Talk:A Course in Miracles/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 8: Mar 8, 2007 - May 23, 2007


To view earlier archives, see:


Contents

Terminology section

The Terminology section is quite interesting. Kudos to whomever added it. I do have one question, though. Are these intended to be Robert Perry's definitions (his work is footnoted immediately preceding them)? If so, it would no doubt be preferable to cite them as such. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but, the section appears to border on plagiarism. If it was a part of an article on Robert Perry's book, then that would be one thing, but it starts to delve into editorial in a manner which seems either impossible to finish, or is out of scope of an encyclopedic article. For example, I am curious why those three terms were cited rather than three others. It requires POV to determine that, true? Or, for another example, why only list three and why not list ten? why not twenty? It occurs to me that the article here is attempting to read the books for the reader instead of allowing the reader to read the books and make judgments for themselves; and I am speaking about BOTH books, that is, both Robert Perry's book as well as the Course. The problem here is that it is a minor topic that is only brought up as important by one author, and yet, simultaneously the topic sentence of the section states that this is a "notable feature" of the book: "A notable feature of The Course is its distinct and very precise choice of language." That either needs to be rethunkked or restated to show the importance of that opinion in respect to the rest of the encyclopedia. In other words, it is rather like saying that no other books are precise or distinct in language selection. Basically, the statement is wholly untrue. Wasn't there something along the lines of brainwashing equated with the deliberate redefinition of various words in the readers' psyche? In order to achieve balance and/or justification for this section that other author's opinion should either be set in parallel alongside Perry's opinion here, or the section should be removed. Since an article should not be trying to have a debate within its content, and instead, rather the reverse, in essence then, it is my opinion that this one minor idiosyncrasy of the Course does not help define the book nor help the article stay in focus. Zghost 11:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Archives dropped a month

Archive 6 is pointing at the same material as Archive 5. Zghost 06:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, somebody seems to have screwed up the archives a bit. I have fixed this as best I have time for. There appears to have been an overlap period in the summer of 2006 due to the debates that raged back then. I've archived both overlapping archives in the interest of not losing any of that material.
-Scott P. 13:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

External Link Inaccuracy

One of the external links is listed as:

Clicking on it brings one to a page which has a copyright notice consipicuously presented at the bottom of the page.

Zghost 07:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Source?

There is a source listed as the final external link referencing the US District Court which is the actual original document which are republished/edited by the Miracle Times sources. We should have it the other way around, and refer in our article to the original source rather than a reprint with editorial and move the Miracle Times opinions to external links. The section they reference could also use a little scrutiny in my opinion. Zghost 11:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for reversion of litigation section

On Mar 13 the litigation section was reworded to read that "the copyright on the Course was judged and ordered void". The supporting reference used did not appear to fully support this assertion.

The supporting reference only stated that, "The copyright ... number A693944 ... is void", where the copyright number mentioned referred only to the 1st edition of ACIM. Stating only that "the copyright on the Course was judged and ordered void" instead of stating that, "the copyright to the 1st edition of ACIM was judged void" appeared to possibly be an over-simplification of the facts. I have reverted this section to its earlier wording as the section's earlier wording appeared to more clearly state the actual copyright status of ACIM.

Comments welcome.

-Scott P. 11:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The initial publication date

I have reverted the opening paragraph to include the initial publication date as opposed to the date that Thetford gave Hugh Lynn Cayce a copy for personal review. Date of publication information would seem to be more pertinent in an opening paragraph. Perhaps the Hugh Lyn Cayce vignette would work better further down in the article.

-Scott P. 10:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of commonalities with Freudian and Jungian psychology

In an effort to clarify the commonalities between ACIM, Freudian and Jungian psychology, I have inserted additional text highlighting these commonalities. If it may be felt that yet further clarification is still needed, please explain.

Thanks,

-Scott P. 11:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of OR and CITECHECK tags

Rephrasing two sentences into one, using parenthesis where needed, is generally not considered to be original research. I have removed the OR and CITECHECK tags from the COURSE MATERIAL section.

-Scott P. 11:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for removal of CONTROVERSIAL and CALM tags from the ACIM discussion page header

These tags were added to this discussion page back in the summer of 2006 when one or two users (who have since been banned from Wiki) managed to create a great deal of disharmony in this article.

Some of this "disharmony" was probably also the result of a general "house-cleaning" that occurred in Wiki around the same time as the standards for required references for writers in Wiki suddenly seemed to significantly increase, and what had generally once been a far more laissez-faire attitude towards documentation requirements suddenly tightened. Over night, many sections of many Wiki articles that had previously been considered as acceptable were found to be points of contention. Now that this "documentation house-cleaning" and the other controversies that came with it seem to have been basically resolved (to the best of my knowledge) I have gone ahead and removed those tags. Comments welcome.

-Scott P. 14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Some time ago User:Ste4k generated a list of material that she removed from the article when it was entering its dark age. I later provided a link to this material embedded in the CONTROVERSIAL tag, referring to it as an 'uncited sourcebook'. Removing the tag would have removed the only link to this page. Since the article has reached a more stable form the material may have no further function, and in that case, the page should be deleted. Otherwise, it should be kept as an additional archive. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 05:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for removal of speculation that Schucman may have disapproved of the early ACIM copyright handling

Earlier wording in the "Distribution" section of this article referring to the early ACIM copyright as an "alleged oral" copyright, appears to be based on a theory that there "may have" been a rift between Schucman, Wapnick and Skutch over the handling of the early copyright. Such speculation does not appear to be borne out by the fact that a close relationship existed between these three through to Schucman's death years after the initial publication. As of yet, this speculation is based only on the "negative proof" that such-and-such a document is not known to exist. Until any positive proof of such a rift might be found, the insertion of such speculative language in this article implying the "possibility" of such a rift, does not appear to serve to clarify the circumstances surrounding the the origins of the book, ACIM.

-Scott P. 16:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to reinstate better documented support articles on Wapnick and FACIM

In the summer of 2006, during a major shift in Wiki documentation policy, two important support articles for the ACIM article were deleted in the "clean-up" effort. These were articles on "Kenneth Wapnick" and on FACIM. I would like to propose that a better documented articles on Kenneth Wapnick and FACIM be restarted. As FIP is in a sense a subsidiary of FACIM, I think that a redirect from FIP to FACIM might be in order, and that any information particular to FIP could probably be included in one or two sentences in the proposed reinstated FACIM article. Comments?

