Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Jesus Christ as source of "A Course in Miracles"

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep, this was already nominated for deletion about two months ago. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-04-27. The result of the discussion was keep (and possibly merge).

Jesus Christ as source of "A Course in Miracles"

Seems too much like a vanity article. Delete TheRingess 07:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note this article was previously nominated for deletion on April 27, 2006 with the result of Keep. Tyrenius 18:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  • QUESTION: How many times can an article be nominated for deletion? As noted above, this article had already been nominated for deletion and was deemed fit to remain within Wikipedia's database. I had assumed that passing the deletion nomination once would mean that this article was fit to remain in the database. I feel like I'm trapped in an odd rerun here. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi 01:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand why the article has been nominated: prejudice and lack of understanding of the article's content, as well as lack of interest in understanding the article's content. -- Andrew Parodi 09:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep Why vanity? Anyway, I've been working to improve it and oppose deleting it. There is, in fact, such a controversy. Gene Ward Smith 07:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It seems a well-cited piece spun off from an already long main article. It could use some editing/formatting work, but I see no grounds for deletion. --DaveG12345 07:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and maybe change the title to something more neutral, e.g. Authorship of "A Course in Miracles". What's the vanity aspect? ~ trialsanderrors 09:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I also think the article could be moved. I suggest that instead of quotes, the title be given in italics. Gene Ward Smith 22:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I agree that another title would be preferable. -- Andrew Parodi 23:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There was a lot of discussion in the previous AfD less than 2 months ago, so I'm not sure what's changed since then. I suggest withdrawing nomination. Tyrenius 18:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I agree that the nomination should be withdrawn. If you read the original deletion nomination, you will see that the administrator who closed the voting noted that the quality of the page increased from the time it was nominated for deletion to the time the voting for deletion ended. The quality of the article has only improved since then. -- Andrew Parodi 23:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep compared to some of the vanity crap I come across this is great. It's obviously a hotbed of discussion and needs toning down here and there but it is well written and sourced. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  talk 19:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Good NPOV article about a genuine controversy. The sort of thing that, IMO, we should encourage. Tevildo 21:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. How many times can an article be nominated for deletion? I thought the rule was nominated once, and if the consensus is keep, then you keep. If anything speaks for the need to keep this article, it is the fact that it is so continually controversial. Any article that has inspired so much debate, including two attempts at deletion, must be of value. -- Andrew Parodi 23:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete 24 June 2006 00:29 Ste4k wrote: Topic matter is unverifiable having no reliable published source per Item 6.3
  • Comment The name of this article has changed, as well as the topic matter. This is no longer a discussion about an article which itself debates the credibility of claims about its author, but instead about the history of some book. Since the name of the article has changed, I advise that you also change the name of this AfD since it looks rather confusing. Thanks.
  • Comment. The name of the article has been altered, with the words "Jesus Christ as Source" being replaced with "Authorship", though the topic matter has remained the same. Wikipedia allows for the changing of the names of articles, though the articles are recognized as sharing continuity with their previous names; this is why the article history lists all edits made while the article had a previous title. This is a discussion about the source of A Course In Miracles, a book that has sold over one million copies, been translated into over a dozen languages, and has generated many best selling books of interpretation. Whether the name of this deletion nomination request is changed or not does not change the fact that the article with its present title is the same article as it was when it had the previous title, and therefore this article has been nominated twice for deletion, a situation found by most editors on this page to be very unusual indeed (note the suggestions for "speedy keep"). While the article has certainly grown, it remains the same article and remains concerned with the same topic. You see, Wikipedia allows for editing, which often involves expansion and growth. In fact, expansion and growth is actually encouraged on Wikipedia. -- Andrew Parodi 10:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not the place to be making lists of web sites which haven't any credibility. Please use the discussion areas, or the article itself to develop theories. All of these references you list here below fail WP:WEB. That in itself actually supports my point about Item 6.3 which is listed above for your reference and ease of use. Thanks.
  • Comment This is not the place to be making inaccurate statements about websites belonging to the main protagonists in a controversy central to a book that has sold over one million copies, spawned thousands of study groups throughout the world [1], been translated into more than a dozen foreign languages [2], been the basis for several best selling books[3], is predicted to one day be as widely read as the Bible, and has been described by at least one scholar as the second most important book to be printed in the English language after the Bible (see "Journey without Distance" [4] for the source of that statement). Please use your own talk page for discussion of your own personal perspectives on spiritual matters. All of your claims that the sources listed below fail the WP:WEB are false. This does not in itself support your point Item 6.3 which is listed above for your reference and ease of use. Thanks. (In the future, please sign all of your edits with four tidles, such as follows.) Andrew Parodi 10:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Article contains TEN OUTSIDE SOURCES and is not "original research"
  • Source 1: FACIM Outreach Question #97 wherein we find the quote: "Jesus is a symbol in our mind of the Atonement -- the correction for our delusional thought system of separation, sin and attack."
