Talk:New Thought/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Animism

Isn't this belief system similar to animism? Badagnani 09:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No Its completely different, read them both again. 69.72.29.222 19:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it's very different. Not the same thing at all. It's a belief in Oneness, Allness.69.72.29.222 19:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Phineas Parkhurst Quimby is one of the primary roots of New Thought. Check the New Thought History Chart, the link to which I inserted in the Links section of this article. His ideas were used by Mary Baker Eddy, who worked with and then diverged from Emma Curtis Hopkins. Emma is "the Mother of New Thought" as the teacher of the Fillmoes, Ernest Holmes, and the Brooks sisters.69.72.29.222 19:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

After reading them both carefully and slowly multiple times, I have to conclude that this is basically animism. Rather than instructing me to go do homework – can you point out obvious differences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.131.70 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 24 June 2007

Animism focuses on the idea that everything, animate and inanimate, has a soul -- a self-aware essence unique to a particular living being. In plain English that means animists believe each rock and each tree has a unique individual spirit. New Thought believes in omnipresence, the idea that God exists in everything including matter and energy. As one New Thought person told me: "There is no spot where God is not."

This represents a significant difference from animism since omnipresence represents one single identity (God) in all things. I think the confusion arises when one talks about "connectedness". In animism that refers to a kind of brotherhood of all creatures. In New Thought that refers to sharing the presence of God~~, somewhat like "The Force" (I suspect George Lucas probably had read some New Thought material before writing Star Wars)~~ (see my comments below to explain why I struck-out this text).

Another way to look at it would be like this... Imagine a room filled with a hundred lit candles. An animist would say there are 100 souls in the room, one for each candle. New Thought adherents would say there is one Divine Spirit (God) in the room, and it is the substance of each candle, each flame, and the very light itself. God is inside every candle because every candle (every atom) is a tiny part of God.

Does that help ? -- Low Sea (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Lucas is more commonly thought to have based 'The Force' on New Age or Taoism. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an excellent answer, very helpful. One more question: you mention The Force; wouldn't this be similar to the Polynesian concept of mana? Badagnani (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I knew I should not have mentioned that fictional concept!! My bad!!

In answer to your question let me start by saying I have done almost no studies of polynesian belief systems so I can only provide an answer based on some brief research done today. The Force as decribed in Star Wars probably is close to the Melanesian concept of mana ("a sacred impersonal force existing in the universe"). As both Star Wars and the Melanesian descriptions allow for variations of mana strength in different objects/people I now must retract my earlier analogy of omnipresence to The Force. Omnipresence explicitly means equally present in all, thus no stronger or weaker mana/force. So strike-out what I said above.

If I dare risk a different analogy try this: Based on a conversation I had not too long ago the universe was described as being made out of "the thoughts of God". Loosely paraphrasing what was said in that conversation the idea is this:

When you have a thought it is a word, a sentence, a picture or even sometimes a whole complex concept or idea. When God has a thought it is an atom, a grain of sand, a person, a tree, a planet, a galaxy or even a whole universe. If we are each a thought in the Mind of God then we are a part of God that cannot be separated from God.

That is one possible definition of omnipresence from a New Thought perspective -- this is not a universal interpretation among New Thoughters but it is pretty descriptive so I thought I would try it here.

New Material

The new material added includes links to some articles that require a subscription. However the sources are credible and verifiable.24.168.224.213 14:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

Yes, this page should be merged with the New Thought Movement page, although I hope the result is not a link farm. Also, I would suggest using the description from the New Thought Movement page about it being "inspired by the philosophy of Phineas Quimby" rather than originating with him. Kbradley29 06:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

69.72.29.222 19:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)New Thought the philosophy is different from New Thought the movement. Perhaps some material overlaps, but I think they merit distinct articles.69.72.29.222 19:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment, would you pelase elaborate? To me it seems the two articles should be merged. I'm not familiar with the philosophy in detail, but on reading the two articles they seem to cover the same information and it's confusing reading it in two place. Parzival418 17:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the articles should be merged. This article deals with New Thought beliefs and adherents, the other New Thought Movement article is more historical and takes in territory not covered by mainstream New Thought chuches. cat yronwode 64.142.90.32 22:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe they should be separate whoevert is trying to merge them has made a mess. [Unsigned. Posted 17 September 2007, after the merge was underway.]

Request for help with New Thought category tag

In the article on Huna there's a red link in Categories:New Thought though this article exists. I tried to link it but it stayed red - any suggestions?Julia Rossi 09:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no category titled "New Thought", that's why it's red. There is a category for "New Thought movement" so if you change it to that it should work. Look at the bottom of this article New Thought to see an example. If you need to see the correct syntax for the category tag, you can use the edit link on that part of the article and copy the tag, just don't change it here! I hope that helps Parzival418 17:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Also see the discussion in the folllowing section, related to your question... Parzival418 18:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose a category consistency

If we have Category:New Age then we should also have Category:New Thought for consistency, or alternatively use Category:New Age Movement / Category:New Thought Movement for consistency. Is there such a thing as a Category redirect? Low Sea 17:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

New Age and New Thought are different concepts, though they may be related, so I'm not sure it's important to make the category names consistent. I do agree we should avoid having too many extra overlapping categories though. If you want to make the category names consistent, that's fine with me. But if you do, just change the New Thought category name, don't do anything with the New Age catgegory name because that one has a lot of articles in it and it would be easy to make a technical error that could cause a big mess.

By the way, there is no article or category on New Age Movement, that link is redirected to the New Age article. My feeling is that New Thought and New Thought Movement should be merged as discussed above and redirected to New Thought Movement. Then all you would need is the category for New Thought Movement and not the other, and you would be able to find all the related articles easily. I suggest that New Age is not a movement, maybe it was at one time, but now it is more like a hybrid between a philosophy and a consumer/marketing term used by many business for all sorts of products, so the word "movement" does not apply. On the other hand New Thought is less known currently and not used much for marketing. It does seem to have some sort of "movement" associated with it in that there are people who are working to expand the public's awareness of it, so with that article, I think the title New Thought Movement is more appropriate. I don't feel strongly about it though, use whichever you prefer, but I think the result will be stronger if they are merged and the category name matches the main article name, whichever version you use.