-Scott P. 15:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

FIP and FACIM are two distinct organizations. FIP is not a subsidiary of FACIM. A redirect from FIP to FACIM would not be in order.—Who123 16:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It's probably better to forget about the "shift in Wiki documentation policy." If multiple, independent, reliable sources exist about each of these subjects (and I believe they probably do), we should try to write such articles. It may be advisable to start an ACIM wikiproject if there is going to be significant coverage. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for rewording of summary section

On Mar. 25th the summary section was reworded to state that the Course teaches that there is "no need for traditional forgiveness".

While the Course does enlarge substantially on the traditional definition of forgiveness, I do not believe that it claims anywhere that it "overturns" it, or that it is no longer necessary. Some of the current dictionary definitions of the word are:

1. to grant pardon for or remission of (an offense, debt, etc.); absolve.
2. to give up all claim on account of; remit (a debt, obligation, etc.).
3. to grant pardon to (a person).
4. to cease to feel resentment against: to forgive one's enemies.
5. to cancel an indebtedness or liability of: to forgive the interest owed on a loan.
6. to pardon an offense or an offender.

I don't believe ACIM teaches anywhere that any of these things are no longer necessary. Comments welcome.

-Scott P. 11:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

other teachers?

About.com mentions "A new generation of teachers, including Marianne Williamson, Tara Singh [not Master Tara Singh], Dr. Gerald Jampolsky [friend of William Thetford], and most prominently, Kenneth and Gloria Wapnick, emerged as leaders in the loosely organized movement." Why aren't they mentioned in Wikipedia? -Eep² 04:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the above were in previous editions of this article, however during last summer's edit wars over this article, many were deleted. Unfortunately the standards for referencing in this article that some seem to insist upon are rather tiresome. I have had enough difficulty just keeping a bare minimum of the most pertinent information in this article accurate and sufficiently cited to meet certain editor's apparent requirements. You can feel free to re-include references to these other teachers here, only please give ample supporting citations while doing so. Any help you might be able to provide on this page would be most appreciated. Thanks,
-Scott P. 07:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. Yea, seems like some Wikipedians are really cracking down on citations lately. I edited Michael Tsarion recently and then it was immediately nominated for deletion (and The Granada Forum for speedy deletion)--damn annoying. Fortunately, I was able to find enough sources but it was a mad dash--I hate that. :/ Anyway, I'm trying to establish credibility for Tsarion and Tara Singh is supposedly his grandfather, so I'm trying to establish that link. See Talk:Michael Tsarion for more info if you're interested. -Eep² 12:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Ken Wapnick has written several books on ACIM. Check it out on Amazon. Should be easy to cite his works as references, provided of course the author has read them. Zopupa 17:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

ACIM and Monism

Regarding a request for a citation source for the assertion that ACIM is monistic: Monism holds that the universe/ reality is comprised of a single indivisible substance. ACIM holds that God and His love are one and the same, and are all that there really is. I see no contradiction here. Further comments welcome. Thanks,

-Scott P. 07:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This gets into the fine points of ACIM philosophy. ACIM uses the word "oneness". Althought it does state that God is Love, it also speaks of God's Love. It also speaks of the relationship of the Father and the Son, angels, as well as 'our creations being kept safe for us in Heaven'. This seems to suggest a diversity in oneness. I think "Attributive Monism" and "Idealism" (see Monism) apply.—Who123 17:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the characterization of ACIM as monistic. ACIM repeatedly states that the physical world is illusory and not a part of the reality of God. According to Ken Wapnick the metaphysics of ACIM is nondualistic and I have edited the summary section of the article to add a Wapnick quote and reference citation. See the wikipedia entry for nondualism for a brief description of the difference between nondualism and monism. Although monism and nondualism appear to be similar, they are actually different. In Wapnick's two part volume "The Message of a Course in Miracles" Part One, Chapter One, he states "the metaphysics of A Course in Miracles is non-dualistic, as it expresses one pre-separation state: God. In fact, the Course can be said to represent what we may call a perfect or pure nondualism. This form of non-dualism holds not only that God is truth, and all else illusory, but that God is in no way involved in the illusory and unreal world of perception." Later in Chapter three of this same volume it is stated that "A Course in Miracles is unequivocal on this point that God did not create the physical universe. No compromise is possible here without rendering ineffectual the Course's entire thought system." More information about Wapnick can be found on the FACIM website and in the many books he has published about ACIM. Wapnick has written extensively about ACIM and its meaning. Zopupa 14:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
To my understanding of Monism, it would agree with ACIM that the physical world where multiplicity appears to be real is illusory, and that in the unseen world of true spirit, where there is only One, God, or one Being, that this One Being has somehow forgotten It's One-ness. Thus the appearance of the illusory world that most scientists would call 'reality'. -Scott P. 17:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for removal of cite requests in terminology section

Three cite requests were previously inserted into the terminology section. I have since removed them. I am not certain who originally wrote that section, however as one who is familiar with ACIM, I can say without hesitation that the three pivotal terms defined there using ACIM phraseology were quite accurate summarizations of ACIM usage of these three terms. I do not believe that all summarizations in Wikipedia automatically require citations, however if the person who inserted these requests might still feel that cites are needed there, then please do the leg work yourself and either remove the terminology section and explain exactly which inconsistencies you have found there that justify its removal, or insert the cites yourself. Thanks,

-Scott P. 08:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Who "wrote" the Course?

There appears to be a common perceptual mis-perception that Helen "wrote" the Course. There is little question that she was the conduit for the "Voice". Related to this is the mis-perception that all of the material for the Course is contained in Helen's shorthand notes. These mis-perceptions can be corrected by reading the "Urtext". At the end of this are included quotes from the "Urtext" that first demonstrate that some of the material was directly typed without notes. The second set of quotes highlights Bill's deep involvement with the development of the Course material. One quote, in particular, stands out where the "Voice" (through Helen) states to Bill: "Your giant step forward was to INSIST on a collaborative venture."

