just giving the reader a link to a closely related topic. Ste4k, you need to calm down, and chill out. I don't think you have much support for a lot of these edits, and just reprinting paragraphs of policy makes your argument harder to follow. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 08:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Prove that Anderson is even associated with Endeavor please. A citation to a reputible source will do. Thanks. Ste4k 15:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you say you've read all these sources I'm not sure how you missed this one. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/12/06/48hours/main73248.shtml -Will Beback 17:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any argument, I am only following policy the best I can regardless of resistance. Giving the reader only one closely related topic, specifically the incorrect version, is misleading and false. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want to include it considering the risks involved for the encylopedia and given that it is quite obvious that all of these questions only show that insufficient research of the court case and associated materials has been carried out by those whom are asking. I find it even harder to believe that including this link is being done without answering my questions. My questions are per policy and specifically ask for the sources by which you can base your reason for including it. Ste4k 10:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

An analogy: There is an object called a horse. And the person that created the horse died. The plans for creating the horse were distributed among several people. One group of people sold the rights for five years to a penguin manufacturer for $2.5 million dollars. When it was found that one of the other people who had also received the plans, was creating mules, he was sued by the penguin mfg, and their lincensor for a million dollars. The result of the suit put the plans for a horse into the public domain. The group that was creating mules continued to do so. The other group no longer able to manufacter horses modified the plans. Now that group is creating zebras. There is an article that is created on WP called Horses. In that article are all of the plans to create the zebras. There is another article on WP called mule-makers, and a third which is the biography of the man who started creating mules. There is a link on the bottom of the biography of the man who creates mules that is labeled Horses and points to the article about how to create zebras that is titled horses. I removed the link. Why do you want to associate zebra making with a mule maker when there is no article on how to create mules? Ste4k 10:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think we can all agree that analogy made everything clearer! Attempting to respond: there should be a link to penguins, zebras, and mules on all of the various pages, since they are bound together by this lawsuit. They are all relevent to each other, you see? Adding a link to ACIM doesnt imply that Anderson endorses or is endorsed by ACIM, it just shows that these two topics are connected, and someone researching one might want to know about the other. Can anyone else believe we are having this much of a debate over including a single 'see also' link? Ste4k, you are out of control. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 10:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you prove how these two are connected please? I haven't been able to find anything that states that anywhere in writing. Thanks. Ste4k 15:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? How about the 48 hours article? I have also found at least 5 articles through a LexisNexis search that I am going to use to cite this when it gets merged with Endeavor Academy. Ste4k, how could you have been so involved in this dispute and not have ever read any secondary source? Seems strange. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 16:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You have stated before that you have found these articles. I asked you before to list them. Personal comments about me do not produce any results toward answering my request. If you have found these articles, then please list them (second request). Ste4k 05:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion with Ste4k from her talk page

I think the discussion I've been having with Ste4k on her userpage deserves to be included here, to show the type of arguments she is making. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 02:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Not only have I read the talk page, I've commented on it. The link to ACIM should be on there because he was involved in a one million dollar law suit over it. That makes it relevent to the article. What about that don't you understand? I have yet to see you directly reply to a point I (or any one else) have made. Try it. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 09:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Your statement is incorrect. He was not involved in a one million dollar law suit over that book. He was involved in a one million dollar law suit for his book, a different book, one which does not have the content that the book you are pointing/associating him with has. At the time of the lawsuit the book that you are pointing to did not even yet exist. Now that I have responded to your point please be kind enough to respond to mine. I think that if he knew that you purposely just added a direct link associating his biography (as an author) to a book that he didn't write, and he was sued a million dollars over, that he would probably make it worth some litigation on the part of the encyclopedia if he was so inclined. Don't you? Ste4k 10:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

First you say he was "not involved in a one million dollar law suit over that book", then you say that I added a link to a book that "he was sued a million dollars over." This is within the same comment. Do you see how I have trouble following your logic?

No. What is your point? Is the word "that" confusing you?

The point is, he is associated with the ACIM movement because of this lawsuit.

Incorrect. "ACIM" is not a movement and he is not associated with that company. Companys rarely sue themselves or their associates.

A link to the ACIM page deserves to be in this article.

