Talk:Christian Science/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Some editing tips

Levi, for future reference, some of this might help:

• Try to aim your writing at a very intelligent 16-year-old, who has an excellent general education and a large vocabulary. She learns fast, but she has never heard of Christian Science.
• You are allowed to use primary sources, but try not to base too much on them. See WP:PSTS for our policy on that: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."
• Try to avoid writing from an "in universe" perspective (please don't take offence that this is a term used about fictional writing; it's just a useful concept).
• Base most of the article on high-quality secondary sources, preferably academic sources.

If you want, you could try to expand the theology section, or write a section about the history and development of the ideas. We currently don't have a history section, so that would be a good addition. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

SlimVirgin The section you showed is the one that was taken out. The problem with the way it reads now is that it needs to explain that Jesus embodied the Messiah, or Christ. He was the human manifestation of Christ, which is the Messiah. Jesus' vital signs all stopped for three days. CS believes that to human sense, he died. But his conscious awareness could not die, because it wasn't in a brain, but in God. So CS does believe that Jesus was crucified on the cross, that he gave up the ghost (vital signs stopped) but that he maintained conscious awareness and this conscious awareness (his immortal life sustained by God, not by matter) proved sufficient to resuscitate his human body. That is the resurrection. The ascension is considered his final demonstration that the immortal ideal of man, overthrows every last claim of sin, disease, and death. So can you see how misleading it is to say that CS does not believe that Jesus was the Messiah who died for our sins. It is a shallow statement. It should say something like - CS believe that Christ is the Messiah, and that Jesus fully represented Christ in human form, therefore they regard Jesus as the Savior of the world because he represented Christ to humanity. LeviTee (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the current text saying CS doesn't view Jesus as the Messiah isn't a perfect paraphrase of the source (my fault, I think) – the source seems to be saying the Jesus was not viewed as the Messiah "as defined by conventional Christianity". So I think we should make that clearer. I am intrigued by the idea the CS thinks Jesus physically died on the cross (as you put it, "vital signs stopped"). Is there a source for that? my impression was the sources were saying otherwise. What is notable about CS's view of Jesus is how it differs from the mainstream, so I think that should be clear. Alexbrn (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree it does need to be made clear, and I will look for the source on this. One has to take into consideration that CS teaches that the spiritual conscious awareness IS the REALITY of being, of life, and that death is not the reality, but is part of the illusion that life is in matter in the first place, to die out of it in the second place. So based on that premise, that life is real, and death is the illusion, one can see the dilemma of saying that anyone dies. As a concession to human belief, we say, so and so died. But in reality, consciousness can't die, and doesn't die according to CS. If you look back through the section on CS and the Messiah, you will see a Washington Post article that I attached at the end. You can also read what I wrote right before that and earlier in that section. The reason why Jesus rising from the dead was so important is that it proved life to be the reality, and death to be the unreality, that is the idea in CS. But you will see that there are plenty of implications saying that there was a resuscitation, a resurrection. You can't resurrect someone who is already physically alive. Read the Washington Post piece. LeviTee (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

FAQs

In the process of declining LeviTee's request for arbitration on the "dispute" for this article, one arbitrator suggested that any problems might be clearly, civilly discussed on the talk page.

Perhaps one approach to this might be to craft a set of FAQs resolving the main points of contention. If there was consensus, these could even be enshrined in the talk page header, as happens for some other controversial articles (See e.g. Talk:Homeopathy).

Here's a stab a enumerating what I think the questions are, with my proposed answers.

Q1. Does an editor need expertise in Christian Science to edit this article? (No)

Editors are required to capable of understanding and using secondary sources fairly and reasonable in their own terms; this does not require a special understanding of Christian Science beyond that found in those secondary sources.

Q2. Can Mary Baker Eddy's texts be used? (Yes)

WP:PRIMARY allows for primary texts to be used carefully. When the text is evaluated or interpreted however, a supporting secondary source must also be used.

Q3. Is it NPOV that secondary sources critical of Christian Science are prominent in this article? (Yes)

Including negative material is part of achieving a neutral article. A neutral point of view does not necessarily equate to a sympathetic point of view. Neutrality is achieved by including all points of view in rough proportion to their prominence in the real world.

Q4. Should the article describe Christian Science with Christian Science terminology? (No)

Mary Baker Eddy's writings often use words in a particular way alien to modern understanding. The article must be couched in terms, the usage of which will be recognizable to an educated general reader of today. Any Christian Science jargon terms used must be explained.

Q5. Do Wikipedia policies and guidelines apply in a particular way to this article? (No)

Wikipedia's policies and guidelines apply to this article just like any other, starting from the basis of the Wikipedia:Core content policies.

Suggestions, criticisms, etc. gratefully received ... Alexbrn (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, here goes:

Q1: Insert "be" in phrase "to capable"; change "reasonable" to "reasonably"; change the phrase after the semi-colon to: "this may require familiarity with Christian Science beyond material found in the secondary sources, since otherwise it may be impossible to paraphrase them accurately."

Q4: Change value-laden terms "alien" and "jargon" to more neutral terms. Add at end: "without deviating substantially from the original meaning."

Otherwise it looks OK.Be-nice:-) (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This is good, and thanks to the arbitrators for helping in this way. I think the question will be, how strong will the pushback be on including sources that describe Christian Science as it is understood by those who are familiar with it's primary texts (including authors of secondary sources), and will people like me be allowed to offer content which explains Christian Science on that basis. I hope so. An accurate explanation of Christian Science is neither favorable nor unfavorable, per se. It is what it is, and then it should be up to the reader make up their own mind about it. I have repeatedly said that I think the negative stuff has a place in the article. But I also know that, for instance, the McClures magazine source (Milmine, Dakin, etc.) would be like using the National Enquirer as a source on an Oprah Winfrey article. At what point do we scrutinize these sources and determine whether they are good or not. That is my concern. So I guess, no matter how much netative stuff is in the article, so long as it is possible to come in and give an accurate explanation and history of Christian Science, how it came about, etc. Then people can make up their minds. But as it is now, the scale is tipped way on the side of negative. And more is being added daily. LeviTee (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion about NPOV sentence, because it's the POV in the appropriate sources that we have to reflect: "Neutrality is achieved by including all points of view in rough proportion to their prominence in the real world" to "Neutrality is achieved by including all points of view in rough proportion to their prominence in the appropriate and reliable sources." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Earlier versions

Hi Be-nice, I see you edited this article some years ago. I was wondering whether there's an earlier version that you would consider superior to the current one, or that had sections that were superior. For example, I found this philosophy section, which looks decently written, though it's unsourced. If there's anything else like that that you're aware of – better versions of particular sections, or good material that's not in the current version – it would be very helpful if you could point it out.

Also, if you're aware of errors in the current version, it would be good to know that too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin, the section you cited on CS philosophy seems reasonably accurate, but is not sourced and looks like OR from a Wikipedia POV. Here is a version of the article before it was "improved" back in September: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Science&diff=510586979&oldid=508396737. There seems to be quite a lot of material (based on the writings of Mary Baker Eddy) that could be used again, since primary-source material is permitted according to the Wikipedia policies, if used with care. (Alternatively, just go back to 3 September in the History, or indeed any version prior to that going back some years.)

There is some material in the current article that is just plain wrong, either due to the secondary sources having got it wrong themselves, and/or as a result of misinterpretation of secondary sources by editors. I don't see how that can possibly contribute to a quality article. There is also a need for greater balance in the article between pro, neutral and anti-CS sources. I'll have a go at pointing out specific issues when I get a chance, but others are doing that at the moment as well.89.100.155.6 (talk) 09:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Oops...sorry, forgot to log in under my Be-nice:-) moniker.Be-nice:-) (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at the version you linked to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this is an earlier version or not, but on the note of fixes, the Christian Science Monitor is still being printed. The article, at the moment, sounds as if it was altogether stopped and never resumed. Uncoveringtruthjd (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I got that impression too from the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Unclear sections

I tried to copy edit these and realized I didn't understand them, so I'm moving them to talk until someone can fix them. The broadcasting section doesn't make clear what the issues are, or what the Knapp book had to do with the broadcasting problems.

Health of children

A case of a child's death came up during Mary Baker Eddy's lifetime, the Christian Science Practitioner on the case was James Neal. "On a visit to his family [...] he was asked to treat a seriously ill child who was not responding to medical treatment." After one day's treatment under Neal, without any markable improvement, the case was returned to the doctors. While under doctors' care, the child died. However, the media reported an expected charge of manslaughter against the practitioner. Neal testified and answered that he had never diagnosed disease, and the coroner sought to prove him incapable of healing by asking how he had known he had cured cancer in a previous case. Evidence was supplied of "seven regular practicing physicians," who had all pronounced the patient had cancer, however, after treatment with Neal, the patient was found well. A juror on the case, "known for hostility to Christian Science," would then ask Neal for treatment, and several weeks later would be recorded as complaining to a friend that he had the issue no more.

Broadcasting

In October 1991, after a series of conflicts over the boundaries between Christian Science teachings and his journalistic independence, television anchorman John Hart resigned.

The hundreds of millions lost on broadcasting brought the church to the brink of bankruptcy. However, with the 1991 publication of The Destiny of The Mother Church by the late Bliss Knapp, the church secured a $90 million bequest from the Knapp trust. The book, which had been kept unpublished following a decision by the ruling board in 1948, claimed that Eddy was virtually a second Christ rather than the mere mortal leader she claimed to be. The trust dictated that the book be published as "Authorized Literature," with neither modification nor comment. Historically, the church had censured Knapp for deviating at several points from Eddy's teaching, and had refused to publish the work. The church's archivist, fired in anticipation of the book's publication, wrote to branch churches to inform them of the book's history. Many Christian Scientists thought the book violated the church's by-laws, and the editors of the church's religious periodicals and several other church employees resigned in protest. Alternate beneficiaries subsequently sued to contest the church's claim it had complied fully with the will's terms, and the church ultimately received only half of the original sum.

The fallout of the broadcasting debacle also sparked a minor revolt among some prominent church members. In late 1993, a group of Christian Scientists filed suit against the Board of Directors, alleging a willful disregard for the Manual of the Mother Church in its financial dealings. The suit was thrown out by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in 1997, but a lingering discontent with the church's financial matters persists to this day.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This wording might convey the meaning better.

A child's death occurred while Mary Baker Eddy was living. A Christian Science Practitioner, James Neal, was visiting family in Kearney, Nebraska when he was asked to treat a seriously ill child who was "not responding to medical treatment." The child still gave no mark of improvement under Neal's treatment, and was returned to the care of doctors. While under the doctor's care, the child died. The coroner sought to bring manslaughter charges against Neal. Neal wrote to the local paper "expressing regret at the death of the child, explaining that she had been treated for twelve weeks by physicians, only one day by himself, and had died after medical treatment had been resumed." Neal testified that he had never diagnosed disease. When asked if he had ever healed a case of cancer, Neal answered yes. He was then questioned on how he knew he had cured cancer, given that he had never diagnosed it. "Seven regular practicing physicians" had all diagnosed the patient with cancer. James Neal was never charged. Uncoveringtruthjd (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

On that same thought of unclear sections, the adherent "member" estimate could possibly use some clarification. From the article this seems to be estimated members of The First Church of Christ, Scientist of Boston MA, or "The Mother Church." However, not all of the religion's adherents are "members" of the main church per se. There are branch church (church building establishments other than the Boston MA one) members, as well as those who are not a member of either but attend. It may be more accurate to list that estimate as Mother Church members rather than just members. Food for thought! Uncoveringtruthjd (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, the child health rewrite is much clearer, and I'll take another look at the member source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Author/editor

Just for future reference, I'm finding a few examples of material attributed to the editors of a volume, rather than to the author of the article/entry. When there are multiple authors in a book or encyclopaedia, it should be written something like (depending on chosen format): Smith, John. "Name of article," in Paul Jones (ed.). Name of Book, 2012, p. 100. Otherwise we're attributing to Jones something that Smith wrote. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Original synthesis

There's quite a bit in the article that seems to be original synthesis, in the sense that a fact from A is spliced together with a fact from B, then used to construct an argument. For example: "For them [feminists] Christian Science is a protest movement founded by a woman who conformed to the male-constructed "hysterical" profile of the time, and who had a need for power, status and prestige.