According to Wapnick in "Absence from Felicity", "One can truly say that the birth of "A Course in Miracles" occurred that June afternoon [of 1965] in Bill's apartment." The intense collaboration continued from then until late 1972. Both Helen and Bill devoted most of their free time during these 7 years to the development of the Course. There were 3 parties in this collaboration: Bill, Helen, and the "Voice". This is easily seen in reading the "Urtext". Whether the "Voice" was indeed Jesus Christ or a product of Helen's split mind can only be decided by each individual. To relegate Bill's part to that of a typist is absurd.

____________________________

THE QUOTES - DICTATED WITHOUT NOTES

Nov. 20, '65

(This goes after basic conflict theory.) (Dictated without notes by HS)

We have already said that the basic conflict is one between love and fear, and that the proper organization of the psyche rests on a lack of level confusion. The section on psychic energy should be re-read very carefully, because it is particularly likely to be misinterpreted until this section is complete.

115

(Dictated without notes by HS)

One of the chief ways in which man can correct his magic-miracle confusion is to remember that he did not create himself. He is apt to forget this when he becomes egocentric, and this places him in a position where belief in magic is virtually inevitable. His instincts for creation were given him by his own Creator, who was expressing the same instinct in His Creation. Since the creative ability rests solely in the mind, everything which man creates is necessarily instinctive.

122

(The following INtroduction dictated by HS without notes.)

The following is the only detailed description which need be written down as to how error interferes with preparation. The events specifically referred to here could be any events, nor does their particular influence matter. It is the process which is to be noted here, and not its results. The kind of beliefs, and the fallacious premises involved in misthought are as well exemplified here as elsewhere. There is nothing of special interest about the events described below, EXCEPT their typical nature. If this is a true course in mind-training, then the whole value of this section rests ONLY in showing you what NOT to do. The more constructive emphasis is, of course, on the positive approach. Mind-watching would have prevented any of this from occurring, and will do so any time you permit it to.

137

(Dictated directly without notes)

Though Christians generally (but by no means universally) recognize the contradiction involved in victimizing others, they are less adept at ensuring their own inability to victimize themselves. Although this appears to be a much more benign error from the viewpoint of society, it is nevertheless inherently dangerous because once a two-edged defense is used, its direction cannot be self-controlled.

143

(DICTATED WITHOUT NOTES)

Nov. 24, 1965

We have repeatedly stated that the basic concepts referred to throughout the notes are NOT matters of degree. Certain fundamental concepts CANNOT be meaningfully understood in terms of co-existing polarities. It is impossible to conceive of light and darkness, or, everything and nothing, as joint possibilities. They are all true OR all false. It is absolutely essential that you understand completely that behavior is erratic until a firm commitment to one or the other is made.

Dictated without notes.

Nov. 30

We said before that the abilities which man possesses are only shadows of his true abilities. The soul's true functions are knowing, loving, and creating. The intrusion of the ability to perceive, which is inherently judgmental, was introduced only after the Separation. No one has been sure of anything since then. You will also remember that I made it very clear that the Resurrection was the return to knowledge, which was accomplished by the union of my will with the Father's.

Since the Separation, the words "create" and "make" are inevitably confused. When you make something, you make it first out of a sense of lack or need, and second, out of a something that already exists. Anything can be that is made is made for a specific purpose. It has no true generalizability. When you make something to fill a perceived lack, which is obviously why you would make anything, you are tacitly implying that you believe in the Separation. Knowing does not lead to doing, as we have frequently observed already.

___________________________


THE QUOTES - EXAMPLES OF THE COLLABORATION


BILL

For you and Bill, it would be better to consider the concept in terms of reliability & validity.

Bill, your parents did misperceive you in many ways, but their ability to perceive was quite warped, and their misperceptions stood in the way of their own knowledge. There is no reason why it should stand in the way of yours.

You, Bill, really believe that by teaching you are assuming a dominant or father role, and that the "father figure"; will kill you.

Bill, your whole fear of teaching is nothing but an example of your own intense separation anxiety, which you have handled with the usual series of mixed defenses in the combined pattern of attack on truth and defense of error, which characterizes ALL ego-thinking.

Bill, teaching and learning are your greatest strengths now, because you MUST change your mind and help others change theirs. It is pointless to refuse to tolerate change or changing because you believe that you can demonstrate by doing so that the Separation never occurred. The dreamer who doubts the reality of his dream while he is still dreaming it is not really healing the level-split.

If you perceive a teacher as merely a "larger ego"; you WILL be afraid, because to ENLARGE an ego IS to increase separation anxiety. Do not engage in this foolishness, Bill. I will teach with you and live with you, if you will think with me.

ALL separation anxiety is a symptom of a continuing will to remain separated. This cannot be repeated too often because you have NOT learned it. Bill, you are afraid to teach ONLY because you are afraid of the impression your image of yourself will make ON OTHER IMAGES. You believe that their APPROVAL of your image will exalt it, but also that your separation anxiety will be increased. You also believe that their DISAPPROVAL of it will lessen the separation anxiety, but at the cost of depression.

Bill, if you will to be a devoted teacher rather than an egocentric one, you will not be afraid. The teaching situation IS fearful if it is misused as an ego involvement. If you become afraid, it is BECAUSE you are using it this way. But the devoted teacher perceives the situation AS IT IS, and NOT as HE wills it. He does not see it as dangerous because HE is not exploiting it.

Bill, again I tell you that when you are afraid, be still and KNOW that God is real and YOU are His beloved son in whom he is well pleased. Do not let your ego dispute this, because the ego cannot know what is as far beyond its reach as you are. God is NOT the author of fear. YOU are. You have willed, therefore, to create unlike Him, and you have made fear for yourselves.


B's course was very carefully chosen, because "abnormal psychology"; IS ego psychology. This is precisely the kind of content which should never be taught FROM the ego whose abnormality should be lessened by teaching, not increased. You, Bill, are particularly well suited to perceive this difference, and can therefore teach this course as it should be taught. Most teachers have an unfortunate tendency to teach the COURSE abnormally, and many of the students are apt to suffer considerable perceptual distortion because of their own authority problem.