Why? It deserves to be in the article much less than links to the marine corp or articles about the aftermath of Nagasaki. I base my reasoning on the fact that ACIM is neither sourced nor spoken of in the biography, and 50% of the biography rest on the secondary source that describes Anderson's horrors of seeing Nagasaki first hand just after it was bombed. Do you suppose you can come up with a reasonable secondary source that would provide enough content in the article to justify the context for the link? If so, I am all ears. I'm especially interested because whatever article you find, I will probably be able to use in a different article that I am currently writing. Otherwise. No original research, please.

Your idea that he would litigate over this link and so we shouldn't include it is lunacy.

Your statement make no sense.

--Nscheffey^(T/C) 10:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k 23:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Your anti-rationality forcefield is strong, let me try something else. From the 48 hours article[2]: "[Cult expert Rick] Ross also says that Anderson has taken the New-Age doctrine of a "A Course in Miracles," and twisted its principles of self-enlightenment." By that alone,a link to A Course in Miracles deserves to be on the page. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 00:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please lower your tone and read the documentation for yourself. Same title, different content, different author, different book. Thanks. Ste4k 00:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copy-ed

I've done some copy-editing. Tidied up the language. I have removed nothing substantial from the article. I also restored the appearance at the top. SilkTork 16:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dubious source

Wayne Smith. "Sects on the beach", Courier Mail (Queensland, Australia), 2001-05-19. Retrieved on 2006-07-07. 

• "Suicides spark fears of Byron church cult" Courier Mail/May 19, 2001 --By Wayne Smith

Listing of Courier Mail article June 2002.

No listing of Courier Mail article in May 2001.

Doesn't verify.

An earlier courier mail resource by the same author has already been shown to be bogus. Without any url to verify this particular source, who knows what it says? Does it discuss all of the various books that have the title "A Course in Miracles", or does it only discuss Endeavor Academy's book with that title? Or does it mention the author of the book? the edition? The statement in article is bogus at best. Ste4k 23:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Both of these articles are real and were published in the Queensland Courier Mail, as a LexisNexis search will prove. Citing non-web info is a common and encouraged practice. Ste4k chill. (P.S. Linking to "Canada's Largest Parents' and Children's Rights Organisation" with the explanation "Listing of Courier Mail article June 2002" is classic Ste4k, mind bogglingly bizarre ofuscation of a discussion.) --Nscheffey^(T/C) 00:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Will prove? or did prove? Sorry, you obviously didn't bother to check, did you. Ste4k 00:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It did prove it to me and it will prove it to anyone else. Sorry, forgot you are easily confused. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 01:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks against me don't help establish your point at all. You failed to quote your source leaving it anyone's guess what it actually says. Does it say "Course in Miracles"? If so, does it include the Aramaic Gospels? Go do some research before putting patent nonsense into an article. Thanks. Ste4k 04:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

While we are on the subject of dubious resources. I am removing the 48 Hours article until you put some content in the article that references it. The other contested links will be removed as well. There isn't any content in the article that establishes any reason for their existence. If you'd like to correct that matter, feel free to add content that cites those articles. Thanks. Ste4k 00:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Good lord. Simultaneously removing references and adding {{fact}} tags is breath-taking in its audacity. Please stop the rampage Ste4k. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 01:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If you remove the 48 Hours article, Ste4k, it will be held against you. The fact that you initiated an AfD based on the premise that there weren't enough reliable secondary sources and you tried to remove those reliable secondary sources yourself will not be found amusing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Amusing is the fact, Antaeus Feldspar, that you like to twist things to suit your own reality. When nominated for AfD, that link was not on this article. About your other twisting, this article is still based on ZERO reliable secondary sources. Per holding something "against" me, I'll just say that you should do a little more research on the facts before you put your foot in your mouth. And per your comments, Nscheffey, WP:VER#Burden_of_evidence_in_biographies_of_living_persons "Biographies of living people need special care because biographies containing unsourced material might negatively affect someone's life and could have legal consequences. Remove unsourced material about living persons immediately if it could be viewed as criticism, and do not move it to the talk page. This also applies to material about living persons in other articles", why you prefer to directly jeopardize the encylopedia in your rogue manner violating the consensus of all that came before you that created policy, is beyond me. You act like you have a vested interest in discrediting this man. The article from 48hours is seven years old, made predictions about this man that haven't come true, and trying to force it onto this article without including any content from it seems a little biased if not outright prejudiced and I question your motives. Between the two of you acting in concert trying to obscure the facts about a particular book, it seems pretty plain that you don't want anyone to know the truth. Your personal vendetta against me is baseless, doesn't help the encyclopedia at all, and is disruptive in general. Ste4k 04:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Authorship is not controversial

