Talk:Christian Science/Archive 6

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Relationship with medicine

The article currently contains a number of statements from Vitello's 2010 NY Times article. However, after that article was published the church published a response saying it contained "numerous errors"[1].

I'm not certain what the best way to include details from the church's response is. However, I think it is important to note that the church itself disagrees with the characterization of its activities as reported by Vitello. I've added a sentence in the "Children's rights, relationship with medicine" section although it could possibly be improved. I think that the lead should also be updated but I want to get consensus on the wording before making a change to the lead because I know it's been heavily debated recently and that we want to keep it concise. Also I wasn't sure exactly how to create the reference for the church press release. At the moment I just have a link in the reference.Wikiuser1239 (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the reference in the lead to current views about medicine, because it seems there are different factions within the church with different views. It's therefore probably best not to mention it in the lead, than to go into detail. What you added to the body of the article seems fine. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Quimby manuscript

Is there a source for the statement: In 1870 she charged $100, and later $300, for a three-week, 12-lecture course, using Quimby's unpublished manuscript (which she called "The Science of Man") as a textbook. other than the Milmine article? The article currently says:

In 1870 she charged $100, and later $300, for a three-week, 12-lecture course, using Quimby's unpublished manuscript (which she called "The Science of Man") as a textbook.

Without noting that the Quimby manuscript claim is disputed. For example see: [2] or [3]. I don't have Gill's biography of Eddy with me right now so I can't check to see what her conclusion on this topic was. I skimmed through some of the recent achieved talk pages to see if this had been discussed and did not see anything. But there has been a lot of discussion on this topic in the past 6 months and I have not read all of it. Anyway if I find a better source I'll probably change this line, but I wanted to raise the issue in case anyone else has commented on it before or if there was any past consensus. To be clear the point that I'm challenging is the claim that Eddy had a Quimby manuscript not that she taught a class. Additionally I'm questioning the reliability of the Milmine article and asking what sources would be acceptable to refute or at least balance its claims.Wikiuser1239 (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm reading through the article sequentially and I see now that there is a whole section about the Quimby manuscript [4] debate. I think it's appropriate to include some of this material in the Science and Health Section[5] rather than just quoting Milmine as though the use of the Quimby manuscript is not disputed. Anyone familiar with the details is likely to question that statement and it's better to present both sides of a disputed point.Wikiuser1239 (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anyone disputing that she had access to Quimby's work, unless I've misunderstood your point. Milmine is a reliable source, and I think everyone outside the church agrees that she took her ideas from Quimby. People might argue about whether her reliance on him technically rises to the level of plagiarism, but that's a separate issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

See cite note 81 from the article[6] for more detail. It quotes Eddy as saying: Eddy wrote in 1891 of her pamphlet, The Science of Man (copyrighted in 1870), that it was "hopelessly original," . . . "I taught the Science of Mind-healing, alias Christian Science, by writing out my manuscripts for students and distributing them unsparingly." While no one disputes that Eddy was influenced by Quimby, the claim that she received any written manuscript from him is very much disputed. So it's misleading to repeat the Milmine statement as though it is settled fact when it is actually a controversial claim that many people believe is inaccurate (namely the claim that Eddy used Quimby's manuscript for her early classes).Wikiuser1239 (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Gill's biography address the controversy about the Quimby manuscript in pages 138-146. Gill's conclusion is that Quimby was nearly illiterate and could not have produced a manuscript. Regardless the discussion about the Quimby manuscript is valid. However, it's probably best to leave it in it's current section, and in the earlier section not specify the authorship of the manuscript.Wikiuser1239 (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Gill writes that Quimby was barely literate, but writings of his did exist, although according to Gill they were probably written down by others: he would write or dictate something, others would fix it or write it down, he would check what they had produced. At some point before 1870 some these writings were acquired by Eddy, one of Quimby's students. Eddy says that her 1870 The Science of Man was "hopelessly original," but that really doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Next Friends suit and cult?

Why is the following paragraph about cults in the Next Friends suit section?

Christian Science was still listed as a cult in the 2003 edition of Walter Ralston Martin's (1928–1989) religious reference book, The Kingdom of the Cults, first published in 1965, but for the most part the criticism diminished in the years immediately following Eddy's death in 1910, and the movement became more mainstream. The Nation wrote in 1923 that Christian Science was "popular, powerful and almost conservative now."[145]

I saw from looking at the talk archives that there are at least some editors who seem insistent on labeling Christian Science as a cult and on presenting that view in the article. I don't know enough about cult classification to know if this view should be represented in the article or not, but in either case even if that information belongs it should not be in this section. I will probably remove it later unless someone gives a reason as to why it should stay. But since it might be a controversial edit I wanted to raise my objections first and give editors a chance to respond if there is a reason to keep this paragraph here or if they want to move it elsewhere.Wikiuser1239 (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's there to illustrate that, although for the most part the criticism that Christian Science is a cult – which was the dominant view of it – began to diminish after Eddy's death, it remains a view that's expressed in, for example, The Kingdom of the Cults. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm removing this paragraph for the following two reasons:

1) If Christian Science is or has been classified as a cult this is unrelated to the Next Friends suit. So if information about Christian Science as a cult is to appear in this article it should be in a different section.

