Talk:Mary Baker Eddy

British Israelism

Hello, I’m an employee of The First Church of Christ, Scientist. British Israelism was not an influence on Eddy’s work nor did she teach it. See Peel, Robert (1977), Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Authority, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 114-119). Would you please consider correcting this? FirsthandPOV-CCS (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

After reading Peel, Bukan, and Miller (the two sources cited and one proposed), I think the current section should be rewritten, but not entirely removed. There appears to be a difference of opinion amongst historians about Eddy's relationship with British Israelism (even Peel on pg. 118 acknowledges Eddy was "intrigued" by the theory "... the Anglo-Israel issue gradually drifted into the background of Mrs. Eddy's thinking. Although she continued to be intrigued by the theory for several years, she kept it resolultely out of her work and her writing on Christian Science.") and we should explain the different opinions instead of cutting content entirely. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@FirsthandPOV-CCS, just checking -- is your proposed change to remove the current section entirely, or some other edit? Thanks! Rusalkii (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Rusalkii, my primary focus was that British Israelism is included as an influence or teaching. It was neither an influence on Eddy’s work nor did she teach it. FirsthandPOV-CCS (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Encoded  Talk 💬 09:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe the "sources may not be reliable" on Mary Baker Eddy's page is erroneous...

First off, MBE was one of the most influential women to ever live, so of course any source (save clearly BAD sources, which there aren't any) is reliable, but every source I can see is from a known and reliable biography or article. To ensure this problem - that was never a problem in my eyes - is "fixed", I've added a couple more notable sources to the first paragraph. But as I can see it, every paragraph is backed up by one of her very well known biographers over the last 100 years. I just really don't understand the person who flagged this page in the first place - if you are here, I'd love to hear your perspective. If I don't hear any opposing arguments I'm obliged to remove it at some point in the near future. Gregorcollins (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe the tag is there because a lot of the sourcing is church (Christian Science) or church-friendly scholars. Peel, Bates, and Dittemore were all members of the church she founded. Gill's biography has also been criticized. See here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - Peel was a notable adherent, but Bates and Dittemore were notably VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED to Christian Science and Mary Baker Eddy - they were ruthless. So the exact opposite (you would only know this if you did some extra research which I can understand you likely wouldn't want to do). Also, Gill is a notable NON-christian scientist, her book has actually been lauded as a fair criticism of the religion. Clearly I know more than the person who put the flag up - perhaps a more appropriate flag, though it would still be incorrect, is that it appears to only have sources that "agree" with the religion. Anyway I supposed I'll clean it up more and see where we are then. Greg (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

apologies, i misspoke, sorry, dunno where my head is - you're correct Dittemore and Bates were adherents (but did say critical things about the religion, Dittemore had to write an apology letter to the board of directors before he died), but the vehement opposers were Milmine and Willa Cather and they are cited multiple times on Eddy's page, thereby showing "both sides." But the truth is we don't really know what the flag put up really meant, it's not clear. So we're left to be at the mercy of it I guess. Again, apologies for misspeaking, have a good day. Greg (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'm officially removing the May 2023 "reliable sources" flag on MBE's page, here's why...

Per the above convo (where I completely misspoke on the first reply, apologies) - after adding a couple new sources to the first paragraph and perusing the page to see that not only PRO-Christian Science biographers like Peel and Dittemore are cited, but also cited (multiple times) are noted ANTI-Christian Science biographers like Milmine and Cather, who made it their life's work to discredit Eddy and her Science. I'm actually impressed Milmine and Cather appear so frequently. And Gill, who is cited many times, is a noted NON-Christian Scientist who wrote a book that was considered very fair. So as far as i can see it's a very "both sided" piece. We are left to conjecture what the original "flagger" had in mind when they wrote "lacks reliable sources," perhaps they think all the inline citations of books make it "unreliable" - but when writing about an obscure subject like Christian Science, sometimes books are the ONLY sources we have to really verify things, as no major media source is going to cover something like Christian Science. Anyway, I felt the need to write this lengthy note. If you disagree with my points, please let me know and if you think it still needs a flag, please be as specific as possible with the flag. Whoever created this article and has added to it has done a really good job with citations. Greg (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@User:Gregorcollins, I won't object to removing the tag, but would like to note the tag was added shortly after the release of YouTube video by youtuber Knowing Better that I linked when I responded above. His section on "interrogating sources" critiqued an earlier version of this article for primary source citations to Eddy and heavy use of Pro-Christian Science biographers. The primary source reliance was substantially cut down after the tag was added and it looks like the citations to Milmine and Cather nearly doubled. I'd also note that Knowing Better's video specifically criticized Gill's biography as a bad source with a good reputation.