Also, may I ask who the two different authors are supposed to be? There is considerable debate about the authorship of ACIM, so it is an important point. -Will Beback 09:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is debate about the authorship and it has not become a fact, then we should not print anything, since whatever we would determine would only be debatable, non-encyclopedic, original research and forever POV. The criteria for inclusion is specific. If we do not have a valid source then we also have no article. Ste4k 10:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant viewpoints, not choose the only "True" one. We have a reliable source (a federal court case) that there is adebate as to whether Jesus or Schucman wrote the ACIM. I'm assuming that you are positing a third author. If so, who would that be? -Will Beback 10:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This is incorrect. We have a reliable source that states that Schucman believed that Jesus spoke to her using a "Voice". Please read Course in Miracles (book). It was written according to the court documents without any original research whatsoever. I was very careful to make sure that the words used in the "FACTS" sections were included into that article as close as possible to verbatim without reproducing the entire case. The courts opinion is not controversial, very NPOV, and accepted as fact over a federal venue. That book is no longer in print. There is another book which has "unknown" personages that operate under the collective name of The Foundation for Inner Peace/Foundation for A Course in Miracles, and whose board of directors are discussed in the article and are sourced by the court documents under the heading FACTS. If you have found a discrepency in the sources, regarding a current debate, please be more specific to bring it to my attention. Thanks. Ste4k 10:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, you have said there are two different authors of difference editions of ACIM. One is Jesus, through Schucman. Who is the other author supposed to be? In what way is the Endeavor ACIM different from the other ACIMs? -Will Beback 10:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There is one title. There is no controvery there. The title is "A Course in Miracles. There are three books.

1) A book authored by Shucman who claims she heard "The Voice".

2) A book published by FIP/FACIM with sections that we have no current idea who wrote.

3) A book published by Anderson that we have no current idea how it differs from book number 1.

Book number 2 contains probably verbatim contents of public domain book number 1. Book number 3 contains contents derived from book number 1 or maybe even a version earlier, to what degree is unknown. (This is also only an assumption based on the fact that Anderson was sued) The facts are plain that we have no reputible sources that provide us with any more specific information about this question. Please read the court cases to answer your question regarding Jesus and compare what the court sources say to the article. This question hasn't anything to do with Anderson. The AfD is in regards to Anderson and this page. Thanks. Ste4k 11:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

So you say you don't know how the book sa re different, you just "know" that there are different, and becuase of your unverifiable personal knowledge we can't mention the book in this article. That doesn't seem right. -Will Beback 16:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain. We know the books are different only by inductive and/or deductive reasoning; i.e. The FIP/FACIM book has been stated by two reputible secondary resources to have been changed. It is not however published anywhere that the third book has changed, or in what state it existed. We know that 1. It existed only because Anderson was sued over it. 2. He was sued over it during a time period before it was modified by FIP/FACIM. 3. We know that FIP/FACIM has modified their version. We can therefore easily deduce that Anderson's copy exists and is different from the FIP/FACIM version, but we cannot deduce anything about the nature of that version specifically. To do so without any previously published resources available would constitute original research on our parts. Thanks. Ste4k 18:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't know that the changes were significant. Unless someone says they are significantly different, I'd assume/deduce that they are not significantly different. -Will Beback 01:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for restating the underlying point. We don't even know that he wrote a book, he might have printed some pamphlets or something. According to the court case, although all of the other key parties are mentioned both by name, occupation, and relation to the case, there isn't even one mention of anyone named Anderson. So what we have here is only hogwash. Somebody probably playing a joke on some guy named Anderson for who knows what reason. Ste4k 16:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That is crazy talk. There are many sources naming Anderson as the leader of Endeavor Academy, the 48 hours piece for example. Also, a LexisNexis search turns up many articles on Anderson and Endeavor. Ste4k, get your facts straight before you further obfuscate this already confused discussion. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 16:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

List them. Ste4k 00:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, that URL you just referenced appears to be broken or mistyped on your part. You might wish to correct it. Thanks. Ste4k 15:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that you have corrected the link I am still at a loss about what you want to do with this source. Do you want to include information from it into the biography? Please consider this a direct question. Thanks. Ste4k 17:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You were asking for a source for the subject's involvement in the Endeavor Academy, and so Nscheffey provided one. That seems like a proper reference. -Will Beback 01:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Not me. I was saying that the authorship is not controversial. There are several different books with several different authors. Per Nscheffey's wanting to include this 48 hours as a reference, I have already stated that it's fine with me as long as it is being used as a reference and that content from the 48 hours article is included in the bio. Ste4k 05:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Archive