Do either of these sources say that feminists saw Eddy as conforming to the male-constructed hysterical profile and having a need for power, status and prestige? The sources are:

• Fox, Margery. "Protest in Piety: Christian Science Revisited," International Journal of Women's Studies, 1(401), July/August 1978.
• Klein, Janice. "Ann Lee and Mary Baker Eddy: The Parenting of New Religions," Journal of Psychohistory, 6 (3), 1979.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The synthesis of those sources is McDonald's:

Margery Fox, for example, sees Christian Science as "a nineteenth

century women's protest movement," its founder as "a classic female hysteric who resolved her personal conflicts by developing Christian Science and assuming an extraordinary power role," [...] Janice Klein restates it: Christian Science was for Eddy "a means of rebellion, and a form of coping," a way to gain "power, status,

and prestige."

Alexbrn (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but is it clear that this is a feminist argument? Also, it's not clear that anyone said Eddy needed power and status. The article has a lot of material like this, where it's not clear who said what. For example, "job opportunity" is from Parker, but without in-text attribution, and although she is cited, it seems this came from McDonald, not directly from Parker, so we might be missing context.

Quite a bit of the article seems to have been constructed from factoids and partial quotes. Multiple refs in one sentence are always a bit of a red flag for me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, still confused. Which sources were actually checked here, and which ones are the feminists? Also, should we be using sources from the 1970s (where we're not using them to describe past attitudes)?

Some feminists have interpreted Christian Science as a contemporary response to the male-dominated society of 19th-century America. For them Christian Science is a protest movement founded by a woman who conformed to the male-constructed "hysterical" profile of the time, and who had a need for power, status and prestige. By founding Christian Science, Eddy thus created a "job opportunity" for herself, and by taking the job she satisfied her urge to dominate. She came under sexist attack from men who deployed what Jean McDonald called "biological rhetoric": the claim, for example, that she suffered from "one of that familiar group of mental diseases coming on just after middle life" or that, as a woman, she was hampered by the intellectual inferiority of her sex.

Well, the journal is called "Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion", the article is entitled "Mary Baker Eddy and the Nineteenth-Century 'Public' Woman: A Feminist Reappraisal", the paragraphs used are introduced as "Recent feminist scholarship on Christian Science" and McDonald does write that "Eddy and other women of the period gravitated toward Christian Science, not for its theological worth but for its personal utility because it satisfied their needs for status and power in". Because McDonald's article is in part a survey of feminist thinking I think it makes a good source for summarizing feminist views without the need for editorial synthesis. In this case isn't the fragmentary nature of the views a sign that this is a properly plural set of viewpoints, as synthesized by a scholar? Maybe the problem is that I listed the sources used by McDonald as sources here, and instead we should just list McDonald as a single source and let the reader discover the sources "behind" her survey by consulting the McDonald article?

"Job opportunity" is Parker's phrase as used by McDonald. I'm not sure in that case which "the" source is. Is it transitive to Parker or adopted by McDonald? Hmmmm. Alexbrn (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The section begins "some feminists," then cites several writers who aren't obviously feminists, and one who seems definitely not to be. The best approach with a paragraph like this is to start "Jean McDonald argues ..." (assuming she is an authoritative source) then simply give the paragraph over to her, plus dissenting views if there are any. But I think it's problematic to cite Parker, Fox and Klein without having read them, and to include their views as feminist without knowing that that was the position they were arguing from. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - and I agree the move to a more formal cited work & footnotes model means we shouldn't be listing McDonald's sources as our "cited works". However McDonald does describe her sources as "feminist scholarship" so I'm not sure we should be over-hasty in dismissing them as not-feminist. Alexbrn (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

McDonald is well-cited [1] and so a sound source, I think. Alexbrn (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, that looks good. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, regarding the age of the source: I wonder whether it's appropriate to use sources from 30 and 40 years ago to discuss feminist views. If there really isn't anything more recent I suppose it's okay, but then we should make clear in the text that these views are from the 1970s/1980s. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, that sort of feminist academic discourse was at its height back then; we could of course be alert to any change in the feminist consensus -- but my searching seemed to suggest that what we've got here is a good representation. Alexbrn (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, fair point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There is the Voorhees article - which we're using already - as a source of possible development in feminist thinking. However, maybe these sorts of refinements of feminist (post-feminist?) thinking are a bit too esoteric for use here. Though it is quite interesting ("She framed the achievement of women's societal and religious rights, like all morally just reform causes, as a subset and extension of her brand of salvation through the atonement patterned and enabled by Jesus, and in turn framed that salvation as a component of her millennialism. Within this schema, her gendered language for God supports worshipers in grasping and living the spiritual reality that saves them, and ultimately the world. Within this larger eschatological framework, Eddy's position on the Woman Question in every sense finds its proper scope and seamless significance.") At the risk of summarizing, Voorhees seems to be saying the Eddy was a feminist, okay, but only insofar as it served her wider thinking & ambitions (whereas the earlier feminists seem to be reading CS as a feminist manifestation). Alexbrn (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks interesting. I'll try to read it properly later. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Health issue in lead

Hi Be nice, I see you've twice removed part of the health paragraph from the lead. [2] [3] Is there something inaccurate about it? The reason it's in the lead is that healing is what Christian Scientists are best known for, as well as some of the contention it has caused. It currently reads:

Christian Science has been compared to a form of philosophical idealism, teaching that spiritual reality, or Mind, is the only reality and that the material world is an illusion, though there is no evidence that Eddy herself was influenced by philosophical texts on idealism. Their position includes the view that sickness is an illusion that can be healed through prayer or introspection. A number of deaths occurred in earlier decades among adherents and their children because of an avoidance of conventional medical treatment and vaccination. A church spokesman said in 2010 that the church of today would not allow this to happen; in recent years it has sought to present Christian Science healing as a supplement to conventional medicine, rather than as a replacement for it.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Slim, the main issue with this is that the fact that a "church spokesman" said something or other is not necessarily representative of Christian Scientists or relevant to them, since many do not belong to the Christian Science church. (And those who do, take their theological views from the Bible and the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, not from an orgaization.) Some non-members may not believe in church organization, others may not have got around to joining, others may have left for one reason or another. Consequently, the sentence at the end should not be in the lead, since the article as a whole pertains to Christian Science, not to the organization. However, the sentence at the end doesn't make any sense on its own, which is why I shifted the section to the part pertaining to the Christian Science church organization. I'm trying to think of an analogy: suppose the Wikipedia article on Christianity had something in the first paragraph pertaining to the policies on reproductive rights of the Roman Catholic Church. Not only would this be bizarrely out of place, but many Christians who are not members of the Roman Catholic Church would rightly object, albeit the RC Church claims to be the one true Christian church. On the other hand, it might well be appropriate to have such an item in the area devoted to the RC Church. (NB the section on the CS church organization was only recently added to the article--it was originally a separate article and should have remained as such imo.)Be-nice:-) (talk) 08:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, this sentence is problematic for a number of reasons: "A church spokesman said in 2010 that the church of today would not allow this to happen; in recent years it has sought to present Christian Science healing as a supplement to conventional medicine, rather than as a replacement for it.[4]" This gives the impression that Christian Science healing may be used in combination with drugs, which does not happen as far as I know, and would go directly against the teachings of Mary Baker Eddy if it did. Combining CS healing with the simultaneous use of drugs would be like trying to move a car stuck in mud, by pulling it backwards and forwards at the same time. (Either method might be tried on its own, but not both together.) Also, in part the material is from a journalistic source (though from a highly-regarded newspaper). Perhaps it would be better just to remove that sentenceBe-nice:-) (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a better source, and a better way of putting this is in this recent article:

The Christian Science Church emphasizes that its members are free to make independent decisions regarding medical care without retaliation from its headquarters, the Mother Church.

IMHO medical controversy should certainly be in the lede. In the case of Roman Catholicism (a much larger topic overall), I'd say the lede there could mention birth control since this is one of RC's most controversial aspects, and key controversies should be summarized in the lede per WP:LEAD. Christian Science is notorious for its approach to medicine. Alexbrn (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the source you give is certainly a better source, and a better way of putting it as you say. However, in regard to the comparison with Roman Catholicism, you're not getting my point. A person can be a Christian without being a member of the Roman Catholic church (or the Anglican church or whatever): consequently it would be absurd to have a remark on the policies of Roman Catholicism (or Anglicanism or whatever) in the lead to an article on Christianity, though it might well be appropriate in the lead to an article on the particular denominational organization. In the same way, a person can be a Christian Scientist without being a member of the Christian Science church. Being a Christian Scientist is a matter of adhering to the teachings of Mary Baker Eddy and the Bible, period. It is a matter of personal confession and self-description. It has nothing to do with whether one's name is on some computer database in Boston or anywhere else (though many Christian Scientists do choose to join either the main Christian Science church and/or one of its branches, by no means all of them do). It is true (AFAIK) that a person cannot be a Roman Catholic without being a member of the Roman Catholic church, but that doesn't necessarily apply in the case of other Christian denominations, and it does not apply to being a Christian Scientist. Consequently, it could well be appropriate to have something on (eg) Roman Catholic attitudes to birth control in the lead to the article on Roman Catholicism, but not in the lead to an article on Christianity. For the same reason, an organizational policy should not be in the lead of an article on Christian Science (though it might be appropriate to have it in a section on the Christian Science organization, which is analytically separate from Christian Science itself). I reiterate my ongoing point that if people are going to edit an article on a particular topic, they should first have a basic knowledge of the topic. It may not be in the Wikipedia policies, but it seems to me to be just basic common sense. Otherwise--with the best will in the world--we are wasting a lot of time that could otherwise be more productively spent, and going around in circles.89.100.155.6 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Oops, sorry, forgot to log in again...Be-nice:-) (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

What percentage of Christian Scientists would you say had no relationship with the CS church? Are there any figures? Alexbrn (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Relatedly, I've come across a mentions of three (what are termed by Swanson) 'apostate' groups: Emergence International (already covered), the Endtime Center [4] and Christian Way [5] are these latter two pertinent at all? Alexbrn (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know about numbers. In my own social circle I can think of a number of people who have various degrees of interest/commitment to Christian Science who aren't members, so I imagine that is quite widespread. Why don't they join? Your guess is as good as mine. (It's sometimes unwillingness to give up alcohol, or family pressures, or competing attractions of other churches which have better-organized social activities and business networks...Often fairly mundane things like that.) Also, practicing Christian Science is kind of a sliding scale, from total commitment on one end of the scale, to occasionally reading a CS pamphlet when you come up against a problem that can't be fixed through the "normal" channels, on the other. Furthermore, the CS church has always resisted counting members (even when it was doing well in numerical terms) on the basis that healing is the point, not numbers of members. In regard to the groups you mention, I don't know anything about them, though the names vaguely ring a bell and I may have come across them on the Internet. (There are various formal and informal groups of Christian Scientists, some dissident in terms of the CS church, others not.) Hope this helps.Be-nice:-) (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think comparing Christians to members of the RC church is not a good analogy; a better one would be comparing Mormons to members of the Mormon church, and so far as I know most practising Mormons would be members of the mainstream church. So it's appropriate to say something in the lead about the church's position toward medicine, given that we raise the issue of healing and the child cases (which we must raise). It seems to me to be important that the church has said it wouldn't allow those things to happen now. That's stronger than saying members are free to make independent decisions without retaliation. Also, does this source cite its source for that statement? A research paper about blood transfusion isn't an appropriate source for the church's position, compared to the statement from the spokesperson that we currently use. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know of a source for: "There is no formal requirement for a Christian Scientist to be a member of the church"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Mental powers

Alex, a minor point but I'm not sure the header is quite right. All the healing is based on mental powers -- indeed everything is, not just the healing. The issue in this paragraph is action at a distance, or "addressing the thought." Actually, I was thinking of removing this section and moving the material elsewhere as it looks a little incongruous. But in the meantime, "mental powers" as a header implies that all the rest is something other than mental powers. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

But it's not just "addressing the thought" but also "malicious animal magnetism"; so if this stays as a section the title should cover both of those. I actually think "telepathy" is a good word here as it corresponds, in its common meaning, to the phenomenon being claimed - but that seems to be a hot button word ... ("Telepathy and witchcraft" would otherwise be a good section title) Alexbrn (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I think I'll to try to work it into another section, but I want to do more reading first. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Mortality rate

This is somewhat weak, so it would be good if we could find some better studies. The one we use compared Christan Scientists (meateaters?) to Seventh Day Adventists (mostly vegetarians), and in all studies that I know of vegetarians are deemed to be healthier and to live longer than meateaters, so the result is more likely to be connected to that. Ideally we should use a review article rather than reporting on one study. The passage currently reads:

A study in the 1980s compared the morbidity of graduates between 1945 and 1983 of the Christian Science school Principia College in Elsah, Illinois, to graduates of a Seventh-day Adventist college. The Christian Science school's cohort had a higher overall mortality rate, but the result may have been biased by the dietary habits of Seventh-day Adventists; both groups abstain from alcohol and smoking, but Seventh-day Adventists are also advised to eat a largely lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet, which may make them less susceptible to certain chronic diseases.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a review, but maybe useful: [6] Scrub that, it's the same.