Your teaching assignment (and I assure you it IS an assignment) will be to present perceptual distortions without either engaging in them yourself, or encouraging your students to do so. This interpretation of your role and theirs is too charitable to induce fear. If you adhere to this role, you will both engender and experience hope, and you will inspire rather than dispirit the future teachers and therapists I am entrusting to you.


Bill has asked lately how the mind could ever have made the ego. This is a perfectly reasonable question; in fact, the best question either of you could ask. There is no point in giving an historical answer, because the past does not matter in human terms, and history would not exist if the same errors were not being repeated in the present. B. has often told you that your thinking is too abstract at times, and he is right.

When H. reads this to you, Bill, try to listen very carefully. You have never understood what "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you" means. The reason you cannot understand it is because it is NOT understandable to the ego, which interprets it as if something outside is inside, which does not mean anything. The word "within" does not belong. The Kingdom of Heaven IS you.

What IS the you who are living in this world? Bill will probably have more trouble with this than you, but if he will try not to close his mind, he may decide that we are NOT engaging in denial after all.

The ratio of repression and dissociation of truth varies with the individual ego-illusion (tell Bill that phrase is VERY good), but dissociation is always involved, or you would not believe that you ARE here.


When I told Bill to concentrate on the phrase "here I am, Lord" I did not mean "in this world" by "here." I wanted him to think of himself as a separate consciousness, capable of direct communication with the Creator of that consciousness. He, too, MUST begin to think of himself as a very powerful receiving and sending channel, a description I once gave you symbolically. Remember that HE understood it before you did, because you are more dissociative and less repressed.

Your great debt to each other is something you should never forget. It is exactly the same debt that you owe to me. Whenever you react egotistically towards each other, you are throwing away the graciousness of your indebtedness and the holy perception it would produce.


Because you are all the Kingdom of God, I can lead you back to your own creations, which you do not yet know. God has kept them very safe in HIS knowing while your attention has wandered. Bill gave you a very important idea when he told you that what has been dissociated IS STILL THERE. I am grateful to him for that, and I hope he will not decide that it is true only for you. Even though dissociation is much more apparent in you, and repression is much more evident in him, each of you utilizes both.

Wisdom always dictates that a therapist work through WEAKER defenses first. That is why I suggested to Bill that he persuade you to deal with REPRESSION first. We have only just about reached the point where dissociation means much to you, because it is so important to your misbeliefs. Bill might do well, - and you could help him here, - to concentrate more on HIS dissociative tendencies and not try to deal with repression yet.

55

I hinted at this when I remarked on his habit of disengaging himself, and when I spoke to him about distantiation. These are all forms of dissociation, and these weaker forms were always more evident in him than in you. That is because dissociation was so extreme in your case that you did not have to hide it because you were not aware that it was there. Bill, on the other hand, DOES dissociate more than he thinks, and that is why he cannot listen. He does not need to go through the same course in repression that you did, because he will give up his major misdefense AFTER he has rid himself of the lesser ones.

Do not disturb yourself about repression, Bill, but DO train yourself to be alert to any tendency to withdraw from your brothers. Withdrawal is frightening, and you do not recognize all the forms it takes in you. Helen is right that she will experience things that will cut across all her perceptions because of their stunning knowledge. You were right that this will occur when she learns to recognize what she ALREADY knows and has dissociated.

You, Bill, will learn somewhat differently, because you are afraid of all complete involvements, and believe that they lessen YOU. You have learned to be so much more clear-sighted about this that you should be ready to oppose it in yourself RELATIVELY easily. As you come closer to a brother, you DO approach me, and as you withdraw from him I become distant to you.

Your giant step forward was to INSIST on a collaborative venture.


It should be clear that, while the content of any particular ego-illusion does not matter, it is usually more helpful to correct it in a specific context. Bill is right that you are too abstract in this matter. Ego-illusions are QUITE specific, although they frequently change, and although the mind is naturally abstract, it became concrete voluntarily as soon as it splits. However, only PART of it splits, so only PART of it is concrete.


I arranged for Bill to attend the rehabilitation meetings for very good reasons, and I want him to know them so we can share our goal there.

The reason why Bill needs this experience is because he needs rehabilitating himself. How often have I answered "help him" when you asked me to help you? He, too, has asked for help, and he has been helped whenever he was truly helpful to you. He has also gained to whatever extent he could give. He will help YOU more truly by going, if he can remember all the time he is there that his ONLY reason for being there is to REPRESENT ME.

Bill, you will see this at every meeting. But this is not why you were chosen to go. You have a fear of broken bodies, because your ego cannot tolerate them. You ego cannot tolerate ego-weakness, either, without ambivalence, because it is afraid of its own weakness and the weakness of its chosen home.

Bill, you can do much on behalf of your own rehabilitation AND Helen's, and much more universally as well, if you think of the Princeton meetings in this way:

I am here ONLY to be truly helpful. I am here to represent Christ, who sent me. I do not have to worry about what to say or what to do, because the one who sent me will direct me. I am content to be wherever He wished, knowing he goes there with me. I will be healed as I let him teach me to heal.


Since thoughts do not have to be conscious to exist, your brother does not have to be AWARE of the Holy Spirit, either in himself or in you for this miracle to occur. He may have dissociated the call for God, just as YOU have. But the dissociation is healed in BOTH of you as you see it in him, and thus acknowledge its BEING. Bill, who has made a number of vital contributions to our joint venture, made a major one a while ago, which he himself did not appreciate or even understand. If we recognize its value together, we will be able to use it together, because it is an idea, and must therefore be shared to be held.


When Bill said that he was determined "NOT to see you that way" he was speaking negatively. If he will state the same idea POSITIVELY, he will see the POWER of what he said. He had realized that there are two ways of seeing you, and also that they are diametrically opposed to one another. These two ways must be in HIS mind, because he was referring to HIMSELF as the perceiver. They must also be in YOURS, because he was perceiving YOU.