2) I don't think that WP:NPOV supports including this information. In particular the role of Balance argues against it. I have not read The Kingdom of the Cults, but I looked at the contents online and it lists Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, and Scientology. However, the Wikipedia articles on Mormonism and Scientology do not say anything about these religions being a cult. For Scientology it does, but there is a large amount of material published about Scientology being a cult. A Google search for "Mormon cult" yields 2,700,000 results. A Google search for "Christian Science" cult yields 1,630,000. I'm not saying either one is or is not a cult, my point with the Google search results is that if someone wants to find a source that says a non-mainstream religion is a cult they can do so. However, things like Mitt Romney running for president indicate that Mormons are largely accepted in mainstream society, even if they hold minority views. Likewise I think that things like the Christian Science Monitor show that Christian Science as a religion is largely accepted, even though some of its practices are viewed as weird. If someone wants to add information about Christian Science being a cult I think it should go in its own section along with an examination of the claim. But I would also like an explanation of why the Mormon and Jehovah's Witnesses articles don't have cult information and how they differ from Christian Science regarding classification as a cult.Wikiuser1239 (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The material might be better placed, but it has a place in this article as it's notable and pertinent. Balance requires us to report what sources say according to their weight and prevalence, not to apportion their views in some ("balanced") way. It is also important to bear in mind (as has been said before) that this article's title is "Christian Science", and not "Christian Science Now" - the early Christian attitude to CS seems, in particular, to have been extremely hostile. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a scholarly debate about whether Christian Science is a cult or a sect. If someone wants to write a section about that, I'd have no objection, except that it would be good if the article didn't get too much longer. In the meantime, there's no reason not to note, if only in passing, that the view that it's a cult remains. The context in which we present it makes clear that, after Eddy's death, Christian Science became more respectable, with much less emphasis on the cult aspect. I felt that was a good compromise between dwelling on it and ignoring it entirely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Imagine if you knew nothing about the "Next Friends suit" but you had heard it had something to do with Christian Science. You went to Google and typed: "next friends suit christian science" then clicked on the Wikipedia article about Christian Science that appeared as the second link. Then you clicked on the entry in the table of contents for "Next Friends suit." The first 3 paragraphs that you read would give an okay summary of the event, namely a lawsuit from 1907, then the fourth paragraph would say that in 2003 Christian Science was still listed as a cult. Which has nothing to do with the Next Friends suit from 1907. How does that conform to WP:NPOV? Whether the Kingdom of the Cults information belongs in the article at all or not is debatable. But certainly it does not belong in this section. I've already tried removing it once so I won't do so again. But I've yet to hear any valid argument for keeping it in this section.Wikiuser1239 (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The article went through a rewrite a few months ago. In doing that, I tried to keep material that seemed relevant, but I would often move it around. When it came to that sentence, I could see no good place for it. So I added it there (following on from the View of the Christian clergy, Mark Twain section, where its cult status is discussed) with the reasoning outlined above, namely "although Christian Science is still viewed as a cult by a well-known author in 2003, for the most part that criticism diminished after Eddy's death and it became more respectable." The point is that it became more respectable, but not entirely so. If you can see a better place for it, please say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I've moved it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I think it fits better where it is now. However, I still object to the reference to Kingdom of the Cults. When I first read the title I assumed the book was from some sort of scholar since usually scholarly sources are favored in Wikipedia. However, after reading about it more I saw that the author is: Walter Ralston Martin (September 10, 1928 – June 26, 1989), was an American Evangelical minister, author, and Christian apologist who founded the Christian Research Institute in 1960 as a para-church ministry specializing as a clearing-house of information in both general Christian apologetics and in countercult apologetics.[7]. I don't think that this source meet the criteria of WP:RS. I would be interested in hearing a more detailed defense of why this specific source is considered valid. I might post about it on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard later if there are not responses here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser1239 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It's mentioned because it's well-known, and the source is Philip Jenkins. We mention it because he does. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay now that it's in the Views of the Christian Clergy section and the author and book are Wikilinked I'm satisfied that it's a fair presentation.Wikiuser1239 (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Practitioners, primary class

Under the subhead "Practitioners, nursing homes", the article currently describes "primary class" with minimal detail and it says that after completing the class, one can advertise his services in the Christian Science Journal. The reader is left bewildered at such an apparent scam, but the Dewitt John book I mentioned above ("The Christian Science Way of Life") describes both primary class and practitioners in fuller detail, allowing for a better understanding. Describing it as "official class instruction", John writes on pp 70-71:

"It is in some degree unique. Few lay members of other faiths ever have had the experience of devoting two full weeks exclusively to the orderly, comprehensive study of the nature of God and man under the guidance of a trained and experienced religious teacher. The course of study, based on the chapter entitled "Recapitulation" in Science and Health, is thorough and concentrated. Class sessions usually last several hours daily and a great deal of homework is assigned. The instruction is so deep and absorbing that it often changes one's outlook and leaves an impression that lasts a lifetime. Class instruction is customarily a requirement, though by no means the only requirement, for listing in the Journal as a Christian Science practitioner. [...] While the content of the class teaching is derived entirely from the Bible and from Science and Health and the other published writings of Mrs. Eddy, it has special impact because of its systematic and thorough character and because it is based upon years of actual experience on the part of the teacher in the practice of Christian Science healing."

John also writes that the teaching doesn't end with the class, but continues for the rest of life with annual all-day meetings of the teacher and all the students, which John describes as a kind of refresher course. He also says that practitioners devote themselves to full-time healing and have no other occupation or source of income. Another point that I think is significant because unusual (but this one from "Christian Science im Lande Luthers") is that if a healing takes a long time, the practitioner is to reduce his rates. (Unfortunately, I forgot to note the page, so I have to find this passage again.)

As for practitioner advertising, there's an application form (I downloaded it). The applicant must provide verification of complete healing from three people and there is an interview process before one can become an "advertiser". The article currently states, people may "register as practitioners with the church and advertise their services". This is very misleading, as perusing a copy of the Journal, one can see that the ad is just a listing with name and contact info (ordered by city, state & country). There are no display ads, no skills or areas of specialization described, no quotes from "happy customers" as one might expect to see in such an ad. The listings look more like the residential pages of a telephone book, certainly not the yellow pages. The word "register" is also misleading. Does the reader assume from that word that there is an application to fill out, that one must supply references and be interviewed before being allowed to put his name and contact info into what amounts to a phone book? All of this information paints a very different picture than what is currently in the article. Marrante (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

In what sense does it paint a different picture, Marrante? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that the section is mostly accurate. One thing that I thought was misleading is that becoming a Journal listed practitioner requires a lot more than just taking Primary class. Also I thought it was misleading to say that "anyone" can take the Normal class, since only experienced practitioners are eligible to enroll in the class. The question of what word "advertise" is secondary in my mind, but I guess I can see how it could be misleading. Practitioners do advertise in that they pay to be listed, but they don't have much control over the format of the listing as far as I know.Wikiuser1239 (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: The different picture is that when I read the article's paragraph on practitioners, the education seems like fluff, but John's book does not. When one considers the preparation of medical professionals, the years they study before they can work vs. a 12-lesson course that looks at 24 questions and reads the Bible a bit and another short passage—and all this is couched in heavy reliance on or plagiarism of the work of someone Gill called an illiterate man, one has to wonder how anyone in the world could consider such a person qualified, much less place his health in such an individual's hands. John provides clues by writing of a rigorous program of great depth (life-changing, impact lasting a lifetime). He also shows that the education continues for life, albeit the "refresher" class is just one day a year—but it lasts all day. Most people can't sit in church for a single hour, much less all day. Can you picture doing this for an entire day? With one speaker? It would have to be grueling or awfully good.

