Talk:A Course in Miracles - Original Edition

Help request
Learning how to do this correctly is a welcomed challenge. Thank you for your help WIKI! I readded the INFOBOX. Hope this is right. What I'd also like to do is add info regarding what the COURSE actually says. Do you have a TOPIC heading that would work? ALSO, where can I find info about uploading this book to WIKISOURCE? Spiritdejoie (talk) 13:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly well done, you seem to have grasped the formatting of references and the infobox etc well. Before I answer your question, however, I need to point out that the article is not written from a Neutral Point of View and reads somewhat like an advertisement. Before adding any more sections it will be worth rewriting large sections of it to properly reflect the neutral, factual, tone expected of an encyclopedia entry. Samwalton9 (talk) 15:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments about writing from a neutral point of view. I based this page on an article that has been on WIKI for many years: Please take a look at: A Course in Miracles. Also, when will the "orphan" message come off. I've cross-referenced out two pages. ;-) Spiritdejoie (talk) 16:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Basing off other articles is a good idea providing the other article is a good one. Unfortunately the one you've picked isn't a great example, try taking a look at one of the site's Featured articles instead for an idea of what a perfect article looks like. The orphan tag is regarding links TO this article from OTHER articles, not from this to others. Find relevant articles, assumedly like the one you just linked, to link to this one. After you've done that you can remove it yourself :) Samwalton9 (talk) 16:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

We would like to THANK WIKI for doing the worldwide Course community a great service! There has been an incredible amount of misinformation regarding the editing of this manuscript. So much so that a group of students from all over the world have gathered in a YAHOO group to address the situation. They were going EDIT the current WIKI page A Course in Miracles but realized that might be more confusing. The decision was made to create a separate WIKI page for the separate EDITION, with a complete explanation of the differences so people could make an informed choice. We are very grateful to WIKI for offering this venue. To have an encyclopedic entry is an honor!

BTW - The article I based it on has been on WIKI for years. Will they need to become more neutral as well? ;-) Also, I "cross-linked" references. There is a reference on A Course in Miracles to our article. Spiritdejoie (talk) 16:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Please REVIEW whether this is still an ORPHAN. There is a link to our article in the WIKI article A Course in Miracles. Do you need more? ;-)Spiritdejoie (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a shame but some bad articles go unnoticed for a long time! Yep that's fine, you can see on Special:WhatLinksHere/A Course in Miracles - Original Edition that it has been linked to fine, so you can go ahead and remove the tag. Samwalton9 (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!! I also linked it to Helen Schucman Spiritdejoie (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Just saw your edit summary; I'm not an admin! Just a user with enough experience to be helping others :) Samwalton9 (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow. So you speak "WIKI" LOL I'm learning slowly but like you, I love to be of service and you definitely have been! Much appreciate! I welcome any and all advice you can give me. Spiritdejoie ) 18:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Still need help in uploading this book into Wikisource. Spiritdejoie (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ooh, wikisource. Cool stuff, but that's a world on it's own, and the short version is "quite complicated". Wikisource is quite happy to help out new contributers though, but it's best to ask there. There is a beginners guide, and if you need more help, IRC is a good place to have a quick informal conversation to help you out. If you need help connecting, throw up a question on your talkpage, people wil gladly help you out further. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this new article a POV-Fork article?
Is this new Wikipedia article a pov-fork article, forking out from the A Course in Miracles article? If so, wouldn't it need to be merged with the main article? Scott P. (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is a POV fork. Since it doesn't cite any reliable sources, there's nothing that could be merged; I'll redirect it. Huon (talk) 12:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the designation however we'd like the opportunity to work on citing reliable reliable sources if that is what is required. We would appreciate more time to do this. This page has been requested for several years my many in the Course community. We didn't want to heavily edit the Article which is on the book published by the Foundation for Inner Peace. Perhaps it should be recognized that the current page A Course in Miracles is a page regarding that specific publication and stands apart from the subsequent publication of A Course in Miracles - Original Edition. Can we have a discussion around this? ;-) Spiritdejoie (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that some of the article is not NEUTRAL and will be re-written with reliable sources. Thank you for giving us the opportunity. It's much appreciated. Spiritdejoie (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

See Template:POV which says "The editor who adds the tag should first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and should add this tag only as a last resort. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor."

