Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Information & Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Links at HealthHaven.com

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mary Baker Eddy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

WikiProject Christianity

(Rated Start-Class, Mid-importance)

Christianity portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Massachusetts

(Rated C-Class, Low-importance)

Massachusetts portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Massachusetts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Massachusetts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

C

This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

WikiProject Biography

(Rated C-Class)

Biography portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.

C

This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

[edit] Miscellaneous

I added the quote about her attempt to sue the city and it's reference, please do not revert without a good reason, it is cited. 165.146.79.126 17:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC) ---

I don't think wikipedia is meant to be just a list of external links. Please write at least a stub article giving her dates of birth and death, and what makes her historically noteworthy. Is she the founder of Christian Science?? Wesley

---

Note to 68.155.125.136: Your comment on Hinduism has a definite fundamentalist polemical nature. I know CS and MBE's writings thoroughly, and Hinduism pretty well, and I can tell you she tended to have more negative inclination than positive on it. She not only never "acknowledged" (note the spelling) such connection (even if she briefly imagined it might hint at a Christian transcendence), she rooted herself emphatically in Christianity, in repeated opposition to "heathenism" and "paganism", however narrowly you yourself may define Christianity. I think I can also inform you your claim that her "followers" omitted such text is absurd. She was redactor of her own constant revisions to the book, and while she occasionally sought others' input on how the ideas came across, she was in fact extremely jealous of its purity and resistant as a rule to their ideas, as her secretary Adam Dickey observed at some length. I'd recommend you read through the Peel biographies or similar works, let alone Science and Health itself, first before interposing speculative conjectures. Chris Rodgers 10:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

This is a very poorly written article. I would suggest making the first paragraph more than a list of disconnected sentences. Go from there.

[edit] Have begun the footnoting process

As a wiki source for information on one of the most significant female American leaders in American religious history, this biographical article needs some serious attention. As an amatuer historian on Church history including from early Christianity through modern times as well as a touch on Christian Science, I will try to add more information including an extensive bibliography. While Eddy remains highly controversial to this day and she deserves an even-handed treatment and an extensive biography. She remains highly interesting not only to her followers but also to her detractors, American religious scholars and is too often overlooked in discussions on the development of both American philosophical as well as theological thought. SimonATL 01:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balance

The wikipedian who deleted the external link to former Christian Scientists tried to remove that balance from the Christian Science article earlier. Do go be man 08:20, 09 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that one of the "Core Beliefs" of those behind the external link referred to, is that "people who are not followers of Jesus Christ will spend eternity in hell." (Presumably this includes people who, through no fault of their own, never got a chance to hear of Jesus Christ as well as--in some instances--the fathers and mothers of the "saved".) Please note that this is an entry on Mary Baker Eddy, the discoverer and founder of Christian Science, not an entry on Protestant fundamentalism. If you believe that there is an imbalance in the entry you are free to edit it like anyone else, but please stop adding irrelevant material.81.108.28.190 18:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The site referred to is maintained by former Christian Scientists who had long experience with Christian Science which Mary Baker Eddy is said to have discovered. Rather than edit and clutter an article obviously biased towards Christian Science, I felt it more appropriate to simply provide access to an alternate perspective. --Do go be man 20:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The edit war to retain the link to The Christian Way is getting silly. It is not intended to be as threatening as it appears to be. --Do go be man 16:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The biographical page on Mary Baker Eddy is not the place to include an article providing an alternative view to/of Christian Science any more than a link to former protestants who have become muslims would be appropriately included in a biographical article on Martin Luther. Digitalican 16:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science are linked. Perhaps it would not be appropriate to include a section discussing alternate views of her teachings, but a link that provides balance to a POV article should not be so threatening. Mary Baker Eddy claimed to be a Christian (a claim I don't necessarily dispute). The opportunity to consider a Christian perspective on her teachings is appropriate. The example of former protestants who became muslims offering alternate views in a biographical article on Martin Luther may not be appropriate unless their new philosophy had a direct connection to their old. --Do go be man 17:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not threatening, it's inappropriate. As it stands the article is on her, not on her teachings. (You've missed the point of a biographical article on Martin Luther being about him not about the theology of protestantism.) If you feel the biographical article is POV then, obviously, it needs to be rewritten -- something which would be a constructive approach and which I would certainly agree with.

Since you've now violated the three revert rule I guess we'll have to go to mediation. Digitalican 17:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Still being a relative newbie to Wikipedia, I was not aware of the 3 revert rule and had to look it up. We've discussed the relevancy of the Christian Way link before. Apparently, we both have strong feelings regarding the relevancy of providing balance within topics which have inherent points of view. So, how do we reach a civil resolution? --Do go be man 17:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You and I have not discussed this, at least in context of this page. As I see it there's no inherent POV in a biography, which should be factual. (If it is not, then it needs to be rewritten. Adding links does not accomplish balance, it just confuses and adds to clutter.) Links to Christian Way are possibly appropriate to pages that directly discuss Christian Science theology and belief and nobody has removed them from those pages. My objection, as it was to inclusion of the link on the Christian Science Board of Directors article, is that it isn't directly relevant to the subject of this article.

I've requested intervention from the Mediation Cabal, which seems a reasonable first step. Digitalican 18:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Addhoc from the mediation-cabal. Firstly, could I ask Do go be man, whether he believes the external link contains biographical information about Mary Baker Eddy that isn't currently in the article? Addhoc 12:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Addhoc. Yes, I do believe that the external link contains biographical information about Mary Baker Eddy that isn't currently in the article. Thanks. --Do go be man 01:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, could you outline this biographical information? Addhoc 09:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Mary Baker Eddy's life and times are a frequent topic of discussion on the Christian Way forums. The forums provide the opportunity for Christian Scientists, former Christian Scientists, and anyone else to share perspectives regarding the life of Mary Baker Eddy, her writings, the organizations she founded, and the impact her life had on others. For example, Christian Way Forums: The Gill biography of MBE... a middle view.

