Talk:A Course in Miracles/Archive 10

Glossary and related remarks

@Afterwriting: I have nothing against a glossary of the main terms from ACIM. I don't know if you agree. What I don't agree with is turning the article into a propaganda piece for ACIM. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:. Agreed. I think a brief glossary of any principal terms or concepts would he useful if this is acceptable in articles. Afterwriting (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

When I reviewed the existing ACIM article this morning I noticed the criticism about it using too many primary references. So I looked up what you mean by primary. From what I read in the linked article, nearly all of my references are primary. If that is not acceptable, my entire article is defunct by Wikipedia standards. My goal in writing and submitting an was to provide a brief summary of the Course's history and its thought system for interested readers. I was not trying to advertise, preach from, or sell it. The most reliable way to do this without inserting my own opinion is to provide lots of quotes from and references to Course material itself. This form of research and documentation does not appear to be acceptable to you, but it is the best that I have to offer.David_A_Scott (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

We are interested in what third parties say about ACIM. We quote the Baptists. We don't say that what the Baptists say about ACIM would be true or false, we just say it is their view. We quote the skeptics. We don't say that what the skeptics say about ACIM would be true or false, we just say it is their view. We quote scholars of religion. And there is the tricky part, since Wikipedia basically assumes that the academia is right. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand. Wikipedia is citing secondary sources without evaluating what they say. This provides an overview of the subject material as it has been viewed and received by others, prejudiced or not. This approach, while useful at times, can be very misleading to readers who want an accurate depiction of what the material says or teaches. All writing involves interpretation, and some of those interpretations are bound to be wrong. My writing is also an interpretation of the Course as I understand and have experienced it. My wife and I have been students of the Course for 35+ years. We have met and attended trainings with Kenneth Wapnick, Ph.D., who edited the Course with Helen Schucman, Ph.D. Over the years, we have read books about the Course from other authors including Gary Renard and Brent Haskell, Ph.D., both of whom seem insightful and knowledgeable about the Course. We have also attended lectures and read books by authors who presented themselves as experts, but clearly have not completed the Course themselves. One way that I guard against misrepresenting the Course to others is by searching for what I have written in the Course itself -- using the search engines at Miraclecenter.org and ACIM.org. Far too often, I discover that my memory is a little off, which leads to a correction. I follow this process in everything that I write about the Course, because accuracy matters to me.David_A_Scott (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I will repeat from what I posted on your talk page. "I find most editor disappointment stems from a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Read WP:Verifiability, not truth. As an encyclopedia, the goal is to distill what reliable secondary sources have said about an article's subject. [...] it may become evident that your goals do not fully overlap with the goals of the Wikipedia community, and you will be unsuccessful and disappointed."

From your post above, "All writing involves interpretation", which is why Wikipedia relies on secondary sources. "I follow this process in everything that I write about the Course, because accuracy matters to me." It's common to conflate "accuracy" with "precision" (see Uncertainty principle). It is why Wikipedia, in attempts to be accurate, disregards the precision proffered by personal accounts of those immersed in a subject. I'm afraid first-hand experience will provide nothing that Wikipedia can use. _signed, Willondon (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Summary:

• 3 RS (forget about Baptists and skeptics) say it's Gnosticism (or neo-Gnosticism);
• 2 RS (forget about Baptists and skeptics) say it's channeled;
• Olav Hammer is a scholar of major academic reputation, in comparison with him Schucman, Thetford and Wapnick were academic underdogs (Schucman and Thetford were only associate professors, while Google does not mention that Wapnick was a professor at all). tgeorgescu (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect or gross distortions

This is shockingly inaccurate. It contains literally the exact opposite of the truth. I can only imagine the author is on a specific mission to distort every aspect of ACIM. I don't know the motivation, but it appears plenty of time has been devoted to it! I'm not willing to devote an equal amount of time correcting it. Those who want the truth, will find it. Mic drop 2603:7081:5F40:40DA:1CF5:96FC:9DB:F3BF (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Yet another neo-Gnostic sect, like Theosophy, Anthroposophy, Samael Aun Weor, etc., etc. Wikipedia follows mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP, it does not pander to the piety of WP:FRINGE religious movements. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Claptrap

I have reverted original research. It was sheer claptrap. People who think that Wikipedia could affirm that a text was written by the Holy Spirit have smoked too much pot. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)