![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Divine Science (DS) is a distinct denomination of the New Thought churches with connections to some notable perosns who may have entries here (see below) and at the very least deserves a stub although I am certain a full encyclopedic article outlining their specific doctrines and their differences from other New Thought (NT) churches can be developed. I will do so when time permits (sadly not soon). If someone more versed in DS teachings and their variances from other NT teachings would care to procede I would be happy to help if I can.
Initial supporting reference: "In contrast to Religious Science which draws heavily on the teachings of Christ but does not call itself a Christian denomination, Divine Science, like Unity, is a Christian denomination that teaches practical, reasonable living based on the omnipresence of God." -- http://divinescience.com/ds_history.htm
WP biographical entries related to Divine Science
Low Sea ( talk) 20:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I am puzzled by the edit history for "Revision as of 20:48, 2008 February 9" [1] showing that the references were deleted and then an unreferenced tag was added ... I would like to believe this was an honest mistake. Low Sea ( talk) 20:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want to recreate this article, there are two things you need to keep in mind:
Hrafn Talk Stalk 12:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Hrafn Talk Stalk 12:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn, you cannot delete just this article as you did here, without running it thru the WP:AFD. That is not an allowed use of a redirect. Please refrain from that sort of vandalism. Thank you, Madman ( talk) 03:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a gross violation of WP:AGF. Please read template:notability: "If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for redirection, merge or ultimately deletion, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion." Per WP:GAFD, a redirect is one of the things to consider "Before nominating an article for AFD" (my emphasis). Please refrain from making further baseless accusations! Thank you. Hrafn Talk Stalk 03:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The only non-CoDS source currently referenced is Hazen. Hazen only makes the briefest of mentions of 'Divine Science' as part of a list of churches that Quimby influenced. It does not come even close to "substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources" (per WP:NOTE). Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as Madman2001 seems unable to recognise wikipedia policy/guidelines if they reached out and grabbed him by the throat, here they are: WP:NOTE:
General notability guideline
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.
- "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not. [1]
- "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. [2]
- "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. [3]
- "Sources," [4] defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. [5]
- "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. [6]
A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.
Primary criterion
A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.
The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for example) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations [7] except for the following:
- Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. [8] Self-published material or published at the direction of the subject of the article would be a primary source and falls under a different policy.
- Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)) is plainly trivial.
Note that both explicitly rely on substantial/significant coverage in independent
WP:RSs -- coverage that this article currently lacks.
Hrafn
Talk
Stalk 13:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn, that was unnecessary and hardly calculated to bring the focus back on the article, instead of the contributors (who, after all, are really just working to identify and present sources for evaluation). While I can readily appreciate your concern for independent sources to be found, those pointed if not sarcastic remarks are counterproductive.
If you're after evidence that Divine Science & the other metaphysical religious movements have been considered and covered more than trivially, and more than by themselves, then why not try these academic works on the topic:
No doubt there are quite a few more that could be found. I don't think the ones listed here are pro or promotional, ie are quite independent and academic treatments, even critiques of this movement. I myself have not much knowledge and interest, and no investment, in these metaphysical movements, but from what I've been able to see these movements, churches and sects do figure in a range of sociological and religious historical academic literature, and would be notable enough. Maybe someone who cares to can work these and others into the article. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 15:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The cerfuffle over the Brooks sisters-who-weren't demonstrates the dangers of allowing unsourced/poorly-sourced pseudo-information into the article. Two of the WP:RSs that cjllw turned up agree in listing only two founders, only one of which was a Brooks. Could people please be more careful to check that the statements they introduce or provide citations for are actually explicitly contained in the cited source. Hrafn Talk Stalk 17:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn, this subject is notable. There are 4 separate sources cited in the article and 3 others in Further Reading. That certainly qualifies as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Please desist or be more specific than pointing in the general direction of a guideline. Thanks, Madman ( talk) 14:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The 'References' section currently has 10 entries -- which is rather odd, given that only 3 of them are cited in the 'Notes'. Given that the majority of this article is uncited/miscited, this leads to two possible conclusions, either:
Dumping a list of material in the references section doesn't really prove anything, unless you cite it. Hrafn Talk Stalk 03:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk 12:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
CJLL:
I am quite happy to avoid "back'n'forth on the talkpgs" if people would kindly quit demonising me. Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn, you are again deleting extremely non-controversial statements because, apparently, they are not cited. If you want every single sentence cited, then by all means get to work.
