Talk:List of Christian Scientists (religious denomination)

I'm working on justifying. I think at the moment it is certainly as justified as List of Scientologists, but then again I'm biased:) --T. Anthony 09:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think it's going to die. Although as it stands now I feel fairly good about it. Except that I think elements of the notes would need to neutralized to avoid POV. I intended to keep working on that, but there's likely no point now. Otherwise it's become very well sourced for a list I think. Plus I learned some things of use. Here's the main thing about the deletion that still bothers me.

I didn't get any warning. I know you don't have to warn people, but I wish the problem had been noted earlier with a "Merge to Church of Christ, Scientist, "verify", or "cleanup." At the very least put something on the talk page about how it should be deleted. Instead I just open my watchlist and I see it got a new edit. Then I see the edit is deletion.

A smaller thing is inaccuracy on the delete page. This is not a list linking religions to a profession in the way List of Christian scientists was. I divided into occupations because that's common in these List of people by belief. Although admittedly it's a bit linking to professions now, that's so it can be justified.--T. Anthony 23:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hold the phone this might actually survive. Although it'll likely be given a new, and hopefully better, name.--T. Anthony 02:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found some evidence Doris Day is not interested in any organized religions these days. However most things on her mention her as CS, so should I keep as part of her story? Delete? Quit wasting my time as this may soon be deleted?--T. Anthony 08:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 18:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recent stuff

Eek, sorry about initially using only the white people figure on the 1936 census. It was totally an honest mistake. I looked for the largest "total" it listed and thought I had the one that was a total for everyone. It turned out I missed it by mistake. I fixed it as soon as I could.

Outside of that I decided to put Joan Crawford and Alfre Woodard back on. I'm not sure the AFI list information is very meaningful, but in least it's something. I calculated their percentage in 1936 on my own, it's not listed anywhere I found, based on the data given. I hope I'm correct in assuming though that putting the numbers in a calculator isn't original research.--T. Anthony 09:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To my surprise I have maybe found a scientist who is a member of this religious denomination. There's a Dr. Laurance Doyle of the SETI Institute who has an article in their website and I guess writes on the religion as well as on science.--T. Anthony 12:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the main article's notable list

Cornelius Bumpus was indeed a Christian Scientist -- I knew him. Also missing are astronauts Kathryn D. Sullivan -- the first American woman astronaut to walk in space, and Guion Bluford, the first Afro-American astronaut.Dr. Laurance R. Doyle is not a "researcher" at the SETI Institute but a "Principal Investigator." He discovered the first circumbinary planet, Kepler-16b.2601:645:501:EF90:74A3:16CE:E77D:25CC (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These had been in earlier versions of this list, but I took them out due to discussions on the AfD. However a few of these, like the athletes, seem fairly legitimate. I'm just not sure how to fit them into the list as it's currently focussed solely on entertainment and politics.

Cornelius Bumpus, Alto saxophone player

I have put most back. I'm leaving Bumpus out for now as I never really found solid evidence that he was. All I found was that he played at some event for them.--T. Anthony 17:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evan David Pedley

Should Evan David Pedley be on this list?

Due to the past AfD attempt additions have to be sourced. If you can find a valid source saying he's CS feel free to add him. I'm just not sure where you'd put him, maybe the "other" section or whatever it was I added. Now I really must be going.--T. Anthony 09:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anthony, Thank you for answering. Would the Melchizedek Bible which is published be a good source? However, I think we would have to mention that he may have converted to Melchizedekianity from Christian Science, or that Christian Science influenced him in writing the Melchizedek Bible. In that case could he be put in the section of those that may have been influenced by Christian Science? Or because he is considered a founder of the government of the Dominion of Melchizedek, in the political section? Sincerely, Johnski 19:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd err on the "don't add" side then. In least that's my position. Alas this list has largely been dominated by me, but User:HistoricalPisces has worked a bit on it. User:Dpbsmith is kind of aware of it. You can maybe ask them how they'd feel. Although if you have sufficient sourcing just go with it I guess. I'd rather be cautious though as this has been AfD'd. If we start adding to many debatable examples it could be endangered again.--T. Anthony 23:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Anthony. I'll just leave it alone for now based on what you have written above, and because there are those out there that attack anything I do just because I'm the one that did it. Sincerely Johnski 23:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It's not a criticism of your choice as much as nervousness about how stable this lists fate will be. The delete vote went "no concensus" not keep. I think it's on stabler ground now, but I'm just gunshy. If better sourcing is found to justify adding him then he can be added later.--T. Anthony 01:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't want to see it deleted either, because I found it a cool idea. If there is a vote again, I'll vote to keep. Johnski 05:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I might be overcautious. I haven't even put Hank Paulson back in, but on reflection I think I will.--T. Anthony 17:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

False Rumors

We only know those are rumors, we don't know if they are true or false, because only the individual listed knew whether or not he was of the Christian Science faith. Johnski 06:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. And as Jim Henson was one for many years it was a tad misleading, apologies.--T. Anthony 13:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call-back

There seems to be some interest in "people of a CS background" so I brought that section back. I'm going to look for sources for it in a moment.--T. Anthony 03:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the interview Duvall says that Christian Science is "still his belief", but that he's not churchgoing. Should he be moved to the generalized actors section? How important in CS is churchgoing to deciding whether one is a practicing member? Likewise Howard Hawks sounds like he might fit in the main section.--T. Anthony 04:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say chuch attendance is not required to be a Christian Scientist. WilliamKF 02:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know the faith well enough to say. If you are correct than Robert Duvall should be moved from the "raised in" list to the "Entertainment figures" section.--T. Anthony 11:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