The major problem with this article is that fundamentally it makes no sense, it doesn't add up. How in the world can many tens of thousands of people worldwide follow a system for 100+ years that promises physical healing but can't deliver? That's a fundamental question that is not answered by saying people are dupes. But the article mentions no success, while dwelling on failures, so the WP reader is left bewildered. One can see the roots of failure in the paragraph describing practitioner training, but John's book begins to answer the fundamental question. He writes of teachers with "years of experience" healing and he says that practitioners are full-time, having no other occupation or source of income. Can such a system succeed for 100+ years? The article describes a system that can't succeed, but somehow has. I think the article would be greatly improved if it can explain how this system has survived over 100 years. One key factor would be to spell out what "experience" means when John says "experienced practitioner"; a term also now used in the article to describe those eligible to become teachers. I am working on finding sources for this. Additionally, the article makes no mention of medical professionals who have left medicine and become Christian Scientists, such as Jer Master (see here and here). The article should include this information. Marrante (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikiuser1239: I just realized I didn't answer you above. It's not a matter of control, any more than allowing your name to be included in the phone book has anything to do with the format. Granted, I come from an advertising background, but I think when most people read "advertising", they think of what is called "display" (like the ads you see in a magazine or newspaper, or around the listings in the yellow pages). The Journal practitioner "ads" are essentially a phone book. The advertiser decides what contact info goes in there (phone, e-mail, etc.) but there's nothing else, so "advertising" is a misnomer in that without explanation, it gives a false picture and that's why it's so often referred to as a "listing". Marrante (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If the article was to take a more thorough look at healing efficacy etc. then it would be a very different article and the medical/scientific claims of CS would need to be treated according to WP:FRINGE and any medical information would be subject to WP:MEDRS. CS would no doubt be labelled pseudo-scientific quackery, according to the prevailing weight of reliable sources. I would be happy for the article to go in this direction, but previously the consensus seems to have been been that as CS is religious, it gets a special soft treatment as it would be inappropriate to treat its claims with rational/scientific rigour (just as it would Jesus' miracles). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about a more thorough look at healing efficacy, I'm just saying that if you present failures, for balance, wouldn't you have to present some success as well? I mean, why would failure alone be NPOV? On its way to me is a book by a non-Scientist of affidavits and legal testimony by medical professionals that may well prove to be just what the doctor ordered (so to speak). There do seem to be examples of medically verified healings in Christian Science. My problem is that if this article only describes failures and refuses to acknowledge any successes, it is inherently dishonest and, as is often the case when the whole truth is not told, the facts make no sense; then rumors and lies are added to fill in the holes and the result is a bewildering mess. Marrante (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you want to include material claiming healing is effective, then you are talking about healing efficacy. The only problem is, there is (of course) no reliable sourcing for such claims; there is however reliable sourcing for the "failures" currently referred to in the article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You wrote "a more thorough look at healing efficacy" (emphasis mine) so that's what I addressed. Presenting some evidence of healing efficacy is not "a thorough look". How can you be so sure that there is no reliable source for such claims? What constitutes reliable sourcing for you? Would medical testimony be sufficient? Marrante (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The relevant guidance is WP:MEDRS - testimony would not suffice. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The quote by Spaulding Gray about falling against the radiator meets that standard? Marrante (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That contains no biomedical claims or implications so far as I can see. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

He claims he was injured and badly burned. So, in other words, as long as the healing is of a burn, it will be accepted on the same anecdotal basis as Gray's claim he was injured? I did not read every word of WP:MEDRS but it looked like it was meant to cover medical research and such. WP:MEDRS states: This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article, including alternative medicine. Sources for all other types of content—including all non-medical information in medicine-related articles—are covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources rather than this specific guideline. Why does that not apply here? Marrante (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote, there is no biomedical claim or implications so far as I can see; am I missing something? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

In the anecdote, he claims he was burned and that a nurse said it was a serious (3rd degree) burn. These are not biomedical claims? I just looked up "biomedical" on m-w.com and it said "of, relating to, or involving biological, medical, and physical science". So, is the WP position that something that is not challenged, like an injury or disease, is not subject to MEDRS, but a disease or injury that is diagnosed by a doctor, but healed outside of medicine—even though the healing is afterward verified by a doctor—will require MEDRS because it is challenged by skeptics? Is that the problem here? Marrante (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Marrante does have a valid point about the quote from Gray. It simply describes one person's personal experience. But it would be relatively easy to find examples where someone claimed to be healed of burns. That having been said I think that the article should not attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of Christian Science healing. As far as I know there is no reliable source which does so. Mainly because Christian Science as a whole does not participate in any scientific studies and does not collect data which could be used for statistical analysis. Overall I think that the article is in fairly good shape but that it could be improved some by giving a more accurate statement of what Christian Scientists believe, and I may make some more edits if I find good secondary sources. But per WP:TRUTH I would not support an attempt to evaluate the "truth" of Christian Science or solve the problem that The major problem with this article is that fundamentally it makes no sense. The best that Wikipedia can do is accurately state known facts. If the facts are disputed then this should also be stated along with the correct context.Wikiuser1239 (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that a hot radiator can burn you is not a biomedical claim, more common sense (just as the fact that Eddy's fall at Lynne could hurt her). If we related or implied that CS healing had therapeutic value, that would be venturing into territory where MEDRS applied. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and that quote isn't there to make a biomedical claim, but as part of the discussion about parental responses to sickness and pain. Marrante, the point is that a religious education is not a medical education. How long the religious course lasts isn't really the issue, though it's also true that there's a limit to how much can be learned about anything in two weeks. As for making claims that Christian Science can heal, we would need MEDRS sources, and they don't exist as Alex and Wikiuser have explained. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I never meant to suggest I wanted to evaluate truth. I just don't see why anecdotes that portray Christian Science as bizarre and its adherents as cold fanatics who neglect their children are all that can be in this article. Common sense (h/t to Alexbrn) would protest that no such system could survive 100+ years. There are facts to explain this and I understand the problems inherent with presenting them when you don't believe them. Nonetheless, there are many accounts by people who are grateful for Christian Science and say exactly why. If you don't want to describe individual healings to the extent Gray was cited, fine, but NPOV means the "other side" must still be presented in some way. Adherents are satisfied with what they see as improved health and lives, citing more than just physical healing. The argument that a religious education is not a medical education is a matter of opinion, otherwise how do you explain doctors and nurses who leave medicine for Christian Science? I'm still collecting source material for this article and will share it as time permits. Btw, regarding how much information can be learned in two weeks, remember that time is relative. Marrante (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Marrante, you're expressing unusual views here, and we can't add them to the article. If you have reliable sources that you want to propose, by all means post them here, but otherwise there's nothing we can proceed with. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Marrante, as I stated earlier, I think that this section relies too heavily on sources that are hostile to Christian Science. However, at the same time I don't think that Common sense (h/t to Alexbrn) would protest that no such system could survive 100+ years. is a valid argument to use in Wikipedia. There are any number of possible explanations that could be proposed to explain the history of Christian Science; and in fact Rodney Stark's "The Rise and Fall of Christian Science" provides one possible explanation. That's not to suggest that his interpretation is authoritative, simply that it's one possible explanation and referencing it would not be independent research. I'd be happy to see other sources added to the article to give a fuller picture of the history of Christian Science. But the article should not degenerate into a list of anecdotes that "balance" each other. There may well be individual doctors that decided that Christian Science is superior to conventional medical treatment, but this is certainly not the consensus view of the medical community.Wikiuser1239 (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin (& crew): I have one book that on its way and I know little about it, but I'm hoping it will be acceptable. I do have other reliable source material I plan to post later. Right now, the article is not neutral, it advocates a point of view, that of hostile critics. The article needs to be neutral. I specifically said that if you don't want to quote from healings as you did from Gray, fine. You can satisfy neutrality by talking about healings as claims of adherents. You won't be presenting them as facts then, which should relieve you of the need to disprove them. Robert Peel's "Spiritual Healing in a Scientific Age" is a good source and there are others I can give you. My point about the individual doctors and nurses is not to prove anything but that like everything else with medicine, a second opinion is beneficial. It is irrelevant that such doctors and nurses are not part of a medical consensus regarding the religion; it doesn't change the surprising fact that some leave medicine for it. I gave you two links about Jer Master; it's an easy matter to find links about her medical career. I can get the names of others, as well. Unfortunately, the only other names I know offhand, the online source material is incomplete, either indicating the past career or the present religion, but not both. I will get back to this tomorrow. Marrante (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the best course of action is to make edits that you think are appropriate, while being sure to carefully cite your sources. The edits may get reverted and then there will be more to discuss here. Alternatively you could propose a specific edit in the talk if you think it would be too controversial to insert in the article without discussion first. I agree with at least some of what you are saying regarding the neutrality of the article. But without knowing what specific edits you are proposing I can't say whether I would support them or not. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been trying to figure out how to proceed on this, to tell the truth. For one, there is so much to read here (article, talk, archived talk and refs, not to mention my own research to find better RS for the article so it can be accurate). I read the article a few weeks ago, but was too busy to jump in. Now that I have more time, the article has changed, but before really getting involved, I wanted to get up to speed with regard to present and past discussion. However, when I read a post about Christian Science saying that Jesus didn't die on the cross, I was so incredulous, that I had to speak up. (I have another very strong quote that I just found and hope will settle this point.) Thanks for inviting me to edit the article; I've been hesitant about doing that. Your suggestion to edit and then have a discussion here if need be sounds good, at least for some of the points. Btw, I am exceedingly careful to cite my edits. Marrante (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Marrante, I'm sorry, I have to disagree with Wikiuser. It would make more sense for you to propose edits on talk first and wait for consensus to form, so I hope you'll consider that approach. Also, if you're seeking to add material about practitioners, you might consider instead expanding Christian Science practitioner, which currently says very little and is about to be redirected. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the approach that SlimVirgin favors. My point is that it's difficult to reach a consensus unless you are proposing a specific change to the article. Also while not perfect, this article is already quite good. There are many other articles related to Christian Science which are low quality and could benefit from greatly from more attention from editors if you have time. If you are interested in introducing a significant amount of new material, or correcting particularly egregiousness mistakes, you might have a bigger impact looking at them. I'm not suggesting that you should not edit this article, but in many ways this article is in much better shape than most of the Wikipedia articles related to Christian Science. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, we need a consensus about whether or not I should edit? (That was meant in jest.) I just want to get the mistakes corrected and do that in the best way possible. I understand I've been alluding to problems more than identifying them. That has been in part because I need to re-read the article in toto; it has changed since the last time I read it through. I have a pile of quotes I've been compiling that address the problems I saw when I last read the article through and my little bit of reading yesterday showed that some of those things have been addressed, so I need to get up to date, then I can start identifying the problems. Wikiuser, I will consider your suggestion about looking at the other articles. Marrante (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Forgot to mention I did add to the section above (Use of sources). I just want to make sure that post isn't overlooked. I found what I think is a very clear quote and hope that issue is now resolved. Also, I brought up an additional question. Marrante (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced accusations