Please only archive discussions that are done... some live and current discussions were archived. I concur an archive page is needed, but not one that moves current disucssions... anyone know how to do it properely, please go for it! Sethie 03:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussions ended today by consensus and the discussion of deletion. Please review that discussion and the administrative comments. This archive was created per instructions in documentation. Thanks Ste4k 03:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k continues to not actually read the policies she quotes. "Regardless of which method you choose, you should leave current, ongoing discussions on the existing talk page." This is from the page you linked to. Amazing. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 07:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see you removed the link while I was editing this. Probably because it directly contradicts your point. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 07:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Making false accusations about "my removing a link while you were editing" and discussing me personally rather than this article are both personal attacks. About your statement concerning "my point", you haven't the ability to even state such a point if such a point indeed exists. Ste4k 12:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Why was this section added? This portion of the conversation was ended. Ste4k 14:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussions are not necessarily over just because no one has responded in two days. -Will Beback 01:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This is wikipedia. Discussions are never over. There is no such thing as a consensus to end discussion. Sethie 03:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that's fine for you to say, and for everyone to mention, but saying so here, and not bothering to further respond to the questions doesn't make for much discussion even though you believe that it is still continuing. Ste4k 05:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Is the sub-topic "cite research" still being discussed? Wlll Beback advised that such discussion should not be continued. I abided by that suggestion and have not brought the matter back up. Is there some reason that this advice has changed? Ste4k 05:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Is the sub-topic "Attack?" still being discussed? The sources commenting on "pedophile" have been removed by SilkTork in section "Sexual assault allegations" which is also no longer being discussed. Is there some reason that these were pulled from the archive? No further comment was made in these sections after doing so. Was there a question? Ste4k 05:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• is there some reason the "How to post comments to this page" boxes were pulled from the archive? Will Beback already advised that boxes such as these should not be displayed in this discussion. Has something in the policy he mentioned changed? Will Beback wrote: "Also, setting policy quotations larger or placing them in pink boxes does not improve their relevancy. Let's avoid fancy formatting on the talk page, please. -Will Beback 07:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)" Ste4k 06:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

None of this has anything to do with writing this article. If you really want to have a discussion about how to archive a talk page then perhaps we can find a more appropriate locaiton. -Will Beback 06:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I couldn't agree more. These discussions are so full as it is, pulling things for no reason only serves to lengthen the time between consensus, imho. Ste4k 07:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed Merge?

I was looking over the final results of this article's AfD, and I didn't see anyone that explicitly had a problem with merging this into Endeavor Academy. I don't think it would be hard to put together a short, well-referenced article at Endeavor Academy that included all of the verifiable info here. I'll leave this open for discussion for a while, but if no one objects I'm going to be bold and merge it myself. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 08:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Be bold. The objection took the form of those who specifically voted to delete after a merge had been proposed. I haven't any objection to a merge at all. I do, on the other hand, have an objection to extremely thick conversations over umpteen individual issues that get bogged down into long talk pages which are difficult to traverse and lead toward a standstill rather than any consensus. If you think that we can discuss the newly merged article with that in mind, I would certainly appreciate it. Thanks. Ste4k 11:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns about Ste4k

Ste4k posted to my talk page, posting a number of innacuracies and some very curious statements, in response to my linking to the Community Miracles Center —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sethie (talk • diff contribs) .

[edit] About the "CMC"

I think that the page you referred to in the Anderson page may not be the same "Master Teacher" that it looks to be. The problem is, at this point in time, it doesn't actually say. What I do know is that the site itself appears to be the "third group" that we believe exists and which nobody has explored yet research-wise (or at least nobody that has done any research has been willing to divulge). Please note that the owner of that web site is Rev. Tony Ponticello. The third group, has been informally referred to as "jcim". Please don't misunderstand me to be saying that it is not Anderson, but that it doesn't actually say that it is Anderson. If I mis-read the page, please let me know. The next step in the research (which I haven't had the time to follow up on) was to investigate and find the trial records of Penguin when they sued this jcim group. The reason for believing that such a trial took place are the leads pointed out by the new christian church of full endeavor on the page that discusses their "stance" on the results of the trial where they themselves were sued. I'm adding your talk page to my watch list and will respond here, but would prefer not to use my talk page anymore for anything at all. Please feel free to e-mail me if you feel it necessary instead. Thanks. ( for your reference: http://whois.domaintools.com/miracles-course.org ) Ste4k 05:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

My concerns are: If you read his writing, it is full of innacuracies:

~The CMC link I provided is to the Master Teacher's books.

