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 articles
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.
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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles
I added a section on Historiography of Mary Baker Eddy because understanding the sources, pro and con, of her biography is important. Everything is well sourced. It was undone as follows (from Slatersteven): "I am unsure about a lot of this, take it to takl and justofy it." I am not sure what do do next. By the way, I found this in the Wikipedia help site: "Be bold in improving articles! When adding facts, please provide references so others may verify them." What is the next step in the process? Metaphysical historian (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See wp:brd. "Few people in history have had such a variance of views (good and bad) as Mary Baker Eddy and her religion. Here are some notable examples:" seems unsourced and wp:or. Nor do we need a list of people's opinions, and certainly not sourced to their own works. We need to have reason to think these peoples opinions are significant which means wp:rs think they are. Also please read wp:cite you did not add any inline citations you did add the words ref. Also the AMA "source" makes no mention if Eddy (see WP:SYNTH). Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, but I am not certain I understand some of the points. [1] the statement that comments on Eddy have an extraordinary variance seems clear from the sources that I listed, from good to bad. The three people cited, Bliss Knapp, Frederick Peabody, and Mark Twain, are all well-known in Christian Science history, so their opinions on Eddy are certainly valid for quoting, I believe. There are countless Wiki biographical articles, but most do not have anywhere near that level of extreme variance, which I think it worth noting, because the extreme variance (pro and con) impacts the reliability of the early sources [2] the comments about the lack of reliability of the World’s allegations come from (a) Peter Wallner, the Library Director of the New Hampshire Historical Society and author of the 2014 detailed history of the Next Friends Suit, which was started by the New York World. (b) Gillian Gill, the author of the biography Mary Baker Eddy, which deals extensively with the Next Friends Suit. (cc) Bates & Dittemore, an important biography of Eddy. Dittemore was a former Director of the Christian Science church. It would be difficult to find others who are in a better position to evaluate the New York World claims [3] If you are looking for a source for the APA quote, I can add this:
The APA statement is a blanket declaration about not having their members provide “armchair” diagnoses: “Today, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) reiterates its continued and unwavering commitment to the ethical principle known as "The Goldwater Rule." We at the APA call for an end to psychiatrists providing professional opinions in the media about public figures whom they have not examined, whether it be on cable news appearances, books, or in social media. Armchair psychiatry or the use of psychiatry as a political tool is the misuse of psychiatry and is unacceptable and unethical.”
They did not mention Eddy or anyone else but it relates to all “public figures.”
.jpg){kind=small}