There are instances of unsourced accusations. I would like to remove them unless a source is provided. I don't doubt that these accusations have been made, but without know the specific source it is impossible for the reader to evaluate the details.

1) The first edition, in particular, has been criticized as poorly written, and the church has been accused[by whom?] of attempting to keep it out of print.[64] This claim that the church tried to keep this edition out of print is not supported by this citation. I would not be surprised if someone had made such an accusation, but either a proper citation should be provided so that the claims can be evaluated by the reader, or the claim should be removed. Also it's questionable as to whether Gottschalk is really criticizing the first edition as poorly written. Unless an alternative source is provided this entire sentence should be removed.

2) ... this is the chapter commentators[by whom?] say relies heavily on, or was plagiarized from, Quimby. The additional note about Quimby does not appear in Fraser's book on pages 91-93 where she describes class instruction. I think it should be removed and the accusations of plagiarism should be covered in the section Plagiarism allegations that already exists. However, if this phrase is retained it should be properly cited. Also after evaluating any citation I might argue for adding material which shows that this position is challenged by scholars. However, at the moment I can't evaluate the claim because this phrase is unsourced in this particular instance so I don't know what I would be arguing about. As it stands I would argue for removing this phrase. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Re (2), there are sources for it in the section about plagiarism; we could move Gardner 1993 over if you believe it needs another one. Re (1), I think the attempt to keep it out of print relates to the attempt to extend the copyright, but I'll check. The reference for "criticized as poorly written" is Gottschalk, but there are many more, so I'm not sure why you would want to remove the whole sentence.

If you see that something is sourced better elsewhere in the article, by all means copy the source over. Or if you know there are better sources currently not in the article, you could add them rather than suggesting that we remove material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that the overall tone of the article is excessively negative. This is likely because it relies heavily on sources that are critical of Christian Science, but to me it seems unencyclopedic in its tone. For instance what value does the statement that the first edition has been criticized as poorly written add? Perhaps there could be some value in a longer explanation of the changes that were made to Science and Health over the years, although I think that might end up with too much detail for an article about Christian Science. For instance look at the "convoluted and at points confusing" quote from Gottschalk in a larger context:

A study of the major revisions of Science and Health does indicate the Mrs. Eddy never altered any important element of the original version, but simply improved the utterance of her message. . . . In addition, Mrs. Eddy considerably amplified her statement of Christian Science. As she continued to expound her teaching, she became better able to to state her themes in various forms . . . Where the prose of the first edition is for the most part convoluted and at points confusing, that of the final edition is lucid and coherent.

This could just as easily be listed in the Wikipedia article as saying something like "the writing quality of Science and Health improved dramatically between the first and final edition" as saying that the first edition was poorly written. It's a matter of interpretation and perspective, and my view is that in many instances the article adopts a critical point of view rather than a neutral point of view.Wikiuser1239 (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Were you aware that the first edition has been criticized as poorly written? I ask because you seem both familiar and unfamiliar with these issues. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I vaguely recall that when I read Gill's biography of Eddy that Gill wrote that she dreaded reading the first edition of Science and Health because she had heard that it was so poorly written. However, Gill wrote that she was pleasantly surprised and did not think it was as bad as she had been led to believe it would be. So I was aware that there has been criticism of the writing quality of the first edition. However, I don't think that the Gottschalk citation is properly characterized in the way that the article is currently written. Also I don't know anything about the church attempting to keep the first edition out of print (though it would not surprise me if it were true). Obviously that's what the Wikipedia article currently says, but it's not supported by the Gottschalk citation. That's why I originally complained about this sentence after checking the citation myself in an effort to learn more about the accusation. Either the claim should be properly cited, so that readers can evaluate the credibility of the source, or the claim should be removed. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. In future, if you're aware that something is correct but for some reason you don't like the source, it would be helpful if you could add sources rather than asking that it be removed. That Gill had heard it was badly written means that sources have said this (which is what our article says: "The first edition, in particular, has been criticized as poorly written ..."); that Gill was pleasantly surprised doesn't mean it was well-written, or that others have not said it was poorly written. I've added Gardner, so that issue is dealt with, but for other issues in future, if you could look for other sources first that would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

COI

There seems to have been a flurry of interest in this page from Christian Scientists seeking to remove criticism, so this summary of our conflict of interest guideline might be helpful.

