 Posted Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:43 PM
|
|
|
|
tmcl,
Actually, it went through over 400 editions in her lifetime...
That's what I thought so I added the "citation needed" marker and let it stand. I think I'll go back and edit "200" to "200-400".
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Monday, October 16, 2006 5:02 AM
|
|
|
|
Digitalican,
Advocacy and statements of doctrine will make the CW link remain appropriate. Sorry, my reading of your edits to the S&H article make me believe you may have tried to renew your ESP license and does appear to lack NPOV.
Granted, my version was a bit colder:
"Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures", written by Mary Baker Eddy. The author wrote she first privately published biblical studies as early as 1862 (Eddy, 1934 : pp. viii:24-32). She also wrote that her discovery of Christian Science occurred in 1866 (ibid). That discovery was said to have followed a healing experience{{fact}}.
Though my first sentence was incomplete, it was consistent with the existing text. My concern with your version is the advocacy position it appears to take:
"Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures", written by Mary Baker Eddy was inspired by studies of the bible she undertook in 1867 following a healing experience.{{fact}} Although Eddy claimed to have first privately published biblical studies as early as 1862 (Eddy, 1934 : pp. viii:24-32), she wrote that her discovery of Christian Science, which inspired the book, took place in 1866 (ibid).
Without citations, it would not be appropriate to make the statements of fact without attribution of some sort. Note that my version left in the statement regarding the alleged healing experience though in passive voice and a tag suggesting a citation be used. MBE stated in S&H pp. viii:24-32 that she discovered CS in 1866. If the date is different, perhaps you could cite the source. She said nothing about the healing in S&H or R&I that I could find to cite. I suppose I could have grabbed my Concordance rather relying on the CS Pubs online site. Ran out of time to which I was willing to devote to it though.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Monday, October 16, 2006 6:43 AM
|
|
|
|
That's interesting, as all I actually did was correct grammar and attempt to tie the various facts together in some sort of coherent story order. As usual I deliberately did not introduce or eliminate any subject matter. Without that, much of what you (all) have written appears to be a set of ad hominem statements.
It is not advocacy to describe what led the author to write the book nor to summarize the contents of the book. If that were the case then most book reviews would be viewed as advocacy papers. Taking the position that if an article even mentions Christian Science beliefs it somehow advocates Christian Science is not tenable and I'm only willing to engage in this kind of pinhead dancing for so long. As the link to christianway.org does not link to a url with content immediately relevant to the writing or publication of Science and Health and because I've come to suspect some justification would be found for including the link under any circumstance I'm going to go ahead and be bold.
I've been very encouraged by the amount of good and scholarly material people of this group have brought to the MBE page. That's been a positive outcome.
--Digitalican
|
|
|
Posted Monday, October 16, 2006 7:48 AM
|
|
|
|
Digitalican,
It is not advocacy to describe what led the author to write the book nor to summarize the contents of the book.
It would not be advocacy if a basis for the summarization were established or cited without benefit of the ESP license to which you referred in your initial post. The current version does not coincide with MBE's description in S&H of the book's genesis. Perhaps a citation to an MBE biography or MBE's own writings that would make the connection between the discovery and the healing would be appropriate.
As to characterizing my edits as "pinhead dancing", I'm not sure that you intended the tone of your comment to be as harsh as it appears. In your boldness, I hope that you also been bold in eliminating the other doctrinal external links.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Monday, October 16, 2006 9:56 AM
|
|
|
|
I think I'll go back and edit "200" to "200-400
There were 432 editions of Science and Health.
|
|
|
Posted Monday, October 16, 2006 10:50 AM
|
|
|
|
Linda,
There were 432 editions of Science and Health.
Do you have a citation for that I could add to the Wikipedia article.
