Talk:Church of Divine Science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Distinct denomination 2 References were deleted 3 You can't just delete an article like this, Hrafn 3.1 Stop making FALSE accusations that have NO BASIS WHATSOEVER in policy Madman2001 4 Notability 4.1 For Madman2001's benefit — the actual notability guidelines 4.2 Back on topic... 5 The 'Brooks sisters' 6 Notability 7 Reference-spamming 8 Let's not go thru this again=

[edit] Distinct denomination

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

• Malinda Cramer
• Nona Brooks
• Emma Curtis Hopkins
• Myrtle Fillmore
• Charles Fillmore
• Joseph Murphy

Low Sea (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References were deleted

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)

And this dif shows that these near-useless 'references' had been dumped into the article mere minutes before, and the pre-existing unreferenced & notability templates deleted. Given that they were introduced long after the article was created, and no effort was made to provide inline citations to them, they were of little value in verifying the article's contents (see template:nofootnotes). In any case, they were all to sites associated with 'Divine Science', so did nothing to establish its notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, please explain the logic? I am asking as someone trying to understand how WP works. Here is what I see...

1. An article is tagged saying please provide references.

2. Someone edits the article, provides references, and deletes the tag.

How is this sequence of edits wrong?

On the notability issue please see the WP page on Joseph Murphy, prolific author and head of one of the (historically) largest Divine Science churches. While it is true that Divine Science does not command the congregation it once enjoyed, neither do the Quakers so current status should not negate historical notability. Low Sea (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:CITE gives information on how to correctly reference sources. Inline citations provide a method of linking specific sources to specific statements, allowing them to be verified from these sources. Just dumping a pile of 'reference' links at the end means that the reader has no way of making such links, making verification virtually impossible. WP:NOTE & WP:ORG give information on how to establish notability generally and for organisations, respectively. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been doing an extensive bit of reading on the WP Guidelines you provided above (as well as related WP Policies) and I thank you for pointing me in those directions, it has been very educational. However now that I have aquired this knowledge I am even less comfortable than before with the way these edits were handled. Please understand that I am not criticizing you personally but I have some serious disagreements with the specific actions you took on this article. As I intend to edit this page and several related pages would you be willing to help prevent problems by discussing my concerns so that we can try to come to some kind of agreement on best practices for editing such articles?

If you want to recreate this article, there are two things you need to keep in mind:

1. You will need to establish notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." None of the 'references' dumped into the article in the edit whose reversion you are disputing meet this standard, so they made no difference to the decision to redirect.
2. You will need to provide sources for the statements (restored or created from scratch) that provide sufficient specificity to allow verification. Template:Nonspecific gives a clear indication that lack of specificity is unacceptable under WP:V.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You can't just delete an article like this, Hrafn

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)

[edit] Stop making FALSE accusations that have NO BASIS WHATSOEVER in policy Madman2001

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)

Simply put, you cannot delete an article thru a redirect. WP:GAFD says only that you should "consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted." It is most certainly not a "useful redirect". It had the effect of deleting the article. Madman (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A decision to redirect is not a deletion. See WT:AFD for more. Rossami (talk)

If I redirect Presbyterian Church to Protestantism without expanding or making any changes to Protestantism, would that be a proper use of redirect? Not at all. That is the same thing that happened here. Madman (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Is redirecting a badly-sourced article on a specific topic to a verifiable more general article on that topic valid? Most certainly. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

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)

I recently added a number of scholarly papers that discuss the Church. Here are 370 Google news articles that mention the Church. While many of these just mention church services, several are articles on the church from the Denver Post and New York Times. This is 100 year-old institution with multiple brick-and-mortar churches is certainly notable. I am removing the notability template. Thanks, Madman (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"I recently added a number of scholarly papers that discuss the Church." No you have not. The only non-CoDS source does not "discuss the Church", it merely gives it the briefest mention in passing. Please point out where [WP:NOTE]] or WP:ORG list any of your assertions (you have provided WP:RS backing up none of them) as criteria for notability.

This article currently has exactly four references: Holmes (its founder), Hazen (bare mention -- discussed above), Divine Science Federation & Divine Science Church of Denver. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The scholarly articles I added are listed under Further reading. Thanks, Madman (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If they are not provided as formal references, then it is unclear how they help establish the topic's notability. In fact it's unclear what relevance they have for the topic at all -- particularly Religious variables, political system characteristics, and policy outputs in the American states. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Putting it another way, if these 'Further readings' contain "significant coverage" on CoDS, then they should be used to provide badly-needed citations for the article. If they don't, then they don't add to the article's notability. None of them are available online without subscription, so we have no way of evaluating their relevance, lacking such citations. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For Madman2001's benefit — the actual notability guidelines

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.

