Talk:A Course in Miracles

Criticsm Section removed

I've gone ahead and removed this section. It was very non neutral and full of speculation without establishing the relevance of the speculation. If reinstated, needs more careful sourcing and very careful wording to ensure neutrality.TheRingess (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverted censorship by The Ringess. That a few sentences of the criticism section arguably fail NPOV does not justify deleting the entire section. Christian perspective critiques of the Course and Thetford's long term work on CIA mind control programs are not 'speculative' and I'm sure that many people would consider them to be quite relevant. 203.220.104.199 (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This was not censorship. The section is full of non-neutral opinions and irrelevant speculations. Also, links to threads in forums hardly count as reliable sources. Am re-removing until a more neutral version with careful sourcing, no opinions, and relevant material is added.TheRingess (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Also has links to widely distributed and well footnoted journalism articles (Hardy), refs to well known cult busters (Kramer and Alstad), a piece by Thetford's biographer (Jesseph) and other material that is at least as authoritative, relevant and NPOV as any of the rest of the ACIM entry. If you object to the fact that some wanker has inserted his personal opinions into the criticism section, why not edit it out instead of censoring *all* relevant criticism of ACIM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.104.199 (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2009

I did not see any relevant criticism in that section. For example, the relationship between the MKULTRA program and ACIM seems purely speculative. Whether or not the author channeled the material or not, is also irrelevant, relevant is the claim that the material was channeled. That some Christian ministers also object is irrelevant. Ditto the experiences of a few anonymouse members. Better to put back only relevant material in appropriate sections other than a criticism section rather than blindly put material in that violates Wikipedia policies.TheRingess (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That Thetford spent most of his adult career working on CIA mind control projects such as MKULTRA and BLUEBIRD is a well documented fact, as is the fact that he co-directed the still classified MKULTRA Subproject 130 at the same time as the early edition of ACIM was being propagated and the Tiburon community was being set up. As ACIM represents itself as the channeled voice of Jesus Christ, the opinions of practicing Christian ministers would also be relevant information to people wondering whether ACIM is compatible with mainstream Christianity. 203.220.104.200 (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that is a well documented fact, but the relationship between his work there and the course seems at best speculation and at worst innuendo. We need more documentation on how his contribution to the course related to his work with MKULTRA, until then we only seem to have one author's opinion that whatever he contributed was negative. Very pov. Also to include the opinions of certain practicing Christian ministers who feel strongly one way about the course and not include the opinions of other Christian ministers who feel differently (unless we have evidence that all christian ministers feel the same way), is very non-neutral. How the coures might or might not relate to mainstream Christianity is not really a subject for a criticism section, but the subject for a section that deals specifically with that topic. As I said, only including some opinions and not others in a non-scholarly fashion is very pov.TheRingess (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless the CIA opens its files tomorrow I can't imagine what better documentation you could reasonably demand than Jesseph's pro-Thetford biography that details his CIA CV, the unclassified budget line items for Subproject 130, Thetford's own papers on the the PAS of MKULTRA chief psychologist John Gittinger and the structure and form of ACIM itself. And how many other Wikipedia *CRITICISM* sections also demand balancing opinions from those who are pro? Exactly how many Christian priests and ministers opinions do you think need to be included before its no longer POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.104.200 (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You're missing my point regarding Thetford. Until we have detailed documentation that links Thetfords work in the CIA to his contribution to the course, we have only 1 author's opinion. Please see WP:RS. His work with the CIA belongs in his biography, published research on how that work relates to the course belongs here. It doesn't matter what other criticism sections do, they may also be wrong. We don't need opinions, we need scholarly published research that details the relationship between the course and mainstream christianity.TheRingess (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