The guideline makes clear that beliefs alone do not constitute a COI, so simply believing in a certain religion or belonging to a church doesn't constitute a COI in itself – although the stronger the belief, the easier it is to stray unwittingly from NPOV, so extra efforts to counter that make good sense. COI comes about as a result of roles and relationships, and in particular any role involving payment. In the context of this article, that would mean that anyone who holds a church role, particularly a paid role, or who earns money as a Christian Science practitioner, is "very strongly discouraged" (in the words of the guideline) from editing this article.

The guideline says of paid roles: "If you have a financial connection to a topic (as an employee, owner or other stakeholder), you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection. You may use the article talk pages to suggest changes, or the {{request edit}} template to request edits.

Just in case the above applies to anyone on this page, I hope this helps to clarify best practice. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, it doesn't apply to me. I am in fact a member of the Christian Science church but I'm as critical of it as a Left-wing Democrat would be of Obama, or as a paleo-conservative Republican would be of G.W. Bush (assuming that most contributors here are American and would get the references). You shouldn't assume that Christian Science is a monolith--there are widely divergent views among Christian Scientists about church politics and even about some theological issues (such as, eg, the role--or not--of Mary Baker Eddy in Bible prophecy). Also, if you don't mind my saying this, you've done some excellent editorial work but you need to avoid the trap of thinking that you own the article on account of that work. You don't--nobody does. I've also been in the position of having months of painstaking work undone, and that's just life (or the Wikipedia version of life, at any rate). And when you argue that others need to get consensus before changing edits, don't forget that the others may be feeling the same way about changes to their own edits--and perhaps with equal (or greater) justification.89.100.155.6 (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia distinguishes between ownership and stewardship: "In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert edits that they find detrimental ... Where disagreement persists after such a reversion, the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership."

It's not a question of who has done the work, but that (a) the article recently went through the GA process, so the version on the page has consensus; (b) there's a certain coherence to it that will get lost if it suffers the usual death-by-a-thousand-tweaks; and (c) it is already favourable to Christian Science compared with a great deal of the source material, and if taken further in that direction will become misleading. For all these reasons I think anyone wanting to make changes over objections ought to gain consensus rather than reverting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's my statement. At the risk of stating the obvious, I have a fair amount of background on this topic, but no COI. I do not work for the church, nor do I earn money in any related capacity. For a time, I was very active on WP and enjoyed it. Later, I got a nasty taste of some of the behavior WP is unfortunately famous for. It became a convenient time to leave WP.

The only reason I'm back now is because this article is important. A lot of people come to WP for basic and often their first information about a given topic. When I first read this article, I was stunned by how riddled with errors it was. Not only that, the article seemed to be more about attacking the subject than giving simple information about it. I decided to come out of Wiki-retirement and do my part to correct the mistakes.

I hope to begin a more thorough parsing of the article next week (or sooner), but have already made a few simple, minor tweaks, such as with "normal class". The term was in quotes, presumably because most people no longer know what a "normal school" is. I wikilinked it to show why it's called "normal". Likewise with the statement that MBE called atonement "at-one-ment". She didn't make that up, I linked the hyphenated version to Wiktionary, which shows the etymology. I thought it was immediately obvious why I had linked it, that my edit was a non-controversial no-brainer... but nope! It was reverted by Alexbrn. Why? My edit didn't change the article's wording, it just added an interwikilink as per WP policy, where the link will enhance the reader's understanding of the text. Most people don't know the etymology, so when the article says what Eddy called the "at-one-ment with God, the implication is that she made it up. Marrante (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Malping

A minor thing I also wanted to raise is something that is no longer in the body of the article, but still exists in a footnote. It is this word "malping". Do you have a source for this other than Caroline Fraser? I have never heard this word before and doubt it exists. I used to know someone who jokingly would say "metaphysing" (for "praying") and "malping" sounds similarly made up to me. I think you should remove this unless you can verify with another source that the word actually exists. Marrante (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm also bringing up another minor point again, since no one has yet addressed it. This is no longer in the body of the article, but does still exist in a footnote, this word "malping". Do you have a source for this other than Caroline Fraser? I have never heard this word before and have serious doubts that it exists. It sounds like an inside joke between friends. I think you should remove it unless you can verify with another source that the word actually exists. If I'm right and it doesn't actually exist, it's an embarrassment to the article and WP's rating of GA as well. Marrante (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind if malping disappears, though Fraser is a reliable source for it. Can you post the actual edit you want to make? If you simply want to post that quotation, I would oppose, in part because it doesn't tell us anything. The question is: what do Christian Scientists mean when they say Jesus died and rose from the dead? Do they mean what other Christians mean? That quote doesn't really address that issue, and it doesn't seem to be part of a serious discussion of what Christian Scientists mean. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that if Fraser is the only source for it, can you really be sure the word exists? I have never heard of it. Somehow, you all figured out that people don't say "M.A.M.", which did exist, but for just a very short time. M.A.M. came out of the article, but "malping", which I'm convinced is utter nonsense (or at best exists within a small subset) is in there as a widely-used phrase. Btw, saying that "still believe in the notion of "mental malpractice" is as silly as saying they still believe in God. It's in Science and Health, it's part of the religion. Christian Scientists believe in everything that is in Science and Health, which is their textbook and which they study every single day of their lives—at least the sincere ones do. You could argue about how many are actually sincere today. As for the DeWitt John quote, let me deal with that later or tomorrow. I've got to get away from the computer. Marrante (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Marrante, I would appreciate if you could start a new section in the talk for each separate edit you want to propose. Originally I had suggested just making the edits so that we would have something concrete to talk about. But given the ongoing debate about including the word "some" to qualify something that only some people agree with, I have learned that there is no such thing as a non-controversial edit in this article. As for the edit you suggested, I have cross-referenced what Fraser wrote with what is in the article. Fraser was talking about a specific group of children and wrote The children, who called malpractice "malping" for short. Whereas the article says: Fraser writes that Christian Scientists call the unscrupulous use of healing powers "malping," or "mental malpractice." Obviously anyone who is familiar with Christian Science would agree with the "mental malpractice" characterization, but most would be confused about the word "malping" which they have never heard of. So I will make, what I believe to be a non-controversial change, to remove "malping" and then wait and see if my change gets reverted. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. It's also easier to find. I am scrolling to beat the band, trying to figure out where I'm supposed to post this or that reply. I think the "malping" remark should really come out. I'm not surprised to see it's pretty much what I thought. I said it sounded like a family thing, a joke among friends, something like that. I really think it should come out all together. It's so obvious to anyone who knows that it's not true, that it looks ludicrous unless it's explained where it comes from. I know there are some here who feel that anything written in a secondary source is okay to use, but if there is any desire to have Wikipedia taken seriously, this is the sort of thing that works against all the hard-working editors here. Gotta run again, but I will be back later. Marrante (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Alexbrn has helped us here with these subheads. Good idea & appreciated. Marrante (talk) 06:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's good work, but it's not my doing but Slim's - as usual :-) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

I see from some of the comments above that a misunderstanding has arisen about Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Neutrality on WP means that articles about X must reflect majority and significant-minority views about X, as represented by reliable, published secondary sources (preferably high-quality sources that display detailed knowledge of X). In addition, material must be presented in rough proportion to its appearance in those secondary sources.