There are many others, but time for providing such examples is short and likely not considered relevant to this discussion. The web site itself provides a resource list supporting and not supporting Christian Science including biographies of Mary Baker Eddy:

Again, may not be as relevant to this discussion as it could be.

The issue was well put below by Beland (in Critical Perspective):

"Eddy is the founder of a rather controversial religion. If you take a look at Joseph Smith, Jr. or Martin Luther, you'll see a section which summarized their main teachings, which is missing here...The current version of this article is overly symphathetic, only mentioning that Eddy was controversial" and not giving us any details on what sort of criticism she personally encountered."

As I sampled Wikipedia biographies, I found that biographical articles included the concept that their lives are inexorably intertwined with their writings, actions, and organizations they founded. From Joseph Smith and Martin Luther to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Sun Myung Moon, Kip McKean, L. Ron Hubbard, and Jim Jones, I found links to sites which offered alternative perspectives on the lives of those men. Even the article on Alcoholics Anonymous founder, Bill W., contains links to sites critical of AA.

I could have written the "Controversy" section suggested by Beland, however, felt it best and more respectful to keep matters simple by only including the Christian Way link. Should Addhoc decide the link should be removed, I will defer and consider writing the suggested section.

In the meantime, I would like offer some notes regarding my credentials and those of some of my fellow former Christian Scientist Christian Way associates (BTW, we have frequent contributions from Christian Scientists as well which include comments on the life and biographies of Mary Baker Eddy).

Many of us were multi-generational Christian Scientists who lived, breathed, and studied Mary Baker Eddy's writings for decades. Her life served as a model for us. We received the same training required of a Christian Science Practitioner listed in the Christian Science Journal for which she provided. In appropriate circumstances, we are entitled to use the title "C.S." following our names in much the same way as other credentialed professionals and scholars. Some served in the full-time practice of Christian Science.

I've posted almost 1,400 messages on the Christian Way forums. Recently, a Christian Scientist who earned a Ph.D. mentioned that he appreciated my scholarly approach. I try to provide citations and proof texts for much of what I write. I also hold an post graduate degree.

Thus, while Mary Baker Eddy's supporters may not agree with much of what the Christian Way offers, it does have the authority and credibility of experience, training, and documentation. --Do go be man 17:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me offer a solution/compromise. After looking at some similar biographical pages, it seems what may be needed here is a Wikipedia article on "Controversy Surrounding Christian Science." This is very similar to the Wiki link off of the Joseph Smith page. It would also provide a place to put some of the argumentation currently on the Christian Science and Church of Christ, Scientist pages that will facilitate their cleanup. Do go be man can then put an external link to Christianway.org on that page.

If that is not acceptable, a link to specific places on the Christianway.org site dealing with alternative views or criticism of Mary Baker Eddy's biography would seem more appropriate than the current link which points to the christianway.org web site as a whole. Digitalican 18:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, creating a new article seems like a lot of effort to avoid leaving in an external link that has precedence on many other pages. I have to admit to a level of curiosity as to why not leave things as they are. --Do go be man 20:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the situation appears to be that you want the link included, while three editors on this page want the link removed. The link has more relevance to some other articles, but doesn't contain much biographical information not already in the article. In this context, I would suggest the link should be removed. Addhoc 20:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

As agreed, I will defer to the authority of the mediator and remove the link under the protest that precedence in other articles indicates this article will be treated by different standards. I will also begin working on the suggested section regarding "Controversy". I remain curious regarding the agendas of those who objected to the link. --Do go be man 21:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peel Book not originally church-authorized

Robert Peel's trilogy on Eddy was not published originally by the CS church, nor was it, from the beginning, so-called authorized literature. All that - developed later. Consequently, in the biography section I changed the wording to read "eventually church authorized.SimonATL 15:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but to call it definitive is a bit much, smacks of POV to me 165.146.95.152 18:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually it pretty much is the definitive work and long is likely to be; Gillian Gill explicitly acknowledges as much also in her own not exactly lightweight work. Also volume 3 was not published by the church, but that doesn't mean the church had problems with it, the Reading Rooms carried it from day one. Plus "authorized" was a term long in disuse,m so the point is kind of silly. Chris Rodgers 06:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

... controversial 1999 work by a non-Christian Scientist, Gillian Gill ... Where is a non-OR source to back up the contention that this book is controversial? If one can't be found, I suggest deleting this characterization. Nashville 00:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gill Book not authoritative

From the introduction, Gill demonstrates a profound ignorance and MIS-understanding of much about both Eddy as well as the Church she founded. For example, in the intro, she displays complete ignorance of the purpose for the building of the Mother Church ediface as well as its Extension. It goes down hill from there. Speaking of Mrs. Eddy's pincushion, for example, Gill says, "When I read of the rigid routine; the priority given to punctuality, cleanliness, and unvarying order; the exact place each pin had to occupy on Mrs. Eddy's pincushion, my heart fills with gloom." No mention of Eddy's teaching, "perfection undelies reality," and why? Because Gill doesn't really understand Eddy nor her teaching. From the intro on, with a ton of "I think this" and "I think that" observations, Gill attempts to understand and explain Eddy but fails, in my opinion, miserably. "Authorized literature of the First Church of Christ, Scientist?" Unbelievable! Why would the Church, which sometimes refused her access to its own historical Archives, forcing her to work with the CS "renegade" Ann Beals., nevertheless, give it their moniker? Some have told me it was simple - so Eddy's theological critics wouldn't get ahold of the bio and say, "See what we told you about that woman." Smart politics - Church "authorization" almost completly defused that result SimonATL 15:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critical perspectives

Eddy is the founder of a rather controversial religion. If you take a look at Joseph Smith, Jr. or Martin Luther, you'll see a section which summarized their main teachings, which is missing here. You'll also see coverage of the community's reaction to their teachings, which is of course a major event in their lives. The current version of this article is overly symphathetic, only mentioning that Eddy was "controversial" and not giving us any details on what sort of criticism she personally encountered. Note, for example, this passage from Christian Science Monitor:

The Monitor's inception was, in part, a response by Eddy to the journalism of her day, which relentlessly covered the sensations and scandals surrounding her new religion with varying degrees of accuracy. In addition, Mark Twain's blisteringly critical book Christian Science stung Eddy particularly, and according to many historians led Eddy to found her own media outlet.

