Talk:Christian Science

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christian Science 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.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11: 12 months

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Christian Science has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 20, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

Christianity Top‑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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion: New religious movements Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance).

United States: Massachusetts / Boston High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Boston (assessed as High-importance).

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles 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.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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.

no discussion of negative impact or controversy?

it feels EXTREMELY disingenuous and unbalanced to me that there isn't a section of this article specifically dedicated to the controversy and negative impacts of Christian Science -- the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Wikipedia page, for instance, has a whole "criticism and controversies" section, but Christian Science just gets passing mention in the overall summary of the past child cases, as if there aren't multiple continued, current documented Christian Science community deaths, illness outbreaks, etc, and extensive discussion of Christian Science as a cult by ex-members...this feels even more like an oversight when considering how detailed sections like the "prayer" part of the article are, or other detailed metaphysical explanations about the church's beliefs, with maybe interspersed nods to them being questionable. 72.249.242.210 (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to other articles

I'm having a hard time grasping the relation of this article to our other Wikipedia articles. It's very similar to Church of Christ, Scientist. Both contain history, beliefs, and practices. The only real distinguishing feature I see is § Metaphysical family which provides some more context for the early development of Christian science beliefs and practices. So what's the difference in scope? Even if such a difference can be established, are our articles better for being split or would they be better merged?

History of the Christian Science movement also exists, and is partially organized topically rather than chronologically, which seems unsuitable for such an article. Perhaps portions of that article and Christian Science § Metaphysical family should be merged into an article at Development of Christian Science beliefs? Daask (talk) 12:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]