Talk:A Course in Miracles (book)

Untitled

This is the combined merge with actual credible secondary references. Ste4k 06:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC) I'd just like to mention here, that although this book sold 1.5 million copies, it is no longer in print since it lost it's copyrights. Ste4k 10:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are wrong. It is in print. Where did you acquire the weird idea that being in print requires a copyright? Gene Ward Smith 21:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Barnes and Noble lists it as being in print: A Course in Miracles: Combined Volume Foundation for Inner Peace claims that the edition they are selling, the second edition, is indeed copyrighted. I think that what this editor means is that the version of the manuscript that was debated about in the court case is not in print. That version is apparently available on Wikipedia: A Course In Miracles The Deletrix 05:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What the editor (me) meant was that after asking the question without obtaining any reasonable answer from other editors, and that after reading the court case which declared it to be in the public domain, and that Penguin had ceased printing the book after their license had expired, it was determined that the book is out of print. If there are several different books and each of the books are referred to by edition, then it might be a good idea to delineate the various editions in a table of some sort showing the lineage. Ste4k 10:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction in the "Timeline" source.

I doubt the accuracy of this source. It is probably close to correct, but hasn't any reputible sources of its own. It also has a statement which is contradictory to the facts as found in the court documents. According to Whitmore, "Penguin pays the Foundation for Inner Peace a royalty advancement of $3 million dollars for exclusive use of the copyright." According to the court documentation, the amount was $2.5 million dollars as stated in the article. 0.5 is a very small number except when dealing with millions of dollars. Ste4k 13:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to be better documented, and merged with the main ACIM article

Due to the the duplicative nature of this article, I believe that this article needs to be merged with the main ACIM article. Also, several of the timeline and references are undocumented and inaccurate. The reference to students of ACIM as being "cult" members seems to me to be POV. The highlighting of the transexual identity of one of the early financial contributors to FIP who is otherwise rather obscure in his relationship to ACIM also seems to me to be rather POV. I am therefor (re)nominating this article for deletion in the Afd discussion. -Scott P. 02:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The innacurate unreliable source has been removed. It entered this article by way of a merge from another article. Please review the edit summarys to that effect. Cleaning up the litigation section is now underway. Ste4k 06:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"cult"

I reworded this sentence:

"It became a spiritual curriculum for many individuals and study groups, [1] well over a million copies have been printed, multiple foreign-language editions exist, [4] and it remains a cult favorite.[1]"

to read:

"It became a spiritual curriculum for many individuals and study groups, [1] well over a million copies have been printed and multiple foreign-language editions exist, [4]. The book remains a strong seller within a certain segment of the faith and spirituality book market[1]."

The Garrett article cited in the AfD was writen to describe the marketing plan for another book. It was also used as an adjective, not a noun. The intended audience for this comment was booksellers, not the general public or theologians. When ACIM was referred to a cult classic here, the author was referring to the pattern of its sales after its initial big explosion -- this book continued to sell in smaller, but still respectable numbers to a group of people that were very enthusiastic about the book and the ACIM concept. You could say the same thing about Macintosh enthusiasts. Wiktionary has two definitions of "cult" when used as an adjective:

1. Enjoyed by a small, loyal group
2. That has garnered limited sales figures, but a loyal fanbase and raving reviews in the press.

"The Lord of the Rings" is a classic geek cult novel.

Wiktionary has three meanings that apply to cult when used as a noun. I believe none of these apply to the Garrett article:

1. A group or doctrine with religious, philosophical or cultural identity sometimes viewed as a sect, often existent on the margins of society.
2. Devotion to a saint.
3. A group that exploits members psychologically and/or financially, typically by making members comply with leadership's demands through certain types of psychological manipulation, popularly called mind control, and through the inculcation of deep-seated anxious dependency on the group and its leaders.

I got rid of "cult" (adjective) here because even though it's correct, it's just such a loaded word in this setting and there are other ways to make the point about this book's sales. If someone wants to assert that ACIM fans belong to a cult (noun), they need to quote a different source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A. B. (talk • contribs).

Yeah I agree. Garrett reeks. I'll remove that. Ste4k

You know, now that you mention it, it all must be POV, I mean, think about it, it's all direct quotes from a U.S. District Court Case, of course that HAS to be biased, right? I mean after all, the only thing they demand on in cases like that are facts and other nonsense. I'll clean that up real quick, I haven't any clue what I could possibly have been thinking! Ste4k 06:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)