I can't find anything, and according to Quackwatch "no systematic, medically supervised study of the outcome of Christian Science healing has ever been performed"; I propose dropping this content. Alexbrn (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. Some Christian Scientists are vegetarians (I for one). Not all graduates of Principia continue to practice Christian Science, just as not all graduates of a Catholic university end up as practicing Catholics. Morbidity (sickness) is different from mortality (death). And I don't know how one would check the proportions of graduates who retained the practices of alcohol and tobacco abstention throughout their lives (or lacto-vegetarianism for that matter).Be-nice:-) (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph for now. We can always restore if we find better sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Church of Christ, Scientist

There was some good material in the above, which was redirected to this one, so I copied over some text from this version, which explains the relationship between the mother and branch churches. It needs sources, but nothing is jumping out as wrong, so I've left it unsourced for now, but I'll be looking for sources. Hopefully others will look too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Question about lead sentence

"They define Christ as the eternal, immortal nature of man ..." What distinction are we drawing here between eternal and immortal? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Eternal means timeless, outside of time. Immortal means deathless, not subject to death.Be-nice:-) (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't see a distinction in that sentence. I've changed it to be closer to the source: "They define Christ as the divine ideal of man and see Jesus not as a deity, but as Christ's highest human manifestation." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Lord's Prayer

The implication that Eddy rewrote the Lord's prayer is misleading. She gave what she understood to be the spiritual meaning of the Lord's prayer, but her interpretation of it never appears in her writings without the original Lord's Prayer in it's King James Version. It may be helpful to understand that Eddy was the first Pastor of the Christian Science church, and pastors do more than just read from the Bible. They expound on it to their congregations, they break it down for them. The Bible and Science and health constitute the Pastor of the CS church. It is in this respect that Eddy's works offer commentary, explanation, corroboration, interpretation. Every church does this in the way that expounds their respective theologies. But again, her interpretation never appears by itself in her writings. Here is how it does appear, and I included a line by Eddy before it:

"Here let me give what I understand to be the spiritual sense of the Lord’s Prayer:

Our Father which art in heaven,

Our Father-Mother God, all-harmonious,

Hallowed be Thy name.

Adorable One.

Thy kingdom come.

Thy kingdom is come; Thou art ever-present.

Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Enable us to know, — as in heaven, so on earth, — God is omnipotent, supreme.

Give us this day our daily bread;

Give us grace for to-day; feed the famished affections;

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

And Love is reflected in love;

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil;

And God leadeth us not into temptation, but delivereth us from sin, disease, and death.

For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever.

For God is infinite, all-power, all Life, Truth, Love, over all, and All. " Science and Health page 16-17

The Milmine source is about equivalent to what the National Enquirer would be today. LeviTee (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Jenkins (2000) refers to Milmine's quoted text as "the CS version of the Lord's Prayer". Is it the word "re-writes" which is problematic? Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not a re-write. That is for sure. It should not appear on it's own in the article, since it never does, ever, anywhere in her writings, and she didn't intend for it to sit there on it's own. It is an expounding of the original, so to include it without it's original is improper, and Eddy never did that. LeviTee (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Also check out this [7] - it seems the sources agree this is a "new version" of the Lord's Prayer. I think we'd need a source to add content on how Eddy's text is related to the original ... is there anything? Alexbrn (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It is also not a "version" it is an interpretation. The Milmine source reads as a diatribe on Eddy, and Gill refutes just about everything that Milmine claims, and she does it like an investigative reporter would. I would recommend her book. So anyone quoting from Milmine, I would not trust. I will wait for other people to weigh in here. I showed you a primary source. I don't think it is in the minds of good biographers to anticipate every distortion of Eddy's work that would come about, so it may be difficult to find something defending her commentary on the Lord's Prayer. Who would have thought that someone would interpret that as re-writing it. I think this is a matter of common sense that those sources are unreliable based on the fact that Eddy never published this without it's original. LeviTee (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've found a source and merged it in - see what you think ... Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It's highly offensive. Why would anyone only want to see Christian Science through what counter cult fundamentalists think? The article is still being held hostage by ignorance, prejudice, disrespect. I find it extremely offensive, and I think I would even if I weren't a CS. It's just trash talk. LeviTee (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should rely on a 1908 article in McClure's magazine, unless it's to make an historical point about the religion's reception at the time. We should be relying for the most part on modern academic sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It makes me sick to look at what is happening here. Alexbrn, whatever your motivation, it's very unfortunate what you are doing. I have dealt with this kind of BS for 20 years now. Everything that you are putting into this article is absolute BS. Period. I just think this is hopeless at this point unless more people come in who have a goal of getting at the facts and using reliable sources. At some point intelligent people are going to find it as offensive as I do that this article is such a piece of absolute garbage. It is shameful to use this forum in this way. A royal embarrassment to the ignorant people putting this trash in here, and to Wikipedia. I may not be back. I have better things to do with my time. LeviTee (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Levi, stay cool :-) and please hang in there. Your work is appreciated and, whether you realize it or not, has made a difference. Keep it up.Be-nice:-) (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Levi — some advice. The process here is consensus based editing, and it's simply not effective for you to question my motivation or throw up your hands in horror saying, in effect, that everything's wrong. Nobody can really engage with that in a way which will affect the article (which is, presumably, what you want to do). You need to make specific points about specific proposed or actual text, and argue your case in accord with Wikipedia policy. So, for example, you've questioned the Milmine source; fair enough - it's now gone. And you could, for example, propose that the article gives WP:UNDUE weight to the cult aspect of Christian Science ... which I for one would disagree with, but at least by framing it in this way people can weigh in and debate the point. I would further advise you to try and work on the article and not in the article - i.e. with a degree of cool detachment. Whatever you may think about my editing, I can assure you that is my mode.

Also — I don't think the article is in that bad a shape. Remember one of the arbitrators wrote it "deals rather elegantly with a controversial topic" - so there's praise from fresh eyes. And with SlimVirgin's ongoing refresh of it, it's becoming even more elegant, I think ... Alexbrn (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you take a look at the time at which those individuals reviewed the article, you will see that the version they would have reviewed included many of SlimVirgin's main adjustments. Any mention of elegance has been the recent handiwork, which has effectively been in contradiction of the disruptive editing previously imposed on this article. Uncoveringtruthjd (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the refresh had recently begun: the "elegant" comment was made at 21:50 on 29 December 2012‎. At that time the article was in this state. Personally, I think it's too kind - but it is notable that on the two occasions we've had a dispute resolution process, the only comments we've received have been broadly positive (I'm thinking too of the 3O comment on our homosexuality content). Alexbrn (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The term, 'Glosses' worries me. This sounds like a colloquialism rather than a generally accepted term. AlexBrn, you are the language expert. What is meant by the term, 'glosses'? Is it a universally accepted term? Michael J. Mullany (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

In academic textual work (at least in my experience) the word "gloss" is very commonly used accord to meaning No. 2 here; day-to-day we are all familiar, I think, with the related word "glossary". Alexbrn (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, many thanks. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

Just a heads-up about this, as I'm finding a few spots where authors have been closely paraphrased without in-text attribution. When we're quoting (with or without quotation marks), or following an author's words or arguments closely, we need to add the author's name, as in "John Smith wrote that X." It's very easy to cross the line on Wikipedia into paraphrasing too closely, because we have to stick closely to our sources, and there's a fine line between close and too close. When in doubt, give credit to the author in the sentence or somewhere in the paragraph, unless you're repeating common knowledge. See WP:INTEXT for more information. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Will the authors who repeatedly reversed my edits because I gave credit to/mentioned names of authors please take very careful note. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Heaven and hell

Michael, sorry, I've removed your hereafter section. [8]. We already deal with that in the "nature of reality" section, and we can't rely so much on quoting Eddy; otherwise the writing takes on the tone of a sermon. In addition, we can't use other Wikipedia articles as sources. I moved some of your material about death into the "nature of reality" section.

Regarding the pronoun you changed, [9] "which" is correct if you read the whole sentence (that they had powerful friends helped them to survive and saw several states pass legislation). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem, SlimVirgin. Also, please see my response below. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think I removed too much, so I restored some of it. Sorry about that. The section now looks like this (see Conception of God, heaven and hell). Does that seem okay? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, its fine, thanks. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The problems of error and matter

If my understanding of CS is correct, its theology neatly side-steps the philosophical problems of evil and Hell by declaring these to be unreal. However, this appears to create another problem: if mankind is created perfect in every way, how then does (s)he end up with the error of belief in matter? Where does matter come from? Answers I have ascertained so far include the following:

• Matter never came it only appears to have come from somewhere. Response: Okay, so why does it appear to have come to perfect man?
• CS heals; so its premise that matter doesn't exist must be correct; even scientifically proven. Response: Not necessarily. Outcomes may support theories, but doesn't prove them.

I would suggest that this is a fundamental philosophical difficulty which C Scientists need to address this question urgently with more than off-pat answers. May we speculate, for example, that man has free will; so has the freedom to err and descend from his perfect origins into a belief in matter? Once having reached the perfect state, could he err and enter the 'material realm' again? Alternatively, do all people necessarily need to pass through the 'material phase' on their way to becoming fully-fledged beings? Michael J. Mullany (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No-one has ever seen anything called "matter." It's a generic term we give to things like tables, trees, human beings etc, or rather to the colors, shapes, sounds and so on that we identify by the words tables, trees etc. The colors etc appear to us because they are the result of how sense data are processed and interpreted by the brain. We don't know anything about what, if anything, causes the sense data in the first place, or whether the data are all that there is. The film The Matrix provides quite a close analogy to the CS teaching: the world as it appears to the senses is a systematic delusion or simulacrum. What causes it? In the film it was mechanical energy-vampires, but in reality we don't know. We don't even know if the question of causation has any meaning. Or perhaps the desire to find out what caused the illusion is part of what is causing the illusion to persist. Imagine being lost in a dark room and trying to find out where the darkness comes from. All you have to do is turn on the light, then you realize it didn't come from anywhere. In fact it wasn't anything at all in itself, just the absence of light. Or imagine being caught up in a nightmare. You wouldn't try to work out what caused the nightmare, at least while you were in the throes of being chased by imaginary zombies or whatever. You would first want to waken up. After that, you could philosophise/psychologise about it to your heart's content, if indeed the question was still of any interest once you had realised/demonstrated that it was all an illusion.

The speculation you give seems close to the perspective of conventional theology, but it's one that Christian Scientists would reject.

The second issue re healing is a different one, and as you put it yourself, induction has its limits.

