Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:15, 16 May 2013

	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

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 Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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, 11Auto-archiving period: 10 days

The contents of the Church_of_Christ,_Scientist page were merged into Christian Science on 14 October 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: New religious movements Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages'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). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Massachusetts / Boston High‑importance 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Boston (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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

Archives

2006–2007 2010–2012 Sep–Oct 2012 Oct–Dec 2012 Dec 2012–Jan 2013

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

RfC: Should the lead contain the 2008 ARIS membership estimate?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Religion and philosophy History and geography Maths, science, and technology Unsorted Error: Invalid RfC category specified: |poli Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The lead contains the church membership estimate and an independent estimate. Should the lead also contain the 2008 ARIS estimate of self-identified adherents? All three figures are in the body of the article. SlimVirgin 23:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of the lead says, as in this version:

A census in 1936, at the height of the movement's popularity, counted nearly 270,000 Christian Scientists in the United States. The church does not retain membership numbers, but estimated in 2008 that there were 400,000 members worldwide. Independent estimates place the figure at around 100,000. There were around 1,100 Christian Science churches in the United States in 2010 and 600 elsewhere.

• Should that paragraph also say, as in this version:

According to a poll conducted by the American Religious Identification Survey in 2008, 339,000 people in the United States self-identified as Christian Scientists.

1. For the 1936 figure of 268,915, see Schoepflin 2001, p. 119.
   • For the church and independent estimates, see PBS 2008: "Membership in the church has steadily declined since the 1930s. Mrs. Eddy forbade her followers from keeping an official membership tally. The church estimates it has about 400,000 members worldwide, but independent studies put membership at around 100,000. In the US, the number of churches has dwindled from about 1,500 10 years ago to 1,100 today."
   • Also see Stark 1998, p. 194, who estimates that the church had 113,000 members at that time, and Gallagher 2004, p. 54, who writes that it had almost 100,000 members in 2003.
   • For the number of churches and under 100,000 members, see Vitello (New York Times) 2010, p. 1.
2. "Self-described Religious Identification of Adult Population", American Religious Identification Survey, 2008.