IMPORTANT: before making category changes, learn how Wikipedia creates and uses categories so that you don't create categories incorrectly and cause problems. Here is the page with the instructions: Wikipedia:Categorization. In the table of contents on that page there are sections about how to make links to categories, and answering your question about category re-directs. In this case, since there are only three or four articles in the New Thought category so far, I recommend that you do not use the complicated re-direct method and instead, jusrt edit those few articles to change the category tag to the category name you want to use. That wold be much easier. You can find those articles by going to the bottom of the New Thought page and clicking on the relevant category link.

Regarding your note above, since you did not already know how to make category links, you inadvertently created new categories, and you added this talk page to them. Talk pages generally do not belong in categories, though there can be expceptions. So I am re-editing your comment above to remove the category links and make the italics instead. Normally I would not change another editor's comments (and I will only fix the link formats, I will not change your words or meaning at all). The category links caused confusion so please leave those out of the talk page and only put them on mainspace pages. Don't forget, adding the link creates a category but does not populate it, so read Wikipedia:Categorization before you make further changes. I also recommending reading this page: Help:Contents/Links. Parzival418 18:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Parzival418! Your answer was most helpful and I will read the sections you suggest before making further changes. In general I am thinking that New Thought should be the general catch-all category and if needed then _movement could be a subcategory as could _philosophy, _religions, and _writings. As Henry David Thoreau said; "Simplify Simplify". One thing that is very puzzling to me is the case sensitive nature of Wikipedia .. for example there is an article for New Thought Movement but not for New Thought movement, yet the opposite is true for the category pages. What's up with that ?!? Low Sea 12:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Phineas Quimby

Phineas Quimby had no "religious" ideas and spoke out against religious beliefs and opinions all throughout his writings.

"New Thought describes a set of religious ideas that developed in the United States during the late 19th century, originating with Phineas Parkhurst Quimby..."

Phineas Quimby had nothing to do with developing any religious ideas at all. He actually opposed all formal "religion" and clearly claimed that religious beliefs and opinions are at the core of what make people sick.

Dr. Quimby was not, and did not want to be, affiliated with any religion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Low Sea (talk • contribs).

The above small text indicates the above comment was added by me, however I know I did not add that particular comment because I do not know that much about Quimby except that his ideas heavily influenced other New Thought writers, some of which were religious in nature. I suspect an error was made in attribution when the section was moved. No big deal, just credit where credit is due, or not. Low Sea 02:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[this section was moved from the top of the page where it had been placed incorrectly out of chronological sequence -- Parzival418 18:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)]

The wording now in use does not implicate Quimby in any religious form of New Thought or antecedent to New Thought. Thanks for pointing out that he was not affiliated with any religion. cat Catherineyronwode 05:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Awkward Grammar

The final paragraph of the first section begins awkwardly -- "As editor of New Thought magazine, ... are associated with..." is the part I am referring to. I am not entirely sure how being editor of the magazine fits in, but the way the sentence reads currently, it seems as though William Walker Atkinson and his book were both editors of the magazine. I profess ignorance of the actual subject so I don't feel fully qualified to edit the sentence since I do not know the original intent of the writer. 198.232.29.100 19:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. It has been changed. I hope you like it better now. cat Catherineyronwode 05:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

the references

These external links in the body of the article are inappropriate. Use references/footnotes, then make the link. Also: needs more references: says who? Feels a little lacking in fortification right now. Gotta keep WP:unreferenced flag for now. --Smilo Don 15:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the external links in the body copy are bad form. The article has never been handled by an experienced wiki editor, is my guess. Do you -- or anyone you know -- have the time to change them? I may get around to it in a while, but if you feel like taking on the task, please do so. cat Catherineyronwode 05:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I finally found time (two months after the above comment by me) to make all of the in-line hot links into proper refs. I also pulled one of the "further reading" titles into a ref as well, giving us 14 refs. We could use more still, but i am taking the ref template off for now, as i have seen many Wikipedia articles with fewer refs not given that flag. cat Catherineyronwode 16:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Major Revisions made

Today i undertook some major revisions to this page. My goal was to present a coherent narrative with thematic and chronological consistency. Please feel free to revise as you will. Note that i was unable, due to limited time and resources, to add citations. I hope that someone else will undertake that work, as the page is fairly accurate and unbiased, to my knowledge, but does need some sourcing. catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode 22:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

These should have remained seperate one is the history, the other the beliefs, Saying what sometime isnot is does not defining a belief. There is no coherent thoughts on the subject no sense of the history. [Unsigned. Posted 17 September 2007, after the merge was underway.]

Suggestions for Merging and Category Designation

Having checked over the issue of category consistency outlined above, i agree with others that we have a real problem here, as previously pointed out: New Thought (this article) and New Thought Movement (an article) are getting confused with New Thought movement (category).

There are no contending "sides" or "factions" responsible for this inconsistency. Rather, the problem grew out of a "many hands" attempt to cover the material without first creating a working group (of the the type that sees to the development of categories such as Occult, Judaism, Biography, etc.)

I suggest that a vote be taken on merging this article with the New Thought Movement article.
I suggest that the CATEGORY be named New Thought, to be consistent with the category New Age.
I suggest that we ask a friendly administrator to help resolve these problems, set up a place where we can make our votes on a possible merge, and definitely resolve for us the issue of inconsistent capitalization and category renaming, which is very messy.

I will contact AnonEMouse, a friendly administrator who has helped me with technical issues in the past. Perhaps she will be of assistance.

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 22:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have now finished collecting the non-redundant information from the NMT page and migrated i over to this page in preparation for the merge.

I would like to also note that there are two portions of this page i would like to see disappear very soon -- by moving them elsewhere. Theese are the long list of denominations and organizations and the long list of leaders and authors. The latter, in partiicular, drags the article down and would be of better service if it was all removed to a category: New Thought writers page, as was successfully done last year with category: occult writers, i.e.

* category: occult writers.

This would require creating the category, inserting the category name on each person's page, and piping the names for surname first alphabetization.

cat Catherineyronwode 03:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Article is a mess

I am sorry to say it was better as separate articles. I don't know if you have a grasp of the history or where New Thought movement is today. The articlel on New Thought Movement is clear and to the point. The New thought page is a mess, sorry. Merging not agood idea. The movements history and beliefs need to be seperate. Saying what new thought is not, does not make sense.

[unsigned. posted 17 September 2007.]

Merge and Redirect Completed; a call for unity

Having been given the go-ahead by the helpful admin AnonEMouse (here: [1]) i have completed the merge and re-direct. I have not yet put in the request for the category name change.