So for any given issue (say, whether Eddy copied material from Quimby), we look to see what reliable secondary sources have said – sources independent of Eddy, the church and Quimby – and we fashion the article's point of view after them. We can include what the primary sources say (material written by Eddy, her supporters and Quimby's supporters), but the direction and tone of the article is dictated by the direction and tone of the independent secondary sources.

I hope this helps to explain why the article is written as it is. If anything, it veers too strongly in favour of Eddy and the church. The secondary sources are often so negative that to reproduce them faithfully would have led to an extremely negative piece, so I regularly paraphrased the material to adopt a more disinterested tone. I also alluded to, but did not go into detail about, the independent view of Eddy's mental health. It's therefore likely that anyone coming to this article who says it strikes too negative a tone is unfamiliar with the secondary material, or else is seeking to impose the church's view on the article, which would have to be resisted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

While I recognise your constructive intent SlimVirgin, I'm not sure that paraphrasing the material to adopt a more disinterested tone is helpful. For example, some of the anti-Eddy / anti-CS rhetoric is sexist and ageist (eg, what right has an uneducated old woman like Eddy to put herself forward as an authority on theological matters; look at all those surnames, she must have gone through husbands like a dose of salts! Etc etc) If we made it clearer what critics are actually saying and where they are (often) coming from (eg atheist pseudoskepticism, Protestant fundamentalism), it might actually make the article clearer, and possibly fairer.89.100.155.6 (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Then we would need similarly to go into more detail about the mental-health issues to make clear why people were so critical of her. I tried to follow "show, don't tell" to some extent when writing this; that is, I tried not to over-egg things, and when it came to Eddy I added positive material when it felt honest to do so. For example, I allow a very positive quote from Mark Twain (which Gardner writes was sarcasm, but I disagree) to the effect that Eddy was in many ways the most extraordinary woman who ever lived. This is without question true, no matter what else one thinks of her, and it is offset by the negative quote from Harold Bloom, which describes one of the many ways in which she was extraordinary.

These were the editorial decisions I had to make as I made my way through the source material: to highlight but not to labour the criticism, especially of Eddy as a person, and to express it for the most part in my own words, which were less dramatic than the words of the sources. So, for example, I talk about an "unusual personality," which is about as bland a description as I could think of for her many personality issues. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

And while on the subject of editorial decisions, the way this article is being tweaked highlights one of Wikipedia's enormous weaknesses: that editorial decisions made by one editor – whether right or wrong, but at least coherent and consistent throughout the article – are then picked apart by others, tweaking here and tweaking there, so that the overall editorial stance is weakened and parts of the article become misleading.

For example, I tried to avoid calling her "manipulative," which she clearly was (as are all leaders), and which dozens of sources testify to. Instead I wrote (trying to be nice): "She was by all accounts charismatic, charming and flattering when she needed to be, and able to inspire great loyalty." You then came along and removed it, then tweaked it, and I re-tweaked, so that it now reads: "She was by all accounts charismatic and able to inspire great loyalty," which is not correct and not what I wrote. Had I made it stronger to begin with, at least some of what I intended would have survived the tweaks, but because I started off from a position of restraint, the tweaks destroyed it entirely. Similarly with the first edition of Science and Health being "poorly written" – my paraphrase of "incoherent and illiterate," which is what the sources say. But now Wikiuser comes along and says: "Poorly written? It's meaningless; let's remove it."

I suppose what I'm requesting is that the Christian Scientists and their supporters take into account that this is a somewhat restrained version of the source material, and therefore that further dilution will lead to inaccuracy, which in turn will lead to stronger language being inserted as a counter measure. Then we will be back to the pushing and shoving that I had hoped this version would end. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Your points about the difficulty of collaborative editing are valid and I respect that. The nature of Wikipedia is such that since anyone can change it, so you have to be willing to continually defend your decisions otherwise the text will change over time (particularly for a controversial topic). I appreciate your work in getting this article to the point that it is now. In many respects I think the fact that the article is good is what attracts interest in debating minor points. In contrast the article about Mary Baker Eddy is a mess with the view point changing from section to section and it needs so much work that it's harder to jump into. I'm still likely to propose changes to some of the material that is presented in this article, but I accept that you and other editors have made a good faith effort to maintain a NPOV for this article, even if there are some editorial decisions that I have questions about (and to be fair I am learning about the topic so your explanations for editorial decisions have been helpful for me regarding parts of the article where I initially disagreed with how the material is presented). Wikiuser1239 (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind collaborating with people who have read the material. The difficulty comes when people have read different things (or nothing), and often haven't read the article itself, so that everything has to be defended from scratch.

In some ways I would love to build up the Eddy article, but the decisions there would be even harder, because there would be space for the negative material and no good reason not to add it; on the contrary, it's what makes her interesting. But it is so negative (sometimes hilariously so) that it would be difficult to steer a reasonable course without over-compensating to the point of inaccuracy. Thank you for your appreciative words about this article, by the way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Question here: SlimVirgin, you wrote above, Neutrality on WP means that articles about X must reflect majority and significant-minority views about X, as represented by reliable, published secondary sources (preferably high-quality sources that display detailed knowledge of X). In addition, material must be presented in rough proportion to its appearance in those secondary sources. I'm still not sure if in an article like this, NPOV means that truth can be overshadowed by lies if the truth is less well known than the lie? I ask because in Peel, "Years of Authority" (pp 509-510) there is a very long footnote quoting a letter where Dittemore expressed regret over his part in the book with Bates. Writing May 23, 1936, he wrote about the book:

Its sales & royalties have become quite small, for which, in a way, I am really not sorry. I realize that if I had it to do over, I should insist on eliminating, not documented facts, proving the human side of Mrs. Eddy's character, which it is folly, I feel, to try to deny or camouflage, but certain unfortunate deductions & implications which Bates ... demanded should be included as inescapable.

On March 23, 1937, he wrote to the Board of Directors that "while I acted upon convictions which I regarded as right at the time, I have since been led to see, and am anxious to go on record as admitting it, that I was wrong in letting personal opinion and matters of policy induce me to depart from Principle."

Similarly, Lyman Powell wrote (p.6, of his biography):

As a critic has written the author, much of the testimony of that period was one-sided. Out of the obscurity of small-town life, some of the witnesses—not all—emerged into a nation-wide notoriety, the enjoyment of which they made no effort to conceal. Not in every instance, dryly observes a critic, were "they the kind of sources we would have chosen."

Peel identifies the critic as Milmine ("Years of Discovery, p328, fn74) and suggests the quote describes one of her interviewees who Peel thinks is very unreliable.

I also question the sentence that says Quimby called his system a "science" when that word implies some sort of understanding and knowledge, but Peel quotes ("Years of Discovery", p339 fn39) from a letter to Milmine on December 18, 1906 from Gorham D. Gilman, who had been to Quimby. Peel says his letter was meant to provide "ammunition against Mrs. Eddy":

Telling of his visit to Quimby in Portland and of Quimby's rubbing his sister's head, he reported that when asked about his method Quimby replied: "I do not know much more about it than you. There is nothing occult about it that I know of. I simply know that I have this power given to me. I do not understand what it means; do not know what it is or where it comes from. I simply know of its possession. I make no claims of originality or any supernatural gift." Gilman then continues: "He seemed a simple, straightforward man desirous of doing good and relieving suffering. My point is that Dr. Quimby distinctly disavowed any 'revelation' or supernatural power. Saying 'I do not know' while Mrs. Eddy, a pupil claims to know it all."