WP:ORG:

Primary criterion

See also: Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline

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.

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)

[edit] Back on topic...

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:

• Albanese, Catherine L (2007). A Republic of Mind and Spirit: A Cultural History of American Metaphysical Religion, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300110890.
  • Albanese is a Prof. in the Dept. of Religious Studies at UC Santa Barbara (see here). The book seems to trace the history of metaphysical beliefs and sects in America; chapter 7 "New Ages for All" (pp.394-495) is the most relevant, almost 100 pages here devoted to the origins and transformations of New Thought, Divine Science & sundry other movements in the late 19th / early 20th C. By the index, Divine Science is discussed on at least a dozen of those pages (and not just parenthetical mentions).
• Stark, Rodney and William Sims Bainbridge (1981). "Secularization and Cult Formation in the Jazz Age", Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 20 (4): pp. 360-373.
  • This article by a couple of Univ. of Washington sociology professors seems mainly concerned with investigating the thesis that "demonstrate that cults thrive where conventional churches are weak", and D Sc, is discussed and used as a prominent example.
• Wessinger Catherine; Dell deChant & William Ashcroft (1996). "Theosophy, New Thought and New Age Movements", in Rosemary Skinner Keller and Rosemary Radford Ruether (eds.) Encyclopedia of Women and Religion in North America, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  • In this chapter (lead author Wessinger is prof. of history of religions & women's studies at Loyola University New Orleans), Nona Brooks and Divine Science gets about 2 pages of commentary, and the interrelated history of all these sects is covered
• Miller, Timothy (ed.) (1995). America's Alternative Religions, Albany: State University of New York Press. ISBN 0791423972.
  • Several of the contributed chapters in this volume edited by an assoc. prof. in religious studies @ Kansas U. describe the interrelations and development of DSc, Religious Science, etc etc
• Hanegraaf, Wouter (1996). New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought, Leiden: Brill Publishers. ISBN 9004106952.
  • Hanegraaf is prof. of History of Hermetic Philosophy at the Universiteit van Amsterdam, seems to have a number of significant publs. on esotericism analyses to his credit. This particular one doesn't seem to mention DSc by name, but it does give extensive treatment to New Thought, its origins and countercurrents, & characters associated with these movements. In particular the chapter "American Mesmerism and the Rise of New Thought" goes into the conceptual framework behind the movements and their influences.

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)

• My comment was in response to claims of notability by Madman2001 that had no basis in the (quoted) guidelines and in the context of his repeated accusations of vandalism and fatwahs that likewise had no basis in policy. My purpose was to elicit WP:RSs to back up the topic's notability (as required by the quoted policies), rather than continued bare assertions. Where the references you list are available online without subscription, I will attempt to make use of them to source the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The 'Brooks sisters'

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)

A third source turned up two more Brooks & a Bingham -- but clearly on a second tier below Cramer & Nona. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your research on this. Madman (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that Cramer & Nona Brooks are the key individuals in the founding of DSc. And I agree with you, there are plenty enough independent sources backing one another up & telling much the same story, & there's no need to rely on websites of the churches and supporters for this information that may or may not be up to scratch in the reliability stakes. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

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)

Madman2001: learn the difference between asserting notability ("this subject is notable") and establishing it -- which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Albanese, Miller, Kezzer et al & Hazen all give CoDS the barest of mentions. They are not "significant coverage". As for your 'Further reading' list, as I have already stated, it appears to very oddball and tangential to the subject. What does Religious variables, political system characteristics, and policy outputs in the American states have to do with CoDS (beyond it being simply another in a long list of religions)? If they give CoDS "significant coverage", then why haven't you cited them for new/existing content (the article being almost entirely uncited/miscited)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've come across another work, Each Mind a Kingdom: American Women, Sexual Purity, and the New Thought Movement by Beryl Sattler assoc. prof. & dept. chair of History at Rutgers-Newark, replete throughout with dozens of specific mentions of CoDS, Cramer, the Brooks sisters, relations with other groups and details on CoDS philosophical beliefs and New Thought tenets in general. This seems to constitute more than the "barest" of mentions, well on the way to establishing notability by a reasonable standard. It looks like there were 3 or 4 books written in the 1910s/1920s specifically on Divine Science, albeit presumably by adherents or sympathisers. All up, seems to me that there is enough independent published academic material to be able to write an article covering the origins, influences, personages, organisations, beliefs, documents, and numbers of adherents at various points of time.