  • Source 7: FACIM OUTREACH question #65 wherein we find the statement: "(It) is important for students of the Course not to confuse the voice Helen Schucman heard and identified as JesusÆ, with the Jesus of traditional Christianity, nor to associate it with any particular image in form. The Course uses the term Jesus and the Holy Spirit as symbols reflecting the part of the mind of the Sonship that holds the memory of God. They are not real persons...."
  • Source 8: Absence from Felicity", Kenneth Wapnick's biography of Helen Schucman wherein we find the statement: " At first blush, and as the story of the scribing is usually told, it would seem as if the person of Jesus stood within Helen's mind with a microphone, dictating to her-word for word, in English!--the three books of the Course. It must be remembered, of course, that on one level this was Helen's experience. But similar to the misperception of the sun's rising and setting every day, one's experience , though valid for the individual, nonetheless, should not be taken for the actual truth, let alone as a model in form for other people's experience.".
  • Source 10: Jesus: Symbol and Reality, book by Kenneth Wapnick, Ph.D wherein we find the quote: "The distinction between symbol and reality is shown to be crucial to one's spiritual growth as a student of A Course in Miracles. Confusing the two ensures that one remains a spiritual child, never developing the mature relationship with Jesus that leads to the love and peace that is beyond all symbols, and that alone is our true reality."
-- Andrew Parodi 01:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment We are now having the same discussion that took place in the last AfD. TheRingess—did you know there was a previous AfD, because you didn't mention it? Tyrenius 01:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. This is a waste of everyone's time. I wish someone with authority in this would just remove the deletion nomination. If not, we are going to go through with this every two months. -- Andrew Parodi 01:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per speedy keep guidelines. Last AfD was consensus keep 2 months ago. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per Badlydrawnjeff. --The Editrix 14:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per Badlydrawnjeff. Deja vu all over again. Carlossuarez46 06:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Question Does anyone apart form me see this as a walled garden? It looks like this is a teapot tempest, a dispute between a small number of devotees of opposing views. Just zis Guy you know? 12:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This again was addressed in the previous AfD, e.g. with observations such as :
This issue was the centerpiece of a high profile lawsuit ... this issue of authorship of ACIM became the focalpoint of a very high profile court case between Foundation for A Course In Miracles and Endeavor Academy [5][6].Andrew Parodi 04:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Tyrenius 12:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There appears to be an edit war going on in this article, with editors even reverting each other's comments on the talk page as "vandalism". It would almost certainly help if a few more neutral folks would step in and try to cool down the tensions. Kickaha Ota 20:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Response Isn't this article baffling? It's continually being attacked from EVERY DIRECTION. It's a bit surreal. Obviously, it's struck quite a nerve with a lot of people. In my opinion, the most interesting case has been Ste4k, who suggested that the article is not notable, and when contacted he himself referred to this as simply being "some article" about "some book". After slapping just about every sentence with a "verify credibility" tag, he's off to the main A Course In Miracles page, slapping every sentence there with a "citation needed" tag. It's really quite astonishing. Just when one person is done going on a rant about this article, someone else comes along. This deletion attempt is a perfect example.... Anyway, yes, more neutral people here would be wonderful. -- Andrew Parodi 07:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Addendum The user by the name of Ste4k really doesn't like A Course In Miracles. After refusing to listen to reason on this "authorship" page, after slapping just about every other sentence of the main page with a "citation needed" tag, he/she is off to the page about Foundation for Inner Peace and trying to get it deleted by saying it is not notable. Ste4k has said that none of this is personal and he/she doesn't have an attachment to any of this; just doing his/her "job". But obviously he/she has a real investment here in saying that ACIM isn't notable, despite loads of evidence that it is. Fascinating. -- Andrew Parodi 08:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment After editing each and every citation in this article and checking each reference including name and address of owner, reading each article, and etc., as the logs will bear out, I made appropriate and factual edits with comments. I prefer 0RR as a philosphy and haven't much concern or time to play revert games. I asked what was the importance of this book and instead of giving me a simple answer, I was left to perform that investigation for myself. I have a NPOV on this topic matter, but I have a strong POV about the presentation of original research when it comes to this encyclopedia. It doesn't matter to me whether the book, or it's stories, or the claims of several insignificant web sites are true or not. But whatever is used as a citation and reference must be used as the material in the article. Anything less, should simply be deleted if for no other reason than to allow an opportunity for authors to do more research on their topics. Ste4k 08:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I wonder, why is it only you who continually accuse these ACIM-related articles of being "original research" and not being "verifiable." It doesn't seem to me that anyone else makes these