By the way, speaking of The Matrix etc, if you want a bit of fun look up Nick Bostrom on Google. The math is beyond me, but he apparently makes a convincing case that we are probably living in a computer simulation.Be-nice:-) (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.simulation-argument.com/Be-nice:-) (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks, Be-nice. A most ingenious response. I am reading the paper and other discussions you linked me to with great interest. Once I have done so, I may come back to you with another response. In the mean time I do wonder if a matrix-type pseudoexistence was really what Mary Baker Eddy had in mind. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The article by David Kyle Johnson "Natural Evil and the Simulation Hypothesis" listed on this site, deals with some of the issues you raise: http://www.simulation-argument.com/ Unfortunately I don't know of any literature that links these kinds of speculations specifically to Christian Science, so it would, no doubt, be regarded as OR to refer to them in the article. A pity.Be-nice:-) (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. I think that the question I originally raised is a major stumbling block to people considering whether or not to join the CS Movement, so thanks for taking the time and trouble to address it. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Attitudes toward the body

Can anyone recommend a good source for the Christian Science attitude toward the body and its needs? I'm left wondering, if they believe sickness is an illusion, what their attitude is toward needing sleep, nutrition, exercise, and so on, and in particular how they can argue that we need certain sorts of things (e.g. food), but not things that cross into a definition of medical care (vitamins, drugs). Any pointers would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It would also be useful to find sources explaining the Christian Science view toward the self, as opposed to Mind, and the relationship between the two. For example, what happens to the self after death? Does it cease to exist, did it never exist, or does it continue to exist as an aspect of Mind? Again, any pointers would be very helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The best source on these and other questions is the CS textbook itself, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy. Apart from that, look at Robert Peel's book Spiritual Healing in a Scientific Age, or a book by a CS dissident, Christian Science Class Instruction, by Arthur Corey. Christian Scientists have normal attitudes towards sleep, nutrition, exercise, etc. though there is a kind of CS cliche that "I take exercise because I'm fit, not to get fit.") Vitamins are kind of a gray area. I've known Christian Scientists who take them, though I recall my CS teacher saying they are a no-no ;-) Why don't we take medical drugs? In practice Christian Science healing and drugs tend to cancel each other out, and that's probably the most important reason not to mix the two systems. (I have a personal horror story on that--I forgot to tell the CS practitioner, who was treating me at the time for a tooth problem, that I was visiting the dentist, and the anesthetic the dentist gave me didn't work. I nearly hit the ceiling.) The reason we don't mix drugs and CS treatment is because drugs work on a material basis that there is something materially wrong that needs to be materially fixed, and CS treatment works from a spiritual basis, that everything is all right in a spiritual sense and that this needs to be demonstrated. Also, drugs are sometimes poisonous and they can have negative side effects, entailing the use of other drugs to counter-act them, in a potentially endless cycle. (There are, of course, also issues around animal testing, the power of the pharmaceutical industry, and the expense of medical treatment, that Christian Scientists may share with others.) Having said that, as a Christian Scientist I would have no problem in taking pain-killer for an unbearable pain if I ever needed to, though I would be careful not to neutralize it by requesting CS treatment at the same time. Other Christian Scientists may have more rigid attitudes, or more permissive attitudes as the case may be. It's up to the individual.

According to CS, the individual spiritual idea (the spiritual identity of each one of us) exists in eternity, outside of the world of illusion where time and death appear to exist. This is from an absolute (spiritual) perspective. In relative terms, the individual human consciousness continues to exist after death. It is involved in a kind of learning process that continues until spiritualization is eventually reached. Hope this helps.Be-nice:-) (talk) 10:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Does individual consciousness exist before birth too? any sources on that topic would be useful. Alexbrn (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"If man did not exist before the material organization began, he could not exist after the body is disintegrated. If we live after death and are immortal, we must have lived before birth..." S&H 429: 19-23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.155.6 (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC) 89.100.155.6 (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Be nice, thank you, that's interesting (and very interesting what you say about the dentist). I was thinking more of why Christian Scientists believe we need nutrition and sleep, if material life is an illusion. If pain and illness can be conquered by refusing to acknowledge them as real, could and should the same approach not be used with nutrition and sleep? I'm not suggesting people should try to starve themselves. :) But is it not a contradiction to acknowledge that we have to eat? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, Jesus did fast, and in regard to one incidence of healing, he said "This kind goeth not out, but by prayer and fasting." Christian Scientists tend to interpret the "fasting" thing metaphorically, ie as "fasting from the evidence of the senses" or something like that. (However, I would say that there may also be a case for interpreting it literally, though literal fasting is normally ignored by Christian Scientists. My experience is that, whenever I've gone on a fast, I've found it difficult to do any kind of "normal" mental work, but extremely easy to do spiritual--Christian Science--work. Also, I discovered how much time we normally waste either eating, or thinking about eating.) The Christian Science interpretation of our current need for eating and sleep is that we will eventually transcend the need for both, but that as "beliefs" they are both more deep-rooted, and less urgent, than the "beliefs" of disease etc. Jesus is recorded as having been asleep in a boat, and even after his Resurrection he joined his disciples for breakfast.Be-nice:-) (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice — thanks! Sadly, I can't find any secondary material on this. I'm tempted to ask how it works. Is there a pre-created "stock" of souls equal in number to the maximum human population there will ever be, that are allocated to bodies at the moment of birth? Alexbrn (talk) 07:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, you need to remember the difference between the absolute and the relative in CS. Absolutely speaking, our true spiritual identity exists outside of time and space, in eternity and infinity: in Spirit, God. In the relative (distorted) view, we seem to be born and die, but this is an illusion. Christian Scientists do not believe that there are "souls" in bodies. So the question re a pre-created "stock" of souls is meaningless in CS terms. (Theologically, the idea of a soul in the body was a pagan Greek importation into Christianity, as far as I know. It was not the view of the Jews at the time of Christ, and the word "soul" had a different meaning for them. But I'm not a theologian, I hasten to add.)Be-nice:-) (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(Off topic) So what does "we live after death and are immortal" mean? If it means entering an unindividuated unconscious state, then that sounds just my atheist conception of death! Alexbrn (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it definitely doesn't mean entering an unindividuated unconscious state. That sounds more like Schopenhauer's (mis)interpretation of the Buddhist concept of Nirvana. As to exactly what it does mean, I guess we'll have to wait and see ;-) Though having said that, there are burgeoning accounts of Near Death Experiences that, if they are true, would confirm the Christian Science perspective.Be-nice:-) (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying the "after death" state is different from the "before life" state; and Eddy says that? If some of this stuff is sourced it could be really good in the article. Alexbrn (talk) 11:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I can give primary sources on this area but I'd have a problem finding relevant secondary sources :-/ Meanwhile, here is an interesting account of a near death experience that I came across: http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/NDE_Experiences/anita_m%27s_nde.htm There is no mention of Christian Science, but this is the kind of thing that--on the whole--seems to fit in quite well with our beliefs (though NB, CS does not teach reincarnation).Be-nice:-) (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(off topic) Well my mother died earlier this week, and just before the end she had visions of being on a desert island, of being at a wonderful family party, and of being in a room full of rabbits (and no, I'm not making this up). Call me skeptical, but I take these as examples of what the brain does when the body is in extremis rather than indications of any greater truth. Alexbrn (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear :-(Be-nice:-) (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that your comments are off-topic, in fact, AlexBrn. I was also sorry to hear of your Mum's passing. However, when my mother passed on, she had a NDE which was not so easily dismissed; so much so that it made me doubt my then atheist views and rethink the whole business. She was severely handicapped with polio from the age of 5, and suffered a further debilitating stroke in 1972. Throughout her life she had difficulty in climbing stairs, and after 1972 this became a near impossibility except with the extreme assistance of others. On 29th August 1988 she suffered a further stroke, and was attended to by her next-door neighbour, a Dr Doreen Kossov. On Kossov’s advice she was admitted to Greys Hospital, Pietermaritzburg in South Africa where we lived at the time, several kilometres away. On 4th September she told my dad of an OBE the previous evening, during which she found herself in the doctor’s bedroom. She described a Japanese lamp and a painting of an old man on the wall. She also told my dad that if she had a repeat of this experience in which she felt so freed from her handicap, she would ‘not come back’. The next night she died. A few days later, the family were admitted to the neighbour’s bedroom, and both the Japanese lamp and painting of the old man were there as she had described them. Further, the bedroom lay up a long flight of stairs, making it quite impossible for my mother to have visited it during her earthly lifetime. None of the family had entered the neighbour’s bedroom either, and Kossov confirmed that she had at no time described the contents of her bedroom to any of them. The contents of her room were not something she was in the habit of discussing with anyone. I therefore think that Be-Nice and the CS movement have a point when it comes to NDEs, but acknowledge that we await results which are more than anecdotal. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Alex, I'm sorry to hear about your mother. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks everybody, for your kind words. Alexbrn (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Some Specific Problems

"Christian Science teaches that, rather than providing a moral example for mankind, the atonement exemplified, as Eddy wrote, "man's unity with God, whereby man reflects divine Truth, Life, and Love."[5]"

When I first placed this point in the article I used the phrase, "rather than merely providing a moral example." and I think the word "merely" needs to be put back in, because the way it reads now suggests that CS does not believe that Jesus' atonement provided a moral example, which it certainly did according to CS. The point was that it is more than just the moral example he did provide - that the "exemplification" is what enabled mankind to follow his example. That is the point of that reference in Gottschalks book. The same passage in that source indicates that CS does not wholly deny some aspect of vicarious sacrifice, but just that it should not be thought of as canceling sin in a way that enables the sinner to keep right on sinning and be excused. That is why I had included the parts about how CS was not considered a "wholly vicarious" atonement, nor "merely" providing a moral example. Yes it was somewhat vicarious, and yes it provided a moral example, but the idea in CS is that it was much more because of the "exemplification" aspect, or in other words, the proof it provided for mankind of the unity which exists between God and man.

Next: "Christian Science holds that Jesus did not die on the cross, but was conscious in his tomb, healing himself.[28]" This is still misleading even after all the talk and attempts to clarify this issue. Plenty has already been said about the fact that CS does not teach that Jesus's body was showing signs of life from the time he "gave up the ghost" to the time he was resurrected, and it seemed like the consensus was that his mind did not die, though his body was lifeless until the resurrection. Therefore that CS does belief in one sense that Jesus died on the cross to human sense, but that unseen to those who carried a lifeless body to the tomb, Jesus the spiritual individual man was still conscious and working out the problem of death during those three days in the tomb. Therefore I think that something needs to be done about that sentence.

And finally (for now) the most misleading thing I see is this: "Eddy wrote that anybody asking a doctor to treat them "invites defeat," though she allowed exceptions for going to the dentist, fixing broken limbs, and basic surgical procedures.[31] She argued that "if we trust matter, we distrust spirit":[31]" As you read through this you will see that she never wrote that anybody asking a doctor to treat them "invites defeat". This makes it sound like slam on doctors. I have put in bold print the words "invites defeat" so you can see how out of context that line appears in the source used in the article.

Here are those passages in their context: "Let us suppose two parallel cases of bone-disease, both similarly produced and attended by the same symptoms. A surgeon is employed in one case, and a Christian Scientist in the other. The surgeon, holding that matter forms its own conditions and renders them fatal at certain points, entertains fears and doubts as to the ultimate outcome of the injury. Not holding the reins of government in his own hands, he believes that something stronger than Mind — namely, matter — governs the case. His treatment is therefore tentative. This mental state invites defeat. The belief that he has met his master in matter and may not be able to mend the bone, increases his fear; yet this belief should not be communicated to the patient, either verbally or otherwise, for this fear greatly diminishes the tendency towards a favorable result. Remember that the unexpressed belief oftentimes affects a sensitive patient more strongly than the expressed thought.

"The Christian Scientist, understanding scientifically that all is Mind, commences with mental causation, the truth of being, to destroy the error. This corrective is an alterative, reaching to every part of the human system. According to Scripture, it searches “the joints and marrow,” and it restores the harmony of man."