What he was really saying was that he would NOT look at you through HIS ego, or perceive YOUR ego in you. State positively, he would see you through the Holy Spirit in HIS mind, and perceive it in YOURS. What you acknowledge in your brother, you ARE acknowledging in yourself. What you share you STRENGTHEN. The voice of the Holy Spirit IS weak in you. That is why you MUST share it, because it must be INCREASED in strength before YOU can hear it. It is impossible to hear it in yourself while it is so weak in your OWN mind. It is NOT weak in itself; but it IS limited by your unwillingness to hear it.


Will itself is an idea, and is therefore strengthened by being shared. You have made the mistake of looking for the Holy Spirit in YOURSELVES, and that is why your meditations have frightened you. By adopting the ego's viewpoint, you undertook an ego-alien journey WITH THE EGO AS GUIDE. This was BOUND to produce fear. Bill's better idea needs to be strengthened in BOTH of you. Since it was HIS, HE can increase it by giving it to you.


Bill once spoke of the Kingdom in this way, because he yearns for what he has repressed. You are much more afraid of it, because dissociation is more fearful. B's better contact has allowed him the strength to retain the fear in awareness, and to resort to displacement, which he is learning to overcome with YOUR help. That is because you do not perceive HIM as dissociated, and can help him with his repression, which does not frighten you. He, on the other hand, has no difficulty in seeing YOU dissociate, and does not have to deal with repression in you, which WOULD produce fear in him.

75

Joining in Atonement, which I have repeatedly asked you to do, is ALWAYS a way OUT of fear. This does not mean that you can safely fail to acknowledge anything that is true, but the Holy Spirit will not fail to help you reinterpret EVERYTHING that you perceive as fearful, and teach you ONLY what is loving is TRUE. It is beyond your ability to destroy, but entirely within your grasp. It BELONGS to you because YOU created it. It is yours because it is part of you, just as you are part of God, because He created you.


There is time for delay, but there need not be. God weeps at the sacrifice of His children who believe they are lost to Him. The "one more thing" that Bill must learn is merely that he is NOT the one more. He is both ONE and AT ONE. If he will learn this NOW, he will be willing in accord with the last judgment, which is really only the Biblical reminder of the inevitability of self-INCLUSION. This is what "Physician, heal thyself" really means. Bill has frequently observed for HIMSELF that this is hard to do. He has, however, been perfectly aware of JUST what YOU should do about it.

96

You might ask him for me whether he does not think he might be dissociating HIMSELF from his own awareness, since he is so clear about the remedy for YOU. You might also remind him that to whatever extent he separates himself from you, he is separating himself from ME. This IS a collaborative venture. Let me therefore return his own ideas to him, so that you can share them and thus help each other to help me.


You have been chosen to teach the Atonement precisely BECAUSE you have been EXTREME examples of allegiance to your thought systems, and therefore have developed the capacity FOR allegiance. It has indeed been misplaced. Bill had become an outstanding example of allegiance to apathy, and you have become a startling example of fidelity to variability. But this IS a form of faith, which you yourselves had grown willing to redirect. You cannot doubt the STRENGTH of your devotion when you consider how faithfully you observed it. It was quite evident that you had ALREADY developed the ability to follow a better model, if you could ACCEPT it.


You, Helen, had taken this step, and because you believed in it, you taught it to Bill, who still believed in the solution of sleep. You were not consistent in teaching it, but you did so often enough to enable him to learn it. Once HE learned it, he could teach YOU how to become more consistently awake, and thus begin to waken HIMSELF. This placed him, too, in command of the journey. His recognition of the direction it must take was perfectly stated when he INSISTED ON COLLABORATION.

You, H., had taken a giant step INTO conflict, but B. turned you both forwards TOWARD THE WAY OUT. The more he teaches this, the more he will learn it.

_____________________________

—Who123 16:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Who123,
I agree with you entirely in your view that Thetford should not be represented only as a "clerical assistant". I also agree with you that most serious students of ACIM would probably prefer to hold that none other than Jesus himself "wrote" the Course and that Helen was merely the conduit.
Still, even in the notes you listed above, it appears that Helen was the one who was ACIM's "spoken-source" which still equates to her being the "author" or "writer" and Bill was the primary one who assisted her greatly in transforming the rough dialogue into a polished, marketable text. (Dr. Ken Wapnick also provided substantial assistance which enabled the transformation of the material into a published work.) Does that seem like a fair enough assessment to you?
By the way, thanks for pointing out the fact that some sections of the Urtext appear to have been first set down into writing by Bill, taking down dictation from Helen's spoken words, during some "spoken dictation sessions" as opposed to the more typical "inner dictation sessions" which Helen would independently set down into her own shorthand. I see your point where technically Bill was the first to "write" these sections, however I think that the dictionary definition we are going for here regarding use of the term "write" may be the looser definitions of the term, such as "to produce as author or composer" or "to compose and produce in words or characters duly set down", in which case Helen would be the composer or producer, and Bill would be the one who "duly set them down", but not the composer or producer. I never paid any particular attention to this distinction before and I appreciate your pointing this important distinction out.
Sincerely,
-Scott P. 10:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Scott! I agree that for those with faith in the Course, Jesus Christ was the "Voice" and the true author. For a WP article, we can only go as far as the evidence supports. If we assume that the "Voice" was Jesus Christ then, as I have documented above, the course was a "collaborative venture" between Jesus, Helen, and Bill. All three were key players.
As I said above, Helen was the conduit for the "Voice". I think many that have only read the latest editions may have the impression that Jesus simply dictated it to Helen and Bill typed it. This would make Helen a stenographer and Bill a poor typist. I think the importance of reading at least the first 25% or so of the Urtext (including photocopies) is to better understand the relationship aspects between the three and how it really was a "collaborative venture". I think is also important in how it demonstrates how we have the potential to have the same sort of relationship with Jesus as Helen and Bill did. I think Ken's role should be left to another discussion, particularly considering how controversial that discussion would be.
I see that it appears that you have expanded your last paragraph in a new section. Let me read it and respond to it. At this point, from what I have seen, I still think it best to consider the origin of the Course a "collaborative venture" between the "Voice", Helen, and Bill.
I appreciate your approaching this in a calm, open-minded, and rational manner.—Who123 16:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Some definitions of the term "write"....