This article just says the paper was "devoted to balance". Ahem.

Regarding the Christian Way dispute, I see a minimal amount of content there that covers Eddy's biography specifically, with some minor details which might be added here. (Though given the anti-CS nature of the site, I would seek out a more reliable source.) [1] I don't think it's appropriate for this article, but it is appropriate for Christian Science, and indeed it's already listed there under Criticism.

-- Beland 12:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Personally, I don't have a problem with a NPOV tag. Also, I agree the Christian Way link doesn't appear to include much biographical information and I wouldn't object to this information being included in the article, possibly using different sources. Addhoc 13:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Source - up to you

I've found a reliable source with a passing mention. I don't know enough about MBE to evaluate if using it would create an undue weight issue. So I'll quote and cite for you - go to edit mode to see the full citation. It is a short paragraph in a section on Warren, Maine. "The founder of Christian Science spent some time here in 1864. Then Mrs. Patterson, she gave several lectures which she reported in a series of charming letters. Publicly advertised title of one of her lectures was 'P. P. Quimby's Spiritual Science Healing Disease - as opposed to Deism or Rochester-Rapping-Spiritualism.'^[1]" GRBerry 03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Legacy Reference should be made to Mary Baker Eddy's full legacy, including her Deed of Trust, the Church Manual, the unbroken heritage of Christian Science Class Instruction, the documented healings attributed to her, and "The Great Litigation" which is standard study for all law students, which is a landmark case involving the legal instruments Mrs. Eddy established. The Great Litigation was reported in the Christian Science Monitor newspaper in the early 1920's. Also, photographic books were made of her home in Concord, New Hampshire in 1897 entitled "Pleasant View" 20 plates of the home of Rev. Mary Baker Eddy, and also of her home in Brookline, Massachusetts entitled "Scrapbook", published posthumously by the head of her estate's security detail. A collector's silver spoon which she authorized in her lifetime which bears her image is still popular among collectors. When people would visit her she would encourage them to buy a dozen of them! Regarding her fame, she always made headlines in all the leading newspapers of her day. She was a self-made millionaire in a time when women could not even vote and pioneered in women's rights. She was the highest-paid women author of her day, and yet her natural born son never learned to read or write, but this did not discourage her from pursuing her life's work.66.156.0.212 04:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)profeugen

Correction on the "Great Litigation" between the CS Board of Directors and the Trustees of the CS Publishing Society. I have been a CSist for over 30 years and never heard the Great Litigation discussed in Law School nor do I know of anyone else who's heard it discussed. But that's just my particular experience. SimonATL 19:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Founder of a religion?

A new category has been started for founders of religions. Should Mary Baker Eddy be included in this category? I think most people would think so. Is there a reason why not? Thanks. Steve Dufour 22:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quimby connection plus distinction materials added

Over an over again, the critics of Eddy rail on her having "stole Christian Science from Phineas Quimby," yet it is important for serious Eddy scholars to understand her relation to the so-called "magnetic doctor," Phineas Parkhurst Quimby. While she was helped by him, physically, taught by him and even helped write down many of his thoughts, ideas and theories, and was greatly influenced by him, his role, while a formative one for Eddy, was not ultimately determinative. Eddy's fundamental concepts were much different from Quimby's and she totally rejected Quimby's notions of a dualism between matter and spirit or any sense that mesmerism/hypnotism was, in way, good or a positive influence on the thought and health of a suffering patient. SimonATL 02:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just added a little puntuation to help things be a little clearer. Read your objections to Gill, yet she offers great documentation on why Christian Science is not Quimbism. It helps to demonstrate how her discovery is based on the Bible. What she considered her authority, teacher, and guide. Thanks.

[edit] Article moving further from neutrality

Recent edits have moved this article even further away from neutrality. That is not necessarily a bad thing in the broadest context. There was nothing neutral about Mary Baker Eddy in her lifetime or now, regardless of what you may otherwise feel about her.

Wikipedia standards, however, call for neutrality. I will continue to watch this page, but believe the addition of external links providing alternate points of view have become appropriate unless attempts are made to comply with Wikipedia standards of neutrality. --Do go be man 02:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I will disagree on two points. First, I don't see neutrality being violated. Neutrality is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. There are those for whom the mere mention of Mary Baker Eddy is not neutral, just as there are those for whom the mention of Joseph Smith is not neutral. Such people should probably not edit encyclopedias.

Second, neutrality is different from balance. Multiple different viewpoints do not add up to neutrality, they simply turn articles into forums which are definitely not in the spirit of Wikipedia. If you think an article is not neutral, then apply edits to improve its neutrality.

I've actually been fascinated by the back and forth of the editing here. There's work to be done, certainly, but adding links does nothing to improve the situation. Digitalican 04:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

woah...seriously this is not a netural page... some words have huge negative connatations to it jackchen123 20 AUGUST 2007

Hi!! I love this process! Being neutral, what does that mean to you? Tell me what other events should be here and I'm happy to work on it for others to look at. Any issue you have in mind?Simplywater 17:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I have a little problem with the long quotes under study with Quimby and his influence. I don't have a problem with the topic, but I'm not sure that the long quotes give the public an understanding of what the writer wants to communicate.

I am happy to work with the original writer to put this part together in an understandable way. with come quotes included. But I went to other web sites and they don't have long quotes like that.