I see that during the very time that i was making the changes, someone protested the work and called the "artical" a "mess." Sorry about that. What you see now is the entire contents of both articles, MINUS THE DUPLICATED PARTS (there was about 50% shared content between the two articles).

I also see that some of the material about the New Thought Movement that had been migrated over was deleted, with notes stating that it was not part of New Thought. This is a mistake.

I realize that there are members of New Thought churches who are at this current time unaware of, or unwilling to aknowledge, the existence of philosophical and secular New Thought groups, authors, and magazines. But see the note about Phineas Quimby not endorsing any religions, above -- New Thought has ALWAYS embraced its own philosophical and secular proponents.

I think that this close-mindedness is a highly unfortunate turn of events and that it is extremely out of keeping with traditions in the New Thought movement of tolerance and liberality. I urge those who are members of a religious New Thought church to research the history of the movement for themselves BEFORE they delete or rewrite the article to suit their own church's narrow belief system. I suggest learning more by using the links provided in the article, in order to grow in knowledge of the portion of New Thought that is not church-oriented, but which has been an equal partner in the New Thought healing, affirmation, prayer, and belief community for more than a century. In particular i would direct you to the works of William Walker Atkinson, Frank Channing Haddock, Charles F. Haanel, Elizabeth Towne, and their associates.

Please respect the multitudinous varieties of healing circles, spiritual workers, course teachers, lecturers, and private individuals who self-describe as New Thought practitioners -- and do not try to define this movement by naming a few popular churches and denying the rest of your fellow New Thought adherents.

By the way, there will be more work done on the form of this article -- the long list of churches and the long list of names will soon be going to separate pages. This is an article, after all, and not a directory.

Thanks.

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 05:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Lists removed to their own pages

As promised yesterday, i have moved the two lists that were formerly on this page -- authors and organizations -- to their own pages, which can now be reached through the "See Also" link section. I have also relocated some of the text-blocks in order to facilitate the division of the material into two large sub-heads, History and Belief Systems. I hope that these changes successfully address the concerns of the anonymous poster who felt that the merge of New Thought Movement into New Thought produced a "mess." cat Catherineyronwode 16:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry did not mean to offend some thing didn't read right. I realize it was a big undertaking. It more coherent with the improvements made today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.147.185 (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was not offended, and i did sincerely appreciate your concerns. Making that merge was a large job, taking 6 hours yesterday and 8 hours (so far) today. You accessed the page during one of its intermediate phases. It has now stabilized, for the moment, and i am glad you like it better.

Today, as part of the mop-up from the merge, i am working my way through the List of New Thought writers in order to create a new CATEGORY -- New Thought writers who have Wikipedia pages -- which necessitates a line of code being inserted on each writer's wiki pages and those pages being checked for topicality, grammar, and default sorting of names by surname first. I have gotten as far as the letter "G" in the category project, but i have to stop work on that now, in order to fulfill some obligations to others. I hope to return and finish off the category-alphabet this evening.

Cordially, cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 22:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page Categories

Are the Categories at the bottom of this Talk Page right? As of this moment they are: Occultists, Spiritual writers, and New Age authors.

Seems this is way off-base for this page's subject matter. I am changing them to reflect the Categories as listed on the main article page (New Thought movement, and New religious movements). Low Sea 03:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I watch as the artical developed New Thought is not new age, not occult, were these early ifluences yes but new thought developed in a different direction. while NT does not condem these belef systems but new Thought they are not. Sorry to say the article was rewritten by some one who has a bias to occult system and want to rewrite New Thought history. Can you please remove Occultist and New age writers Categories for clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JGG59 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Low Sea, i just figured how those off-topic categories got on the talk page. They were being used as EAMPLES in the above discussion, and the software picked them up and placed them at the bottom of the page! I have typed them differently (without their code tags) and now they should be gone.

JGG59 -- you too have a bias, but you don't see yours -- and you are wrong about mine. I do understand, as you told me on my own talk page, that you have been in the NT movement 50 years, and i respect that greatly, but you cannot simply wish away the fact that thousands of people continue to read and put into practice the tchniques of thought and healing developed and promoted by non-denominational New Thought writers like William Walker Atkinson, Charles F. Haanel, and Elizabeth Towne.

I am not trying to "rewrite New Thought history" -- in fact, i am the first person who has worked on the article who is adding references to books like Horatio Dresser's "History of the New Thought Movement". Neither of us were there in 1919 when that book was written (i was born in 1947), so i take it as a source that has a lot to say, and says it well. I will continue to add references and footnotes to the article as i have time, because Wikipedia really does require that editors provide references and souces to back up their claims.

Now, one of the things Dresser points out is that there were non-denominational NT groups in 1919 called "Metaphysical Clubs" -- and these groups were quite interested in the application of New Thought to what you are calling "occult" topics. The lecturers at these "Metaphysical Clubs" included people who were editing and writing for New Thought magazine, Advanced Thought magazine, and Nautilus, a magazine of New Thought. Some of these people -- MANY of them -- wrote on topics you do not wish to see mentioned in the article -- but they were central to New Thought in America and they DID write on those things and people STILL are interested in that aspect of New Thought.

I am one such person. I have been working on the William Walker Atkinson page for weeks now, adding new information as i uncover it in my own library and through copies of his books. Please do read it -- and see if you cannot see where i am coming from. It's not New Age at all (which you accused me of being) -- it is New Thought, 100%. I love Atkinson's books. I admire his writing style. My husband and i read a chapter of his books aloud to one another every morning before going to work. But he did not belong to a denomination and he certainly did write on occult topics, you know. He really saw nothing wrong with that -- and neither do i.

So let's discuss this.

How can we reach a compromise that will leave both of us happy?

I know what i would like:

(1) I would like you to make explanations for your edits in the edit comment field instead of just leaving them all blank.

(2)I would like you to work with me and others to help make the article have good references, sources, and citations.

(3) I would like you to tell me how, if we are not to use the words "religious" and "secular", can we describe the difference between (to choose two examples) Malinda Cramer and Elizabeth Towne? One founded a New Thought church. The other edited a secular New Thought magazine for 53 years. BOTH were New Thought writers and practitioners. What words would you use to distinguish their beliefs from one another?

What can i do to help YOU? (Other than just go away... :-) ... which i get the impression you wish i would do.)

Actually, if you do want me to go away, all you have to do is ask, and i will gladly do so. I have plenty of other things to write about.

