Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Course in Miracles - Original Edition

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 was merge to A Course in Miracles. Black Kite (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

A Course in Miracles - Original Edition

A Course in Miracles - Original Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created by the publisher of this book for promotional purposes and does not comply with WP:CONFLICT policy. This article is essentially a duplicate article of the A Course in Miracles article, creating a content fork, thus according to WP:REDUNDANTFORK policy, this article should be deleted or merged with the main article. Scott P. (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Merge with the essential materials. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Merge, certainly no justification for a FORK article that suits nobody but the publisher; as a search term it's actually quite unlikely (in any case the search box would find the main article before this one if typed in sequentially) so I'd not oppose a straight delete (advertising), but I guess a merge is sufficient. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This page was NOT created for promotional purposes and it is far from a duplication of the Article with a similar title. [The publishers are making no profit on the sale of these books. All the funds go back into the non-profit to print more books.] It was created to clarify the differences between these two publications. This book [ACIM OE] is an altogether separate publication and deserves a separate article. One solution might be to list A Course in Miracles as "A Course in Miracles - Foundation for Inner Peace" and the second book, "A Course in Miracles - Course in Miracles Society [ACIM OE]". And another page would be "A Course in Miracles - Thetford Edition". All of these three books exist. No wonder the public is confused. In this way the public would know that each Article is speaking about the publication by that organization.

This ACIM OE Article could be added once more by any number of Course students. The source is not the point. The INFORMATION it contains is. For many years Course students have been trying to bring to light all of the facts that are in this article and they have been rebuffed over and over by those who do not want this information known. If that's what WIKI wants, then the result will most likely be more confusion.

I am Rev Reja Joy Green [spiritdejoie], one of the founding members of Course in Miracles Society and publisher of ACIM OE. What are our options? Would the Article be better if a different Course student submitted it? Could we make the POV more neutral? Could we change the name to "A Course in Miracles - Course in Miracles Society". Please let us know.

Thank you sincerely. Spiritdejoie (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC) — Spiritdejoie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This is a great new article, or article draft. The ACIM "Original Edition" is the near-replica of the third of ACIM´s three cardinal Versions. Original Handscript, Ortiginal Typescript and Original Edition are the Trinity of ACIM´s original words performed by the priginal team of author, Helen Schucman and Bill Thetford. I am speaking for a large European readership when I say that we welcome, endorse, support and honor all the helpers and stewards´ efforts to share the Original REdition, 3rd cardinal version of the Course with the world. A historic agreement between the FACIM/FIP publisher and the SIMS has opened all venues for an international and free readership of this historic compendium by the original Team, the author and two recipients/scribes, from 1972, made public through the Hugh Lynn Cacye A.R.E. library on November 29, 1999. As soon as this Original Edition article is published on Wikipedia, we will have a team ready to adopt its relevant, crucial and historic content on several European Wikipedia sites as well. Thanks everyone for the great work. Freedom of Information, of speech, of expression and the Spirit of collaboration and Oneness may be reflected in all presentations of this Masterpiece in human history, born of Love and Wisdom, a gift of God for all times. Maz Weber-Caspers (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC) — Maz Weber-Caspers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Thank you. But all this is missing the point; nobody is suggesting deleting the original article, simply that this new one should be merged with the original, since one article on the topic, mentioning the various editions, is clearly sufficient for the encyclopedia. Indeed, when there is a history of varying editions, it is actually helpful if these are compared and the history explained in a single article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Merging would be great although the overseerers of the page A Course in Miracles are under the opinion that the ACIM OE edition is "unauthorized " . It would be surprising if they allow any info in the ACIM OE to appear anywhere on their Article. We would welcome the opportunity. Spiritdejoie (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC) — Spiritdejoie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

So long as there is a disclaimer clarifying the fact that "the publication of this pre-publication rough-draft manuscript was never authorized by any of the three original editors of ACIM, and that the last of the three editors to pass on, Kenneth Wapnick, did not personally approve in any way of the publication of this manuscript, nor of the use of the name "Original Edition" to describe this manuscript, then I will have no objection to including a brief history of it in the main article. (BTW, Kenneth Wapnick "passed on" on Friday, Dec. 27th, in case you hadn't heard.) I have also read that this manuscript copy was first obtained from the ARE files via illegal means. That little historical note should probably also be referenced there. So, therefore, if you would be comfortable with all of these little details being published in your edition's section within the main article, then of course....