I'm the original writer who put all those long quotes in because they reveal a lot of information on Eddy's relationship to Quimby. Eventually, I hope to put out a separate article on Eddy and Quimby. Perhaps, I'll just transplant those quotes to that article. Also - please sign your comments with 4 tildes (~) that way we know who "you," Simplywater, are. Thanks (I'm following this with the 4 tidldes so you now see --> SimonATL 01:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

that may be a good idea. to have a separate page. although the relationship between quimby and Mrs. Eddy is interesting, it shouldn't dominate a bibliography page about her. Her thought are truely unique as pointed out by several differnt authors.71.220.211.20 (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, here goes :) I tried to put everything that has to do with the difference between Quimby and Eddy together since the title of the article is not about Quimby and Eddy. I also cut some of the long quotes because I didn't see any evidence in other biographies of long quotes. But I hope I caught the spirit of what the author intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 10:48, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I am dismayed by the predominance given to biographer Gillian Gill over all other biographers. Who says Gillian Gill has the only valid viewpoint? Why should her views be the only ones expressed? The neutrality of this article is very questionable. 75.40.61.177 (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template: Wikipedia Rational Skepticism

This article is about a religion, its founder and/or its organizational structure. I don't find this template on other religions, their founders, or church organizations, such as Mormonism, Catholicism, Judaism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unity Church, New Thought, Religious Science, etc. This template does not belong here. I see that many of the religions cited have Wikiprojects of their own and/or are part of the Wikiproject on Christianity. Someone just added that here, which is fine. Why not a Wikiproject on the Christian Science religion? clariosophic clariosophic 19:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Christian Science is Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.23.216 (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've thought some time about your question and I have to say that Mary Baker Eddy was a great Christian thinker. Her thoughts on sacrament, hell, heaven, atonment, Christ, Jesus, baptism should be of the continuing Christian dialogue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 17:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] her crusade against the flesh

I am still amazed by the total war she wages on the flesh and the physical body. She sees it as a major evil and never tires to reiterate the old fashioned "Spirit - Good, Matter - Bad". The division of body and mind/spirit took place in the Middle Ages. What is then her contribution, what is it that makes her philosophy any different and special? I don't understand how she explains the fact that we possess a physical body at all. If we're the children of the Creator and made in his perfect image and likeness ... what is wrong with our physical body and experience of the material world? Or at least what went wrong?

When Mary Baker Eddy speaks of her being against pantheism, she believes there is no life in the body. If so, how does she explain the fact of pain or reaction to a variety of external stimuli? And what about the bodily reflection of mental states and certain emotions? Couldn't the spirit be like the electricity needed to make any electrical device work?

I don't know where to interject so here looks to be as good as any place. Mrs. Eddy's teachings are not "Spirit - Good, Matter - Bad" They are "Spirit - God, spiritual - reality, matter - illusion projected from material belief". As electrical current is a material phenomenon, to a Christian Scientist electrical impulses in the brain are effect, not cause. Thought is always the cause. So the goal of the Christian Scientist is always to spiritualize thought. Healing is the result of more spiritualized thinking, not the goal in and of itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.199.119 (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow!!! Great questions. I have found that most of what she says comes straight from the Bible. It is best to go straight to the source to find your answers. She has two books that may be of interest. One is Christian Science verses Pantheism. Her most important work is Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. Christian Science is unique because it teaches that the reality of God denies the reality of sin, sickness, death and the material world.

Let me give you what she considers to be the doctrine of Christian Science from her textbook Science and Health.

      This is the doctrine of Christian       Science: that divine Love cannot be deprived of its       manifestation, or object; that joy cannot be turned into   12   sorrow, for sorrow is not the master of joy; that good can       never produce evil; that matter can never produce mind       nor life result in death. The perfect man--governed

From my perspective her message is unique because it is explaining the laws of God for all to understand. The Christ, has been speaking to humanity since the beginning of time, and humanity has understood that pure message of love in different degrees. For me, her contribution is writing down the spiritual laws in operation that Jesus saw where we see matter.

Middle Ages - While I am not an expert on the Middle Ages, In Christian Science, God, Love is recognized as the only power and as completely good. I consider my warfare as recognizing only God as power. Instead of a battle between evil as a power and God as a power. I have seen the practical effects in the form of healing by only acknowledging God Spirit,good as the only creator and a creator of only good. I would say that is unique.

All is Spirit - Eddy's discovery that existence is only spiritual, and not dependent of material systems of any kind, also make Christian Science unique.

Body. As a Christian Scientist, I love the 1st chapter of Genisis. "And man was made in the image and likeness of God" Instead of looking at our physical body and making God man-like. I have learned to see man as God-like. Eternally good, pure, loving, intelligent. For example, if I asked to you to discribe yourself, you could say "I am 5 feet 8 inches tall, I have blond hair and large hands." Or you could say "I'm sincere, thoughtful, persitent and kind". Those qualites, I understand, constitute our true make-up. And, I bet most Christians would agree.

simplywater —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.23.216 (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eddy's influences, Controversy Et. Al.

Allright, I've noticed some tampering with the controversy section getting a pro edit as opposed to my original posting with references, I believe a section on Controversy belongs in such articles to maintain neutrality, but more importantly, to provide information, Someone could be viewing this page in research for making a life choice, I'd be happy if someone added pros to the Controversy section, I can already provide the Cons.

Regarding Influences and Schools of thought however, Eddy did not influence mainstream medicine, science, or Christianity in any way shape or form,(if this is incorrect please provide evidence of such) New Thought would be her proper influence, or Eastern Mysticism of the Hindu, since her teachings have everything to do with the yogic concepts of "maya" and what exists not actually existing, including evil and nothing (that I've ever read) to do with Christ who never taught such things, nor has Christianity proper.

I personally feel that excluding these things from her biography destroys the Neutrality of the article and makes it Biased in favor of...I hope I am not the only one that sees this? In Closing I would like to state that, I have studied the subject at hand extensivly, and given the beliefs presented in the manner in which they are currently, I think I am justly concerned when considering the world could lose someone to a treatable disease due to getting all the "happy" stuff from here...much like what happened to Jim Henson

Regards, Thanatos-Lupercus

P.S. Digitalcan, should you wish to contact me to discuss any of this, I do have several IMs, pick your poison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.25.103 (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

First, most if not all of your criticisms apply to Christian Science rather than Mary Baker Eddy. This is, after all, a biographical article not an article about the church or the belief system. As such, criticisms of the church are misplaced.

