Talk:Mary Baker Eddy

Addition reversed.

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)

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)

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:

https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/apa-calls-for-end-to-armchair-psychiatry

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.”

Thanks. Metaphysical historian (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

A source must say X if you want to add X, so (for example) to say "many people think the sky is blue" you have to have a source that says "many people think the sky is blue" or a lot of sources saying "the sky is blue". In this case, you need sources that say "Few people in history have had such a variance of views (good and bad) as Mary Baker Eddy and her religion", not your interpretation of wp:primary sources. Also if a source does not mention someone, it can't be used to make claims about them. Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

At what point does self-evident truth come into play? That the sky appears blue to humans is a self-evident fact. (By the way, the wiki page Diffuse Sky Radiation states that as a fact and explains why. It does not require sources to show that some people think it looks blue.) I show (and source) that some notables in the Christian Science history have opinions on Eddy that range from [1] a fraud and impostor, all the way to [2] one of the two witnesses prophesied in the Bible. Thus to say as I did “Few people in history have had such a variance of views (good and bad) as Mary Baker Eddy” I believe is a self-evident fact. I am happy to be proven wrong if you can show even one case where the divergence of opinion is greater than that.

I could cite this from biographer Gillian Gill if you think it will help:

“Few women have been so bitterly attacked, so insistently torn from the pedestal upon which she climbed and on which her devotees sought to maintain her. The hagiographic zeal of loyal Christian Scientist biographers has been more than matched by the energy her detractors have expended in producing damning facts and damaging documents about her.”

The wiki page on Eddy currently has many examples of later psychiatrists making public pronouncements based solely on having read a newspaper article or biography. The American Psychiatric Association strongly opposes this as being unprofessional and unethical. I added their statement to help the reader weigh in the balance such armchair diagnoses. Isn’t that a reasonable approach? (At no point do I suggest that the APA was making a comment about Eddy. That was not the reason for adding it.) Metaphysical historian (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

+It is "self-evident truth"? Many (most, all) religious figures have been attacked, some killed. Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The Question of the Historiography Section

I was asked for my opinion on the controversy about the added and deleted historiography section. However, I will not primarily be stating my opinions on Mary Baker Eddy as a figure in intellectual history, although I have studied in that area. This is the talk page of a Wikipedia article, and I am offering my opinion on how the section in question is or is not consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I am making that distinction because I agree with the conclusion of the section, but I do not think that it belongs in a Wikipedia article in the voice of Wikipedia. This is a textbook case of two Wikipedia guidelines that are not always understood, Verifiability, Not Truth, and the policy against synthesis constituting original research. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Metaphysical historian wrote: Few people in history have had such a variance of views (good and bad) as Mary Baker Eddy and her religion. I agree. That is, I think that statement is true, and I think that, as a student of intellectual history, I am qualified to make that statement. However, Wikipedia demands verifiability, not truth. If an editor writes that statement, they must attribute it. If an intellectual historian wrote that, quote them. There probably has been an intellectual historian or other qualified scholar who has made a statement to that effect. Find it and quote it. It is true that one can list and quote multiple statements praising Eddy and multiple statements condemning Eddy, and conclude correctly that she is a controversial figure in history. But making that comparison in the voice of Wikipedia is precisely what is meant by synthesis, original research combining two or more secondary sources to get a conclusion not found in any of the sources. The Christian Science sources probably won't say that she is controversial. Her detractors might not say that she is controversial, but some of them might say it. If so, quote them, or paraphrase them with attribution. Wikipedia does not allow an editor to look at multiple sources and state that there is an extraordinary variance of views, but it does allow an editor to find a scholar who has looked at the multiple sources and concluded that there is an extraordinary variance of views.

My advice is that, since the statement is true, find a scholar who has written it. We cannot do our own scholarship in Wikipedia, or, rather, if we do our own scholarship, we have to attribute it to another scholar who agrees with us.

There should be such a section, but only if it is attributed to an intellectual historian or similar scholar. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Robert. I presume the sample quote from Gillian Gill is not sufficient in your mind. I will see if I can find something else. However, I think a section on historiography (how we know what we think we know and how to judge if the sources are reliable) could apply to any important historical figure. I am happy to remove the opening statement in question if that is the problem.

On the APA statement which states that armchair psychiatry (diagnosing people without seeing them but rather based on newspaper or other similar claims) is "unacceptable and unethical." The Wiki page has five such examples cited where the writers had never met Eddy, while the three psychiatrist who did examine her had a different opinion from those five. The APA statement was added by me to simply bring a professional position on the subject to help the reader weigh the sources presented. Metaphysical historian (talk) 05:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2023

Please edit "Mark Baker was a strongly religious woman" to "Mark Baker was a strongly religious man" thank you. 81.174.251.218 (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not going to remove this, but really rally bend over backward to AGF, any sources that claim she was a man? Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks like this was a sentence about Mary Baker Eddy's father Mark Baker.  Done Cannolis (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)