BTW, I reorganised the notes/references to a style and layout that I think is more convenient, hope no-one minds.--cjllw ʘ TALK 08:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference-spamming

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:

1. the material is relevant, but the introducing authors simply can't be bothered working them in as citations for new/existing content; or
2. the material is irrelevant (or highly tangential) and doesn't really belong in the 'References' section.

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)

There is nothing wrong with listing references that were used in writing an article, even though they may not be directly cited anywhere. If a book was consulted in the course of editing, it should be listed as a reference. Sentence by sentence citations are not necessarily required.--Srleffler (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

But these reference were not "used in writing an article", they were added long after the article was written, by different editors. The relevance of a number of them (particularly Religious variables, political system characteristics, and policy outputs in the American states, already mentioned above) is by no means clear. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, as you are well enough aware the "introducing authors" are attempting to address the referencing concerns for a text they did not write, in an article only resurrected from a redirect a couple of days ago. I don't think the article's original authors are still around to ask, and it takes time for someone else to come along, do the research and build up a picture on what does/does not belong and what are the best sources to use. As you are also aware, at least half of the "dumped" references did not show up here ex nihilo, but were provided on this talk page earlier with their relevance to the topic outlined. As for the others, those I have added in (a bare few hours ago) are put there since initial research indicates they either (a) could be used to cite material already here or (b) contain other relevant info that can reasonably be added.

Developing a wikipedia article is a collaborative exercise performed by volunteers who do what they can as and when they have the time. While your demands for RS is on the face of it no more than what policy requires, I for one am not going to reorganise my time and commitments to other things both on and off wiki just so as to satisfy some arbitrary and impatient deadline to have every line accompanied by a cite. Some base sources at least have been added to the article, so that you or anyone else can check the gist of the contents, and in reasonable time the text itself can be worked thru to marry up the reference cites with the statements and discard those that are not found. If you feel unable to wait, well the material is there I suppose you as well as anyone else could take those refs and make a start. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Throwing in a list of uncited 'references' doesn't address referencing concerns, particularly when their presence is used as an excuse to prematurely remove the notability-tag. It also seems, in the context of your "references that were used in writing an article" narrative, to be 'putting the cart before the horse' to list them before you make use of them. Rewritten as "There is nothing wrong with listing references that might at some later date be used in writing the article, even though they may not be directly cited anywhere." makes for a far less compelling argument.
• I have made no "arbitrary and impatient deadline[s]". I am however concerned that an article that has been tagged for referencing concerns for 7 months still has large swathes of uncited/miscited material -- to the extent that it is often difficult to tell the fallacious (e.g. that Cramer was a Brooks sister) from the merely unsourced. Is that concern unreasonable? I was also not the editor who precipitated these potential time commitments -- that was done by those "resurrect[ing] from a redirect" -- who implicitly took on the responsibility for referencing the resurrected material in a timely fashion.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would further point out that threatening the continued existence of this article, and its unsourced contents, has evoked far more work to reference it in the last few days than in its entire previous existence. If you don't like having WP:V hung like a sword of Damocles over their heads, then don't allow the articles to continue on unreferenced for long periods (especially after being tagged as such). Such neglect pretty much necessitates a 'source it or lose it' approach. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It would have been far more efficient, and far less contentious, if you had merely done the work in the first place rather than "threatening", as you call it. Madman (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No. I never took on the responsibility for 'doing the work'. You did that when you 'resurrected' the article -- and then completely failed to follow through. The 'contention' has been about your flagrant disregard for WP:V. If you wanted a process that was uncontentious and compliant with wikipedia policy, then you should have copied the pre-redirect article to your sandbox, and sourced/rewritten it until it met WP:V and only then resurrected it. Instead you prematurely resurrected it, threw in some sources that generally don't verify their citations and the occasional outright falsehood (which, while unintentional, clearly demonstrates a severe disconnect with WP:V). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This is, incidentally, not merely my personal opinion -- it is explicitly stated in WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly took on that responsibility. My point was simply that "threatening" (to use your own term) is terribly unproductive and makes for an unpleasant environment for our all-volunteer staff, particularly for the newbies here. Please build up instead of tear down, Hrafn. Thanks in advance, Madman (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