From KB on Gill: Another [review on the back of Gill's book] reads "Gill's biography reflects her unprecedented access to the Mother Church archive and fully renders the worldly magnitude of Eddy's achievements." The Christian Science Church doesn't just give archival access to anyone. I know from other books that if they do, they usually have some say over what the final product will be and if they don't like what you have to say, they'll enforce their copyright to prevent your book from ever coming out. And indeed on the inside of the title page there is a thank you to the church and its publishing arm for allowing her to use their copyrighted works." He continues in the section to then go through a few different errors in Gill's work, including Gill just omitting lines from Eddy's letters that don't support her conclusion when she cites them. That being said, I don't think it's necessary to remove Gill entirely from the article.

TLDR: I generally think the article has improved since the tag was added last year and would be comfortable removing it. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this very thoughtful response - and I'm glad I know about that Knowing Better video, and that it's improved since then. I haven't listened to it enough to know if this guy has any vendetta for or against Eddy, but if he's neutral, cool. I'd still call Gill a neutral source. Peel is biased towards Eddy (but not in a bold or heavy-handed way), but Milmine is REALLY biased against it (yet in the wiki article they are mostly tame assertions), so those cancel out, but Gill, being a non-Christian Scientist, even though the CS publishing society likely approved it, I've read the book and it's harsh at times and sympathetic at others. Sometimes she agrees with people like Milmine (or at least deems her credible on some points), and sometime she passionately disputes her claims. I don't think the society TOLD Gill what to write, I think they were just relieved that someone with no skin in the game other than to write a good biography wrote a book that was fair and balanced. Anyway, thanks again Greg (talk) (contribs) 01:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Why did you add content? Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Because I felt the page needed it - if someone thinks it's not justifiable for the page, then they certainly have a right to flag it or ask questions about it. One of many reasons I'm on wiki is to improve subjects of which I consider myself knowledgeable. Forgive my histrionics earlier, I had just spent many hours working on that Greg (talk) (contribs) 19:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

if you're asking about specific reasons why i added the 'healing' section, i felt that's a big part of her life, her healings are well documented, and on the page before there was little focus on her actual healing - or healing claims. Greg (talk) (contribs) 19:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

MAybe, but it was worded as if it was true, using sources that are POV. Slatersteven (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Healings section written from a Christian Science viewpoint

This entire section [1] is bad editing written from a very biased Christian Science viewpoint. There is no attempt there at neutrality. Apart from Britannica, none of those sources are WP:RS. Why are we citing the Christian Science Monitor? This is Wikipedia not Christian Science Wiki. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the claims of healings are definitely relevant, but the section should be written more neutrally. Use of the CSM isn't great but the claim it backs up seems fine, given that they aren't a source known for outright fabrication. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Look, I'm a professional, and will go in and edit it less neutrally - I'm good at that. I appreciate the constructive criticism. But to cherry pick two sources that say 'christian science' and then ignore the FOUR BIOGRAPHIES? I don't understand pyschologist's motives here Greg (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

If they are biased sources they still are not really useful. Slatersteven (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Look, every single author who has written about CS are either biased or non biased. Peel, who is cited dozens of times, is a CS. Milmine, who is cited dozens of times, is a NON cs. Every representation is on there Greg (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

first off, not a christian scientist, but it shouldn't matter, because I have done a lot of wiki edits that no one has complained of non-neutrality. your citing two sources, but what about the FOUR biographies cited? just bringing up two that are CS related isn't really fair. The entire MBE article has citations from biographies, why are the 4 cited sudddenly not credible? there are exact quotes in that section from the books Greg (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

how are none of those biographies WP:RS yet the hundreds of other citations are biographies from the same internet archive? how are they different? Greg (talk) (contribs) 20:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