You deleted sentences like:
I fail to see the problem with these sentences. Are they controversial? Do they seem unlikely? They are quite bland. Despite an earlier assumption of good faith, I can't help but wonder why you continually delete faith-based articles. Madman ( talk) 03:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Madman2001, but as you likewise thought it 'uncontroversial' (and thus not requiring a source) that Malinda Cramer was one of the Brooks sisters -- I'll take the source thank you.
You restored this material so you are responsible for sourcing it.
cjllw requested that I hold off to let you work on citing the article in peace. I did so -- and work on citing immediately stopped dead. My abeyance was explicitly conditional on you "start[ing to] mak[e] some solid progress on providing citations" -- that hasn't happened. Therefore I will continue to periodically remove uncited material, as explicitly permitted by WP:V.
You have three choices:
Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll take
this,
this and
this to mean that Madman2001 has chosen #3 and will "edit war to restore uncited material." Incidentally,
WP:V does not talk about "uncontroversial" or 'controversial' material -- it talks about "material challenged or likely to be challenged". (emphasis in the original). Just to make things formal, I
User:Hrafn hereby challenge the following material:
Divine Science originally began in San Francisco in the 1880s under Malinda Cramer. There is also a loose connection with Charles Fillmore, founder of Unity Church in Missouri. By 1918 there were churches in Denver, Seattle, Los Angeles, Oakland, Boston, Portland, Spokane and Saint Louis. By 1925 churches had opened in San Diego, Sacramento, Topeka, District of Columbia, Illinois, and Iowa.
...and...
Like other New Thought churches, Divine Science considers faith healing very important, and emulates the work of Jesus, who is portrayed in the New Testament curing many people. The Denver Church's founder, Nona Brooks, stated, "The whole of Divine Science is the practice of the Presence of God. Truth comes through the Bible, receptive prayer, contemplation and meditation and the practice of the presence of God here and now."
...and...
In recent years, Divine Science, with few site-based churches, has expanded its presence through cyber-ministries and e-mail ministries. Northwoods Resources in Wisconsin provides many materials online. In addition, "Symphony of Love" in Santa Fe issues a weekly e-mail lesson free of charge, and has an international outreach. Symphony of Love is a group member of the Divine Science Federation, the denominational headquarters, and the INTA: International New Thought Alliance. In addition, there is a Web-based ministry in New York State focusing on the teachings and legacy of the late Emmet Fox, a Divine Science Minister who led the world's largest New Thought group from the 1930s to the early 1950s.
My reason for challenging it is that this material dates back a couple of years to when wikipedia's standards were far laxer, so there is a fairly good chance that it contains WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and/or material from (uncited) unreliable sources.
WP:PROVEIT now requires that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Hrafn Talk Stalk 15:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn, not sure what the problem is, but the history of this Church exudes feminism and spirituality. No, not the political kind, but a belief in woman as a recipient of grace. Women founded this church and it is still largely run by women for women. Goodness gracious, Nona L. Brooks was the first woman pastor in Denver. Get real and quit edit-warring. Madman ( talk) 03:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
There is currently discussion regarding the creation of a work group specifically to deal with articles dealing with this subject, among others, here. Any parties interested in working in such a group are welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 18:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Since this is based on the majorities definition of an Encyclopedia ; Christian that Jesus is your Lord and savior ( Nicaean Creed) . None of the New Thought denominations have that as their creed. New Thought Jesus is the way- shower it is defined in the Golden rule a life style. 74.73.176.161 ( talk) 14:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Church of Divine Science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Divine Science (DS) is a distinct denomination of the New Thought churches with connections to some notable perosns who may have entries here (see below) and at the very least deserves a stub although I am certain a full encyclopedic article outlining their specific doctrines and their differences from other New Thought (NT) churches can be developed. I will do so when time permits (sadly not soon). If someone more versed in DS teachings and their variances from other NT teachings would care to procede I would be happy to help if I can.