I've merged the other two Lists of Prominent/Famous Christian Scientists into this list. I've left some people out because I either can't find out who they are or I can't find any documentation on them. (Incidentally Christian Science Fiction can be ambiguously interpreted as Fiction for Christian Scientists or Science Fiction for Christians.) At any rate I'm looking for documentation on Frank Capra, Dalton Trumbo, Danielle Steele, Theodore Dreiser, Frank Clements, and Meredith Stechbart. Digitalican 20:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Steele is said to have mentioned being raised in it on Good Morning America. I'm not willing to call GMA for a transcript from two years ago, but the source I had mentioned this. Dalton Trumbo's mother was a Christian Scientist, see Time Magazine. You can add that as a source on him. I don't know if he was practicing later or not. There seems to be many people in Hollywood history called CSers simply because they had some interest in it and a friend who was of it. What I find on Capra is mostly that he was going to convert for a fiance, I don't know if he did. I tried to leave out the real iffy rumor-mongered cases.--T. Anthony 03:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fraggle Rock and Christian Science?

In the section titled "Rumors about people's Christian Science faith", the following is claimed:

But in fact Jim got back to his belief in Christian Science during his late 40s and symbolized his beliefs within his work through out the 1980s (esspecially The Dark Crystal and Fraggle Rock).

I feel that this purported "fact" certainly requires some sort of reference, especially in light of the fact that any mention of Christian Science is conspicuously absent from the Fraggle Rock wiki page. It is also absent from Jim Henson's page.Cfranc (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to remove it due to your concerns and my own. I'm a big fan of "The Dark Crystal" and I don't see any CSer influence in it. The only similarity I can think of is that "The Dark Crystal" and "Fraggle Rock", like Christian Science, have an elderly woman as a central wise figure. However so does Tenrikyo and a number of other things. So I removed it, but the statement can be brought back if sourced.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Einstein

The documentation regarding claims that Albert Einstein studied Christian Science appear biased, anecdotal, and thin. Growing up as a Christian Scientist, I heard those same stories. Understanding their nature, however, I now realize such stories share much in common with typical urban legends. Is there evidence in Einstein's writings or from non-Christian Science sources that corroborate the claims? Lacking independent documentation, perhaps it is more accurate to say, "Christian Scientists claim..." and "allegedly". Do go be man (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I agree. The evidence is thin. On the other hand it is evidence and I've seen no fact to contradict it, which is my point. Until such evidence is cited, dispute becomes "original research." I'm not arguing over the fact, just the process. Words like "allegedly" and "claim" become "weasel words," disparaging in themselves, as we've all seen. Digitalican (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say then that your standards for "evidence" vary from mine. This argument would appear to open the door for original research. I could create a web page documenting my claims regarding a topic then cite it in a Wikipedia article. For example, you're aware of the web site I co-moderate. I have many discussions there relevant to Christian Science, yet have been actively barred from referring to it except in very narrow contexts. Here we have a case of an actively pro-Christian Science site claiming personal experiences with Albert Einstein that are not otherwise corroborated. I don't know, perhaps he wrote an article on Christian Science of which I'm not aware or was on the verge of joining the church when he died. Didn't really think this was much of a deal, however, you're inspiring me to Be Bold. Do go be man (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Do Boldly Go Be Man, Here's where we go on the rocks. First, there is no claim in the article that Albert Einstein was a Christian Scientist. It is in the "Rumor" section of the page. Second, the cited source refers to an affidavit by Mary Spaulding -- which may or may not exist, but cannot be definitively be said not to exist. That deserves research. Third, while the source is pro-Christian Science (of a sort -- look carefully) the claims it makes are not made by it alone (at least according to Google.) What we're talking about here is citing fact rather than providing positive or negative commentary, as your web site does. (At the time I would have argued as strongly against inclusion of pro-Christian Science discussions, and still would.) Digitalican (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of the description of describing the Harlow "myth" and Henson "rumor", I don't think I was too harsh in my edit. Do go be man (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although it was fun at the time in retrospect I think the whole "rumors about" section is a tad sensationalistic, which is mostly my fault understand, and possibly the whole thing should be removed. Henson would still be on the list, under "raised", even if the rumor section is removed and his maybe the only one of the three names where being listed make sense.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Dodd. The Wikipedia article about him states that he's Roman Catholic. ----

Thanks whoever you are. I was not aware someone had added him. Anyway they also did it wrong, he wasn't sourced or alphabetized.--T. Anthony (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on List of Christian Scientists (religious denomination). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of Christian Scientists (religious denomination). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of Christian Scientists (religious denomination). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nga.org/governors/1,1169,C_GOVERNOR_INFO^D_680,00.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101961104-134972,00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://instruction.bus.wisc.edu/lkuzuhara/mhr300/Goldman
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527213047/http://www.threestooges.net:80/cast.php?id=27 to http://threestooges.net/cast.php?id=27
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/mariani-tower.html
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=5908878834967
Added {{dead link}} tag to https://cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0101/15/lkl.00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Christian Scientists (religious denomination). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on List of Christian Scientists (religious denomination). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]