"The matter-physician deals with matter as both his foe and his remedy. He regards the ailment as weakened or trengthened according to the evidence which matter presents. The metaphysician, making Mind his basis of operation irrespective of matter and regarding the truth and harmony of being as superior to error and discord, has rendered himself strong, instead of weak, to cope with the case; and he proportionately strengthens his patient with the stimulus of courage and conscious power. Both Science and consciousness are now at work in the economy of being according to the law of Mind, which ultimately asserts its absolute supremacy."

And so anyone can see from this passage that there are many more nuances dealing with mental attitudes in the treatment of disease, how much fear or doubt concerning prognosis is going on in the minds of the attending physicians, etc. These points she is bringing out have to do with the influence that mind has on the body - something that is not altogether foreign to the doctors of today.

Here is what she said specifically about bringing in a doctor: "Great caution should be exercised in the choice of physicians. If you employ a medical practitioner, be sure he is a learned man and skilful; never trust yourself in the hands of a quack. In proportion as a physician is enlightened and liberal is he equipped with Truth, and his efforts are salutary; ignorance and charlatanism are miserable medical aids." Christian Healing, Mary Baker Eddy, page 14. So here, one can see that she is not denouncing doctors, but is saying that their ability to help will be proportional to their skill and enlightenment. She also said elsewhere that she wanted to keep quackery out of her system, and so was very specific about how to reason things out spiritually and mentally.

Those are a few examples of where the article can be improved, but I will leave it to other editors to decide whether these are valid critiques or not... LeviTee (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Levi, I restored "merely," but I have no idea what this sentence might mean, and how it differs from mainstream Christianity: "Christian Science teaches that, rather than merely providing a moral example for mankind, the atonement exemplified, as Eddy wrote, 'man's unity with God, whereby man reflects divine Truth, Life, and Love.'" Can you elaborate? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Levi, glad to see you are still with us, and keep up the good work :-) I take your points, but the metaphysical issues are very difficult to convey to people who aren't as familiar with them as you and I are. What may appear as life or death issues to us, may seem to be mere theological quibbling to others.Be-nice:-) (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: the word exemplification is pretty important, and it used to be included in the quotes which was better I think. The idea is that before Jesus gave the supreme example of atonement, or "at-one-ment", mankind lacked the ability to attain the atonement. Here is another passage that explains it from MBE's Miscellaneous Writings, "His [Jesus'] goodness and grace purchased the means of mortals’ redemption from sin; but, they never paid the price of sin. This cost, none but the sinner can pay; and accordingly as this account is settled with divine Love, is the sinner ready to avail himself of the rich blessings flowing from the teaching, example, and suffering of our Master." The reason why this point is important is that it is one that is greatly misunderstood by the mainstream concerning Christian Science, and one reason why it is believed (and wrongly) that CS doesn't acknowledge Jesus as the savior. It was not only the moral example that we lacked, but also the "means", the "how to" if you will, of atonement with God, or the "how" of working out our own salvation. Jesus provided that for us, and so he is the Master, the Savior, the "Way-Shower". "Exemplification" embodies all those concepts in one word. I hope this helps and does not make it even harder.

Be-Nice:-) I see your point, but having come from the traditional Christian beliefs, and having been pressed on these issues by Christians, I have found that it is important for them to know that we acknowledge Jesus actual crucifixion, because otherwise, it invalidates the idea that he made the ultimate sacrifice, and this is a stumbling block for Christians in understanding Christian Science, because they find that offensive, the idea that Jesus didn't really die for our sins. And I can see why they would. But that is not what Christian Science teaches. So I think for the Christian coming to learn about Christian Science, we owe them some kind of an explanation of this so they aren't left with the wrong impression. LeviTee (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see my last edit to the article. I inserted the word "only" to serve in the same way that "merely" does above. Actually the section I edited has what is to me a correct paraphrase from the Gottschalk source, and includes the part about the propitiatory aspects. LeviTee (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Source request

Hi Be nice, I removed two of the points you added today, because I couldn't see them in the sources. The spokesman for the church who spoke to the NYT doesn't say anything about not mixing approaches (nor does the article elsewhere that I could see), and I couldn't see anything in Gill about neighbors who were familiar with the injury thinking the recovery miraculous – except perhaps for the two who thought she was paralysed, but we already mention them. If there are another two, do you have a page number? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin, I gave references to the Gill book where I "undid" your revert, and I changed the other reference in the lead to make the point clearer. The NYT article definitely says that the textbook says not to mix CS and medicine, though I had to paraphrase it for Wikipedia purposes. See what you think.Be-nice:-) (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. Regarding this edit, you repeated Gill's opinion that Eddy didn't take her ideas from Quimby, but you left out Gill's point that Eddy's six major biographers believe she did. To be neutral and accurate the article ought to make that clear. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I wanted to keep it short and to the point, but if you want to expand that, go ahead.Be-nice:-) (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is there a picture of Lindsey Lohan in the article!! Oh, nevermind... that's Elizabeth Taylor. (levity). LeviTee (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

On the questions of Gill's reliability as a source, this review and subsequent exchange of letters in the New York Review of Books are pertinent. Using Gill as a sole source would appear to be inadvisable. Alexbrn (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I was a bit concerned about that too. I have no problem using her book as a source for factual things (who said what), but highlighting her opinion alone about this key issue, and omitting that she acknowledges that hers is a minority view, seems wrong. I think we should remove that sentence, or make it invisible, until someone has time to write up the source material in a more complete way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that is a bit of a spat, all right. As it says in the Bible, "What is truth?" I request that the sentence be left in, until someone has time to contextualize it. It's a verifiable reference to a secondary source.Be-nice:-) (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If Gill has outlying views I'm not sure they should be used at all, unless there is something particularly notable about what she is claiming (if for example, it triggered some notable documented debate). Alexbrn (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Consistent Citations, 2nd time

On 21 December 2012, I volunteered to revise the citations according to WP templates--and I will. But, this Christian Science article is in so much flux. Do other folks think it is worthwhile to do so at this time?

Also, I added a reference to Caplan's Mind Games which is sorely missing. Centamia (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Not as much flux now - go ahead. Collect (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Nominated for "Good Article" review - it is now a fairly complete and accurate article, AFAICT. Collect (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Collect. Centamia, I made the refs consistent when I was going through the article; if there are any stragglers please let me know. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Then I'll proceed to form the current citations in WP format--so far as I can. Collect: thanks for encouragement. SlimVirgin: there are going to be stragglers galore. For convenience of all, watch for "Breadcrumb Updates" in the Talk pages as this gets fixed. Centamia (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Centamia, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't do that. I just spent time making the citations consistent (short refs in text, long refs in a References section). There is no such thing as "WP format" (all we require is consistency) and adding templates is problematic; they slow down load time and add lots of citation clutter in edit mode. See WP:CITEVAR and Wikipedia:Citation templates: "Because templates can be contentious, editors should not add citation templates, or change an article with a consistent citation format to another, without gaining consensus." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Will do nothing then. I was unaware of the problems with the templates, so well-and-good.Centamia (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Images

The article has come on a lot in the last few weeks. One thing though: it may well be appropriate to include an illustration comprised of pics of well-known CS people, but hardly at the start of the article. Surely it would be better to have the illustration of Mary Baker Eddy at the beginning--perhaps swap the illustrations around? What do people think? I don't want to try it myself in case I make a mess of it. Thanks.Be-nice:-) (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. The montage of people is nice, but at first glace makes CS look a bit like a club for celebrities of yesteryear! Alexbrn (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

In that case, assuming there is consensus on this, could some Wikipedia expert do a simple swap of the image of Mary Baker Eddy, with the montage of famous CS people? Both pics are about the same size, so it should not be a problem in logistical terms. (Whatever else CS is, it is not a social club, which the current arrangement of images seems to suggest.)Be-nice:-) (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the CS logo would be a more appropriate first image (the image of MBE heads the article on her). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, no problem. BTW I've no objection to the montage of CS people, in fact it's a good image--maybe it could go elsewhere in the article. (But whatever anyone does, please don't put back that effete image of Jesus that was formerly there!)Be-nice:-) (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

And the MBE pic is a good one, so please leave it in!Be-nice:-) (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Alex, thanks for your work on this. Much better imo89.100.155.6 (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Be-nice:-) (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Mark Twain / Sexual Intercourse

I am reverting Be Nice's two recent additions on these topics. For sex, the addition is relying on a primary (attributed) comment, rather than a preferable secondary; I'm not sure it adds much, and may be more pertinent in any case to MBE than to the view of CS more generally.

On Twain, I think we've established above that Gill's claim that Twain had any sort of "balanced" view of MBE is a contentious one, so I don't think we should be suggesting that kind of balance in the article here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sex: If you're "not sure"it adds much" that's the (not particularly strongly-expressed) view of a single editor. If it did add much, that could be regarded as a mark against it, as it's a primary source. That's a kind of double-bind. In any case, the reason you give is not a valid reason to remove material without first discussing it on the Talk page.

Twain: the point here is that Twain's view was indeed an unbalanced view, not a balanced one. If I were to say of a particular US president (for example) that the individual in question was the greatest president ever, and also that he was a crazy tyrant, that's not a balanced view, it's an unbalanced view. Much as I respect your editing prowess Alex, please don't remove material without discussing it first.Be-nice:-) (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was being English in my choice of words. To be clearer: these edits are bad, in my view. Twain is of course a hostile critic of CS & Eddy - so that's what Wikipedia relays; that is neutral. We shouldn't try and "even things up".

As for my reverting edits, that is fine - even, perhaps, how Wikipedia most often works per WP:BRD. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yet Twain appeared to moderate in his views on CS thereon later. It is improper to aver than anyone has views so cast in stones that they can not moderate them. Collect (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

That's kind of funny on the understatement culture. An amusing bookmark for future reference. (It can be infuriating for non-English people btw.) Well Alex, to "be English" back at you, I'm a little concerned about your removal of my posts. For one thing, Robert Peel in his Life of MBE makes it abundantly clear (or a bit clear if you like) that Mark Twain's view of Mary Baker Eddy was deeply ambivalent (or a little ambivalent if you prefer).Be-nice:-) (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

There seems to have been a move by CS to "reclaim" Twain, but I'm not sure there are any solid sources. There's some content on this in the archive here. Twain (as is related in this article now) was always interested in mental healing, so it seems he believed CS had some basis.

Be-nice — are you aware you inserted into the article the very wording from Gill, of which Fraser said: "she misquotes Twain at the beginning of her book and, without explanation, rearranges his sentences in an attempt to have him seem to endorse her subject". Something more convincing would be needed, I think, ideally something from a Twain biography. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand Val Kilmer is making a film on this very issue, the Eddy/Twain connection. Should be slightly interesting.Be-nice:-) (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

And do you expect a fictional film to be a reliable source for this article? Collect (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Em, no, I didn't say that. It was kind of a by-the-way remark, to indicate that this issue may raise its head again in the media, and consequently the discussion may be of future relevance to the article. And how do you know it's a fictional film, since it's not out yet? (In any case, I don't think films of any kind are usually regarded as reliable sources for Wikipedia, unless perhaps the article is about the film).Be-nice:-) (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Cecil B. De Mille

I can't find anything on Google that connects Cecil B. De Mille with Christian Science. If someone has a citation for this, could they please note it? Otherwise, the reference (and the image) should be removed, in the interests of accuracy of the article.Be-nice:-) (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There is this. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I found:

Cecil B. DeMille, of the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Hollywood, California, who is not himself a Christian Scientist:

Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy is one of the great benefactors of mankind. She has given to the world one of the great religions. She has interpreted the life and teachings of Jesus. [10]