~There is no such group as JCIM. JCIM is a version the Course in Miracles.

~Penguin did not sue any JCIM group. They sued Endeavor Acadmey.

Conspiratorial oddness:

~"Third group?" What third group?

~"We believe exists." Who is "we?"

~Who has informally to CMC as JCIM?

It is the "we believe exists" plus the number of innacurate statements just in a simple response, plus the fact that this newcomer who does not have his facts straight is re-writing a number of pages. I just wanted to bring this to everyone's attention.

As I have said before, I do agree with Ste4k's demands for citations... just wanted to alert people to some the weirdness I am now seeing in his thought processes. Sethie 05:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You asked, what group that I am a member. WP! And whom has informally referred to the book? Others who have been trying to figure all of this out. The first time I had ever heard of the Course was about three weeks ago. Since that time I have asked quite a few questions in discussion. The first question, however, to date has yet to be answered. I think that the main problem with most of the articles is that they fail to inform people that haven't ever seen/heard about these topics before what the topic is actually about; i.e. why is it important. JCIM is one version of the Course, but there is another version that is associated with EA, listed on the bottom of their web site that points to what appears to be another group, but several of the photos used on that other group's pages are also used on the EA site. There was such a company in Wisconsin at one time. It might have changed its name but I would have to do more research, like I said before. The JCIM version, though, is discussed by theCourse in Miracles Society, and shown on that page, which is owned by Thomas Whitmore of Omaha, Nebraska, who states that "...a series of lawsuits were brought by FACIM and FIP against a number of organizations (including CIMS)...", and claims the source is from the Hugh Lynn Cayce version of the original book. The COMMUNITY MIRACLES CENTER sells the version from the Foundations (FIP/FACIM), the version from the CIM Society, some various related material by "Master Teacher" but never say whom "Master Teacher" is, nor do they reference the version offered by the New Christian Church. They do, however, sell two cassettes of "passages from the Course" by Pamela Galadrial, but it is unclear what passages are contained there, nor any further mention of what version Pamela used. There are fourteen language translations, of one of the versions published by the Foundations (FACIM/FIP) listed on that site. Notice that the FIP name is printed on the cover and that there are only three sections within the translated book compared to the five discussed by the publisher FIP who state "...the version of A Course in Miracles that contains the Clarification of Terms and the Text Preface, we want to make sure that people understand that this version of the Course has not been placed into the public domain". So you see, there are at least three, possibly four, perhaps even more published versions of "the source" (page 6) of the work created by Helen Schucman and William Thetford. I suppose we could say that there are at least four versions of the Course:

1. "the source" of the work.
2. the FIP version with five sections.
3. the EA version with Aramaic Gospels.
4. the JCIM version sourced from "an earlier version of the manuscript" (page 8) provided to the Association for Research & Enlightenment (the "A.R.E.")

By the way, Sethie, I don't like to be pointed out in an inappropriate fashion, and also, I am female. Thanks. Ste4k 12:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k 12:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

My appologies on the gender thing.

The bottom line is, you are new to Wiki, and new to the Course, new to the EA controversies and are making vast changes based on factually inaccurate information, origonal research and lots of guesswork.

Get your facts straight, weave theories elsewhere, and THEN come make big changes. Sethie 03:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Facts need to be straight before including original research without any reference to back it up. Ste4k 22:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOT the same book as described by Smith