Cordially,

catherine Catherineyronwode 06:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

First I do not wish you to go away, you are a very good writer. Second I honor all the teachers who brought us to where we are. The problem I am having as you noticed are the words religious and secular. Most people I know in the movement don't make a distinction secular or religious it's New Thought I call the denominations (Philosophies) most of the teachers all interacted with each other. Were influenced by each other writings regardless of thier school of thought. I do see my bias "Occult and New age" guess it depends on the difinitions. I will work with you. Secular and Religious not the way to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JGG59 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just state the organizations and groups they were affilated with, since really both groups come under the spiritual banner. Niether religious nor secular. Thanks

Thanks for your encouragement, JGG59. I have deleted the words "religious" and "secular" and am using the less highly-chargd terms "denominational" and "non-denominational" or "philosophical" to describe the two extan banches of New Thought.

I have been writing short articles on various persons (the latest was Mildred Mann), and working on the list of writers page and list of groups page. Alas, i did not get beyond the letter "G" in the categorization project for the writers. but i hope to pick it up again some day. It is drudge work compared to writing.

Amyway, i am glad we are able to co-exist and co-edit here, and i look forward to lots more of the same.

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 06:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Global Perspective

Just fyi, New Though Movement is also a phrase used to describe a component of the New Culture Movement in China between 1915 and the mid-1920s. Perhaps that usage of the word is too uncommon to deserve a mention though; I guess so, if no one has yet mentioned it. --Xiaphias 11:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Needs references ??

Where would I find the criteria that triggers the inclusion of the tag Unreferencedsection ? I ask because I see in the section labeled "Philosophical New Thought" there is such a tag and yet numerous New Thought authors and at least one New Thought publication are mentioned in the section.

I know I am still learning how WP works but I do not understand why this section is tagged as it is. Is this some sort of automation that burps out a tag if a certain format is missing?

Waiting to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.198.204 (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a big difference between merely mentioning books and citing them as references for statements made in the article. Relevant policy is WP:V, WP:PSTS & WP:CITE. And no, the templates are not automated, but are placed by an editor (in this case myself) who notices that large chunks of an article are unsourced and thus not verifiable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

New RS added (Columbia Encyclopedia)

I have added a very reliable source but I leave it to the primary editors of this article to incorporate this reference into the text as appropriate. Low Sea (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring unsourced material

WP:V states: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." An edit war is over material is a "challenge" to it, so any material that is being edit-warred over must therefore be sourced, and any unsourced material subject to an edit-war should be removed immediately. I templated the material you were edit-warring over -- but rather than sourcing it, you just continued to edit-war this unsourced material. It is now out, and it will stay out until one of you can be bothered to source it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking for guidance on requests for citations

I see several places where {{fact}} and similar tags have been added to this article. I agree these citations are needed. However I am a little uncertain though on the focus of a couple of these citations so before I go looking I am going to ask for some guidance on what is being asked for...

Section 1.1

The major organizations that emerged from the New Thought Movement included the Unity Church, Religious Science, and Divine Science.[citation needed]

Which fact needs citation: that these organizations emerged from New Thought or that they are "The major organizations"? If only the latter then rewording this sentence could eliminate this problem: "Major organizations which emerged..."

Section 1.2

It was during this period that many classic books of the New Thought movement were published, including the financial success and will-training books of Wallace Wattles, Frank Channing Haddock, and Thomas Troward.[citation needed]

What kind of citation would be appropriate here? I imagine a list of books published by these 3 authors from 1900-1929 would prove the point but that seems somehow bad style.

-- Low Sea (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

For {{fact}}-tags the citations should cover all major points made in the statement. If appropriate, the statement should be modified to reflect/paraphrase the citation's language (to avoid accidental WP:SYNTH) (E.g. for the first example, the citation(s) should mention all three as major/important/large groups within NT.)
For {{request quote}}-tags the quotation should be (at least) the paragraph(s) that contain the queried statement/point.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Major cleanup of Section 3.1

Here is the original text (as of 30 April 2008):

The New Thought teaching Religious Science should not be confused (due to a similarity in names) with Christian Science or Scientology. While Religious Science founder Ernest Holmes studied Christian Science^{[need quotation to verify]} (as well as many other teachings). Holmes was an ordained Divine Science minister.^{[need quotation to verify]}^[1]^[2], Religious Science differs greatly in philosophy,^{[citation needed]} and there are no connections of either teaching to Scientology.

The cleanup now reads:

The New Thought teaching Religious Science should not be confused (due to a similarity in names) with Christian Science or Scientology. Religious Science and Christian Science have historical common roots in the teachings of Quimby but the latter organization is not considered New Thought (see next section). There are no connections of either teaching to Scientology.

The problem is that this section was getting off topic as a section. Discussions about what Holmes did or what ordination he had are not relevant to the issue of confusion with similar names. I encourage the use of the Holmes material somewhere else in the article (note however that there are "quote requests" pending per Hrafn and these should probably be satisfied here on the talk page before re-adding the material). -- Low Sea (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this section entirely as:

It's off topic. This article is on NT -- it is not within this article's purview to disambiguate RS from similarly-named religions. That should be (and is) handled in Religious Science.
It's duplicative, in that the section immediately below distinguishes NT from CS.
CSers would almost certainly deny that their religion has roots in Quimby's teaching. They'd claim divine revelation as its true source. This claim would therefore need a WP:RS to be employed at all, and careful wording to ensure WP:NPOV.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 01:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete material

Hrafn, your wholesale deletion of entire sections, including referenced sentences, is not a Good Thing. If you have a concern about a particular section, please bring it up here on this page. But adding {{fact}} and then in a few weeks time deleting the sentence is not a standard Wikipedia process, unless the matter under discussion concerns a living person or is quite off-kilter. In particular, the quieter articles, like this one, deserve more time than you are giving them. If you don't agree with this, let's bring it up for adjudication instead of edit-warring. Madman (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, give me a couple of days and I will supply references. Madman (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring is hardly the best prelude to asking me to extend a further courtesy (see below), but I will give you the 48 hours you ask for. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Given this comment, I suspect your "I will supply" is more like 'I hope I may be able to supply' (which is why I strongly prefer to see references up-front when deleted unsourced material is restored). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop violating WP:V