There is little doubt that he was highly sympathetic to CS, but far less tht he was a "member" of it. Collect (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure having a section called "Members" makes a lot of sense. Maybe "Adherents" would be a better title for the section. Christian Science doesn't place much emphasis on whether someone has their name on some church database in Boston or wherever. Christian Science, certainly within its own terms, is more a matter of personal commitment and self-identification. I've met committed Christian Scientists who have (perhaps) never even thought of joining the CS church. Speaking of which, is there room for a section, here or elsewhere, on famous people who have shown a strong interest in Christian Science? These would include George Bernard Shaw (eg his book The Plain Woman's Guide to Capitalism and Socialism) and (perhaps) Albert Einstein: see eg this: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1SePVIC-mFMAGJtzElow5B8K-Wbe9bKo4cj5h3XZLoG8. And there's Mark Twain, of course (both positive and negative response on his part to CS).Be-nice:-) (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I got that Shaw reference wrong. It's called The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism. There are a number of variants on that title. I don't have the book, but I recall that somewhere in it he wonders if Christian Science will take over the world. (Mind you, that was at a time when it was strongly growing in numerical terms. )Also, Aldous Huxley's book Brave New World pictures a future where Henry Ford is worshipped and there is a newspaper called The Fordian Science Monitor.Be-nice:-) (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Christian Science/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 03:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll do a close readthrough of the article, noting any initial issues that I can't easily fix myself, and then go through the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless anybody objects, I'm going to hold off on reviewing this one for a week or so, since the past 24 hours have seen a few content disputes; I'd prefer to let those play out and review the resulting version. Thanks to everybody for their work on this one, it seems to be coming along well. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, as one of the disputants, I'll hold off on involvement in this article/Talk page for a week or two to help it to settle down for review. Thanks for giving your time to this Khazar2.Be-nice:-) (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'd encourage you to work out anything you see as still deficient! I've got no problem waiting till there's consensus on these points. We'll give it a few days in any case. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm OK with the article at the moment, more-or-less.Be-nice:-) (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool, good to hear. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that I haven't forgotten this article, but am still holding off for now, as it looks like we've had a few reverts in the last 24 hours. This article has seen an enormous spike of activity in the past few months (3 of the 5 talk page archives are from just the last six months!) and I'd like to see how stable the current version is. Again, I hope editors will read this note as encouragement to keep working on any issues, not as a request that editing stop! I'm happy to wait. Thanks everybody for your work. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

It looks like this article has indeed reached an island of stability, so I'll start with my review. Since this article has proved more controversial than any GA I've previously undertaken, I'll follow my close read for prose and sourcing issues with an attempt to review issues others have raised on this talk page. I've made minor tweaks to the prose as I went, so please double-check me and feel free to revert anything you disagree with.

Here are some comments on the first half; I'm hoping to get to the second half shortly.

• "Eddy wrote that "God is incorporeal, divine, supreme, infinite Mind, Spirit, Soul, Principle, Life, Truth, Love."" -- since the later footnote cites several passages, it would be helpful to follow this quotation with a more specific footnote citing it more specifically.
• "Christian Scientists believe that this opened up practical possibilities" -- what does "this" refer to here-- God's relationship with humanity, or Christ's proof of this relationship?
• I switched a few instances of "man" to "humanity" to try to use more gender neutral language. However, I assume that the original (and perhaps the current) language of Christian Science was "God and man", so if the other seems more accurate to you, feel free to revert me.
• "David Weddle writes ... " This present-day writing on Eddy is described in the present tense, whereas Stein and Rescher were described in past tense. I think either solution is okay, but this should probably be made consistent.
• Not a GA point, but just wanted to comment that this article makes excellent use of block quotations to give the flavor of Eddy's words as well as the content.
• "thinking whatever would be said were he present" -- would all the practitioners be men? If not, it's probably best to use to the awkward he or she, or to make practitioners plural and use "they".
• "The first church was erected in 1886 in Oconto, Wisconsin" -- this threw me for a moment, since the previous sentence mentions she founded a church seven years earlier. But I assume one is the church as organization and the second as building? I wonder if it would help to say "first church building" to clarify that for other easily confused readers like myself.
• "The church boasts one of the world's largest pipe organs, built by the Aeolian-Skinner Company of Boston." -- as a superlative claim, this should probably have a citation
• "A project is currently under way " -- It would be helpful to add an "as of" here instead of currently, per WP:REALTIME
• "individuals claiming to have been healed through Christian Science prayer" -- how about stating instead of claiming here, per WP:WTA -- Khazar2 (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments on "Reception" section:

• " Pamela Klassen wrote that " -- again flipping to the past tense for a modern-day commentator. It's probably worth making it more explicit in-text that Klassen is writing in 2009, also, since the paragraph is about other commentators on CS.
• "gigantic heresy," -- is this comma in the original quotation? If not, it should be moved out of the quotation marks per MOS:LQ.

My impression on my first readthrough is that this is a solid and well-written article: clear, concise, and well sourced, with no immediately obvious neutrality problems. Thanks to everybody who worked to get it to this point. As a next step, I'll take a look at some of the supporting sources and other discussions on this page to check for completeness and neutrality. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've addressed all the points you raised above, except three. (1) The article doesn't use LQ because it looks awful (in my view), is rarely used by publishers, and it means having to find the original quote, which is unnecessary work. (2) I haven't yet gone through and ironed out that we sometimes say "she writes" and sometimes "she wrote," but I will do that, and add dates when appropriate (she wrote in 2009, etc). And (3) the whole pipe-organ paragraph is unsourced, so I'm inclined to remove it; it's detailed information about a church building, rather than about Christian Science itself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. MOS:LQ is a guideline but not among the GA criteria, so it's not an issue here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the writes/wrote issue, and removed the unsourced pipe-organ paragraph. I've also fixed a couple of refs that weren't formatted consistently, and moved the paragraph about church services into the sub-section about the church, rather than placing it with the members. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I think the only remaining issues are those I noted in the checklist below. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed the image of Gray, and replaced the one of Crawford with one of Val Kilmer. The Asser/Swan and Sugerman source issue is resolved. The only remaining issue is that I'd like to restore the sentence "The avoidance of vaccination has been another issue" (or words to that effect) to introduce the paragraph about vaccination. I'm just waiting for Collect to respond on talk. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Khazar, if you don't mind I'd like to restore United States throughout, rather than US. Seeing US in a list with United Kingdom, for example, doesn't look quite right. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't mind at all. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Just to let you know that I've added a new version of the vaccination paragraph that doesn't rely on the Swan/Asser or Sugarman papers that Collect objected to. I've referred to another paper by Swan in a footnote, because the secondary source I used (Fraser 1999) relies on it, but it's a different paper that is specifically about Christian Science. Collect objected to the Swan/Asser paper because (I believe) it was about religions other than Christian Science too.

No response yet from Collect, but so far as I know nothing in the paragraph is contentious (i.e. I believe the facts are not in dispute), so I'm hoping it will be okay. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Where Fraser is the source, Fraser's words seem not to comport with the claim made, so I used a direct quote from that source. I am concerned about the use of "3" which is a "statistically small number with a very high statistical standard deviation" being cited as evidence of a very high death rate - the source does not say that - it only says the number is being investigated. Collect (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The CDC says what my edit says: "The very high apparent death-to-case ratio (2.3%) is unusual in the United States, which usually has a reported death-to-case ratio of 0.1% or lower." You seem not to want to use the CDC as a source; you even removed it in an earlier edit. But it's a good source for this point.

Your latest edit. There is no need to quote Fraser for such an obviously true point. It now looks as though only Fraser says it. What she says is: "The public image of the church was also damaged by a number of outbreaks of infectious diseases at its schools and camps (many Scientists decline to have their children vaccinated)." This is not in any way contentious; I can find scores of sources for it if you want. I first summarized that as "The avoidance of vaccination has been another issue" back in January before you nominated it for GA, so I don't know why it has suddenly become an issue. When you objected, I swapped the source to Fraser 1999, and changed it to "The avoidance of vaccination has been another issue that has caused public concern." But it doesn't need a source or quotation marks or in-text attribution, and in fact looks strange now. It is "the sky is blue."

And to say that "affected" does not mean "infected" is just odd. How else do you imagine they were affected if not by catching the disease? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I've reported what Fraser said – without quotation marks as though there's something unique about the words. And I've added quotes in the footnotes from the CDC, Fraser and the Associated Press to make it clear that people were infected, not affected in some other way. Hopefully these quotations can be removed at a later date, because they're not necessary, but for now they're there to show that "affected" means "infected":

Fraser writes that the church's image has also been damaged by outbreaks of infectious diseases at its schools and camps. Many Christian Scientists do not have their children vaccinated, and are less likely to self-report illness to physicians, so infection may remain undetected. In 1972 128 students at a Christian Science school in Greenwich, Connecticut, contracted polio and four were left partially paralyzed. In 1982 a nine-year-old girl died of diptheria after attending a Christian Science camp in Colorado. In 1985 128 people were infected with measles at Principia College, a Christian Science school in Elsah, Illinois, and three died. The death-to-case ratio was 2.3 percent; the usual rate in the United States is 0.1 percent or lower. In 1994 190 people in six states were infected with measles spread by a child from a Christian Science family in Elsah, after she was exposed to it on a skiing holiday in Colorado.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Further comments

• Most of the other neutrality debates on the page appear dormant or resolved, but if there are any I'm missing, feel free to bring them to my attention.
• The studies of increased morbidity among Christian Scientists seem worth including; these appear to be peer-reviewed articles on a relevant topic for this article.[11] Is there a reason these were cut?
• Be Nice raises an interesting question as to whether the child deaths section may be a little long, but my personal opinion is that the length of this section is reasonable--this was a major national controversy that lasted for some time, has numerous reliable sources, and includes some significant religious-rights/parental-responsibility court cases. (I'd even venture to say that for a generation of Americans like myself, these cases are--fairly or unfairly--what the religion is best known for.) Anyway, five paragraphs on this issue doesn't seem to me to violate neutrality to a level that concerns the GA review, but of course I'll be guided by consensus if others disagree. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The "increased morbidity" included Amish et al and did not further separate the statistics (other than having 16% of the cases related to CS) - making tham problematic, alas. We also have no stats on overall increased morbidity on CS believers. Did anyone find actual "life expectancy" data at all? I also removed the names of children as not being of actual encyclopedic value here. And the "vaccination" claim which did not directly connect to CS is a problem - we nly really have the polio and measles anecdotes. I think this overall improves this article a hair. Collect (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. I suppose my own preference as an editor would be to give a sentence to this. But looking more closely--and realizing the CDC and JAMA are both talking about the same study here--it certainly doesn't fall under a "broad aspect" that needs to be covered to meet the GA criteria. A check of Google Scholar doesn't immediately turn up additional literature. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The only study I found is one for Principia College -- but it is barely more reliable than anecdotal for life expectancy - it found CS to have double the cancer mortality rate, but in too small a sample for statistical purposes, and too small a sample to account for other factors. The only area which is of concern is childhood disease, but with that church changing its rules, it seems contrary to logic to focus too highly on past practice now. Collect (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Khazar, the section on morbidity/mortality study was based on a primary source and it seemed weak. For example, the study compared meat-eaters to vegetarians; the latter would be expected to have less chronic disease because of diet, not because of other religious practices. Ideally we would need secondary sources (review articles) before adding a section like that. See discussion here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. Definitely not an issue for the GA review in any case. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is clear and excellent; spotchecks show no sign of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	All issues appear to be resolved.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Early gray.jpg and File:JoanCrawfordByYousufKarsh.jpg are copyrighted and lack fair-use rationales for this article. Since these subjects are of only minor interest to this article, these images should probably be removed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

On hold till 2/17

I think this is ready to go as a GA in all other respects (though I do want to re-read it now that it's been revised), but it concerns me that three weeks into this process, the article is still seeing content disagreements and reverts between its two most prolific recent contributors. I'd like to give it another ten days to see if it can reach a reasonably stable version, and see where we're at then.