Initial supporting reference: "In contrast to Religious Science which draws heavily on the teachings of Christ but does not call itself a Christian denomination, Divine Science, like Unity, is a Christian denomination that teaches practical, reasonable living based on the omnipresence of God." -- http://divinescience.com/ds_history.htm
WP biographical entries related to Divine Science
Low Sea ( talk) 20:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I am puzzled by the edit history for "Revision as of 20:48, 2008 February 9" [1] showing that the references were deleted and then an unreferenced tag was added ... I would like to believe this was an honest mistake. Low Sea ( talk) 20:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want to recreate this article, there are two things you need to keep in mind:
Hrafn Talk Stalk 12:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Hrafn Talk Stalk 12:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn, you cannot delete just this article as you did here, without running it thru the WP:AFD. That is not an allowed use of a redirect. Please refrain from that sort of vandalism. Thank you, Madman ( talk) 03:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a gross violation of WP:AGF. Please read template:notability: "If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for redirection, merge or ultimately deletion, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion." Per WP:GAFD, a redirect is one of the things to consider "Before nominating an article for AFD" (my emphasis). Please refrain from making further baseless accusations! Thank you. Hrafn Talk Stalk 03:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The only non-CoDS source currently referenced is Hazen. Hazen only makes the briefest of mentions of 'Divine Science' as part of a list of churches that Quimby influenced. It does not come even close to "substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources" (per WP:NOTE). Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as Madman2001 seems unable to recognise wikipedia policy/guidelines if they reached out and grabbed him by the throat, here they are: WP:NOTE:
General notability guideline
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.
- "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not. [1]
- "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. [2]
- "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. [3]
- "Sources," [4] defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. [5]
- "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. [6]
A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.
Primary criterion
A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.
The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for example) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations [7] except for the following:
- Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. [8] Self-published material or published at the direction of the subject of the article would be a primary source and falls under a different policy.
- Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)) is plainly trivial.
Note that both explicitly rely on substantial/significant coverage in independent
WP:RSs -- coverage that this article currently lacks.
Hrafn
Talk
Stalk 13:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn, that was unnecessary and hardly calculated to bring the focus back on the article, instead of the contributors (who, after all, are really just working to identify and present sources for evaluation). While I can readily appreciate your concern for independent sources to be found, those pointed if not sarcastic remarks are counterproductive.
If you're after evidence that Divine Science & the other metaphysical religious movements have been considered and covered more than trivially, and more than by themselves, then why not try these academic works on the topic:
No doubt there are quite a few more that could be found. I don't think the ones listed here are pro or promotional, ie are quite independent and academic treatments, even critiques of this movement. I myself have not much knowledge and interest, and no investment, in these metaphysical movements, but from what I've been able to see these movements, churches and sects do figure in a range of sociological and religious historical academic literature, and would be notable enough. Maybe someone who cares to can work these and others into the article. -- cjllw ʘ TALK 15:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The cerfuffle over the Brooks sisters-who-weren't demonstrates the dangers of allowing unsourced/poorly-sourced pseudo-information into the article. Two of the WP:RSs that cjllw turned up agree in listing only two founders, only one of which was a Brooks. Could people please be more careful to check that the statements they introduce or provide citations for are actually explicitly contained in the cited source. Hrafn Talk Stalk 17:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn, this subject is notable. There are 4 separate sources cited in the article and 3 others in Further Reading. That certainly qualifies as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Please desist or be more specific than pointing in the general direction of a guideline. Thanks, Madman ( talk) 14:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The 'References' section currently has 10 entries -- which is rather odd, given that only 3 of them are cited in the 'Notes'. Given that the majority of this article is uncited/miscited, this leads to two possible conclusions, either:
Dumping a list of material in the references section doesn't really prove anything, unless you cite it. Hrafn Talk Stalk 03:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk 12:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
CJLL:
I am quite happy to avoid "back'n'forth on the talkpgs" if people would kindly quit demonising me. Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn, you are again deleting extremely non-controversial statements because, apparently, they are not cited. If you want every single sentence cited, then by all means get to work.