None of the sentences removed were referenced.
"adding {{fact}} and then in a few weeks time" is a courtesy, not a right: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." -- Jimmy Wales quoted at WP:V (my emphasis). Your restoration of this material is in violation of WP:V.
This is not really a "quiter article" -- it is the subject of intermittent edit wars (and other tweaking) over unsourced statements & categories and has gotten about 50 edits in the last month. [Going back a bit further, it seems to have averaged about an edit a day since Jan 2007 Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC) ]
It is you who initiated an edit war by reverting a legitimate deletion of unsourced material. I would suggest that you desist.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The quote above is related to articles on living persons, not articles like this. Madman (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What part of "This is true of all information" did you fail to comprehend? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If this were true in every instance throughout Wikipedia, then there would be no need for the {{fact}} tag. The information you seem intent on deleting does not seem unreasonable and fits what I know of New Thought. Madman (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Madman, I too have found myself at odds with Hrafn here but I have learned that he honestly is trying to be sure the article is correctly sourced. Sometimes his dedication to this drives me crazy but I know he is acting in good faith none-the-less. One thing that can be done is move the problematic text here onto the talk page and then work it out here before re-instering it into the article. I will create a new talk section below for this purpose and then add some comments. -- Low Sea (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Work In Progress (latter part of the History Section)

Here is the problematic text:

The major organizations that emerged from the New Thought Movement included the Unity Church, Religious Science, and Divine Science.^{[citation needed]}^#1

1.1 20th century diversity

From 1900 through the 1920s, New Thought was popular in all regions of the United States, and spread to other nations as well. New Thought churches and centers began to form, as did New Thought clubs and other organizations. It was during this period that many classic books of the New Thought movement were published, including the financial success and will-training books of Wallace Wattles, Frank Channing Haddock, and Thomas Troward.^{[citation needed]}^#2

In 1914, the International New Thought Alliance was formed, encompassing many smaller groups around the world. The alliance is held together by one central teaching: that people, through the constructive use of their minds, can attain freedom, power, health, prosperity, and all good, molding their bodies as well as the circumstances of their lives. The 1915 INTA conference, held in conjunction with the Panama-Pacific International Exposition -- a world's fair that took place in San Francisco -- featured New Thought speakers from far and wide. The PPIE organizers were so favorably impressed by the INTA convention that they declared a special "New Thought Day" at the fair and struck a commemorative bronze medal for the occasion, which was presenting to the INTA delegates, led by Annie Rix Militz.^{[citation needed]}^#3

OK, so here is what we need to fix in the above:

The 1st fact tag needs citations that support the statement hat UNITY, R.SC. and D.SC. are in fact "The major organizations". Failing such cites then reword to the effect of "Some organizations" (weak) or remove the sentence (better).
The 2nd fact tag may actually need several citations to prove
(1) how widespread NT was from 1900-1920,
(2) the history/origin of "New Thought clubs and other organizations", and
(3) publication facts of the books referenced.
The 3rd fact tag needs one or more cites to support three things:
(1) the factual origins/history of INTA,
(2) the "one central teaching",
(3) the presence of INTA at the 1915 PPIE, and
(4) the facts around the "New Thought Day" declaration and the commemorative medal. Also, who is Annie Rix Militz?

Hrafn, For points 3.1 and 3.2 (origin/history/teaching of INTA) would the INTA's own website be acceptable for WP:V? It is not arguable that INTA actually exists and has a guiding principal and it is not particularly controversial how old they are so I would see a primary source as being OK on these small non-contentious matters. On all the other points I certainly understand the need for secondary or tertiary sources.

-- Low Sea (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as you can find a reasonably contemporary-to-the-time-period INTA source, and it clearly mentions the commonality, I think an internal source is fine for the "one central teaching". I would however strongly prefer a third party source for the origins/history, beyond bare-bones when/who/where -- insiders have a tendency to remember such things differently (romanticise, emphasise the positive, de-emphasise the negative) -- as NT's sibling Christian Science would appear to starkly demonstrate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

For Unity, R.SC & D.SC cite, try the chapter "Theosophy, New Thought and New Age Movements" by Catherine Wessinger, Dell deChant & William Ashcroft in Encyclopedia of Women and Religion in North America (2006), Bloomington: IUP, pp.753-767. For eg, on p.759 the Fillimores' Unity is described as "the largest New Thought denomination". On p.758, "Divine Science was one of the first distinct New Thought sects and is the oldest one still in existence". Same page: "Today...the three largest New Thought groups [are] Unity, United Church of Religious Science, and Religious Science International". The whole chapter seems to contain some reasonable info about these sects & associated personalities, incl. the aforementioned Annie Rix Militz.

A magazine Militz published, Master Mind Magazine, has some mention of the planning for INTA presence at the PPIE ((see the n the Kessinger edition on googlebooks, April 1914 to September 1914, pp.56-57). But I think the section above reads a little grandiose, making it sound like they were centre stage at the exposition. There were hundreds of conferences and meetings coinciding with / under the auspices of the PPIE event, according to The Story of the Exposition (1921) others held at the same time include the "Panama-Pacific Dental Congress", and the "Ladies' Auxiliary of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers". So I don't think the INTA meeting is quite as central.

Another good source seems to be New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought (1996) by Wouter Hanegraaf (Leiden: Brill). Seems to cover the Mesmerism/New Thought/Christian Science angle in some detail. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn, I quite agree about the problem with insiders' memories and yes I was only thinking of cold when/where type data from the primary source. Thanks for the confirmation. Also, good idea to use period sources for teachings ... C.Sc. and LDS are both examples of where period sources can help since teachings do change over time.

cjllw, Thank you for the excellent sources, I will try and obtain a copy of these from local sources. -- Low Sea (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have extended the article FACT tag dates for this section by one month only. Based on the above discussion it now seems reasonable that the citations can be provided on a majority of the facts asserted in the section. If these citations are not in place by 01-June-2008 I will be happy to remove the text myself. It is my opinion (correct me if I am in error) that none of these facts are highly contentious but merely in need of good citations per WP:V. -- Low Sea (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Low Sea: you don't 'extend' fact-tags for the simple reason that their dates represent the date they were added (which is fixed), not some 'expiry date'. I am however amenable to extending the reprieve until the start of June -- providing that no idiots decide to edit-war over them in the mean-time (edit-warring unsourced statements is like putting up a big neon sign saying 'hey what we're doing here is completely unverifiable original research').

The cite for the PPIE event is Horatio Dresser's 1919 "History" book. I hve noted it.