Wikipedia aims to provide a unified narrative, not a "fragmented" one. Ultimately, properly documented facts are supposed to prevail over mere personal opinion around here (despite the fact that right about now you may not be thinking that is the case). Scott P. (talk) 04:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

PS- If you had any reliable third-party documentation, that was up to Wikipedia standards, to support your "counter-claim" that Thetford and Schucman actually once attempted to publish your edition, but then somehow failed, then of course that properly cited reference of yours could go in there as well.Scott P. (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The following should bring clarity to the issue -

• The "Original Edition" is derived from the third retyping of the A Course In Miracles manuscript by scribe Helen Schucman and co-scribe Bill Thetford, which was completed in 1972.
• Helen and Bill asked the A.R.E. if they would publish their 1972 document, but the A.R.E. declined.[Documentation to follow.]
• Helen and Bill then met Ken Wapnick who told them the 1972 document needed additional editing work to be 'publisher ready'.
• Helen was convinced by Ken to re-edit the manuscript which they did for a year. Bill disagreed with the re-editing and moved to California.
• The newer fully edited version of the manuscript was copyrighted and published by The Foundation for Inner Peace in 1975. Because this version of ACIM held the original copyright, it's sometimes incorrectly referred to as the only "authorized" ACIM edition.
• In 2003 the copyright was overturned, and the copyright claim on the 1975 version of ACIM published by the Foundation for Inner Peace was deemed null and void. All prior manuscripts of ACIM were deemed to be in the public domain.
• The (largely unedited) 1972 version of the ACIM manuscript was unknown for 24 years. It has now been legally published by several organizations under the title "A Course in Miracles".[1]
• Since the scribe and co-scribe passed away in 1981 and 1988, respectively, the publication of A Course in Miracles - Original Edition was not directly endorsed by them. However, with the exception of minor changes in grammar and punctuation, the Original Edition represents the 1972 version of their work.
• A Course in Miracles - Original Edition has been legally published and exists in the same sense as various versions of the BIBLE exist. Like the 1975 version of ACIM, the Original Edition is in the public domain and use of the term "authorized" is moot.
• Allowing ALL versions of this Course to flourish in freedom is the goal here. --

--KarenBentley (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)December 29,2013 — Spiritdejoie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

User talk:Spiritdejoie|Spiritdejoie]]

(talk) 12:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

If you were willing to start with a section that went something like this:

Prepublication manuscripts

Between 1995 and 2000, due to interest by some ACIM students in attempting to void copyright interests held by the FIP, two prepublication manuscripts were discovered. The methods used to obtain these prepublication manuscripts have been described as illegal. Since that time, one organization, the CIMS, has widely published one of these manuscripts as what it claims to be the "Original Edition" of ACIM, claiming to have proof (which has yet to arise) that Thetford somehow had wanted their edition of ACIM to be published, and did not personally approve of any subsequent edits that Schucman and Wapnick made without his direct involvement. To the contrary, numerous individuals who knew Thetford during this time period have reported that Thetford did in fact approve of the subsequent edits made by Schucman and Wapnick.

then I would be willing to work with you... Scott P. (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

PS I just received an emergency page from my office, and I may have to be out for the rest of the day on this one. Sorry.Scott P. (talk) 15:12, 29 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 accepted 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 its 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).15:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Ted Poppe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thpjr52 (talk • contribs) — Thpjr52 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