So doubtless for consistency's sake you will now go and edit the Scientology page. After all, unless there is detailed documentation linking Hubbard's science fiction writing with Scientology it could no more be relevant to mention that than mentioning that one of the founders of ACIM was a professional brainwasher. However you are clearly a fanatic and I don't have the energy to fight edit wars with the likes of you, so I guess your censorship will stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.104.240 (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF.TheRingess (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I entirely concur with the comments made by 203.220.104.240 "That a few sentences of the criticism section arguably fail NPOV does not justify deleting the entire section." and "If you object to the fact that some wanker has inserted his personal opinions into the criticism section, why not edit it out instead of censoring *all* relevant criticism of ACIM?" TheRingess, you are free to flag specific statements with a POV tag, and to flag and later remove unsourced or poorly sourced claims after a reasonable time has elapsed, but simply deleting the entire section is not appropriate, consensus-driven editing. --Wormcast (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I am free according to Wikipedia's policies to delete material that does not meet the pillars of Wikipedia. Believe me, I waited a reasonable amount of time before deleting. Why don't we discuss each item that you feel is relevant here and if it's neutral, properly sourced then we can consider re-adding it (one relevant, reliably sourced item at a time). Why wait? You and I seem to be the only ones that care. Also, the wanker phrase that you copied above, neither reflected nor summarized my stance. Or we can seek a third opinion or we can take it to mediation, etc. You might wish to read WP:AGF before accusing other editors of censorship. Take care.TheRingess (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking back at the history of the article, I see that on 23:53, 25 February 2009 you added a criticism tag to the "Criticism" section. You then proceeded to wait until 00:20, 26 February 2009 before proceeding to delete the entire section. Do you really consider 27 minutes a "reasonable amount of time" to wait before deleting an entire section representing the contributions of many editors? As far as AGF, I began my own assessment of the appropriateness of your deletions by reviewing the rather extensive discussion above, in which you repeatedly refused to acknowledge the (imhpov) reasonable arguments against said deletion by 203.220.104.200. This discussion alone rather calls into question your assertion that "You and I seem to be the only ones that care." --Wormcast (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

All arguments of timeliness aside, I made what I felt (imhpov) were perfectly valid counterarguments to each of the anonymous editors arguments. For my effort to discuss the material and my concerns, I was labeled a "fanatic" and the anonymous editor, rather than read and respond to my valid arguments chose to forgo all discussion. Once again, why wait any longer, why not begin anew a reasonable discussion of the items and add back only those that we can agree are neutral, reliably sourced? Why wait? In other words, in my opinion, the discussion should not be about me or you, but should be about the material.TheRingess (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I propose, I'm going to pull out items that I think don't belong and give my reasons why. I'm going to place them in subsections, with the sentence as the section title. In this manner we can hopefully come to a consensus about each item.TheRingess (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Skeptics contend that the likely source is either a complete fabrication or the result of psychosis

My first reaction when reading that was, so what? This statement would be true of any material that anyone claimed to have channeled. Channeling does not seem to be a phenomenon largely reported on by reputable journals. Nor are "channelers" certified by any board (at least as far as I know). In other words, no organization/magazine, appears to be seriously investigating and debunking or verifying claims of channeling. So the claim of channeling mentioned in the material, remains exactly that a claim. Wikipedia states it as such, for Wikipedia to do anything but, would be a violation of neutrality. So why does this sentence belong under criticism. It could be rewritten to be "There is no proof that the material was channeled." (no proof that it wasn't either, or at least no proof published in a reputable journal). It seems to me to be more of a statement of fact applicable to all claims of channeling than an actual criticism (it makes no mention of the material, just the source). The sentence does seem to allege that the author suffered from psychosis, but that seems to be something that is more appropriately stated in other sentence and backed up by a medical journal that diagnosed the author and then published that diagnosis. The article already links to channeling, so the reader can form any hypothesis they want regarding the possible explanation of the source of the material.TheRingess (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy fanaticists find much to question with the origins of ACIM