The request for a fact tage that certain books were published during a certain time/date frame is a "circular" cite tag, as the dates of publication already appear in the wiki articles of the persons names, under their bibliographies. Duplicating those bibliographies here would be far off-topic. There is no encyclopedia in the world that would interrupt an article on Subject A with a bibiliography of Authors B, C, and D who happened to be associated with Subject A. Cite-tagging of this sort demonstrates a poor understanding of what an editor's job is and may signal a fundamental lack of understanding as to what a citation really should consist of.

cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Encyclopedia of Women and Religion in North America" by Rosemary Skinner Keller

Does anyone have access to this text? Looks like it might make an excellent reliable source on many things New Thought. -- Low Sea (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's available for "limited preview" on Google books. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks pretty good, the limited preview has some pages that show up with "New Thought" information: [2]

If the link doesn't go right to those pages, there is a search box on the right side. --Linda (talk) 07:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"who is Annie Rix Militz?"

The question was asked, "who is Annie Rix Militz?" -- this was in connection with the 1915 PPIE recognition of INTA.

Annie Rix Militx (1856 - 1924), with her sister Harriet Hale Rix, was a founder of the West Coast Metaphysical Bureau. She met Swami Vivekananda in 1893, which influenced her formerly Christian view of New Thought to become inclusively interfaith. She was a one-time associate of the Fillmores and a member of Unity, but in 1911 she broke with Unity. She and her sister are best known today as the founders, in 1905, of the Home of Truth, an independent New Thought denomination which is a member of INTA:

http://thehomeoftruth.org/

Home of Truth Spiritual Center
1300 Grand Street
Alameda, CA 94501
(510) 522-3366

Rix is the author of these books:

Concentration

Primary Lessons in Christian Living and Healing

Renewal of the Body

and she was the editor of and a contributor to

Master Mind Magazine, October 1911 to March 1919

See these web pages:

http://thehomeoftruth.org/id4.html

http://annierixmilitz.wwwhubs.com/

Perhaps someone would like to write a short stub about her, to turn her links from red to blue. I hope so.

cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a section somewhat highlighting the mid-20th century

Yeah, I felt that the mid-20th century was worth mentioning here. Edit the section or add to it, whatever, it's worth mentioning that this period in history was an acceleration in the New Thought movement. From here there was alot of ground made in all areas of life.

While I'm on the subject, shouldn't there be a mention of Edgar Cayce at the begining of the 20th century?Rmkreeg (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmkreeg (talk • contribs) 08:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you add some references? Madman (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What about Walter Starcke's " The Double Thread", "The Third Appearance" ect.... I don't think Starcke even has an article, very important to mid 20th century New Thought.66.108.106.248 (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

By all means, write away, Agent 66. You are encouraged to do this?

Regarding Edgar Cayce, I don't think he was part of the New Thought religious movement. Madman (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Very much so! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.106.248 (talk) 10:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I didn't have any real sources in mind here, though I'm sure someone has written about it somewhere. In any case I've discovered that I have no clue how to add references. This whole wiki thing is very new and somewhat confusing to me (all this dang script). I guess the idea of the mid 60's having an influence on the New Thought movement wasn't as obvious to others as it was to me. I mean, how couldn't have been? It's like saying "the 70's saw an overall change in style and model of the common blue-jeans"...just obvious...but I have no clue where I'd get a reference for that. Can I just write a blog about the 60's and use that as a reference? It seems just as reliable. What else are we doing with references but pointing to others that have the same perceptions as what we are writing about?Rmkreeg (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting possible resource

I found this by accident and it looks like it might be worth investigating but my finances will not allow me to purchase ($25) this at this time. Perhaps someone here subscribes to this journal? Below is the excerpt from the link...

Journal Title: The Acquisitions Librarian

Volume: 16 Issue: 31/32

ISSN: 0896-3576

Journal Article: Retrospective Collection Development: Selecting a Core Collection for Research in “New Thought”

Page Range: 177 - 215

Pub Date: 2/2/2004

Contributors:

John T. Fenner, Business and Information Consultant, Greensboro, NC, 27406, johnfenner@worldnet.att.net
Audrey Fenner, Head, Acquisition Department, Walter Clinton Jackson Library, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27402-6170, fafenner@uncg.edu

Abstract:

The New Thought movement is the focus of an exercise in developing a core collection to support research in a defined subject area. The authors outline the New Thought movement's conceptual and historical development and apply this outline to the selection of library resources. A sample collection development policy is included; such a policy is the framework for selection decisions. Special problems and concerns of gathering resources are presented, including library mishandling of this subject in the past. Titles in the core collection are presented, incorporating several types and formats of materials and varied points of view. Lists are given of the contacts, source material and bibliographic references used in assembling this New Thought core collection.

Low Sea (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

EXTERNAL LINK, PLEASE

I would be very grateful if

[THE JEDI ORDER] - A way of life that is an offshoot of Buddhism and Hermetic Traditions & Principles orienting around "New Thought Movement" ideas.

could be added to the External Links area. Thank you very much for your time and energy! I wish you the very best in life! now and forever! --Spike (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"God" in New Thought?

The introductory paragraph of this page is excellent, particularly in its use of the term "Spirit" rather than "God".

But I think the relationship between New Thought and religion needs to be clarified, because the pioneering thinkers in this field were quite clear that theirs was a philosophy and a methodology, not a religion. Troward emphatically preferred the term "Spirit" to describe the Universal Mind.

Later developments building on Troward's ideas are interesting. Increasingly, post-Troward writers gradually began to use "God", but what they meant by this term was "Universal Mind". I think that this use of the term "God" was because they were writing for a readership in predominantly Christian societies (especially the United States, though Troward, Bailes and Fox were not Americans). "God" gave their writings more acceptability to a Christian readership. "Spirit" might have put off potential readers by wrongly implying a tendency towards the occult.

Fox and Barker are particularly interesting in this regard. Fox's books can appear to be Christian devotional writings, until the reader perceives that he is talking about a depersonalised, 'general' Spirit rather than a 'personal' deity. Raymond Charles Barker's comments are particularly relevant here. His pamphlet "Money is God in Action", promoting wealth generation through the application of New Thought creative principles, would not meet with acceptance from orthodox Christians. He was not in favour of prayer, either, because this implied acceptance of lack, whereas New Thought emphasises potential for abundance which can be realised through Right Thinking.

I think that mention should be made here of the following: Frederick Bailes, Raymond Charles Barker, Emmett Fox, Donald Curtis and Charles Haanel. Bailes (in particular) chronicled many instances of healing attributable to New Thought (including, in his own case, a cure of diabetes, which he attributed to the application of Troward's teachings).

