Talk:Christian Science

Etymology

Could I request a section to explain the etymology of the word science in this context? I think it might be in the same sense as "Gnosis", but I don't know. Either way, it is not the common meaning of science (in the way a physicist would use the word, to mean empirical/falsifiable insights into the rational, natural world). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.54.159 (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

I happened to look up "Christian Science" exactly because I was wondering what it meant and why it was called that. I think an etymology section is a must have, given what you have said about how it differs from the usual meaning of "science". NicolinoChess31415926 (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

As no opposition was voiced, the result of this discussion was to allow a split. Shuri42 (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

---

I would like to propose splitting Christian Science into Christian Science and History of the Christian Science movement. Similar movements have history pages such as History of New Thought, History of the Latter Day Saint movement, and History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A large portion of this page is devoted to history already, however there is still a lot that could be added. For instance there is no mention of the large number of offshoot movements and groups, no mention of the "Great Litigation", only some slight mentions of Christian Science outside the United States, and a number of other historical topics. This page is currently 218,246 bytes and has 87,008 characters, which is already running into size issues as it is. It seems best to split the historical portions of the page into their own page so that it can continue to be expanded. Shuri42 (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to remaining split. Now, months later, still no actual objection to the split was made. Any issues with incoming links can and should be fixed. Felix QW (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Hi, I just noticed this, which was posted two days before Christmas and has been here for less than 30 days. I oppose the split. Victoria (tk) 17:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Continuing: so History of the Christian Science movement by copy/pasting entirely from this article without attribution. Looking at page history 147,000 bytes were removed and 20,000 bytes added back, plus a whole chunk of new sources. This basically creating an entirely new article under the auspices of "split proposal" posted two days before Christmas.

All that material needs to looked at because this a Good Article and we don't want to jeopardize its rating. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia as to how to attribute when copying from one article to another. I've not had time to look closely at the article since I last edited here, the primary editor died last year, but do need a few others to take a look before this work goes ahead. Also the split might have to be undone and might need an admin for that: pinging Johnuniq, Bishonen and FloNight for input. Victoria (tk) 18:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Victoriaearle, I apologize if I was hasty, it felt to me like enough time had passed, but I understand if people may have missed it because of Christmas. I was following the Procedure outlined on Wikipedia:Splitting, but of course I welcome input. I'll look at the Copying within Wikipedia article you linked to as well. Thanks again. Shuri42 (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

If you read the the Procedure section at Wikipedia:Splitting it explains relevant notifications, templates, and then importantly attributions. None of these procedures has been followed. No comment means no consensus. I formally oppose the split at this time. As soon as I have time to read through the entire article to reacquaint myself with it, and look through the article history to figure out what's happened, I'll post again. That may take a few days. Also adding WAID to list of pings. I believe she was active here at one point. Victoria (tk) 19:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

This is indeed a bad time of year for such an extensive proposal. I'll also need a few days to think about it but one quick thought is that some of the removed sections had anchors in them. If the article is split, a check need to be made to find the incoming links and fix any problems. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no preference either way.

Split proposals are not required to stay open for any particular minimum length of time, and no objections could equally well be interpreted in light of Wikipedia:Be bold. Splits, after all, can be reverted by any editor in two clicks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Shuri42, Johnuniq, and Victoriaearle: I find nothing wrong with the procedure of splitting the page; in particular, attribution was provided per edit summary as it should be.

Are there now, many months later, any objections to the split? Felix QW (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.