A satellite article discussing the complex history of the various versions and editions of ACIM would clearly be desirable, but we can't do it working together if tendentious and inaccurate characterizations like "rough draft" or claims like "illegally obtained", with no supporting evidence or legal arguments, are allowed in it. One side could demand this, and the other side could demand that the FACIM version be described in unflattering terms for reasons that could be documented, and then where are we? If that isn't possible, some other means should be found to accommodate the various points of view. The present situation, where only one side is allowed to express their point of view, fails NPOV. Gene Ward Smith (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Which side? No, don't answer that. The point here is that ALL contentious claims, and all quotations, must be cited from reliable, verifiable sources. I have no idea whether the many claims above are true or false, nor who may be right, and only proper citations will answer the case. Meanwhile, a merge and redirect seems the only sensible course, but it will lead to very little text unless more reliable sources are provided by any side. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

SUGGESTED TOPIC to add to current WIKI page A Course in Miracles

Pre-Publication manuscripts

When the copyright was in force, between 1975 and 2003, there were manuscripts that were published that were “Pre-Publication manuscripts”. “Publication” refers to the Foundation for Inner Peace edition first copyrighted and published in 1975 and “Pre-Publication manuscript” refers to the 1972 manuscript given to Hugh Lynn Cayce, discovered in 1999 and published in 2000 by Course in Miracles Society CIMS as Jesus' Course in Miracles until receiving a temporary restraining order. Distribution of “Jesus’ Course in Miracles” would continue in 2003, after the Copyright was voided. The “A Course in Miracles-Original Edition was published in 2006.

In 1999, during the copyright litigation, it was discovered that a copy of an early manuscript was seen at the Association for Research and Enlightenment [A.R.E.] Library. Permission may or may have not been given to copy this manuscript. That will never be known. The people at A.R.E. claim permission was not given.

Litigants of a copyright suit are entitled to copies of all relevant documents in the Library of Congress. In 2000, anonymous parties released this material illegally, in digital format, onto the internet.

After the Copyright was voided, all of the prior works of Helen Schucman were deemed free from copyright. This includes the manuscript found in the A.R.E. Library, the original handscript, the original typescript, as well as all prior works of the scribe, Helen Schucman.

There are today many “Publication manuscripts” available to the public. In addition to the Foundation for Inner Peace publication , there is A Course in Miracles-Original Edition published by CIMS in 2006; Sparkly and the Urtext

Spiritdejoie (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC) — Spiritdejoie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

References

------ End of suggested main article section ------

Thank you for that rewrite. I have just inserted a sort of a compromise back in the main article. Please see this most recent main article edit at Study editions. Of course you are free to make correction edits to my first cumbersome attempt at this section, to augment it with pertinent properly documented points of your own, or to simply 'smooth it out'. So long as your edits are duly documented, as neutral as possible, reasonable, and succinct, you will continue to do well. Perhaps we can go on from there.... and again, thanks, Scott P. (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the insertion of the topic "Study Editions" into the main ACIM Wiki A Course in Miracles. Your first effort at writing this section is excellent and much appreciated. The wording sounds unbiased and factual and the information provided is what many Course students have wanted to see in print for a very long time. As you wrote, "perhaps we can go on from there...and again Thanks." <3 Wishing you and everyone a Blessed Holiday and New Year. Spiritdejoie (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC) — Spiritdejoie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There might also be inserted some pictures of the ACIM OE, Sparkly and Urtext. What say you? Spiritdejoie (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC) — Spiritdejoie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Go ahead. The images need to be copyright-free - the easiest way is for their authors to post them on Wikimedia Commons, releasing the copyright. If in doubt, seek help as it's tricky the first time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Chiswick Chap! Quick question - Carol Howe, friend of Bill Thetford and author of his BIOGRAPHY, sent me a photo of both of them with permission to use on the William Thetford wiki page. When I upload it into the COMMONS, will I be permitted to use it since I didn't create it but I have permission of the owner who did? Spiritdejoie (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC) — Spiritdejoie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No, if you're not the owner you'll have to get the owner to fill in an OTRS ticket to certify they really did give permission. An alternative is for them to post it on Flickr (or similar) with a CC-BY-SA or similar shareware license; you can then provide a link to that page when you post the image on Commons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2013 (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.