There's a more general point here in that there's a difference between balance and neutrality. An accumulation of "pro" and "con" sections does not make an article neutral, it makes it unreadable. This is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum.

In terms of influences, I feel like you're trying to have it both ways. You reject her (or Christian Science's) influence on Christianity and ask for documentation, yet you assert an influence by Hinduism without a shred of evidence other than they seem similar. (Just because we look alike doesn't mean we're biological brothers.) I'd assert (without documented evidence beyond letters and newspaper columns in the 19th century) that Christian Science has historically certainly influenced American Protestantism. While I'd agree that certain aspects of Christian Science resemble eastern thought, there's no indication that Eddy was more than peripherally in contact with them. Sometimes, though you take a different path, you get to the same ending point.

Finally, I'm very disrespectful of anonymous edits that make bold assertions or have major consequences. It has something to do with accountability. Digitalican (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Digitalcan,

That almost sounds like a personal attack, almost; however I would contend that as you were raised as CS that should bar you from editing of this article as you obviously will have bias in favor of, consciously or subconsciously. As for my anonymous edits, I don't wish to have a username etc. in the wiki-caste system. I'm sure you're going to be nominated to be on the MEDCAB, Enjoy.

Regards,

Thanatos-Lupercus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.25.103 (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh and for the record, Digitalcan, CS is directly influenced by Hinduism, via yogic teachings, which of course also assert that the physical world is not real, Quimby had connections with this, and subsequently Eddy learned from Quimby (Who would later be regarded as the father of New Thought.) whether this is stated in a "sponsored" or "Sponsored research" bit of bologna, I don't know; however, I do know that Eddy never influenced, science, (science is based on Facts and, oddly enough, original research.) medicine, (unless you call condemning medicine outright, and declaring diseases to be Illusion an "influence", then sure she influenced it, negatively. Alternative medicine like reiki and whatnot might qualify however.) and Christianity (She actually takes a greatly anti-christian stance, denying primary tenets, and regarding God as something more like "The Force" than anything else, if you'd read the resources I added, you'd note this).

Now, you being a devotee, I'm sure you were conditioned to ignore these things, part and parcel of the job after all. This information however, Does belong in the Biography, as much as the other sections' (which I have left completely alone As you can see) talking of "her religion" etc. Why? Because you cannot seperate an individual who starts a "religion" from the religion itself, unless of course you want to sterilize the whole shebang of any religious mention, but that wouldn't be very biographical, would it?

What I see occuring here, is an article that prattles on about how good and awesome ad nauseam she was, veiled though it may be, and so, it requires cons to even out it's pros, yes Balance even, which is actually the same thing as Neutrality (If a submarine makes it's tendency to sink match with it's tendency to float, it's called Neutral Bouyancy, of course if you want to correct the Navy on this, feel free.) unless of course, wikipedia's definition of neutrality diverges from the mainstream and *accepted* version.

Lastly, this may be Jimbo's lil attempt at internet communism (a nice idea but not viable.), but as with it's physical world counterpart it doesn't work, as it fails to account for the fact that some people are just plain evil, and usually get into positions of power (MEDCAB or whatever you want to call it, joke as it may be made out to be..same as people's party of China.) and once there, generally stay (George W, prime example of this). As for her school of thought, even the sections existant already in this article suggest it's Personal Revelation, just as much as joseph smith's deal; Philosophy? Sure...but Christianity? Since jim jones based his suicide cult on Christianity, does that *make it* Christianity? Of course not.

In lieu of your continual removing of the aforementioned sections, and against my better judgement, (Since I already can guess where this will end up.) I'd like to make a formal request for Arbitration, preferably by a Party or parties who have no connection to either Christianity or CS, that their descision won't be partial to either side. Agreed?

Regards,

Thanatos-Lupercus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.81.28 (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I am absolutely up for arbitration. I stand by my original points and little you have said -- proof by vigorous hand-waving -- disputes them. While I'm willing to engage in constructive dialog, that sort of engagement doesn't seem to be in the cards, so to speak.

By your logic criticism of Microsoft products is appropriate to Bill Gates' biography or criticism of Artificial Intelligence apprpriate to Turing's biography. I don't think that's a tenable position. Criticism of Christian Science, IMHO, belongs in one place, i.e. the Wikipedia page on Christian Science. Had you put it there, I would not have messed with it. People who are looking for either criticisms or apologetics for Christian Science are more sure to find it there.

Your assertions about what influenced Mary Baker Eddy are certainly indirect enough to qualify as "original research" (how did sponsored research get into it?) Such influences may or may not be so, but to assert it is speculative at best.

Finally, I find your rather bald assumption that I am somehow "a devotee" quite amusing, as anyone who knows me would testify. Although raised as a Christian Scientist, I left Christian Science after High School (that would be about 45 years ago,) am often a critic of it and cannot be considered under any circumstances an apologist or devotee.

What I strive to do is use my knowlege of Christian Science coupled with a certain skeptical criticism of it to take a as neutral a stance as I can. By neutral I mean really neutral, and not just balanced. (Go back to my previous comment to see the difference.)

This isn't about neutrality or balance, however, it's about original research (not encouraged on Wikipedia) and misplaced criticism all of which lead to making Wikipedia less encyclopaedic and more like some sort of social network site. That I am absolutely against.

Digitalican (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Digitalcan,

Called in the Artillary did we? And with Rollback powers no less, my my... Just so you know, their efforts are futile, my IP is Dynamic, so unless they were to ban, say, all of earthlink, I'd still be around. However since my guess was obviously prophetic, I withdraw, yep have the article all to yourself, this is not because I cannot provide sources for my statements, but rather because I do not wish to fight an old man and the equivilant of the Red Guard over a cult founder's pseudobio. That and this little experiment has proved that the anti-sites are pretty acurate in their evalulation, I doubt you will, but look into them sometime...like this one: wikisucks(dot)blogspot(Period)com (not mine, may sound similar, but not mine). Sure, I have time to burn, but why are you wasting what ya got left maintaining an article? Strikes me as odd..eh well Find something better to do, like I'm doing; and what did I say about internet communism?