Not very neutral here, who are these fanatacists? Why are they fanaticists? Not a very neutral word. What do they question? Why should we care? Is this a criticism or simply a vague statement. Why not expand and add to the history (or origins section). Also, the source given is to an anonymous discussion on a forum. Not a very reliable source. My take, is someone needs to do some serious research here, get more reliable sources and be specific about the concerns before this material is ready for any section.TheRingess (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

CIA material

I'm going to lump a paragraph or two here. The material here is more about the MKULTRA program than it is about the course. There is no detail given as to the extent to which Thetman's involvement with the CIA (real or not) influenced his contributions to the course. It doesn't belong here but either on Thetman's biography or the CIA article. There just seems to be an attempt to create guilt by association here, hardly neutral. Nor do the sources given seem to give any details on Thetman's work and how it influenced the course. The accusation of brainwashing is exactly that, an accusation, an opinion by one person. There does not seem to be any reliable source that supports that allegation. Hence more unreliable, pov material.TheRingess (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Zero context

A visitor to this page would be hard pressed to explain why the subject is notable. There's no context whatsoever! A good two or three paragraphs on its relevance when originally published in the 70s would be great. Shii (tock) 04:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

3rd Opinion

Hi all, I came here from WP:3O. I've had a quick look through the article. I think it needs a lot of work anyway (parts of it read as if taking the author's somewhat offbeat claims at face value), but with respect to the criticism section, I believe it is inappropriate to include in its current form. Standalone criticism sections are discouraged, as they tend to be clothes-pegs for wild, poorly cited and/or POV claims, and trolling in general. That certainly applies to at least parts of the current version of the criticism section. I would suggest it be rewritten with the title of "critical reception", which at least is neutral in tone and implies something more substantial than forum posts as the source. This could include the saner and better referenced of the "criticism", and would also add some idea of the effect this book had when it was released back in the 70's, as discussed by the user above.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion. I've expressed some of my thoughts above and would really like to get a dialog going with the editors who've objected to my removing it as I still have lots of thoughts on whether or not most of the material is actually criticism.TheRingess (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Jesus should not be listed in infobox as "author"

I've just edited the ACIM infobox at the top of the article, which formerly listed the author of ACIM like this: "Jesus - Scribe: Dr. Helen Schucman." I've changed that to simply read "Dr. Helen Schucman." Since I have a feeling this might arouse some controversy, I'll explain my reasoning. I think it highly inappropriate to state in the infobox (where there's no room for explanations or qualifications) that Jesus was the author of ACIM. That, obviously, is a highly subjective/questionable claim and cannot be verified. Furthermore, following Jesus' name with "Scribe: Dr. Helen Schucman" is essentially an endorsement of what ACIM adherents claim about the origin of the ACIM writings; it definitely doesn't reflect a neutral point of view.

Also, "scribe" seems to be a term that's only used by people who are familiar with ACIM (at least, I've never heard anyone else use it that way). It makes sense to use and discuss that term in the article, but it doesn't seem appropriate to just glibly use it in the infobox.

I think most people would agree that the term "author" refers to the person who actually wrote the material down, especially when there is no evidence that anyone else had a hand in it. I understand that many ACIM adherents believe that Jesus was the source of Helen Schucman's writings, but you can't just categorically state this in the infobox. Dr. Schucman is the only known author.

I notice that the Seth Material article lists the author of that material as simply "Jane Roberts," not "Seth - Channeler: Jane Roberts" or anything like that. 75.42.91.141 (talk) 06:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

How the Library of Congress lists the author of ACIM

Can anyone tell me exactly how the Library of Congress lists the author? ThePlanter (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

They list it two different ways that I can find. From my search, they list the bound books without an author. There is also a listing for an earlier Braille edition where they appear to have listed it as "by Foundation for Inner Peace," which now gets listed under "Related Names" on the bound volumes. It appears that no author is their preferred listing. And to TheRingess, fwiw, I admire your staunch evenhandedness in the face of high emotion.PMonaghan (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)