As before, I don't at all want this review to pressure anyone into a hasty or suboptimal resolution to these legitimate content issues, and I realize that an article with a topic this controversial and popular will always be in flux to some degree. But I do want to be sure that immediate concerns about accuracy and neutrality have been resolved, and that the article's not going back and forth daily. Hope that sounds fair to everybody. Again, thanks to all concerned for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Haven't forgotten this one, just have a sick kiddo and haven't been doing any real editing the past few days. Will get to this tomorrow probably. Thanks all for your patience. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

All right, I've done a readthrough of the new draft and all looks good; the talk page controversies also seem to have died down to reasonable levels. Thanks everybody for your work during this long review process! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Medical Criticism

Alex, in relation to the Twitchell case, you have changed "The conviction was later reversed" to "Their conviction was later overturned on a technicality." I don't think the latter wording is a fair reflection of the situation: the couple were found to have acted in good faith in the context of circumstances outlined here: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/416/416mass114.html. In any case, "overturned on a technicality" is both tendentious and tautologous. (All legal decisions are technical in nature.) Rather than getting into an edit war on this, can we agree on a fair wording? I'll leave it up to you to review the source info and come up with a fairer formulation.Be-nice:-) (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Content selectively being removed.

I see that mentions of vaccination have been removed down to a single line from [12] to the current article. I see the content on increased morbidity has been removed. The well sourced content that she was infleunced by Quimby has been removed (Christian Scientists don't accept the actual history) [13]. All mention of Christian Science being made to look like science has been removed (possibly due to a misunderstanding that in the 19th century "science" meant the general search for knowledge, which was not the case in 1872). The mainstream viewpoint is being watered down and removed. Compare what was there: [14] to what is now there at Christian_Science#Health_and_healing. A positive spin has been put on that section by going back to primary sources again (S&H), and by overly relying on the nytimes, while discarding academic sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Contrariwise, the article is far more balanced now than it has ever been. The issue of changes over time to CS are now addressed, and the use of pejoratives have been removed. Material abiut deaths is clearly given, and given due weight per WP:CONSENSUS. I would like to note that "Christian Scientists don't accept the actual history" would appear, on its face, to be a POV claim ab initio. As for the importance of Quimby - that is an editorial decision, not a POV decision. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess from your perspective of having not looked at the academic sources it would seem like I'm asserting it ab initio. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is now in much better shape than it was a few weeks ago. The evolution of the article in its present form, including sources cited, has resulted from consensus editing. (BTW, I don't know what "actual history" means and neither would any contemporary historian, or philosopher of history for that matter.)Be-nice:-) (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh please. Is this some sort of "everyone's version of history is equally valid" crap? What practitioners claim happened with the history is completely different what the reliable sources say; mostly because it's unflattering. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Collect is not interested in any reliable sources. See the talk page on the Christian Science article, he claims every reference I have listed breaks "NPOV", but the references I listed were written by reliable scholars such as Timothy Miller and Catherine Wessinger etc. SlimVirgin seems to have got the message and this user is now using some of the references I put on the talk page but this user seem to think they "own" the article, and any edit I or others make they revert, so I am just watching and we will see how their new edits go. Fodor Fan (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Kindly note the actual talk age discussions where I note that making a long list of critical articles without any balance at all does seem to be a WP:NPOV problem. The talk page discussion, moreover, makes clear that I exert no "ownership" of an article which I have very few edits on. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV for you means to exclude anything critical of Christian Science. It just happens that the so called "critical" sources are the reliable ones published by scholars or in scientific papers, take a hint Christian Science is nutty fraud, why? Becuase that is what the sources say! Find me a single reference published outside of the Christian Science Church that is supportive of Christian Science? The 90% of references will be critical of Christian Science, there is no reason for a "balance" when the 10% are Christian Science sources published by Christian Science publishers. You are confused about WP:NPOV, with your logic every pseudoscientific article on wikipedia would be supported without any criticism, but if you look round you will see this is not the case, we don't need to balance articles when the majority of sources are against a specific subject. If the reliable sources say Christian Science is nutty fraud and filled with criticisms then that is what should be put on the article, not the nonsense claims from the tiny minority of CS sources... Infact there is no problem in using some CS sources (many are on the article) but to argue for a balance is just totally wrong.

If there are a million reliable sources against Christian Science and only ten in favour of it, are you really going to argue for a "balance"? :) Fodor Fan (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

OK -- if we postulate that CS is a "nutty fraud" as you aver from your own personal knowledge, we still have to follow WP:NPOV. I know this rankles crusaders agains "nutty frauds" but that is what Wikipedia is based on. When one editor comes up with twenty sources uniformly critical of a religion, and we have substantial sources from followers of that religion, we can not give excess weight to the critics. Else 99% of all religion articles would be filled with criticism of them as utter heresies as seen by all the other religions. Thus we neutrally pose the tenets of a religion, and list a few of the primary criticisms thereof. We do not list the thousands of books highly critical of Muhammed (for example) as a person in the article on Islam for very good reasons. What we do is present each side in some sort of balance. NPOV is not the same as "we state the absolute truth because we know what the truth is" it means we state what is stated on each side of an issue in reasonable balance for major views. Collect (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No you are utterly wrong that we try and balance views as equal. We don't try and pretend that creationism is equal to evolution for example. Or that global warming denialists have an equally valid point to the climate scientists. What we do is describe them neutrally, but that does not mean we give them extra credibility where it's not due. You admitted that you are not assigning weight to points made by the majority of sources because you mistakenly believe that wikipedia treats two opposing views as equally valid. The only time we aim for balance is when the reliable sources are divided WP:BALANCE: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." What you are doing is rejecting the secondary and tertiary academic sources in the name of what you perceive to be balance. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• I retract my previous comment about SlimVirgin, I thought we were making some progress but clearly not, this user yet again has deleted an edit I made and anyone elses edits. This user seems to think they own the article, they deserve a topic ban. Fodor Fan (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The aim is to use WP:CONSENSUS to make a "Good article". If your desire is to make the WP:TRUTH be in the article, I rather think you are in the wrong place - that is not how Wikipedia works. As for topic bans - generally the person who is never accepting of consensus and compromise is the one banned. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

My aim was to go with what the reliable sources say collect, but no matter how many times you are told this, you don't seem to get it, and keep spouting nonsense. We will just let the Christian scientist SlimVirgin delete all the criticism and conclude Christian Science is valid on the article then! Indeed that is what this user has been doing, and they revert anyone elses edits. You got what you wanted. I am not wasting anymore time on this. Fodor Fan (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

AFAICT, SV is not a Christian Scientist, nor am I one. Enjoy editing elsewhere if you are leaving - I think the article is worthy of the GA seal now. Collect (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Collect, since you have based your edits on your own personal reasoning (such as claiming that science didn't mean natural science in the 1870's), you don't really have a leg to stand on complaining about others wanting what the academic sources say to be in the article (which you have removed in favour of the new york times). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The bit about "science" being used in a different context in the 1870s was from a reliable source - I do not have any personal experience of the 1870s, really, nor do I make assertions not found in reliable sources. My edits on the article have been based on Wikipedia policy only, and not on any personal biases whatsoever, and I regret your attempt to personalize this discussion. It does not appear to be of any utile value whatsoever. [15] shows some of the still-current disparate definitions of "science". [16] states the changes over time - including discourse on the meaning of "science" in the Constitution (also found in law books if you really wish to discuss this in depth)

At the Framing of the Constitution, ―science‖ meant a system of knowledge that comprises distinct branches of study or categories of knowledge. ...

1 WILLIAM F. PATRY, COPYRIGHT LAW AND PRACTICE 123 (1994) (―The term ‗science‘ as used in the Constitution refers to the eighteenth-century concept of learning and knowledge.‖); L. RAY PATTERSON & STANLEY W. LINDBERG, THE NATURE OF COPYRIGHT: A LAW OF USERS‘ RIGHTS 48 (1991) (―[T]he word science retains its eighteenth-century meaning of ‗knowledge or learning.‘‖); WALTERSCHEID, supra note 1, at 125 (―The use of the term ‗science‘ [in the Copyright Clause] is straightforwardly explained by the fact that in the latter part of the eighteenth century ‗science‘ was synonymous with ‗knowledge‘ and ‗learning.‖‘); Oliar, supra note 1, at 1809 (―[T]he eighteenth century meaning of ‗science‘ was close to the meaning of ‗knowledge.‘‖); Solum, supra note 1, at 47-56 (analyzing meaning of science at time of Framing); Malla Pollack, Dealing with Old Father William, or Moving from Constitutional Text to Constitutional Doctrine: Progress Clause Review of the Copyright Term Extension Act, 36 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 337, 376 (2002) (―‗Science‘ means ‗knowledge‘ in an anachronistically broad sense.‖); NEIL WEINSTOCK NETANEL, COPYRIGHT'S PARADOX 106 (describing the overriding purpose of promoting the ―progress of science‖ as broadly understood to include all products of the mind‖) (2008). For a discussion of judicial instances of construing science to mean general knowledge see discussion infra Part II.C.2 and infra notes 15 and 226.

I trust this indicates that it is not my "personal belief" that the word has had different meanings over time, or that I would give "personal beliefs" as a reaon for edits on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Small history lesson. The US constitution was written nearly 100 years before Christian Science came about. Secondly, Why are you relying on a pdf on the J. Reuben Clark Law society page by this guy [17]? Why are you looking at what a professor of law thinks about the US constitution rather than a relevant historical researcher? But since you did it, ok now I'll show you your cherry pick: "Modern courts and commentators teach that science at the time of the Framing meant general knowledge. ... But this teaching is entirely mistaken. All evidence indicates that the modern interpretation of the original meaning of science is anachronistically incorrect. The evidence suggests that neither the Framers nor the public of that time would have ever intended such a broad, and for all practical purposes meaningless, meaning of science." Your very source dismisses your own definition. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Hello there; I've given this page a look through and have some thoughts. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• There is no mention, or link, to Christianity in the lead; I know that the term "Christian" is in the title, but nevertheless, I believe that it should be in there.
• I think we need to make it clearer that Baker was an American and that the religion was founded in the U.S. in the introduction.

We should clearly indicate that she was an American, but the "Christianity" bit is difficult - CS does not conform to usual definitions of Christianity, and the use of "Christ" as shown by the name of the church "Church of Christ, Scientist" indicates clearly that she is using the name "Christ" to denote a specific person she calls a "scientist" (old meaning of the word) and not that she considers that person or anyone to be a "Messiah" nor that she accepts any fundamental Christian tenets (not even accepting a death by crucifixion as a renet). So yes to "American" and no to "Christianity". Collect (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"technicality"

Where a source states what the "technicality" is in a case, it is reasonable to make clear what it was - in the Twitchell case, it was the denial of a reasonable defense in the first trial. To too many, "technicality" conjures an image of "trivial problem" while the inability to make a defense is frequently a "major issue." Collect (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The LA Times chose to summarize the reversal as being "on a narrow point of law", which is fairly re-expressed as a "technicality". I don't see the words "major issue" in their article, nor do I see it saying the defense "wasn't allowed" to present their argument - just that it wasn't presented, as confirmed by this source. So, you've got some OR (and a spelling error) in your edit that need correction. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sic-ing is irrelevant. The point is that I sought to represent what the LA Times stated in a neutral manner. The argument was not presented to the jury - and the usual reason for that is that the court decides which arguments may be presented to the jury. The appeal clearly said that it was a reasonable argument - appellate courts do not decide to propose defenses sua sponte. The CSM article on the appeal said In his appeal of the conviction, lawyer Steven Umin also contended to the seven justices on the state's Supreme Judicial Court that, even if the prosecution of the Twitchells were authorized, rulings by the trial judge violated the couple's constitutional rights to due process and to freedom from state interference in religion which appears to conform with what I think is a reasonable and neutral wording of the LAT article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

What the lawyer's contention "appears to confirm" in your view is ... your view. The source doesn't say it, and this reliable source contradicts it: "the Twitchells had not presented an affirmative defense because they had relied upon the interpretation of the Massachusetts law concerning 'spiritual treatment' as satisfying their parental obligation not to neglect a child and to provide a child with physical care" (my emphasis). That presumably is why the LA Times called it "a narrow point of law". How is your OR more neutral than a presentation of what the source actually says? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Alex, the text you give is an abstract. Here is the full text: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/416/416mass114.htmlBe-nice:-) (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Collect and Alex: this is the key issue as I read it (quote from p. 127 of the above): "It is obvious that the Christian Science Church's publication on the legal rights and obligations of Christian Scientists in Massachusetts relied on the Attorney General's 1975 opinion. That opinion was arguably misleading because of what it did not say concerning criminal liability for manslaughter. If the Attorney General had issued a caveat concerning manslaughter liability, the publication (which, based on such portions of it as appear in the record, is balanced and fair) would have referred to it in all reasonable likelihood." It seems clear from that this the issue is more than a technicality, or what would be commonly understood as a technicality (eg the prosecution getting a date wrong in the paperwork, or the like of that). Let's be fair on this.Be-nice:-) (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a different text, but it makes the same point: "The Twitchells were entitled to present such an affirmative defense to the jury. We can hardly fault the judge for not doing so because the defense did not make such an argument or request a jury instruction on that defense." Nothing about "not allowed" there. A fuller commentary on this can be found in Friedelbaum, Stanley H. "Free exercise in the states: belief, conduct, and judicial benchmarks." Albany Law Review Summer 2000: 1059. 19 Jan. 2013.