The first source states "The Course in Miracles, which reputedly was channelled directly by Jesus into a Jewish social worker in the 1970s, is widely studied around the world. Where the Endeavor Academy has struck out on its own into unexplored territory is by overlaying the Course teachings with the 12-Step Program on which AA and NA (Narcotics Anonymous) are based." The category and the article called "A Course in Miracles" hasn't any sort of relationship with what this source states that Endeavor Academy wrote. There is also no mention in this article about Anderson authoring the work. It does go on further to state that "The whole thing is ungrounding. It's a perversion of the Course in Miracles." This source clearly states that the work created by Endeavor Academy does not belong in the category "A Course in Miracles". Adding a wikilink to the topic that exists based on this source would be contradictory to the source. Ste4k 22:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it would be NPOV. So Endeavor Academy claims that what they are using is "A Course in Miracles" and other people claim that they are not? That's not a problem; we'll cite EA claiming they do and we'll cite the other people claiming they don't. What is a problem is you trying to make that decision for everyone else, deciding that since you believe Endeavor Academy's side of the debate to be wrong, you'll keep anyone from even finding out what Endeavor Academy's side of the debate is. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. If you have a content dispute please be civil and consult appropriate ways to resolve it. Thanks. Ste4k 00:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing incivil in Antaeus's remarks. He presents the proper, NPOV way to handle the issue. -Will Beback 01:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Please read his statement again. "What is a problem is you..." This is not a statement discussing this article. The facts are real clear. The article that is at A Course in Miracles hasn't anything to do with this person. It cannot be established in any way shape or form. The other article, internal, is about a book written by the Foundation for Inner Peace. There isn't a single reference to Anderson, nor Endeavor Academy in that article. There is no relationship whatsoever. Another fact: that this source by Wayne Smith even says that there isn't anything at all the same about the two should be real clear especially since it is a source that was put into the article by an editor other than me. I have that source here now. I've read it. I inserted a direct quote from it, twice. There isn't any basis for removing a direct quote from a source that has been recognized by a minimum of three editors including myself and replacing it with original research POV. Those are the facts, and it has nothing to do with me personally, and I have not retaliated in any way, shape, or form to the personal remarks on this page, in the edit summaries, or on the talk page where I have been politely warning about the attacks according to the guidelines. Ste4k 06:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The second sentence on the Endeavor Academy website is:

• The principal catalyst for this adventure into the enlightenment of humanity is the spiritual mind training of A Course In Miracles.[3]

The inclusion of exclusion of additional material does not negate the fact that they claim to be using the book, "A Course In Miracles", as the foundation of their beliefs. -Will Beback 06:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The Endeavor website is a primary source that was moved to external link by agreement. Antireconciler (talk · contribs) moved it to external links and I agreed that it should remain there. reverting it back and making a rude personal attack at me in the edit summary does not justify a primary source in the least, nor does is make the rude statement correct. I quesioned Nscheffey  (talk · contribs)'s source by Wayne Smith, he said he got it from LexisNexis. Today I accessed that source on LexisNexis, edited the accessdate on the source and corrected the citation's date. I read the article, and I quoted the source. It is a secondary source according to Nscheffey (talk · contribs) and me as well. There is absolutely no reason to revert back in, a primary source, and then replace what is quoted directly from the secondary. If you do not like the secondary, then contest it, discuss it, but reverting it back and making rude remarks doesn't change the facts. If neither of you has the source by Wayne Smith then I suggest that you obtain it. You should also know better than to suggest that we include original research rather than quoting the article. The source does not say that "A Course in Miracles" by Foundation of Inner Peace was the foundation of the beliefs of the two women who made statement in Austrailia. Thanks. Ste4k 07:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, you are aware by now that there are at least four versions under that title, aren't you? Ste4k 07:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

<-- You wrote above that:

• The facts are real clear. The article that is at A Course in Miracles hasn't anything to do with this person. It cannot be established in any way shape or form.

Yet the website of the institution that the subject heads specifically says that the insitution bases its teaching on ACIM. So there is a linkage, which can be easily established. I don't doubt that there are different versions of the ACIM. There are different versions of the Bible too. If you have a reference for which version this group uses then we could add that. -Will Beback 20:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

On "ACIM"? Does it? Can you quote it please? Since there is no reference to such a version by your own admission we should delete that per WP:VER and WP:RS. Ste4k 21:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Will, I commend you on the level of patience you are displaying while dealing with this argument. Your comparison to the Bible was particularly apt. Ste4k, in the first paragraph of Mormonism is a link to Christianity, even though Mormonism uses a different Bible and many Christians would not consider Mormons to be Christians. See the similarities? The fact that Ste4k still thinks this link needs to be removed is amazing to me. Keep fighting the good fight Will. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 21:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I see the digression you propose, but you haven't addressed the issue. Ste4k 21:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Simply mind-blowing. Ste4k is completely impervious to reason and rationality. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 21:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Back to the issue at hand... Here are the direct quotes from Wayne Smith in an obscure and difficult to find reference:

• "By coincidence -- or perhaps not -- that is the same time span she has been a member of the New Christian Church of the Full Endeavor in Byron Bay. The church, which trades under the name "Miracle Centre", is the Australian offshoot of the Wisconsin-based Endeavor Academy, established 15 years ago by a former Chicago real estate salesman and reformed alcoholic who now calls himself the Master Teacher, Charles Buell Anderson."
• "To listen to Anderson on his recruitment videos is to enter an upside-down world of psycho-babble, pseudo-science and New-Age religion."