— Marrante (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Marrante, is there something specific in the article that you think is incorrect? It's not clear to me what these quotes are trying to address. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 02:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think the above quotes from Dittemore and the reported quote from Quimby relate to the last paragraph in Eddy's debt to Quimby. Dittemore's statement, I realize that if I had it to do over, I should insist on eliminating ... certain unfortunate deductions & implications throws significant doubt on his book's assertion that Science and Health was "practically all Quimby" and that Quimby saw his belief system as a science. The letter from Gorham D. Gilman to Milmine also challenges the assertion that Quimby saw his system as a science, as does the first definition of "science" at Merriam-Webster.com, "the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding". I have strong doubts that someone who says, I do not know much more about it than you and I simply know that I have this power given to me. I do not understand what it means; do not know what it is... would then call his methods a science. Though people now say the era produced much pseudo-science, the people in that era espousing those claims of science had an explanation of what they did, such as Eddy.

One other comment on this paragraph in the article: is it not highly misleading, if not POV, to call Dittemore a "former director" without mentioning that he was expelled from that board? Doesn't "former director" suggest credibility? Why is the ouster, which mitigates his credibility, not mentioned? I have more specific problems, but have no time to address them at the moment. I'll be back tomorrow or the next day. Marrante (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

My view is that the article could have been written differently, but I feel that the section you are referring to is fairly balanced. The question of how much Eddy relied on Quimby could fill a book, so there has to be some editorial discretion in picking what to include. If the Bates-Dittermore source is removed, one could argue for removing the Twain quote and picking something that was more critical. I think that the section gives a sense of the overall controversy, and it is up to the reader to study it more if they want. If you suggest specific edits I can give my opinion (and I'm sure others will too). But I would not support a wholesale rewriting of the Bates-Dittermore paragraph simply because Peel claims that Dittermore later recanted. The most I think I could support is minor tweaks to add more context about Dittermore's history with the church, possibly in the form of a citation note. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

So, returning to SlimVirgin's comment above, should the original wording of the passage mentioned ("She was by all accounts charismatic, charming and flattering when she needed to be, and able to inspire great loyalty") be restored? It would seem so. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if there were specific reasons an editor wanted the sentence changed. At first glance either version sounds fine to me Wikiuser1239 (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC).

I think the earlier sentence should be restored. She was able to be charming, and was extremely flattering when it suited, but she could also be highly unpleasant. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

As there seems to be agreement, I've restored it. [8] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't post this because of an edit conflict, but here is my two cents. I have to say I really didn't like that sentence when I read it. I don't believe she ever tried to flatter anyone, rather it seemed to me she was trying to encourage them. The dictionary defines flattery as "insincere or excessive praise" and I don't think either of those apply to her or the praise she gave. She did encourage people, however and it's quite true that she gave stinging rebukes at times. I would prefer the word "encouraging" or even "highly encouraging" if you like. I am going to try to respond to other posts today, but life is trying to interfere with WP again. Marrante (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Marrante, I think that it's appropriate to defer to what the primary editor of a section wrote unless there is a factual error that you disagree with. Flattery is not necessarily negative (in contrast to manipulative). SlimVirgin already stated that the word "flattery" was selected for its nuance, but that some sources would have used "manipulative" instead. If you had done the major writing of the section and used "encouraging" and another editor came later and wanted to change your writing I would oppose that. But I don't think it appropriate to make minor POV tweaks to make the article sound more the way you would have written it. Again for factual errors I think that corrections are appropriate, but the difference between "flattery" and "praise" really boils down to POV not a dispute about the facts. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikiuser, I respectfully disagree here, not with the idea that the difference is POV, but that the definitions of the words clearly convey these differences and I believe "flattery" to be factually wrong. Btw, I do hope you'll stay. Your contribution is needed here and valued. Marrante (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

My No COI statement and comments about editing process

I do not have any conflict of interest on this topic and I am not a Christian Scientist, although I do have some personal experience with the religion which is why I know that certain things in the article are incorrect. I remember when I skimmed through the talk archives seeing that SlimVirgin and Collect were criticized as being Christian Scientists. It's interesting, to me, that anyone who does not favor an extremely negative portrayal of Christian Science tends to be labeled as a Christian Scientist and accused of working for the church.

Anyway personal knowledge is useless for Wikipedia, the only information that can be used is what appears in reliable sources. Personally I don't know whether Eddy plagiarized from Quimby or not. But obviously the point is disputed. Personally I would have chosen to limit the discussion of the dispute to a single section where it can be covered in detail. However, it is mentioned in multiple places, so in that case I think that each time it is mentioned there should be some indication of the fact that this point is disputed.

I do not have much experience editing articles on Wikipedia. In the past I have made minor corrections on non-controversial subjects. In this case I first became interested in this article when I noticed what I thought was an obvious error in the lead regarding church membership data. That gave me an introduction to how Wikipedia editors will aggressively defend a position that they hold even if the facts do not support it. I ended up getting personally invested in arguing a relatively minor point. Mainly because I was so surprised that the rules of Wikipedia would be designed to favor factually inaccurate information. I was pleased that in the end a version that I believe is factually accurate was accepted.

After spending so much time arguing a minor point I ended up looking through the article carefully. The article's statement that She allowed exceptions from Christian Science healing for going to the dentist, treatment for broken limbs, and basic surgical procedures. She herself wore glasses, used morphine, had her third husband treated by a physician, and arranged for an autopsy when he died. is not technically correct. Specifically in regards to the word "exceptions." But the nuances are difficult to explain. Fraser, who had some personal experience with Christian Science, provides a more accurate portrayal in her book although she is highly critical of Christian Science. The NY Times article's statement that the church now seeks to present Christian Science healing as a supplement to conventional medical care, similar to biofeedback, chiropractic and homeopathy is incorrect because Christian Science treatment cannot be used as a "supplement," it is always presented as a "choice." What is true is that the church is making efforts not to ostracize members who choose medical treatment anymore. Whereas in the past this occurred. The church is also encouraging members to ensure that children receive at least the minimal amount of medical treatment required by law (something it has always allowed for, but in the past it worked to have religious exemptions created for laws which required providing medical treatment, whereas today I don't think it is focused on that).

Personally I would like to see a better explanation of why Christian Scientists have tended to avoid medical treatment. However, such to write such an explanation I would need to properly cite secondary sources. I had been planning to work on this, but in the meantime I had expressed my opinion about what I thought were relatively minor issues in the article.