BTW, I too was bold after Digitalican deleted the CW link. I deleted the S&H links except the one for the publisher along with the blog link.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, October 17, 2006 6:27 AM
|
|
|
|
Do Go --
My apologies if my comment about "pinhead dancing" seemed harsh. It wasn't meant to be. It refers to the ur-question "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin," i.e. a debate over a meaningless or impossible-to-answer question: futility.
I am entirely in agreement with your deletion of external links from the S&H article. I'll defend against their return (though I doubt they will return.) As a Wikipedia exclusionist, less is always better.
...and someone other than you or I filled in the missing reference. 
I'm going to make one last stab at illustrating relevance, but I'm not optimistic.
If the author of an article says "The world is flat," Then a relevant commentary can discuss that statement and offer alternative perspectives.
If the author of an article says "Ptolemy said the world is flat." Then a relevant commentary cannot discuss whether the world is actually flat or not, but only if Ptolemy said so, and if not, what Ptolemy actually said or meant (but not whether it was correct or not.)
Hopefully that's a useful distinction.
--Digitalican
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, October 17, 2006 6:57 AM
|
|
|
|
Digitalican,
My apologies if my comment about "pinhead dancing" seemed harsh. It wasn't meant to be. It refers to the ur-question "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin," i.e. a debate over a meaningless or impossible-to-answer question: futility.
While I accept your apology in the spirit in you probably believe it was offered, this comment as well as the comment you added to the edit make your earlier comment seem all the harsher. Referring to the discussion as futile, meaningless, etc. seems to raise your opinion above that of us mere mortals.
Your distinction was indeed lost on this mere mortal. If I make a statement in this forum, readers can take it for what it's worth. If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously as a scholarly work then authors need to back up their statements either with their own credentials or those of others.
Your "world is flat" example works, but not in the manner in which I believe you intended. If I were to include such a statement in an article on Earth, I would expect some discussion regarding the validity of such a statement. If I were to say the world is more or less round, I would not expect so much discussion. If I were to say that ancient people believed the world was flat, we're starting to move into the realm of attributing the statement as merely someone's belief rather than a statement of fact. Maybe I'm just saying the same thing as you.
Regarding the paragraph stating CS beliefs, can't say I disagree with what it says about them. There does, however, need to be some sort of citation. Otherwise, it is mere opinion.
Oh well, guess I'm beginning to see your point about futility. I approach such matters from journalistic and academic perspectives which does seem to be overkill except in scholarly venues.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, November 01, 2006 8:11 PM
|
|
|
|
There were 432 editions of Science and Health. Sorry for the delay, Do Go. Here's a reference for the 432 editions: Caroline Fraser, God's Perfect Child: Living and Dying in the Christian Science Church, Metropolitan Books, 1999, p. 26. Fraser gives details regarding the 432 editions in the Notes section at the back of the book (Note 2 for Part 1, on page 462). Here are some of the details: Eddy issued 7 major revisions after the original publication of S&H in 1875: 2nd edition: 1878 3rd edition: 1881 6th edition: 1883 16th edition: 1886 50th edition: 1891 226th edition: 1902 final major edition: 1906 (MBE didn't number the editions after this) The final edition was 432, according to A Christian Science Library: A Descriptive and Extended Bibliography, Ernest J. Brosang (privately printed 1990), p. 6. Several authors say that MBE made lots of smaller corrections in other printings besides the major revisions. Brosang states that "4000 changes were made [in S&H] from 1907 to 1910." William Dana Orcutt was a printer and worked with MBE. He said that "During 1886-1890 editions numbering through fourty-eight of Science and Health were issued from the 1886 plates, each new printing containing textural corrections in cases where the author felt she could convey her message in clearer form or simpler language." Dana Orcutt, Mary Baker Eddy and Her Books (Boston: Christian Science Publishing Society, 1950), p. 31. Steven Gottschalk said that "Mrs. Eddy made numerous smaller changes from edition to edition....these small changes she considered exceedingly important." Stephen Gottachalk, The Emergence of Christian Science in American Reliious Life (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973), p. 39.
|
|
|
|