Groovy as this experiment was...I just don't jive with this anymore, enjoy your promotion to the MEDCAB, also, delete this section as needed, gotta have more space for them fluffy folks to post their praise afterall. Oh and what's that verse? Something about "what we are taught as children we never depart from." or something?

Sayonara,

Thanatos-Lupercus 172.192.57.37 (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Twain said WHAT???

The ridiculous use of the Gill book to claim that...

"Mark Twain published a satire of Eddy's discovery entitled Christian Science. He said of her in another writing, however, "When we do not know a person -- and also when we do-- we have to judge the size and nature of his achievements as compared with the achievements of others in his special line of business--there is no other way. Measured by this standard, it is thirteen hundred years since the world has produced anyone who could reach up to Mrs. Eddy's waistbelt. In several ways she is the most interesting woman that ever lived and the most extraordinary."[5]"

This paragraph above is absurd. Mark Twain's book was more than a "satire" of Mrs. Eddy. Mark Twain was extremely critical of her and her ideas. His book ranted against her. If anyone wants to pretend that Mark Twain later lauded praise on Mrs. Eddy as is implied by the supposed Gill book prefix (page ix) then they had better offer a direct citation to the writings of Twain himself. With no direct citation to a writing of Mark Twain I think this paragraph has to be thrown out as unreliable and a likely fabrication.

68.91.214.164 (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The full text removed by the above referenced change was:

At this time no one knows how much, or even if, Eddy influenced the great social and political movements of her day including abolition, the Wellness health movement and the women's suffrage movement. Mark Twain published a satire of Eddy's discovery entitled Christian Science. He said of her in another writing, however, "When we do not know a person -- and also when we do-- we have to judge the size and nature of his achievements as compared with the achievements of others in his special line of business--there is no other way. Measured by this standard, it is thirteen hundred years since the world has produced anyone who could reach up to Mrs. Eddy's waistbelt. In several ways she is the most interesting woman that ever lived and the most extraordinary."^[2]

I'm pretty certain that the quote is a legitimate quote of Twain. When I have more time, I will try to track down an alternate source than Gill to support it. WilliamKF (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A quick search reveals another source: "Rolling Away the Stone: Mary Baker Eddy's Challenge to Materialism By Stephen Gottschalk" page 46. I look for more. And another one "Yankee Kingdom: Vermont and New Hampshire By Ralph Nading Hill" page 239. WilliamKF (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I found the primary source of the Twain quote, it is the Christian Science book and I have restored the text and cited it to the primary source as well as the secondary. WilliamKF (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to respond. First regarding the passage;

"At this time no one knows how much, or even if, Eddy influenced the great social and political movements of her day including abolition, the Wellness health movement and the women's suffrage movement."

I do not see any valid _information_ within this passage. It is an empty statement. What does it tell us? Why should a passage that tells us nothing remain in the article? "No one knows how much, or even if?"

Good point, I agree it should be removed as written. Eddy certainly did weigh in on these issues, so perhaps it is worth somehow bringing these back in or finding a cite to say something useful on these important topics and what her relationship to them was. WilliamKF (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Next the quote attributed to Mark Twain is clearly hyperbole -- and taken out of context -- as the entirety of Twain's book is a diatribe against Eddy and her religion. A few pages later Twain goes on to express doubts that Eddy wrote Science and Health. Twain writes...

"The immense contrast between the legitimate English of Science and Health and the bastard English of Mrs. Eddy's miscellaneous work, and between the maturity of the one diction and the juvenility of the other, suggests--compels--the question, Are there two guns? It would seem so. Is there a poor, foolish, old, scattering flint-lock for rabbit, and a long-range, centre-driving, up-to-date Mauser-magazine for elephant? It looks like it. For it is observable that in Science and Health (the elephant-ground) the practice was good at the start and has remained so, and that the practice in the miscellaneous, outside, small-game field was very bad at the start and was never less bad at any later time.

I wish to say that of Mrs. Eddy I am not requiring perfect English, but only good English. No one can write perfect English and keep it up through a stretch of ten chapters. It has never been done. It was approached in the "well of English undefiled"; it has been approached in Mrs. Eddy's Annex to that Book; it has been approached in several English grammars; I have even approached it myself; but none of us has made port.

Now, the English of Science and Health is good. In passages to be found in Mrs. Eddy's Autobiography (on pages 53, 57, 101, and 113), and on page 6 of her squalid preface to Science and Health, first revision, she seems to me to claim the whole and sole authorship of the book. That she wrote the Autobiography, and that preface, and the Poems, and the Plague-spot-Bacilli, we are not permitted to doubt. Indeed, we know she wrote them. But the very certainty that she wrote these things compels a doubt that she wrote Science and Health. She is guilty of little awkwardnesses of expression in the Autobiography which a practiced pen would hardly allow to go uncorrected in even a hasty private letter, and could not dream of passing by uncorrected in passages intended for print. But she passes them placidly by; as placidly as if she did not suspect that they were offenses against third-class English. I think that that placidity was born of that very unawareness, so to speak." --Christian Science, Book II, Chapter 2 75.40.61.177 (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems bizarre to me. I wonder who Twain thought wrote S&H if Eddy didn't? WilliamKF (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the Twain quote to more accurately express his viewpoint and moved it to a more appropriate section. I think that is only fair. The book is entirely negative toward Eddy except for a few paragraphs such as this one where he heaps praise on her success at being a scoundrel. 75.40.61.177 (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work, I've also added a cite to his later interaction with Paine where he does appear more positive towards Eddy. Given the widely varying statements, his thought about Eddy can't be depicted as wholly supportive nor critical. WilliamKF (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

William, for your information Mark Twain was a satirist, a skeptic and an atheist. When you read the quote form Paine while taking this into an account, you will probably understand that what Twain was ironic. Twain did not express "widely varying statements" about Eddy and can be easily depicted as wholly critical about her. All you have to do is read his Christian Science. I removed Paine's quote and the comment to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.110.168.14 (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the quote because Paine seems clear that it is a reversal of opinion. I feel this cited source deserves to remain. Feel free to add other cites to show Twain's various thoughts on the subject which seemed to vary over time. WilliamKF (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Balance

Well I see nothing has changed, Digitalcan I move that you are positing bias in favor of moderate positive light in this article and should be removed from the project, as such a bias destroys the neutrality of this article. Do Go, don't let the info filtering intimidate you, Facts are facts, regardless of what anyone writes.