Hello again Who123,

-I see that you have reverted my reversion regarding your assertion that Thetford should be represented as a "writer" of ACIM. I think our disagreement here may all turn on which dictionary definition is most appropriate to use here for the term "write" or "writer". You are obviously correct that Thetford was indeed the first person to "set into writing" some portions of ACIM. However Schucman was consistently acknowledged by Thetford as the one whose dictation he was typing down, thus she was acting consistently as the "source", "conduit" or in a journalistic sense, as "the author" of the words.

-I know of no other writers or authors who have ever described Thetford as an "author" or "writer" of ACIM. This Wikipedia article has never before listed him as such. As this new description of Thetford as an author/ writer of ACIM has not yet been accepted anywhere else that I know of, I have gone ahead and reverted this assertion. While I understand your point that Thetford was in a certain technical sense a "writer" of ACIM, in the sense of authorship he was not one of its "writers", at least in my understanding, and this appears to be the the preferred definition of the term "writer" in this particular application of the word "writer".

-I would ask that before you might revert this wording again to your new assertion, could you at least please get some third and fourth opinions here from the RFC section, or else at least get a citation from an actually published author? Minimally, please ask some other Wikipedian editors what they think about this and list their comments here.

-Perhaps your finding that not all of ACIM was transcribed directly from Schucman's shorthand notes might be good to note further on down somehow in the article, perhaps in the section titled: "Drafting the Course", while making clear that Schucman was still the "conduit" or "source" for the sections that were not transcribed directly from her shorthand notes.

-Thanks,

-Scott P. 11:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scott! I read what you have written. I suspect that you might agree that the Course is not an ordinary book and that the usual terms may not apply. Perhaps it is helpful to turn to a primary source, the Urtext:
"7
(Tell B. about the idea (which is still too dim to HS) that the reason is not that you (plural) distantiate, doubt, or cannot believe. It is more of a reaction formation against a pull which you both recognize is so intense that you are afraid that you will be uprooted. But remember that a cobweb is really stronger than the iron, if you see it properly. This fear is also why you couldn’t get the point straight.)
By the way, it is not true that you are both 'just scribes'. You might remember that the Scribes were very wise and holy men and are even sometimes spelled with a capital S. If you want to go further, you might change the meaning of 'just' from 'merely' to 'honest', a term used in the Bible in association with 'might' or 'strength.' Tell B. you couldn’t make ..."
As the "Voice" refers to both Helen and Bill as scribes, perhaps this would be more appropriate than writers. I do not wish to get into an edit war so let me make this change to see how it reads. I think it is the most honest and factual.
Thanks much.—Who123 17:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Who123,
I agree again that the voice's use of the term "scribe" to refer to both Helen and Bill might deserve noting in the article, however it still seems to me that if we were to refer to Bill as a "writer" of ACIM that some might come to believe that the "voice" was channeling itself both directly through him, as well as directly through Helen. Does the Urtext seem to you to imply that this was the case? If so, where? I have gone ahead and made a Request for Comment regarding our disagreement, as we seem to be a bit at loggerheads on this question. Perhaps some other fresh voices might have some good insights for us on this.
-Scott P. 01:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Scott. I am suggesting that we not use the words "writer" or "author" at all. I am suggesting that we use the terminology of the "Voice". It was a "collaborative venture" and Helen and Bill were "scribes". I think if we use "writer" or "author" then it implies that it was not a "collaborative venture". If we insist on using those terms then we are going against what the "Voice" has said.—Who123 02:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Best words to use re: Helen & Bill in origin of ACIM

I have entered an RFC in the RFC area regarding our inability to agree on which is the best definition of the words: author, writer. Comments from other Wiki editors would be most welcome here. Please refer to the last two discussion topics above for more background on this RFC. Thanks,