There are loose connections to Law of Attraction and Cosmic Ordering, though the latter (in particular) is more material whereas Troward et al were more interested in spiritual development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.18.198 (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Distinguishing New Thought from other belief systems

Distinguishing New Thought from other belief systems [3] appears to have a problem with WP:OR, particularly: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." I think this section of the article should be removed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that a contrast (a "distinguishment") would be appropriate for this article, but, as you note, it must be properly sourced. Madman (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, it would be helpful to have the section in the article if reliable sources are available. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have decided to move this section to the talk page for discussion because the only sourcing in this section seems to be primary sources.

==Distinguishing from other belief systems==

===Christian Science===

Both New Thought and Christian Science do place an emphasis on direct healing of the body, but Christian Science developed in a different direction from New Thought and is not considered a New Thought organization. Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, was a disciple and patient of New Thought pioneer Phineas Quimby, but she rejected his healing methods, citing her belief that healing came from the power of the Christian God, not the human mind.^[3]

===Christianity===

Not all New Thought organizations consider themselves to be Christian, Seicho-No-Ie or Huna for example do not. The Unity School of Christianity quite obviously does. Many traditional Christian writers have raised criticism aimed at Unity concerning matters of how Unity interprets the Bible^[4].

===Spiritualism===

Although both New Thought and Spiritualism developed during the late 19th century and were at the height of their popularity by the First World War, each has its own churches, denominations, and organizations, and there are no formal ties between the two. Neither belief system absolutely excludes the tenets of the other, but neither is wholly congruent with the other, either. Some New Thought adherents profess a belief in Spiritualist concepts such as the survival of the soul after death and the possibility of communication with spirits, but others do not. Likewise, while some Spiritualists profess belief in the Law of Attraction, many do not. There is no doctrinal point that binds the two traditions to one another, nor is there a doctrinal point that prevents members from professing limited, partial, or even complete belief in the tenets of the other system.^{[citation needed]}

I think it would be good to have this section in the article, but it should be based on reliable sources. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. A properly sourced section that allows readers to gain a basic understanding of where these schools coincide and diverge would be very useful, valuable content. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think, with the removal of this section today by Malcolm Schosha, the article has come more or less into compliance with WP:V and WP:NOR. Consequently, I'm removing the "Multiple issues" template that specifies V and NOR at the head of the article, and replacing it with one "citation needed" template after the last sentence of the lead. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC) I used the Encarta article as a citation for the last sentence of the lead (New Thought at MSN Encarta. Retrieved Nov. 16, 2007.). In any case, it's now clear to me this was already a reasonable summary of what's stated farther down in the article and cited to the same source. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please quit adding off-topic sentence on healing

Two editors seem intent on adding the following sentence to this article:

"There is no medical or scientific evidence that illness can be treated through this healing effect."

This has been rightly reverted 3 times now. This article is about the beliefs of the New Thought movement. This article is not about faith healing, nor does it say one way or another whether the New Thought movement's beliefs are based on "medical or scientific evidence".

The article, rather, lays out a simple set of New Thought beliefs without commenting one way or another about any evidence supporting those beliefs. This is the standard Wikipedia practice -- the article on the Apostles' Creed, for example, does not discuss whether there is evidence for the beliefs embodied therein.

So, please stop. Thanks, Madman (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please remove all medical statements from the article, which pushes a fringe theory. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The article simply describes a religious movement. It does not make any claims regarding the efficacy of any belief. Should we put such a disclaimer on the article Lourdes which states that "the Roman Catholic Church has officially recognized 67 miracle healings"?? Or perhaps a "there is no historical proof that Jesus rose from the dead" clause on the Christianity article would be appropriate?

This issue was raised at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#New_thought and the unamimous response was that such a disclaimer was not appropriate in such an article. Your forebearance is apprecatied. Thanks, Madman (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep: The addition isn't a disclaimer and it is informative. It is also worded neutrally, so I think it should stay. It isn't biasing the article, and meets all criteria for inclusion that I'm aware of. Verbal chat 08:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin's health warning disclaimer has nothing to do with the article; which describes New Thought ideas, but does not claim that they are medically valid. (Yesterday I left a message on Orangemarlin's user talk page inviting discussion rather than edit warring. So far his comments have been in edit summaries only. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any health warning disclaimer. What I see is information that is presented neutrally and is neither pro nor anti new health. The fact the article doesn't claim they are medically valid is a red herring, and this addition makes it clear that no claim of that kind should be made currently - but it isn't. This isn't about OM, address the content not the editor, and it fits nicely into the article lead. Verbal chat 12:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I will not reintroduce this sentence again until there has been further discussion, of which so far there has been hardly any. There have been several good reasons put forward for including this small sentence, and only one against it. Edit warring is not a good way to resolve a content dispute in any direction. Verbal chat 12:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reasons for including this disclaimer.

On the other hand, there are many reasons not to include this. As mentioned, this question was raised on the Fringe board, and the unamimous opinion was that this article fell under the history of ideas and it made no claim whether this was valid or not.

This article is about the beliefs of New Thought, not whether any of these beliefs are scientifically validated. There are 5 tenets of New Thought listed, and yet only one of these is targetted. Should "true human selfhood is divine" be discussed?

The important point is that faith-based articles do not contain criticism about the beliefs of that faith. The article on Hinduism does not contain any attacks/disclaimers/"criticism" of that relgion. The article on Lourdes, which succinctly states that the "the Roman Catholic Church has officially recognized 67 miracle healings", does not contain such a disclaimer. This is not a Wikipedia practice -- we can't be discussing whether religions beliefs are justified or not.