I would also reccomend telling your friends to avoid using wikipedia as a viable info resource, for the simple fact that the "no original research" essentially undermines the nature of an Encyclopedia; that is to say only "sponsored" material is acceptable...and by sponsored I mean exactly that while wikipedia does not contain advertisements overtly, it does sponsor points of view and information filtering towards certain lines of thought (depending on the article). Also Balance, as it stands, raises the image of a Scale, which has something on one side, and something on the other, Balance is maintained by equal portions of each, the term "balance" therefore cannot be used in this context by those who would say that balance is not what it is, et al. who have the rather insane notion that Balance is something that doesn't involve sides, which is tantamount to saying the Nile has nothing to do with Egypt. Plainly said, without a scale there is no means of determining balance and thus anyone can apply any meaning to it to suit their intentions.

In my continued watching of this article I've seen various edits, that are indeed truthful if one goes right to the sources, and anyone with an ounce of common sense can see this. Also on the note of Hinduism, anyone that has a remote understanding of the religion knows that one of it's concepts is "Maya" or that our world, physical reality, is in fact, an illusion, this is greatly magnified in Buddhist schools of thought. This is where Quimby started and began to formulate his "New Thought" religion from, and in turn, from Quimby so too was Eddy influenced, stripping the concepts to suit and attempting to put a "Christian" spin on it; thus it is not in error to say she was influenced by Hinduism, but if one must specify directly or indirectly then so be it, but do NOT censor it or claim it is not relevant to this article.

Another point is that, biographical material, to be accurate, must include information on the things that were a large influence on the person; information I might add, that must be pro and con. The Reason for this? Because a person is inexorbly tied to these influences, as the influence is tied to the person. To write a biography of Darwin, and not mention the theory of evolution, for example, would be an inaccurate and thus flawed biography...to write it and make only mention in positive light (or shades close to, as often happens with this very article.) also to write it purely with a negative light would be equally in error. To be proper and unbiased, a biography must, therefore, contain both positive and negative. Continue as you are Do go, don't let former (or possibly not?) members of the CoS quash your resolve to be accurate and truthful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.228.32 (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No original research is a Wikipedia rule. What it does is prevent people who 'think' they know something (but don't) from inserting their opinions as fact. What this has to do with "sponsorship" I can't fathom.

"Balance," too is not a wikipedia concept. Those are your words. Wikipedia articles strive for a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) which is not the same thing as balance. We've been through this before. One can write about Darwin and describe his theory without going into the arguments pro and con. Argumentation is best done elsewhere and is not encyclopaedic.

I thought you'd left this argument 7 months ago. If not, I'm happy to resume where we left off.

Digitalican (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

digitalcan,

At this point, I'm here to ensure the facts stay in this article, oh and as you may remember, my IP is Dynamic (look it up.) which means I can and will redact any attempts at censorship that you or any other medcab chump attempts, for as long as I have IPs with which to use. so perhaps the phrase "Ya can't stop me, boy!" would fit in this general area and even then there are of course proxies of other dynamic IPs and others besides myself are keeping an eye on this as well. Oh and by the way, this time I'm not going to abide childish wiki-rules as going that route will result in nothing, as per usual.

The end result of this will most likely be a locked article, which will display to the people thatthe article has been censored, hardly fit for an encyclopedia, also I should perhaps add, just in case you forgot, that Dynamic IP means you can ban one, that's hunky dorey, because I can and will come back with another one...see the futility yet? The best route is to leave this alone despite the rather misguided wiki-notions held by some, your choice.

To all the others reading this, who think that the ties to new thought and hinduism should be preserved and that things lacking evidence (such as the pro-biased point of view that this insane woman influenced Christianity or Theology at all, or was even remotely a philosopher of any grade.) feel free to help the cause.

-Thanatos The Scythe Bearer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.228.32 (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Article semi-protected, and IP blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Called in the gestapo I see? lol look, what part of Dynamic IP do you guys not understand, I have an essentially endless amount at my disposal, and no bunch of elitists hiding behind their pseudo-power can be a hinderance. also: Jihad, y'all. >D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.115.141 (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

While a range block would be technically possible, it would probably be excessive, given the article is semi-protected. However, I'm glad you have explained your thoughts on the article here. PhilKnight (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of language?

This article starts..."Mary Baker Eddy was a mental retard..." Really! Who uses that terminology and is this an appropriate or accurate description? It certainly isn't politically correct. Was she developmentally disabled? Have learning disabilities? The intro has me dismiss anything else written. If possible...help me understand. Thanks. Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdurnin (talk • contribs) 16:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The term, "mental retard", aside from its lack of political correctness, is not supported by citations or even common myths regarding Mary Baker Eddy. As a former Christian Scientist and the co-moderator of a site opposed to Christian Science, I have access to a lot of information and misinformation regarding Mary Baker Eddy. Applying "mental retard" appears to be only a way to insult her and does not further the cause of accurately portraying the true nature of her teachings. Do go be man (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The editor who continues to insert "mental retard" in the article needs to cite the claim, express it properly, and discuss it on the talk page. He will otherwise continue to be considered a vandal. Google produces no reasonable hits supporting the claim including "Aslem Boston Hospital". Mary Baker Eddy had many faults, but this claim is not supported. Perhaps it's time to report the edit war. Do go be man (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The editor under discussion might consider reviewing Wikipedia guidelines for providing references, if he considers his sources and information valid. Do go be man (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not an edit war, it is simple vandalism and should not be dignified. I've reported it. Digitalican (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I was just trying to be uncharacteristically polite and assume good faith. I posted it in Editor Assistance as the next escalation step. Do go be man (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Twain OR and need cite