-Scott P. 00:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scott. I do not think we are looking for people to give definitions of "authorship", "author", or "writer". The Course is not an ordinary book. Who is the author or writer of the Christian Bible? I think the question should be framed in terms of the origin of the Course using the terms noted above from the "Voice" in a primary source. Thanks.—Who123 02:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for at least changing your description of Thetford from being a "writer" of ACIM to being a "scribe" of ACIM. Still I think that the use of this term "scribe" to describe Thetford in the intro paragraph may be a bit premature. It seems to me that newbies reading the opening paragraph seek clarity, not such esoteric phraseology. Your use of the word "scribe" here is a usage with which a typical reader of Wikipedia would probably not be familiar. Schucman was listed as an author in the copyright application. If this was good enough for Schucman, why shouldn't it be good enough for us in the intro paragraph of Wikipedia? Then later on down in the article perhaps we could elaborate as to exactly what the words "author", "scribe" and "writer" appeared to have meant for Schucman, Thetford and Wapnick in their composing of ACIM. By the way, it seems to me that Wapnick's role in composing ACIM was almost as important as Thetford's. Wapnick was the only other person besides Thetford that Schucman ever entrusted with editing ACIM. If I am not mistaken, I do believe that Schucman even called Wapnick a "scribe" of ACIM somewhere. I think that our description of Wapnick's role in composing ACIM needs to better reflect this. -Scott P. 12:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Scott. I am not trying to make this complicated. My goal is truth. Most books have the author or writer clearly marked on the book. ACIM does not. This was intentional. The copyright had Helen's name on it but it was listed as "anonymous". For the copyright they had to have a human name; they could not put down "Jesus". I do not think I know more about ACIM than Helen or Bill. As I understand you, you believe that Helen is the author of the Course and this is what she herself claimed. My understanding is that Helen claimed that she was not the author of the Course. I have simply pointed out what the "Voice" in the Course actually said: the Course was a "collaborative venture" and Helen and Bill were "scribes". I do not think the word "scribe" is some obscure word that no one has ever heard. Do you have a source where Helen, in her own words, states that she was the author of the Course? Thanks—Who123 15:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Who123, I think the copyright filing where the author(s) are listed as, "Anonymous, (Helen Schucman)" should be enough documentation by Wikipedia standards. According to Schucman, the same "Voice" that dictated ACIM to her also instructed her to have the copyright filed. Following the Course's logic, if this was the "Voice of Jesus", then that same "Voice" would have been aware that Helen would have had to be listed as an author in order to get the copyright filed. Thus, that same voice would have approved the listing of Helen as the author. So, you are saying that you disapprove of what that "Voice" approved of? Namely the listing of Helen as an author?
Regarding the use of the word "scribe": In ACIM the term "scribe" as it was applied to Helen and Bill was used exclusively to describe them as assisting in the channeling of ACIM from the "Voice" into written form. I know of no other place where the word "scribe" implies any form of channeling. Thus, this seems to me to be a word definition usage that might be a bit unfamiliar to a typical Wikipedia reader, especially in an intro paragraph. -Scott P. 18:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I repeat, do you have a source where Helen, in her own words, states that she was the author of the Course? There is no author listed on the book. I do not understand why you object to the words of the "Voice" from a primary source: the Course was a "collaborative venture" and Helen and Bill were "scribes".—Who123 19:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Do we have a source for that assertion? If it is a claim by these people, then we cannot assert that as a fact, but as an opinion. Thus, we cannot declare them as "scribes", rather we can say they describe themselves as scribes, and cite a source to support it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
This is from FIP: "Helen Schucman and Bill Thetford were an unlikely team in scribing A Course in Miracles." On the same page: "As Helen wrote: "It represented a truly collaborative venture between Bill and myself..."" [1]—Who123 19:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Scott, long time no speak... I personally do not see a problem on using "writer" or "author". The fact that Helen claims that it was from a "voice", may not be so relevant. Someone had to write it, and by the sources provided, she did. Right? Or am I missing something? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, good to 'see you'! Thanks for your input here. This disagreement was originally about whether or not Thetford should be listed as one of the authors/ writers of ACIM. I held that only Schucman should be listed as such in the intro paragraph, Who123 held that both Schucman and Thetford should be listed as such. Now Who123 doesn't want either of them to be listed as such, but rather wants to have both listed only as "scribes" in the intro paragraph. Thus it goes. I hope all is well with you. Please feel welcome to assist further with this dialogue. -Scott P. 18:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I see... In this case it would be better to refer to third party sources, rather than our opinions. I would be surprised if these people have been described as "scribes". I would argue that "writers" could be a good compromise, as it does not have the connotations of authorship, and avoids stating the opinion that they were just mediums. We could also say how they describe themselves, by attributing the statement to them, such as "XYZ described himself/herself as a conduit for the "Voice", and not as the author", that is if we can find such a source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jossi. I think in the spirit of compromise, stating in the introduction that Helen and Bill were "writers" would be fair.—Who123 19:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, as I have noted above, no other publication, not Thetford himself, and not Wikipedia has ever described Thetford as a "writer" of ACIM. Please note that Webster's dictionary definition #1 for the word "writer" is: "especially.....an author". As such, it seems to me that the word "writer" does connote "author". Jossi, you may not have thoroughly read through this dialog thread as your proposal is not a compromise, it is a preference to choose against my original stated objection. Again, to list Thetford as a writer author of ACIM seems to me to be Original Research in this instance, unless a proper supporting citation could be provided, no? -Scott P. 21:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Scott, as noted above this citation from FIP confirms that they were a team in "scribing" the course and Helen confirms this: "Helen Schucman and Bill Thetford were an unlikely team in scribing A Course in Miracles." On the same page: "As Helen wrote: "It represented a truly collaborative venture between Bill and myself..."" I agree that "writers" is not the most truthful; they should both be presented as "scribing" the Course. [2]—Who123 21:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
As per WP:SELFPUB, what we can say is that "According to Helen Schucman, the scribing of the books represented a "truly collaborative venture" between her and William Thetford. In the lead we can use the word writer, that is more neutral. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Jossi, are you suggesting merely that we use the word "writer" to describe Schucman, as that is how she allowed herself to be described in the copyright application, or are you suggesting that Wikipedia be the first publication to proclaim that Thetford was also a co-writer (author) of ACIM? I suspect that both Thetford and Schucman would disagree to such a description of Thetford, were either of them still alive. This would also require ample citation to keep from being considered as OR. Could you please clarify whether or not you are proposing that Wikipedia give Thetford the title of "writer of ACIM"? -Scott P. 22:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Scott, I am not familiar with the subject enough to make such a call. But from the source, we can simply attribute that claim to Schucman. We are not saying that he was a writer, we are just describing what she said. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, as noted above, this part of the citation is from FIP (a secondary source) and confirms that they were a team in "scribing" the course: "Helen Schucman and Bill Thetford were an unlikely team in scribing A Course in Miracles."[3]—Who123 22:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that FIP can be considered a secondary source in this instance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the same wording at the beginning of the William Thetford article could be used in this article with the citation I provided above?—Who123 23:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll accept the term "scribes" in the intro. I am amazed at how many words were used to determine what the best word to use might be in a single instance!!! The care being put into this article is evident. Thanks Jossi & Who123 for your input here. -Scott P. 11:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Scott. I think this is a more truthful reflection of the roles of Helen and Bill in the origin of the Course as a "truly collaborative venture".—Who123 11:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Is the photo at FIP [4] available to be used in this article?—Who123 12:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