claims. And, by the way, I'm not the only one who has made this comment about you. These pages you are attempting to destroy are not "original research." Rather, they are about a topic you do not like and are apparently obsessed with getting rid of. Well, have at it, but you're going to fail. ACIM has sold too many copies, has too many followers, too many critics, and has too strong of a presence on the Internet for you to claim that it is not notable and not verifiable. Basides, aren't you late for the local Trekkie convention? -- Andrew Parodi 08:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Curiosity Perhaps if you would take some time to show the verifiability in the article I might change my vote. Whether this article remains alive or not matters little to me. What matters is a well rounded high quality encyclopedia. I was not the one that nominated this article for deletion. I was the one that put the facts from the cites which were quoted into the article. And this would actually be a good place for you to explain your edit summary. Such as the reason why the court case mentioned had the plaintiff confused with the defendant, or why you insisted on using the word "widely" when the first three sources only exist in Texas, or why was it you don't feel I'm important enough to speak with in Discussion, or why you delteted that contradiction tag without explaining it in the article, or why most of the cites you listed hadn't their actual titles, or why you had listed them with without any mention who wrote them. Did you not, here, in this very conversation scream at me that you had TEN OUTSIDE SOURCES and is not "original research"? Why were they all in only three books? Please stop harassing me now, I have better things to do than answer your questions. Thanks. Ste4k 10:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
How's about continuing this discussion a) in a more friendly collaborative way b) on the article talk page and not here. Tyrenius 11:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This person is without a doubt the strangest and most annoying person I've ever met on the Internet. After he/she paid a great deal of attention to many ACIM articles (which means slapping just about every sentence with a "citation needed" tag), I contacted him/her on his/her talk page. The response I got was that he/she hardly remembers his/her comments about "some article". Later, I was told to "stop harassing" him/her, when in fact all I had done was attempt to understand why he/she will not trust any source offered. (Sources that he/she has not found acceptable have been found acceptable by many others.) I'm really at a loss with this person. Hopefully, others will keep an eye on him/her as well. For some unknown reason, he/she wants to destroy all ACIM-related articles. -- Andrew Parodi 18:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment. In addition to supporting the deletion of this page and attempting to get the page about Foundation for Inner Peace deleted, this person is also behind deletion attempts of the article about William Thetford and Gary Renard. I'd like to know what it is about ACIM that this person finds so unappealing. Oh, and on this person's talk page they are whining to someone that I am part of "some advocacy group" or something (fascinating how on one hand this person whines about the need for verifiable facts, and then turns around and makes such unverified statements; I'm a part of NO advocacy group), and then says I am harassing him/her. And apparently someone is "collecting information" on me and my "harassment" of this person. In reality, it isn't harassment but an attempt to understand why he/she will not be reasonable and accept perfectly decent citations. But I suppose that's a futile attempt, because this person, apparently, doesn't like to explain his/her real motives. His/her own personal Wikipedia page contains the weird self-description: "Explaining anything about myself personally would violate my neutrality", as though his/her own talk page is an actual Wikipedia article that would be debated by others. Weird. -- Andrew Parodi 18:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, he/she is also attempting to get the Kenneth Wapnick and Helen Schucman articles deleted. Such a waste of time. If these pages are deleted, someone else will just create them again. Round and round we'll go. We'll be back there debating a deletion for a second time, just like with this article. -- Andrew Parodi 18:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I am persuaded that this is a footnote in A Course in Miracles and no more. This article appears to be an attempt to re-fight the court case in the court of public opinion. Just zis Guy you know? 12:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment I contest the claim that this law suit was high profile and policy states that the article must establish such a fact. The only references that exist about this lawsuit are two file copies of the court itself. Unless some sort of reputible resource can be cited, all of that information should be stricken from the article based on WP:VER using WP:RS guidelines. Ste4k 16:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment You are choosing the wrong forum for debating what should or should not be part of the content of the article; this discussion is about whether the article should be kept as is, merged into another article, or deleted. Kickaha Ota 17:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article discusses a notable subject. The disputes about particular sources mentioned in the article don't undermine the notability of the controversy itself. And given the circumstances and the hard feelings that are clearly involved, it seems best to keep this content as a separate page, rather than trying to merge it into another article that appears to have its own controversies. Kickaha Ota 17:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kickaha Ota. JChap 23:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?title=Wiki143:Articles_for_deletion/Jesus_Christ_as_source_of_%22A_Course_in_Miracles%22&oldid=3038086"