At the end of the section that discusses Mark Twain, the last paragraph appears to include original research and is followed by a quote for which the source is not cited. If this is not OR, then we need to get a reliable source to cite it. Regarding the quote, we need to track down its source and cite it. WilliamKF (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that Albert Paine would know when Twain was being sarcastic given their close relationship. WilliamKF (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] <trolling removed>

If you think you have legitimate sources, cite them. As I've stated elsewhere, I'm a fairly knowledgeable critic of Mary Baker Eddy and have never heard that claim before it appeared in this context. Do go be man (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] References, Neutrality, Weasel Words

OK, I'm not going to re-remove the tags but I did applaud their removal. These tags condemn article while, themselves, remaining content-free (and requiring no responsibility on the part of the tagger.)

[edit] References

Almost any article on Wikipedia could use more references. We might as well just tag the entire Wiki with that. While there are certainly things here that need attribution (and I absolutely agree about Mark Twain) the lack of attribution in this article is not egregious.

Fair enough, so we agree the Twain quote needs help, but in general the article is pretty well cited, let's move the claim to specific sections instead of labeling the whole article. WilliamKF (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

I've been around on Wikipedia long enough to know that neutrality is very much in the eye of the beholder. One man's meat is another man's poison and I do not believe that perfect neutrality on any subject can be defined to everyone's satisfaction, much less achieved. Again, while there are areas that can be worked on in this article it is neither a paeon nor a condemnation and doesn't deserve the tag.

Again, let's try to move this to specific sections and not condemn the whole article. WilliamKF (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words

Someone tell me what and where where these are, please.

Some biographers[who?] have suggested Mary was high strung or emotional... WilliamKF (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Perfect is often the enemy of good. Unless someone can defend these tags in a reasonable and specific way without using glittering generalities and unless someone will take some responsibility for correcting them I suggest we remove them in, say, a week. It's way too easy to paint an article with a broad brush (and that, itself, becomes a way of condemning it) without being realistic.

Digitalican (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that perfect is often the enemy of good (an ironic statement to make in the context of Christian Science). I made some bold edits to the introductory paragraph to see if something could be done to improve the article as suggested.

Removed descriptions such as "Deeply religious" and "much" (regarding teaching, lecturing, and healing)
It would be useless and ineffective to remove a mention of claims regarding healing as that is something for which she was known whether valid or not
Listed accomplishments in a bullet list to avoid run on sentences and "she this/she that"
Included dates for accomplishments
Added "citation needed" where statements appeared to need support
Did not include "citation needed" for statements supported by linked articles
Did not take the time to provide citations leaving that to another editor
Added links to years
Did not add links to birth date and date of death as other biographical articles do not appear to follow that practice

Do go be man (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for these edits, but I think it may be too detailed for the lead, perhaps some of this should be moved later? WilliamKF (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Style

Without getting into the content, I have found some elements of the style of this article confusing to read. The article is easier to read if you refer to the subject consistently as 'Eddy' eventhough her name changed with each marriage. Since her husband and son had the same name, I used 'her son' to identify which George was being discussed. WP:MOS suggests that italics be used to designated book titles, but not quotations. Here the full quotes are in italics but the book titles are not. This can be distracting to the reader. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Addressed the italics for book titles and dropping them for quotes. WilliamKF (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] POV PROBEM

... still exists. How about making it a neutral article? 62.57.50.138 (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Death

Cjbroggi added some interesting text regarding Eddy's death, some of which I've never heard in spite of more than 50 years of association with Christian Science. Citations are needed to support the statements. The speculation regarding covering up her death needs to be substantiated. I understand that the official church position regarding the telephone is that the contractor needed it to communicate with his office or that security guards needed it. Cjbrogg mentions researchers. What researchers, when, where, etc.? What "credible sources"? What "numerous letters of the day"? Do go be man (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any particular research that affirms a telephone was installed in Mary Baker Eddy's coffin, but I can find a number of articles that state one was not. So, how long do we keep undocumented and possibly specious claims around before consigning them to the virtual trash bin? Digitalican (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Were I not known by those associated with Christian Science, I would have already deleted the unsupported assertions. Do go be man (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, since most think I'm an apologist for CS I've gone ahead and cleaned it up, retaining the verifiable facts and references. Digitalican (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Procedural Question

I'm sure if I spent the time, I could dig up an answer to my question. Is it appropriate and best practices to delete discussions on talk pages? Doing so appears to me a form of censorship except in the most grievous cases of vandalism. I ask this in the context of the deletion of the "Mental Retardation" section. I agree the issue likely lacks merit in spite of my outspoken criticism of Christian Science and Mary Baker Eddy. I do not, however, believe in censorship and did not see the comment on this page as having risen to the level of grievous vandalism. In fact, deleting it plays right into the apparent goals of those attempting to disrupt the content. Please keep in mind that this question and my comments apply to talk pages, not articles. I understand and agree that the claim has no place in the article unless it can be credibly verified. Do go be man (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right that it is not normal to remove talk page comments. The post was removed because it is corrosive vandalism and trolling that has been going on for some time on this article and its talk page and was in no way a constructive attempt at discussion. My apologies for also deleting your reply, I did so because it would have made little sense without the original comment. There is no attempt here at censorship, if you think the issue genuinely warrants discussion, the post can be restored. SpinningSpark 17:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with Do go be man emphatically about censorship I tend to think that responding to trolls grants their activity a dignity it doesn't deserve. Engaging with them in any substantive way seems only to encourage them. Digitalican (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

[1]

[2]

Contents