Finally, the whole matter of faith-healing is discussed in a separate article. It is there that any scientific evidence should be discussed, not on individual articles.Madman (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What disclaimer? (ps: you're making all your edits as minor when they aren't) Verbal chat 12:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The disclaimer is "There is no medical or scientific evidence that illness can be treated through this healing effect." Madman (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That is not a medical disclaimer. It is merely pointing out that there is no medical or scientific evidence supporting the statement that right thinking does anything. So, prove that you can make that statement, or leave the statement of fact. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a disclaimer and it is a statement of fact about claims made for healing practices. Leaving this out totally is censorship. It is a neutrally worded statement of fact. Verbal chat 07:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

←Whether it's a "disclaimer" or a "neutrally worded statement of fact", either way, if must be verifiable to be included in the article. Are there any reliable sources that make that statement about the New Thought religious or spiritual beliefs? If there are, they can be cited and included. But if no sources can be found to support the statement, it should not be included. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a verifiable statement in the sense that it is trivial to contradict if it is untrue. If it is untrue these sources should be cited and included. Verbal chat 07:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your note. I used the term "verifiable" as defined in the policy:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

To be clear - I am not in any way arguing that the "New Thought" theories of illness or cures are correct. But this is not a science article, the article does not state that the theories are true. The article simply describes the beliefs of the religion or philosophy, like the article "Miracle". Does that page need a sentence that says "There is no scientific research that supports the theory that miracles actually happened"? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Overview section

The overview section is currently just one huge quote. This strikes me as bad style, and might even be close to a copyright violation. It may be better to pull in a few more sources and rewrite this section neutrally in wikipedia's voice. Verbal chat 12:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I had originally placed the quote from William James in the intro, where I think it belongs, but another editor move it to its own section. It is a longer quote than I would usually choose to use, but its value to the article justifies its presence. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree Verbal that the article needs more references. In particular, this article could use a better reference than Encarta for the tenets of New Thought. I'll see what I can find. Madman (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the article to this effect to draw more attention to this problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I rewrote the last paragraph of the lead section to reflect what (some) New Thought folks say they believe rather than what Encarta says. It just seems strange to me to be referencing another encyclopedia. I hope you all like it. I'd be happy to discuss, Madman (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

External links

Sorry my edit summary said excessive "internal" instead of "external" links I tagged the article for excessive external links... Roman Catholic church article has only 6... New thought has 15 and mostly poor quality. Wikipedia is NOT a directory. Teapotgeorge^Talk 18:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed three problematic links, but that has been reverted. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I just removed two External Links since they were already present in references. I think we're down to a manageable number, although there is some room for improvement in the quality of the links. Madman (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, according to WP:EL, we should be linking to organizations' websites. These websites (if you look past the home page) do contain useful information about New Thought and they actually let the New Thought folks speak for themselves. They are absolutely not "spam".

I cannot see any reason not to include them. Madman (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Those two links are very promotional, and contain next to no informational content about New Thought. Additionally, New Thought was a movement of many different writers who had no central organization (a major difference from Christian Science, which is a centrally organized religion), and there is no "official website" that speaks for those, now dead, writers. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

They are promotional to the extent that the New York Yankees and the General Motors websites are promotional. The New Thought sites are not literally selling anything.

Also, New Thought is not a dead movement, and the official umbrella organization is the INTA, the first website, so it seems only appropriate under WP:EL.

Since you feel the second website is a bit sparse, I've included another one which contains much more information on New Thought.

Finally, I'd like to remind you against reverting a fourth time in 24 hours (see WP:3RR). Madman (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I added NewThought.info, which is a great external link highlighting and comparing the various New Thought denominations and schools of thought. Please don't revert (for a 5th time). Please discuss. Madman (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That link is real crap, and I will revert it tomorrow if you do not remove it your self first. You are an experienced editor, and I am completely puzzled why you think that link is good. Perhaps you should review Wikipedia:External links. (Report me for 3RR if you want, but you are at four reverts also and would certainly get blocked too.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"Real crap" doesn't help me much. The music is annoying, but this is authentic New Thought and linking to it is a service to our readers.

This link is appropriate under at least 3 WP:EL categories:

It is "proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)"
"A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations." This site explicitly contains links to New Thought sites.
"Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." This site contains a wealth of information about New Thought written by New Thought proponents.

I'm not sure what external link standards you have, but they don't seem in alignment with the official Wikipedia ones. Madman (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

New Thought was a body of literature written by a few writers with interesting ideas that had a religious component. Using the article to present New Thought as some churches, loosely based on that literature, distorts the actual nature of NT. The article needs links to the literature, and does not need spam links (like those you want to include) to churches trying to recruit members.

But, to be very specific, my objection the links we are discussing is #5 here [4]. Those links are spam. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

{undent} My only experience in a long External link discussion is this one. Maybe it's time to ask for a 3rd opinion, like those editors? —Cesar Tort 22:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Tagged

Obviously, there are some New Thought ideas which are criticized. However no criticism appears in the article. We need to rectify this. I've tagged the article accordingly. Please help find third-party sources that explain the contradictions of the faith-healing aspects of this belief with modern medicine. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you find some reliability sourced criticisms yourself? There is no one stopping you from doing that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no one to stop you from doing it either. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Either do something yourself, or stop whining. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that comment defies both civility and the fact that we work as collaborative editors. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Fix it or stop whining. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You're being reported. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No need to fight. I am removing the Neutrality tag since there is no part of the article which is being disputed as POV or a unfactual. As far as I can see, the is not biased, but rather describes the subject in relatively straightforward terms. It can, without a doubt, be improved (and I've been trying) but it's certainly not biased. And it certainly could use some further references. Madman (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm disputing the part about faith healing which looks like it is saying some things about how New Though "magnetic personalities" which are developed that are neither factual NOT neutral. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific?? I'll try to fix it. Madman (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, how about doing something constructive here? So far you have added unjustified tags, added unsourced material, and complained about other editors not making the changes you want for you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with your New Thought crusade. Looks like we've gotten enough attention to begin to resist. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Feminist theology and metaphysics

Anybody got a citation that New Thought is considered by independent third party observers to be part of "metaphysics" or "feminist theology"? I couldn't find any sources that indicated this. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The word "Metaphysics" is intrinsically tied in with New Thought. For example, this source reminds us that Practical Metaphysics was "the title of a flagship New Thought journal". There are many citations available describing New Thought as "metaphysical". However, "metaphysics" can mean lots of different things, just as "faith-healing" can. Due to their multiple meanings, I would prefer not to use either word in the article in favor of other, more precise terms.

Now certainly, New Thought was a feminist movement, as noted in the article, and it formerly belonged to a category called something like "Feminism and spirituality". But someone changed it to "Feminist theology", which I'm not sure exactly what it means. It's rather vague too, and I wouldn't want to use this term in the article either.

Hope this helps, Madman (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(Somewhat later) Hey, I checked out the article Feminist theology and under the definition listed there, New Thought would qualify under a "Feminist theology" category. Many of the early pioneers of New Thought were women, as listed in the article. Nona L. Brooks, for example, was the first woman pastor in Denver. Does this help? Madman (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)