. . . "'threatening' (to use your own term) is terribly unproductive" -- I'm sorry Madman2001, but for you to make a statement like this, straight after I've presented evidence to the direct contrary, is ludicrous. If this strategy is so "unproductive" then why has it worked, and why is it the only strategy to date that has worked in getting this article sourced? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 00:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have fixed up a couple of spiritualist articles, such as this one, over your spirited resistance. However, I am saying that it would have been more productive if you would have spent the time cleaning up an article -- any article! -- whilst I could have continued to improve Western Mexico shaft tomb tradition which I have nominated for a Good Article review. That way two articles would have been improved, instead of just one. Madman (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) In response to Hrafn's 'most productive strategy' comments, above. Seems an oddly inefficient way to go about improving article content. Apparently you (Hrafn) has been acquainted with the deficiencies of referencing in these articles for some months now, first adding WP:V tags and then chopping away when none are forthcoming. When, finally, some folks do come along and begin digging up some reliable sources that you'd been asking for, you give 'em a bit of a spray and characterise their efforts as either (a) lazy, 'can't-be-bothered-to-do-it-properly', or (b) unable to tell the difference between relevant and irrelevant sources in the first place. If, regardless of the noise generated, the end result is an improved and better-referenced article, you seem prepared to take some sort of vicarious credit for an outcome wrought largely from the labours of others.

It's agreed that it is not your (Hrafn's) personal responsibility to track down cites for stuff you hadn't written. I dunno about the others, but up to less than a week ago I'd never heard of Divine Science, or knew this brace of articles existed. Even so, an hour or two spent looking revealed a number of independent academic sources to assert notability and back up most of the (generally pretty pedestrian and uncontroversial) statements; an hour or two apparently unavailable to Hrafn over the preceding 7 months. Which, like I said, is perfectly fine — no-one's asking or expecting you to have cleaned it up, when the situation was not of your making. But it's not really being helpful to go on needling those who did set aside some time to locate missing sources. I don't think they/we are responsible for the ongoing 'neglect' of these articles either, no more so than you. I can't see to whom the "don't allow the articles to continue on unreferenced for long periods" admonishment might be addressed.

Haven't seen anyone here disputing the kernel of Hrafn's concern, namely that cites/refs are more than just a Good Idea but a pre-requisite for any decent article. Flagging inadequacies is a good first step, as Hrafn has done. The next stages of vetting and substantiating the articles against references (and vice versa, if you like) won't finish overnight. It'll likely happen sooner with less back'n'forth on the talkpgs. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

CJLL:

• I never stated it was (more) efficient, just relatively productive. No effort for no sources, the article's trajectory prior to my involvement, can be argued to be perfectly efficient, if also perfectly unproductive.
• Yes, both Madman2001 & Low Sea have been "expecting [me] to have cleaned it up."
• And in fact I have "cleaned it up" somewhat -- two of the only three sources that actually verify their statements are ones I added (based on references you gave). The other references you gave are not ones I could find online access to, so I have not cited them. No new citations have been added since I added my last one three days ago.
• "When, finally, some folks do come along and begin digging up some reliable sources that you'd been asking for..." is somewhat of an oversimplification -- Madman2001 came in 'guns blazing', accusing me of "vandalism", and for my failure to call an (unnecessary) AfD before redirecting. This naturally set up a rather confrontational atmosphere. If he wants it to cool down I would suggest that he (1) cease making unsubstantiated accusations & (2) start making some solid progress on providing citations.

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)

Quite prepared and earnestly hope to see, all parties cool down on this & other related discussions. All the foregoing can be water under the bridge, and we all/whoever's interested can concentrate instead on substantiating the statements and refs across these articles. I think it's reasonable that this be done soon, not instantaneously, but soon. Hope I'm not being presumptuous, but I'd say this series of discussions can be mutually drawn to a close, any future comments need only focus on matters such as whether reference X substantiates claim Y, or whether paragraph Z is required or can be improved/replaced, that sort of thing. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Let's not go thru this again=

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:

"Divine Science originally began in San Francisco in the 1880s under Malinda Cramer. "

"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. Today, the major churches are in Denver (the founding church), D.C., metro St. Louis (3), Roanoke (2), San Antonio, Pueblo, and San Jose."

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:

1. promptly cite the material you have restored;
2. allow the material to be deleted, until such time as you can get around to citing it; or
3. edit war to restore uncited material.

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)