Overall it seems like there is a great deal of hostility towards the involvement of new editors, particularly ones who feel that the article is biased against Christian Science. I suppose that is the nature of collaborative editing on a controversial topic. It's probably not worth it for me to continue participating in editing the article although perhaps I'll change my mind, since I am interested in the subject. But the heavy use of Wikipedia jargon, the frequent reverts with minimal edit summaries, and the threats to make the article more negative towards Christian Science if changes to address the anti-Christian Science bias are proposed make me less inclined to participate. Which is perhaps what some editors want in the first place in order to maintain control of the article. Note that I do not believe this is true of SlimVirgin, who I think has done an admirable job of stewardship of the article. But it seems that NPOV on Wikipedia is defined as reflecting the overall anti-Christian Science attitude of society at large, rather than truly striving for a neutral and factually accurate portrayal of the subject. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining this; it's much appreciated. I don't think anyone has said they will make the article more negative toward Christian Science if pro-CS edits are made. But what often happens is that, in order to support material that is being questioned, more source material and text is added, so that issues that were dealt with in a somewhat disinterested tone become less nuanced. That's probably all that was meant. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I'm glad to know that you will try to maintain a NPOV for the article rather than intentionally taking the article in a more negative direction in response to edits which seem pro-CS. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikiuser writes: "Personally I would like to see a better explanation of why Christian Scientists have tended to avoid medical treatment. However, such to write such an explanation I would need to properly cite secondary sources. I had been planning to work on this, but in the meantime I had expressed my opinion about what I thought were relatively minor issues in the article." Christian Scientists tend to avoid drugs, as distinct from bone-setting etc. (Though I think most of them would agree to an anaesthetic if they had to have an operation!) I think the rationale is that drugs are often poisonous, have unpredictable side-effects, and work at a more subtle level (than eg surgery) that shades into the mental. Consequently it's unwise to mix drugs and CS prayer, as they tend to negate each other. Personally I had an extremely unpleasant experience where I forgot to notify the CS practitioner who was treating me for a tooth problem that I was having dental work done under local anaesthetic--the anaesthetic didn't work and I nearly hit the roof! (OK, it could have been coincidence etc etc etc...) The way I see it is that mixing CS and drugs is like trying to pull a car that is stuck in the mud both backwards and forwards at the same time. (Either way might work on its own, but not both together.) Or say you got stuck half way up while climbing a cliff. Someone ties a rope to a tree at the top of the cliff and throws the rope down for you, and someone else raises a ladder from the foot of the cliff to help you climb down. Either of those methods could work, but it would be silly to try them both at the same time! Hope this helps. I don't know of any secondary sources that use those analogies, but there are some primary sources from Eddy that I can hunt for if anyone is interested, and if they're allowed to stay on the page.89.100.155.6 (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I wondered about the dental thing when you last wrote about it. If you and the practitioner were focusing on "there is nothing wrong with this mouth, there is no pain," that would explain (according to Christian Science) why there was no pain and no anaesthetic effect. But it wouldn't explain why there was no anaesthetic effect, but there was pain. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm tempted to hat this interlude - it is not compliant with WP:TPG. Personal stories and testimonials have no place here. -- Scray (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure no problem. I think I'm done participating as an editor on this subject. One more thing that Wikipedia is not is friendly (from my perspective). Wikiuser1239 (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not mean to come off as unfriendly; rather, I meant to be matter-of-fact. Overall, I think the exchange above has been extremely civil and congratulate all involved on that. -- Scray (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I meant no harm, was only trying to address a question. I have removed my previous post as unrelated to the topic. Marrante (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I take these Wiki-rules with a grain of salt. They are formulated by Wikipedia users themselves (usually the more active ones)--they are not house rules established by the host. On top of that, arguing the point about the meaning of the rules is disapproved of (I think the technical term is "Wiki-lawyering") and one is supposed to get the gist by reading all the rules and absorbing them (which doesn't work in philosophy, biblical exegesis or the law, though magically it's supposed to work on Wikipedia.) Anyway, in answer to SlimVirgin's interesting question about pain, the answer is that I don't know the answer, I'm just aware that that's what tends to happen, from other people's anecdotal accounts as well. It was a long time ago and I don't recall the precise details, but I wouldn't have gone to the dentist if the practitioner's work had been effective in that case. However, to make a stab at the answer: according to CS, medicine works through belief in the efficacy of matter (the majority belief tending to prevail). CS works from the opposite premise. So a CS treatment will tend to counteract a medical prescription in the individual case, which is why they are not used together. (Optimally, of course, the practitioner's work would negate the necessity for dental work, but personally I'm not there yet, though I've managed to avoid virtually all other medical involvement during most of my life, and saved a considerable amount of money to boot.)89.100.155.6 (talk) 07:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Christian Science is simply based on the placebo effect. Eddy wrote about it in Science and Health very clearly:

My experiments in homeopathy had made me sceptical as to material curative methods. ... [T]he drug is attenuated to such a degree that not a vestige of it remains; and from this I learn that it is not the drug that cures the disease or changes one of the symptoms.
I have attenuated Natrum muriaticum (common table salt) until there was not a single saline property left. The salt had "lost its savor": and yet with one drop of that attenuation in a goblet of water, and a teaspoonful of the water administered at intervals of three hours, I have cured a patient sinking in the last stage of typhoid fever.
The highest attenuation of homeopathy, and the most potent, steps out of matter into Mind; and thus it should be seen that Mind is the healer, or metaphysics, and that there is no efficacy in the drug. [9]

That could explain how a person could convince herself that she would feel no pain at the dentist. It could also explain why an anaesthetic wouldn't work and pain would be felt (where the patient has – perhaps unwittingly – persuaded himself: "nothing that this dentist does for my pain will work"). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it depends on your metaphysical world view. I've experienced CS healing often enough to be satisfied that it's not the same as the placebo effect. (For one thing, I could tell you often to the second when a practitioner had begun spiritual work for me--you get a sudden feeling of peace, harmony, purity and uplift.) Through my own mental work I was healed instantaneously of a crippling and agonizing hip problem--there was no placebo involved as I didn't take any drug, real or not. I've been routinely (and sometimes instantaneously) "lifted out" of physical problems with the help of CS practitioners. (Which is not to say that I don't have some outstanding physical issues to deal with.) And it's not just physical healing, but protection also. One morning for example, I woke up with the urgent sense that my family were in danger--I worked on this mentally as we are taught in CS until I got a sense of peace. Later that day a family member informed me that while driving that morning they had nearly been killed by a truck (though they had a fortunate escape and were unharmed). I knew nothing of this at the time, except what I must have picked up mentally while asleep. Admittedly I couldn't prove any of this beyond scientific doubt--you'll just have to take my word for it (or not, as the case may be).89.100.155.6 (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The more interesting question is why you're taking your own word for it. I believe you wrote that you have a PhD in philosophy, so you'll be familiar with Wittgenstein's private language argument. It seems to me that that's what is going on here. You – and others with similar beliefs, whether Christian Scientists or not – have developed your own private language about how these issues are identified and confirmed (this feeling means X, and here is the same feeling again, therefore X). The placebo effect needn't involve taking a drug, by the way. It's just that being given something helps to persuade the patient that they're being healed, which (it is argued) appears to cause healing by a mechanism that no one understands. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's give Wittgenstein the last word on this: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." It's clear that we're talking two different languages.89.100.155.6 (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)