The only concern about using the word "scribe" is that it would be puzzling to our readers. Ther is no context for that term, that is pretty unusual. Also, it asserts the viewpoint (the authors) that the book was indeed dictated by a "Voice". This does not work. Not at all. We need to provide context and avoid making assertion of facts based on what primary sources say about themselves. Least we can do is to attribute that assertion to them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not find the word "scribe" puzzling and it is the word used in ACIM, by Helen, and by FIP. Sometimes I am puzzled by even common words and when I do I look them up in the dictionary. In addition, here, the reader can simply click on the link for more information on the scribing. The cite I provided includes that both Helen and FIP think that both Helen and Bill are scribes. There is not a quote from Bill saying this. In reading ACIM and all sources that I have seen, the "Voice" was the third part of the collaboration. As I noted at the very beginning (up two sections) only the individual can decide if this was Jesus or a split in Helen's mind.—Who123 18:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course you don't: Your are familiar with the subject, and I may adventure and say that you believe that a voice can speak to people and that they can scribe what the voice says (note I am not challenging your beliefs, just trying to present my argument here). But think of the reader that never heard of any of these beliefs... What will they understand (or not) when you talk about X and Y were "scribes" of this book? Probably not much. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You are correct, I am familiar with this subject. I understand the difficulty here in the fine choice of words that are both accurate and something a reader not familiar with the subject can grasp. In thinking about this during this discussion, I have tried to place my mine in a state prior to reading ACIM. When I do this I think of it of an old term where people would hand copy books, particularly religious books, before the printing press. In terms of the divine speaking to a person and then writing words this is not unfamiliar. One well know example are the 10 Commandments. I decided to look at another article about which I have heard but am not familiar with (String theory). I do not understand quite a few words in the introduction even though I have a science background. Considering everything in mind, IMO, "scribes" is the most accurate word and if the reader does not understand this one word, they simply have to click on the link. Does this help? Do you have a better idea?—Who123 22:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I have never read that Moses was the "scribe" of the 10 commandments. In any case, I have made my argument already. As you aree the expert on the subject, you may want to pay attention to these that are not, as these would be the likely people to benefit from this article, if they understand it, that is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not claim to be an expert. Perhaps we will get a better suggestion with time. Thanks—Who123 01:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I have attempted to make the necessary corrections to the lead. The beginning of the lead needs also tweaking. It starts with "A Course in Miracles (also referred to as ACIM or the Course), is a book considered by its students to be their "spiritual path." We ought to describe first what the book is, and then who uses it and what students think of it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A book and a quote

The best book that I have read on the origin of ACIM is Robert Skutch's "Journey Without Distance". Perhaps this reference should be included in the section on origins or intro? I find the article does not convey the importance of ACIM in certain circles. Cayce and A.R.E. are highly respected. The first printed book review of the Course comes from A.R.E. (part of which is quoted in Skutch's book): "The three books comprise one of the most remarkable systems of spiritual truth available today in the world of metaphysics. It is a 20th-century book of revelation , the scope of which is virtually without limit. Anyone who is searching for God, and who has studied the literature of metaphysics, new thought or the mysteries of religion East and West, should read A Course in Miracles."—Who123 18:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Source & wording for ACIM (see above sections)

I have agreed to allow Thetford to be listed as a "scribe", but not as an "writer" or author of ACIM. The previous version of the intro paragraph claimed that FACIM described Thetford as a "writer" of ACIM, but this was not documented. Until documentation can be provided that Thetford "wrote" ACIM, this claim cannot be made by Wikipedia. Case closed.

-Scott P. 12:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Either can Schucman. I think it best to stay with the word the references provide: "scribes".—Who123 20:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Mysticism

Seems A Course in Miracles is a form of mysticism and should be categorized as such. --Remi 06:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. See Mysticism.—Who123 13:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Do we have any reliable sources describing it as such? If so, it would be useful to the reader to include a paragraph or so in the article explaining the aspects of it that are considered mysticism. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

channeled category?

scribed = channeled? --Remi 03:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion in Category:Jesus

I acknowledge that the article states that the information in the course came directly from Jesus himself. I wonder however whether the Category:Jesus is necessarily the best place for inclusion of this article, or whether some subcat might be preferable. My personal hope for the Category:Jesus is to trim the main category to those articles which specifically relate to the life of the historical Jesus, to make it more workable for the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Jesus work group. I think perhaps creation of a new subcategory, perhaps like the similar Category:Marian visionaries, for articles related to the, as it were, post-mortem appearances of Jesus might be better. Thoughts? John Carter 15:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have consensus to limit the category on that category's talk page? You are aware of course that the Incarnation, Resurrection, Transfiguration and the various miracles ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels are not historically verifiable. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't aware of the procedures involved, for which I apologize. I will seek such concensus now. And, for what it's worth, some sort of pruning is clearly required. Right now, Category:Jainism is a second-or-third level descendant of the Category:Jesus, which I think most people would say is at least a little odd. Anyway, thanks for the response. John Carter 15:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
For what its worth, I believe this article belongs in the Jesus catagory.—Who123 16:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It would be worth much more if you provided a rationale for its inclusion. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Christianity and book rating at talk of this talk page

My understanding of ratings is that the person giving them needs to give their feedback and how they arrived at the conclusion. Neither rating did this, so I am removing them.... Sethie 02:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand this entry. What "ratings"? Where is the WP policy on ratings? What is being removed? Thanks.—Who123 12:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I see. The WikiProject tags for Books and Christianity were removed. I do not understand why. Where is the WP policy on WikiProjects? Thanks again.—Who123 12:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, nothing is "needed" to be done in wikipedia. The templates are there to indicate to projects which deal with subjects relating to specific articles that a given article exists, and what the current state of the article is. This way, those projects have a better idea what content is out there, what needs improvement, and which articles most require improvement. While the templates often (but nowhere near always) are constructed to allow for comments regarding why a certain rating was given, they cannot be said to ever require it. John Carter 15:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Sethie by no means knows everything... and not sure what purpose is served by someone dropping by, giving a grade and leaving without any further comment. He read "If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses)" noticed the person didn't do that and didn't see the point. Maybe he was wrong. If anyone feels strongly about putting them back, Sethie won't fight it. Sethie 01:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the person who placed the ratings initially was me. Basically, I rated the article as a "B" class. Of the three "higher" classes, GA, A, and FA, only the middle one can be given without formal review. I have also found it to be the case that it generally helps to have multiple people review the article before committing to giving it the "almost there" A grade. The "B" class basically means close to or at GA class without formal GA review. Maybe if someone asked for a peer review of the article they could probably get more details, but as I remember I basically gave it a "B" because "A" articles are extremely rare and I can't give out GA or FA without engaging the review process. Not sure if that helps, but that was the reasoning behind it. John Carter 01:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the WikiProject tags for Books and Christianity should be restored as this article qualifies for both. I am not familar with the rating system so perhaps a neutral rating could be given pending more formal review.—Who123 02:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Placing a Wikiproject tag on the talk page of an article merely means that the members of the Wikiproject want to collaborate in helping to improve/maintain the article. If the Christianity project folks want to do this, the more the merrier (usually). I agree with Sethie, though, that a rationale should be provided for the rating. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)