These are the only mentions of Anderson on the entire page. I replaced the information in the top line of this biography with that direct quote. If you don't intend to use this reference, that's one thing, but if you do intend to use this reference, then we need to supply the content from it. Extranneous references haven't any place in an article. Ste4k 22:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this discussion getting so confused that you have forgotten what we are talking about? You said we shouldn't link to A Course in Miracles from this article. No one agreed with you. What in the name of Master Teacher are you talking about now? --Nscheffey^(T/C) 22:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The direct quote hasn't any mention of "Course in Miracles" at all. Your digression is noted, but this looks like a clear case of orignal research to me. If you'd like to resolve the dispute properly then I suggest you take some time and do that. Ste4k 22:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone else listening to this nonsense? It's a "clear case of original research" to say there is a connection between Endeavor Academy and A Course in Miracles? What about the 48 hours article that I have referred you to multiple times? This is just crazy. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 22:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Back to the issue at hand... Here are the direct quotes from Wayne Smith in an obscure and difficult to find reference:

• "By coincidence -- or perhaps not -- that is the same time span she has been a member of the New Christian Church of the Full Endeavor in Byron Bay. The church, which trades under the name "Miracle Centre", is the Australian offshoot of the Wisconsin-based Endeavor Academy, established 15 years ago by a former Chicago real estate salesman and reformed alcoholic who now calls himself the Master Teacher, Charles Buell Anderson."
• "To listen to Anderson on his recruitment videos is to enter an upside-down world of psycho-babble, pseudo-science and New-Age religion."

These are the only mentions of Anderson on the entire page. I replaced the information in the top line of this biography with that direct quote. If you don't intend to use this reference, that's one thing, but if you do intend to use this reference, then we need to supply the content from it. Extranneous references haven't any place in an article. Ste4k 00:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Reposting the same comment instead of replying is without a doubt one of the dickest things I've ever seen. You have apparently tried to change the subject of this conversation once you realized you didnt have a point. I take it now that you have ceded the point that a link to A Course in Miracles belongs on this page and we can end this monumental waste of time disguised as a discussion?--Nscheffey^(T/C) 01:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

So in other words you still don't have a reply and only want to call me names and digress. Aren't you supposed to be "being bold" and getting some work done on that merge you mentioned? (steak looks at her watch) or do you find stalking me with sexual innuendos more important than keeping your word? Ste4k 01:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

This tags on this page are out of control. I tried to replace them with a "noncompliant" tag to sum up all the problems, but ste4k reverted this and added more. Does anyone think all of these tags are necessary or is this just more Ste4k lashing out? --Nscheffey^(T/C) 22:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Speak plain. There are several problems with this article and each should be addressed. You are not the only editor on WP and various tags categorize this article into various groups. I removed tags in accordance with your other discussion here and in the reply for comment. I think its rather odd that you would disagree with your own opinion and your continuous badgering makes it look like you think that I am more important to you than the article itself. If that's the case, then I suggest that you deal with it in the appropriate manner rather than the way you have been going about it. Ste4k 00:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, at the current time, this is what you have instead of the direct quote from the Wayne Smith article: "and claims to incorporate many aspects of the spiritual teachings known as A Course in Miracles." Is this using weasel words, stating a fact, or is it just plain original research? Can you answer a direct question Nscheffrey? Ste4k 00:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

How's this for a direct answer: Get a clue. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 01:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the time of your edit here, your statement is factually incorrect, Nscheffey. According to the article history your first statement is nonsense. Did you bother to read the history or did you just make a guess because you know me so well from stalking me? Just curious. Ste4k 00:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It's like talking to a schizophrenic toddler. When I remove something, and you put it back in that 's called reverting it. If trying to prevent you from doing damage to this encyclopedia qualifies as "stalking" then call me Mark David Chapman. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 01:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have a complaint, please take it to the proper place. This discussion area is supposed to be used for discussion of the article. Ste4k 01:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)