I would've thought this tag wouldn't been added after a bit of discussion. May we have that discussion now. ;-) Spiritdejoie (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The main issue is not that the article wasn't written from a neutral point of view (though it wasn't) but that it was a content fork: A second article on the same topic. Unless the Original Edition of A Course in Miracles is significantly different from A Course in Miracles (which it doesn't seem to be), there's no need to have a separate article on it. Huon (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Does this article comply with WP:Conflict?
One thing that might be a helpful point of information here... Spiritdejoie, might you happen to be, or directly represent the publisher of the book being promoted here? If so, I believe that such self-promotion is also against Wiki policy. See WP:Conflict. If you would prefer not to directly answer this question, that is OK, however I ask this question only because I cannot help but to notice that the nature of the article's content seems to me to point strongly towards that likelihood. Scott P. (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

This new article is NOT a POV-Fork article
1.	This Article is not in disagreement with the A Course in Miracles article. Everything that is written in the current A Course in Miracles is absolutely correct and is extremely useful for the many Course students around the world. It is much appreciated! It has done and is doing a great service. This new ACIM OE article is concerned only with the 1972 manuscript, its origins, editing, printing, etc. Its discovery in 1999 puts it on the map as an extremely important document.

2.	QUOTE “Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgment, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing.”

There has been no “extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing” at all.

3.	QUOTE “The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article;”

That’s what this new ACIM OE article is not. The name of the documents are similar and yet they are quite different. Each organization owns a copyright on their own version and their copyrights, although both of these copyrights are only copyrights of the CHANGES to the version that is in the Public Domain. Each exist in their own right and are separate entities and deserve separate free encyclopedic entries.

A Course in Miracles AND A Course in Miracles – Original Edition are two distinct works both based on the Public Domain manuscript.

4.	QUOTE “The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article.”

Yes. Let us take a close look at both Articles and you will see that the subject dearly justifies a separate article and has for many years. Editors and fellow Course students are poised to edit ACIM OE to reflect a more neutral stance and we are grateful to WIKI for the opportunity. Spiritdejoie (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, what about WP:REDUNDANTFORK compliance?
The fact that you have duplicate information in this article seems to me to possibly create a conflict with WP:REDUNDANTFORK. I apologize but I believe that this might be a more appropriate concern than the WP:POVFORK concern, and I should have asked this question first.

Could you please comment on why you feel the article complies with both WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:CONFLICT standards?

Also, regarding your claim that there are no differing points of view expressed in your article, even your decision to call your edition the "Original Edition" seems to me to be a somewhat confusing and thus possibly a controversial "point of view". How can a book that was only published almost 40 years later, was never authorized for publication by the original editors, and is what the original editors considered to be merely a "rough draft" version, be called "The Original Edition"?

I must confess, even this name that you have chosen for it seems to me to be a bit of a misnomer. I don't think the majority of ACIM students would agree with your view of what an accurate name for this publication might be. For the last 30 years I (and I am probably not alone in this) have always believed that the FIP First Edition was the "original" edition, not an early rough draft pre-publication manuscript that accidentally made its way into the public domain. If you officially called it by a clearer title that might more accurately represent what it actually is, then perhaps there might be a greater consensus of view on it. Otherwise even the title seems a bit controversial to me.

So, in addition to my request immediately above that you please comment on the first two concerns listed, could you also please comment on why you feel that the name you apply to this edition of ACIM would not generate confusion and possible controversy between Wikipedia articles?

Finally, the whole underlying premise of your article seems to be your personal view that ACIM must have somehow been "commandeered" by Wapnick, against the wills of both Schucman and Thetford. This is a rather amazing underlying premise, especially when you have presented absolutely no hard proof or credible and proper documentation in your article supporting your rather astounding claim that your rough-draft pre-publication manuscript of ACIM is actually the version that was "originally intended (for publication)... by Helen Schucman and Bill Thetford".

Scott P. (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the direction to WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Learning about how WIKI works is fascinating and intriguing. This is a quote from that Article: "Wikipedia's principle of assume good faith should be kept in mind here. If you suspect a content fork, give the creator of a duplicate article the benefit of the doubt." --


 * These are some of the facts which define where we find ourselves.