They are talking about the sources, not you. Slatersteven (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

but the sources are FOUR BIOGRAPHIES. Can someone tell me what about the biographies I cited are diff't than the hundreds of others on the page? They are all written by CS or non CS biographers. Greg (talk) (contribs) 20:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

healings are healings. they are claims. i do not for one second say they happened or are credible. I cite every line with a source, and what they said about it. i'm not making any personal assertions. but of course i'm not perfect and if neutrality was the only issue, i can try and fix it Greg (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

but i dont' see a way to be neutral when talking about healings. even if a healing happened, many will say 'no it didn't.' so the mere talking about it causes controversy. but i let the books say things, not me personally. Greg (talk) (contribs) 20:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

"her supporters claimed...". Slatersteven (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

like i said, i'm done. put as many flags and delete as much as you see fit. Greg (talk) (contribs) 20:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

u guys win. this is too stressful. i honestly just added a section based on direct lines from sources and my understanding of her and her Science - I'm not a part of the religion but I do take interest in a lot of spiritual movements, which is actually an asset the way I see it. i really do pride myself on neutrality, and if i make a mistake i fix it. but it's just not worth my time anymore - i appreciate the forum. Greg (talk) (contribs) 20:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Gregorcollins, those biographies were not written by scholars, they were all written by those with a Christian Science viewpoint, 2 of those biographies were promoted by the Mother Church. It would be like going to a creationist article and citing someone like Ken Ham. The article is a serious mess, Robert Peel is cited over 20 times. His book should be removed off Wikipedia. He worked for the Christian Science church, it is impossible for him to be neutral on anything Eddy related. Practically everything he wrote was his opinion to defend Eddy. This line for example "However, at the time when she was said to be a medium there, she lived some distance away in North Groton, where she was bedridden". The bedridden claim is only sourced to Peel. This is Peels opinion but is passed as fact on the article. She wasn't bedridden, this was Peel defending Eddy and Gill cites Peel without checking the information. Other sources make no mention of this. There are many of Peel's opinions passed off as fact in the article. As above, the YouTuber who raised these concerns was actually correct. The books that should be cited are those written by neutral researchers like James Whorton, Martin Gardner, Edwin Dakin, Ernest Sutherland Bates, Fleta Campbell Springer etc.

In the article you added "Eddy's spiritual gifts have been documented by friends, colleagues and biographers since she was a child". This is another issue for me. You are literally saying she had spiritual gifts. I realise you are an experienced editor and you have many good edits but this stuff is no good for me I am afraid. We all slip up at some time or another. I would just put this down to a bad day and move on. If you read Gardner's book, there really isn't any other choice other than to recognize that Eddy was a blatant scammer. I do not know any serious scholar who would claim she had spiritual gifts. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

it's the subject of spiritual healings that i will never touch again. a healing could be nationally televised, a billion ppl see it live and attest to it, and some would say it was "staged' and then it would spread like wildfire and then the actual genuine healing would be chalked up as 'scam' for the rest of eternity. so it's really a dead end road on wiki, i realize that now. i mean even if milmine and cather (vehement CS opposers) said a healing happened, ppl would dispute, so it's literally a fool's errand. Gill, btw, is a neutral biographer, who is cited many times there. She is a non-christian scientist who has written many books and who, from a non CS perspective, actually wrote a fair and balanced book. Peel, tho a cs, is still a respected scholar, and gottchalk, a cs, is as well - sure, not by extremists, but they can't be satisfied. See you are coming at it biased by saying she's a scammer - those are from books with a history of trying to eradicate the religion from the planet, based on personal vendettas against Eddy. I'm not saying Eddy is a scammer, i'm just reporting what biographers - some CS, some not - have said. Okay, in my section i cited CS biographers - only because i wanted to add new sources. There are TONS of vehement Eddy opposers in the article, and yet there are flattering things said in the article from those sources. anyway, i will exit now, and probably never touch anything controversial or spiritual again on here. Good day :) Greg (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

also religion is a slippery slope on wiki, because religion involves faith, faith involves healing, and all the anti-healing faith ppl will have terminal problems with any claims they make - so then wiki religion just becomes a page of lifeless facts that don't ever encapsulate what it truly is Greg (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is what we are aiming for as wp:truth is A. not always in fact true, and B. varies from culture to culture. Yes we deal in verifiable facts as expressed by independent experts. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)