You deleted sentences like:
I fail to see the problem with these sentences. Are they controversial? Do they seem unlikely? They are quite bland. Despite an earlier assumption of good faith, I can't help but wonder why you continually delete faith-based articles. Madman ( talk) 03:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Madman2001, but as you likewise thought it 'uncontroversial' (and thus not requiring a source) that Malinda Cramer was one of the Brooks sisters -- I'll take the source thank you.
You restored this material so you are responsible for sourcing it.
cjllw requested that I hold off to let you work on citing the article in peace. I did so -- and work on citing immediately stopped dead. My abeyance was explicitly conditional on you "start[ing to] mak[e] some solid progress on providing citations" -- that hasn't happened. Therefore I will continue to periodically remove uncited material, as explicitly permitted by WP:V.
You have three choices:
Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll take
this,
this and
this to mean that Madman2001 has chosen #3 and will "edit war to restore uncited material." Incidentally,
WP:V does not talk about "uncontroversial" or 'controversial' material -- it talks about "material challenged or likely to be challenged". (emphasis in the original). Just to make things formal, I
User:Hrafn hereby challenge the following material:
Divine Science originally began in San Francisco in the 1880s under Malinda Cramer. There is also a loose connection with Charles Fillmore, founder of Unity Church in Missouri. By 1918 there were churches in Denver, Seattle, Los Angeles, Oakland, Boston, Portland, Spokane and Saint Louis. By 1925 churches had opened in San Diego, Sacramento, Topeka, District of Columbia, Illinois, and Iowa.
...and...
Like other New Thought churches, Divine Science considers faith healing very important, and emulates the work of Jesus, who is portrayed in the New Testament curing many people. The Denver Church's founder, Nona Brooks, stated, "The whole of Divine Science is the practice of the Presence of God. Truth comes through the Bible, receptive prayer, contemplation and meditation and the practice of the presence of God here and now."
...and...
In recent years, Divine Science, with few site-based churches, has expanded its presence through cyber-ministries and e-mail ministries. Northwoods Resources in Wisconsin provides many materials online. In addition, "Symphony of Love" in Santa Fe issues a weekly e-mail lesson free of charge, and has an international outreach. Symphony of Love is a group member of the Divine Science Federation, the denominational headquarters, and the INTA: International New Thought Alliance. In addition, there is a Web-based ministry in New York State focusing on the teachings and legacy of the late Emmet Fox, a Divine Science Minister who led the world's largest New Thought group from the 1930s to the early 1950s.
My reason for challenging it is that this material dates back a couple of years to when wikipedia's standards were far laxer, so there is a fairly good chance that it contains WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and/or material from (uncited) unreliable sources.
WP:PROVEIT now requires that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Hrafn Talk Stalk 15:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn, not sure what the problem is, but the history of this Church exudes feminism and spirituality. No, not the political kind, but a belief in woman as a recipient of grace. Women founded this church and it is still largely run by women for women. Goodness gracious, Nona L. Brooks was the first woman pastor in Denver. Get real and quit edit-warring. Madman ( talk) 03:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
There is currently discussion regarding the creation of a work group specifically to deal with articles dealing with this subject, among others, here. Any parties interested in working in such a group are welcome to indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 18:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Since this is based on the majorities definition of an Encyclopedia ; Christian that Jesus is your Lord and savior ( Nicaean Creed) . None of the New Thought denominations have that as their creed. New Thought Jesus is the way- shower it is defined in the Golden rule a life style. 74.73.176.161 ( talk) 14:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Church of Divine Science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)