 * Helen and Bill asked the A.R.E. if they would publish their 1972 document prior to further editing completed in 1975.
 * The copyright on the published Course was overturned in 2003 well after the scribe and co-scribes deaths in 1981 and 1988 respectively.
 * The Course was deemed in the Public Domain; its copyright now null and void.
 * It has been published now by several organizations under the title "A Course in Miracles".
 * A Course in Miracles - Original Edition was not authorized by the scribes since they had previously passed away. [In that sense, it is "unauthorized".]
 * A Course in Miracles - Original Edition has been legally published and exists in the same sense as various versions of the BIBLE exist.
 * Allowing ALL versions of this Course to flourish in freedom is the goal here. Spiritdejoie (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No references or documentation have been provided proving the publisher's claim that this pre-publication manuscript is actually "The Original Edition" of ACIM. The article constitutes a content fork, and a clear conflict of interest, being written by the book's publisher.  Accordingly I've nominated the article for deletion.  To take part in the article's deletion discussion, please follow the link on the article's main page.  Scott P. (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It makes no sense to reject this article for failure of NPOV when the ACIM article fails in a similar way. The problem is reflected in the comments by Scottperry, where his personal and controversial opinions are stated as if they were facts. I think both articles could and should better adhere to NPOV, but given the egregious failure of the ACIM article to do so, we can hardly apply a different standard here. I note also that The Disappearance of the Universe states as facts that ascended masters visited Gary Renard and that he recorded those meetings. That satisfies NPOV and this article doesn't? Gene Ward Smith (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Still trying
STill trying to figure out how to post Dr H and Dr B´s foto. Well done so far Maz Weber-Caspers (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The first words scribed are "YOU WILL SEE MIRACLES THRU YOUR HANDS THRU MINE", as the handescript shows. Still lokking for the online link. thanks! Maz Weber-Caspers (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Being new to this I am not entirely sure if this will reach the right person(s) but I will attempt to anyway. A COURSE IN MIRACLES, IMHO as both the publisher of an alternate version ( The SPARKLY) as well as having been one of the principals in both copy right cases ( In the USA/ NYC as well as Australia/ Melbourne)can NOT be treated as another book, but may I suggest Wikipedia already has excepted examples of what is and will continue to happen with ACIM/ The Course and that is THE BIBLE. While The Course is and was not meant to be a religion, it is certainly a RELIGIOUS document, much like The Bible and is undergoing the same process of editing and re-editing and "factionalizing" as the Bible seems to have been responsible for since it was first found, copied, published, translated, issued and reissued. As well, as being the basis of different religious establishments and sects.

All this I would suggest, is just happening at a much faster pace, due obviously to the ability of technology to make immediate, what had previously taken centuries. Now that Dr. Kenneth Wapnick has passed, the history of ACIM in the world, as it has been embraced and will continue to be, as these threads from the single origin begin to become more and more popularized, as ACIM and its teaching of "forgiveness" rises from "cult to culture." Maryanne Williamson running for the US House of Representatives has already brought ACIM to light within a California, as she is examined for office in the light of her association with ACIM and her writings. Yet, she is but one example of an author that has and is popularizing ACIM and allowing it to makes it way in the world much as the Bible grew from it infancy to where it is today worldwide.

It was FIP/FACIM/Penguin Books that opened the way for the validity and voracity of their own published editions to be questioned, and for newly updated editions of earlier edits with more inclusion of previously EXCLUDED material, to become popular alternatives for the contemporary readers; and I guarantee this will continue, as the earliest material is popularized by books about to be published. So it was their attempt to defend the copyright, that changed the face of the ACIM World, WORLD WIDE and that will be happening at a more rapid pace with the passing of Dr Wapnick and the loss his foundation will not recover from due to his own celebrity and claims to authority.

It would behoove the forward thinking people of Wikipedia, to consider this in the light of it's already accepted policies and practices in regard to The Bible. There is much more fact to be made available now, and Wikipedia has the ability to eliminate the fiction and rumor, by letting the facts and truth come out as this Movement of Spirit grows and becomes what it was meant to be by those who embrace it as their bible and path.

In short, while all and every edition/version of ACIM will have its origins in the manuscripts left to us by Drs. Helen Schucman and William Thetford, the history, facts and principals of the several editions/versions available throughout the world (The FIP/FACIM, The OE, The Sparkly (Thetford Foundation, AU and Diamond Clear Vision/ The Borderland-501c3), the Scholarly Edition by Miracles In Action Press) are much dis-similar and have an expanding place within the linear history and lexicon of what has become known as A COURSE IN MIRACLES (movement, religion, cult, community). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thpjr52 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for consideration22:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Ted Poppe owner/manager Diamond Clear Vision and Illumination Arts LLC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thpjr52 (talk • contribs)

Merge and redirect
I have merged what I could salvage of the article and created a redirect. In the event that the images are not deleted (both up for FFD at the moment), please feel free to add them to the ACIM article. You may be able to salvage a little more on the court decisions but I think the ACIM coverage of this is sufficient for most purposes, and since it is a legal matter it must be carefully written and cited. Discussion should continue at the ACIM talk page, not here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)