Talk:International New Thought Alliance

Metaphysical Club

Inasmuch as the Metaphysical Club, founded in January 1872, was also dissolved in December 1872, I doubt that the International Metaphysical Alliance grew out of it in 1900. See, L Menand, The Metaphysical Club (2001), p. 226, LAWinans (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing notability

Here at Google scholar are 59 mentions of the International New Though Alliance. This certainly supplies notability. If any doubts this notability, please raise an WP:AfD nomination for discussion purposes. Thanks, Madman (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is something that just applies to other people, isn't it Madman2001?

This article does not cite even a single source. WP:NOTE doesn't even come into play, the entirety of its content is in violation of WP:V:

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.

Cite it or lose it!

If you want this article to exist, prune it back to a cited stub. Unsourced articles cannot meet WP:NOTE or WP:ORG, because both of these require reliable sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 citations in the article, with more to come. Madman (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One to INTA itself, and one to a 90 year old 'history' written by a New Thought member. Neither is "independent" (and the later is not particularly reliable), so do nothing to establish notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dresser can certainly be relied upon for the following statement: "At the time of its official "founding", INTA claimed an unbroken membership history that stretched back 42 years.", and Dresser can certainly be relied upon to describe a convention that happened just 4 years before he wrote his book. Thanks, Madman (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of Horatio Dresser

I have raised this at WP:RS/N#Is a 'History' of a movement written 90-odd years ago by a partisan movement-insider a RS?. Also I would note that even with Dresser in, the article lacks any third-party sources, and so cannot establish notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two points that were turned up by WP:RS/N discussion:

Dresser doesn't appear to mention the "claim" cited to him. A Google search turned up only a few mentions of "International Metaphysical League" in A History of the New Thought Movement, all in chapter 9. He does trace a tenuous relationship from the Metaphysical Club to the International Metaphysical League, but raising this to a "claim" is pure WP:SYNTH, moreover on the basis of a source whose historical reliability I have already impeached. And it certainly does not state that the INTA itself made this claim as the article suggests.
What purpose does the Dresser quote serve? It details the form of the congress, not its substance. How does such trivia add to the reader's understanding of the organisation?

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me look over Dresser to see what he says about the history. Regarding the quote, I think it's a little too long. Thanks, Madman (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just long, its ephemeral. Substantive information about a 90 year old religious congress should be about what plans for the future it produced, what platforms of beliefs it endorsed, who established themselves as leaders (either by election or by acclaim), etc -- not bronze medals bands and banquets. Also, it could be argued that it is the First Congress, which actually produced the INTA that should be discussed in detail. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]