The basis of the court's reversal of the judgments below and its remand for a new trial was related only peripherally to an affirmation of the spiritual treatment provision. Apart from what was said to be a misconstrued official statement of the law, the spiritual treatment defense would have failed.(265) The court accepted pleas of special circumstances that had not been presented for the jury's consideration.(266) It appeared that the couple had relied on advice furnished in a religious publication, the origins of which allegedly lay in the Massachusetts Attorney General's opinion suggesting that the spiritual treatment provision obviated any fears of criminal prosecution.(267) Therefore, the couple had an affirmative defense that had not been presented to the jury.(268) Its absence carried a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice; consequently, the court reversed the judgments and set aside the verdicts.(269) The dissent objected to the reversal, stating that the court was "improperly straining" to effect the result announced.(270) Contrary to the majority's opinion, the dissent found that the exclusion of the church's publication was not error since the publication did not provide competent evidence concerning the manslaughter issue.(271)

Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I.e. the defendants' claim, rejected by the trial judge seems to indicate that the "trial judge" "rejected" the "defendants' claim" -- seems to indicate that the "trial judge" was the one who prevented a "claim" from being presented to the jury. Unless you can conscionably come up with a different interpretation of what the court said? The LATimes article did, indeed, state that it was this prevention which was the matter on which the appeal was decided. What the Commonwelath wished the court to state: The Commonwealth asks us to eliminate any application of the spiritual treatment provision to this case by holding that the spiritual treatment provision is unconstitutional. I.e. not a "technicality" at all if the Commonwealth recognized that the current law did not back their position. I find there is substantial justification for treating as a defense the belief that conduct is not a violation of law when a defendant has reasonably relied on an official statement of the law, later determined to be wrong, contained in an official interpretation of the public official who is charged by law with the responsibility for the interpretation or enforcement of the law defining the offense to go far past saying that the ruling was only on a "technicality" to be sure. And the failure to present the affirmative defense to the jury, along with the relevant portion of the church's publication which the judge excluded, created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice requiring that we reverse the convictions makes further clear that the cause of the reversal included the specific rulings of the trial judge to exclude any basis for a defense argument based on the Attorney-General's statements. Cheers. Way too much information for me to read through <g>. BTW, I consider excluded to be the same as not allowed. Your mileage may vary. Collect (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, your "seems to indicate" and your "I find" is OR. I don't want to "come up with an interpretation", but to report sources accurately. Why not upgrade our source to a peer-reviewed journal?

Ginger and David were convicted of manslaughter in 1990. In 1993 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overturned the conviction on a technicality but also ruled that parents had a legal duty to provide necessary medical care for their children regardless of their religious beliefs.

The latter part of the second sentence there would seem to be important too. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

And how the hell else would you manage to interpret the defendants' claim, rejected by the trial judge that that the defendants made a claim which was rejected by the trial judge? Really? And you somehow think "The Humanist" is a "peer-reviewed journal"? Really? I hate to point out the obvious - but it is a specifically anti-religion group. "Peer-reviewed journal" it ain;t. Collect (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The judge rejected the claim that they were protected from prosecution for manslaughter (and, in law, he was right); the defense missed a trick by not counter-claiming that the Twitchells "reasonably believed" that they were immune. Thus this argument was not presented, and this could have affected the outcome of the trial. That, at any rate, is my reading. As to The Humanist, it is not I who categorize it as peer-reviewed, it is HighBeam. Anyway, all this is moot as SlimVirgin has now edited the article to align the wording nicely with the sources used. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I tried to make a longer post, but lost it due to an edit conflict :-( Anyway, here's the gist. My thesaurus doesn't give "technical" or "technicality" as a substitute word for "narrow." So that's an inaccurate paraphrase of the newspaper article. Since that is the only source remaining after the others were removed, the text should accurately reflect it. So it should say something like "a strict/precise legal issue" or else give a direct quote from the article referred to.Be-nice:-) (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've changed this to: "The conviction was overturned in 1993 on a point of law; the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the couple had "reasonably believed," based on a church publication they had read, that they could rely on Christian healing without being prosecuted, an argument that had not been presented to the jury." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That's better, though note this quote (p. 127 of source below), which makes it clear that the fault does not lie with the church publication: "It is obvious that the Christian Science Church's publication on the legal rights and obligations of Christian Scientists in Massachusetts relied on the Attorney General's 1975 opinion. That opinion was arguably misleading because of what it did not say concerning criminal liability for manslaughter. If the Attorney General had issued a caveat concerning manslaughter liability, the publication (which, based on such portions of it as appear in the record, is balanced and fair) would have referred to it in all reasonable likelihood." http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/416/416mass114.htmlBe-nice:-) (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

(Off topic)Well, if the publication relayed some ambiguously stated opinion as if it were solid legal advice, then surely the publication is entirely to blame!? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a matter of opinion. I for one would disagree. Anyway I'm reasonably happy with SlimVirgin's fix.Be-nice:-) (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Mark Twain

Hi Alex, I restored a few sentences and some refs to the Mark Twain section, including that he wrote Christian Science. It now reads:

The writer Mark Twain (1835–1910) was an early critic. In 1907 he collected several critical articles he had written and published them as a book, Christian Science. Twain believed that mind could influence matter to some degree, but nevertheless took strong exception to the writings of Eddy, calling them "incomprehensible and uninterpretable." He was particularly incensed by the thought that Eddy was using Christian Science to accrue wealth and power for herself. His fear that she could gain great power as a religious figurehead was later the basis of his unfinished satirical work, The Secret History of Eddypus, the World Empire.

Hope that's okay. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine by me, the only reason for slimming this down was that this content is (now) in the Christian Science (essay) article, and I was wary of too much duplication. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I didn't see that. Just for future reference, if we copy word for word, we're supposed to say so in the edit summary (copied from article X). The reason I restored some of it is that, as it stood, we linked to Christian Science without explaining that he had written it. It also needed fleshing out a bit, I think. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Neighbours

I've removed "Gillian Gill writes that her neighbors believed her sudden recovery to be a near-miracle." I can't find it in the source (if anyone has a page number, that would help), unless it's the reference to the neighbours we already mention, who thought she was paralyzed. I'm not sure, even if it's in the source, that it's worth saying that they thought her recovery was a miracle, because they weren't in a position to know whether she was paralyzed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's not worth including in the article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be left in. Here is the source: "Various Lynn and Swampscott neighbours testified that everyone at the time had been convinced that Mrs. Patterson [aka Mary Baker Eddy] had done great damage to her spine, and those familiar with her injuries regarded her sudden ability to rise from bed and walk out of the sick room as next to miraculous." Gill, p. 164, parag. 3, as given already in the reference to the text. (That's my "undo" of your change under the IP number--I neglected to log in, apologies.)Be-nice:-) (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"those familiar with her injuries" is a wonderfully slippery phrase. Gill again, I see. Is it only Gill claiming this? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the page reference. The problem is that those people weren't in a position to be familiar with her injuries. We already say two neighbours believe she was paralyzed. That isn't strengthened by saying that 10 did, or 1,000 did. Gill concludes (on the same page) that there is no doubt that Eddy revised her account of the fall. That's the key point, no matter what the neighbours believed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Be nice, when you're removing or restoring something you disagree with, could you try to avoid reverting any other changes made at the same time (unless you intend to)? Your recent edit removed what the doctor said, the change from probably to possibly (it is only Gill's speculation), and the fix of the page references, as well as the neighbour issue. [18] I've restored the material and removed neighbours again, as it really does seem inappropriate, unless we mention the context – which was that the church, years after the fact, was going around looking for witnesses to counter what the doctor was saying. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. And I'm glad to see a homeopath being treated as a reliable source ;-) (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy.) NB Mary Baker Eddy had considerable respect for homeopathy, regarding it as a step along the way to the complete "mentalization" characteristic of Christian Science healing.Be-nice:-) (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

To take my point a bit further, she either underwent divine healing (her own view) or responded to homeopathy (the homeopathic doctor's view). Given that neither homeopathy nor divine healing are regarded as legitimate healing methods by the mainstream, which are we to believe it was?Be-nice:-) (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

... she obviously faked (and/or imagined) the whole thing. Occam is your friend. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Be nice, the third option is that she wasn't as sick as she may have believed; or that she never believed she was very sick in the first place. That's Gill's position, that this was myth making. Gill wants to argue that it was not straightforward deceit, but she doesn't deny that it was the creation of a myth. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, right..."Assume good faith" and all that...:-/Be-nice:-) (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Vaccination according to Eddy--and criticism of Christian Science generally

An Eddy quote about vaccination is lacking from the article--vaccination being a subject that was danced around ad nauseum.

It is easily resolved.

From Miscellaneous Writings Page 220. http://www.mbeinstitute.org/Prose_Works/Miscellany_PartThree.html

"Rather than quarrel over vaccination, I recommend, if the law demand, that an individual submit to this process, that he obey the law, and then appeal to the gospel to save him from bad physical results."

Eddy specifically uses the word "physical"--a material/matter/error word that is alien to the "God" construct of Christian Science belief--and then says go ahead anyway, get vaccinated according to the law, and pray for the physical result.

REMEDIES FOR ARTICLE.

(1) ADD EDDY QUOTE ABOUT VACCINATIONS.

- see above.

(2) ADDRESS THE LOGIC OF HER "PHYSICAL RESULTS" CONCERNS: IATROGENICS.

- add this Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenics

What say?

If this is so hot a topic, then maybe there is a need to create a criticism article outside an explication of Christian Science beliefs and organization?

See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centamia (talk • contribs) 10:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC) ````centamia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centamia (talk • contribs) 10:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

We generally want to avoid quoting primary sources, especially in MBE's case where she said a lot of seemingly contradictory things. In my view a "criticism of" article would be a WP:POVFORK – Catholicism is a rare special case since there is so much critical material it genuinely merits a separate article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Alxexbrn: Your concerns are good ones. However . . .

1) Vaccination Quote Can Be Cross-Validated.

There are two published church documents. (1) Original Eddy's primary quote and (2) replication verbatim in "The Story of the Christian Science Wartime Activities 1939-1946", p.98. It is within bounds.

2) Forking For Religious Controversies Is Common, Not Rare.

It is quite common to fork for controversies regarding religious organizations--far from rare as you would suggest.

LSD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

Jehovah's Witnesses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses

Seventh Day Adventist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Seventh-day_Adventist_Church

Scientology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies

HOWEVER, if a fork is not desired, then a section addressing controversies and criticisms is a common solution. The French Wikipedia article follows this approach--an article that could be a model for the one at hand.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science

Centamia (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If the Eddy quotation is mentioned in a good source with some interpretation, then that would be potentially useful. However we would need to be careful not to imply this described the CS view since other sources state otherwise. At the moment we have a very high quality source (Sugerman et al.) backing the immunization text; the book you mention is published by Christian Science Publishing, and so a poor source.

Those other controversial articles you list are also rare special cases: huge articles (the Jehova's witnesses criticism article has 300 citations!) This article by comparison is compact, and I don't see any need for a split.

A criticism section would also be bad for the reasons given in WP:CRITS. Personally, I think the current text interweaves description and commentary nicely. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)