SlimVirgin 23:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Don't include ARIS figure in the lead; see the survey here. It's in the body of the article in the "Members" section, third paragraph. Given that the figure is an anomaly and contradicts all the scholarship in this area, which says numbers are declining and are around 100,000 – e.g. see Rodney Stark, Rennie Schoepflin, and Eugene V. Gallagher, and see this table – it shouldn't be in the lead. But given that the lead is intended only as an overview, it's better to leave out detailed figures anyway, and simply to give the church v. the independent estimates. SlimVirgin 23:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Previous discussions about the ARIS source: Talk page, March 2013; Talk page, April 2013; RSN, April 2013; Reference desk/Science, April 2013. SlimVirgin 23:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• This article has GA status, which means the writing has to be decent. There was already arguably too much detail in the lead about numbers, but when I wrote it I felt it was important to give rough estimates. To extend the second paragraph with details of one poll, which Collect is now trying to add even more details to, means we're focusing on who-says-what about numbers before we even say what Christian Science is. It's important to give an idea of membership, but the additional figures detract from the lead's readability. SlimVirgin 01:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• The rule is that we include all the reliable sources - not that we only choose the ones we like. IIRC, I was not the one who first added numbers to the infobox - so be wary of stone-casting, please. Collect (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• There's no such rule. Everything can't be added to the lead. SlimVirgin 01:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• BTW, I added the cite to the lead because another editor insisted on it - I think you should note that fact before casting aspersions here <g>. Collect (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• If we must have lots of numbers, they're better in the infobox than in the lead. The current second paragraph is really too much detail. SlimVirgin 01:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Include This was discussed at RS/N where it was an extremely strong consensus that the source meets WP:RS and at the RefDesk (Science_ where the statistics were found unanimously to have a low error espectation. The argument that because it does not "fit" in with what editors "know" to be tbe the "truth" and is an "anomaly" is nowhere given in any Misplaced Pages policy as a reason for rejecting a reliable source. We use various sources, but we do not reject one an editor asserts is "wrong." Collect (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, that is not correct. There were several objections at the RSN to relying on this source. And the question here is not whether to include it (it is included), but whether to add it to the lead, as you did here. SlimVirgin 23:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• • • Note that the wording of this RfC is argumentative -- and should have been:
      • Is the ARIS report pn the number of self-identified Christian Scientists a reliable source of sufficient weight to be placed in the lead of the article on Christian Science?
    • The wording used is not a neutral and breief exposition of the question. Collect (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• • At RS/N the count was 7 to 3 that it was RS -- with Binksternet now allowing that it is RS making that count 8 to 2. At RefDesk the count that the statistics were meaningful was 6 to 1 with one noting The inherent sampling error, due to the inherent randomness of the sampling process. Since everyone is either a Christian Scientist (CS) or not, the sampling error follows a binomial distribution with standard error sqrt(npq) = 9. If the best estimate for the number of CS adherents is 340,000, the 95% confidence interval would be roughly 270,000 to 410,000 which is a pretty narrow range and clearly statistically significant in the view of math expers. Shouting "anomaly" does not alter mathematics in the real world. Collect (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, the lead should not contain the 339,000 membership figure from ARIS 2008, nor should the infobox. The outlier figure is one statistic out of many possible from secondary sources, and it contradicts the mainstream viewpoint in which the church is declining steadily and has been since about 1941. The ARIS figures and other estimates belong in the article body. The only thing to be said about membership in the lead section is that the number of adherents today is unknown. Binksternet (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Include the number. Don't call it a membership number, though. It's not a membership number; rather, it's a survey-based estimate of the number of Americans who self-identify with Christian Science. None of us knows why this number is so high; it's hard to credit the number as valid. However, we don't have any basis for rejecting it other than various forms of original research ("it can't be true"; "it contradicts the mainstream viewpoint"; it's too high for the number of churches, it must be a statistical anomaly, etc.). Accordingly, it should be reported as one recent indicator of the reach of this denomination. If there were a reliably sourced report in which someone authoritative said that this number is clearly incorrect, then there would be a basis for treating it differently, but until that sort of a source exists, we need to provide a balanced report of all relevant reliably sourced estimates, including this one. --Orlady (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Orlady, I just want to check that you're saying it should be added to the lead (it's already in the article). If we add that estimate to the lead, why not all the others? That's why I'm arguing that we should present the church versus the independent estimates, but without further detail. Otherwise we'll have to add the scholarly estimates to make clear that the ARIS estimate is very different, and that's too much detail for the lead section. SlimVirgin 01:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Mainly because the lead is supposed to reflect what is in the article. If we decline to use the self-described adherents number from the lead (where it is correcly and fully described as such) then we are quite deliberately misleading the reader and implying that the church number is clearly self-serving, therefore there are no numbers other than "under 100,000" for the reader to consider. In fact, I find the ARIS number far stronger in effect than the NYT use of unnamed scholars. Including one who simply multiplies churches times 86 because that was about right in 1936 <g>. We have that scholar's methodology, and I suggest it might be less accurate than an actual study. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• If the lead includes the other current estimates of members and adherents, then this number needs to be included. I think the current version of the lead is fine. --Orlady (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• The lead includes the independent scholarly estimate of people who are members of a Christian Science church, and the church estimate of its own membership. But the ARIS poll isn't about members; it's about people who self-identified as Christian Scientists (as adherents) over the phone during one poll. This would include a lot of people who might not even know what a Christian Scientist is (it's impossible to know how many that might involve). So it's a completely different kind of number. That's why the figure clashes with scholarly estimates of membership and why it's inappropriate for the lead. SlimVirgin 22:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• show the NYT membership estimate in the infobox, perhaps include the ARIS affiliation number in the article body, but not the lead Unless we are prepared to change all the church infoboxes to show only affiliation, it's misleading to the casual reader to mix that with membership numbers in such a summary. The NYT membership estimate is not inconsistent with the ARIS number, because affiliation numbers from polling/census collection are consistently two to three times recorded membership for most groups, and often more. The ARIS report explains, laboriously, how the numbers they collect cannot be represented as membership. The claim that the NYT estimate is unreliable is baseless; the number isn't inconsistent with related data (e.g number of churches), and while they don't cite a specific source, that's not unusual for newspaper reporting. Nobody has given a convincing justification for belief that this number is wrong, and since it is not directly comparable to the ARIS number, the fact that they are wildly different is not only not germane; it is, as I have explained, expected and unremarkable. Mangoe (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Rodney Stark states his methodolgy was to multiply churches times 87 because that was the number of members per church in 1936 as his "nethodology" (see section above) which I suspect is a very weak "mthodology" to be called "scholarly" indeed. Thus since his figure appears to be one on which others relied, I think the only scientific study is to be preferred. Collect (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Frank Zindler in 1987 follows the same methodology as Stark: he gets a range of membership in 1987 from multiplying churches by a "generous estimate" of approximately 100 per church, then again using a "reasonable estimate" of 60 per church. Zindler then adds to this range the number of people in CS societies, which he says is at most 8,204. So, Stark is not alone in his derivation method. Binksternet (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Two points here, the less important first. I don't have all of Stark's text at hand, so I can only work with what I see written here. And I'm not interpreting this text the same way you are: it seems to me that he's using that as a reasonability test of the number, not a calculation. But even as a calculation, it's not an unreasonable method of estimation; if anything, it is likely to err on the high side, since it's likely that membership per church has declined. In any case your dislike for his means of estimation signifies nothing; other sources do tend to prefer that or a similar number. Second, no matter how much you like the ARIS number—and I cannot criticize it for what it is—you cannot represent it as membership. The ARIS report itself says so. And therefore I have to object to a placement in the article that leads to it being compared with real, tallied membership numbers from other churches. Mangoe (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Since I did not "represent" it as "membership" but specified "self-described adherents" (other than when used in an infobox which did not admit differentiation by its nature - but which is not under discussion here) I rather think you agree that it is a strong number reliably sourced. By the way, there are no sources with "tallied membership" other than the 400,000 directly asserted by the CS church which was objected to as being "self-serving." In such a case, we are not comparing it in any way to "other churches" at all. Nor do the "87 times number of churches" represent a "real, tallied number" as far as I can tell. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• I can look at the history of the discussion myself and conclude for myself what you did or did not say at any given time, thank you; the point need not be belabored, as along as you stick to the concession that ARIS says nothing about church membership. So we keep coming back to the same pair of issues: first, that you don't like the way the estimates were made, and that you think the methodological differences make the ARIS number better. We can keep going around the point that your objections to methodology are immaterial; personally, as someone who does work with church statistics, I think Stark's crude multiplication isn't that bad, but in any case you are not a reliable source for this. Second, as we have also been around too many times, you can't compare the validity of the two numbers: the ARIS number can't be better than these estimates, because it doesn't measure the same thing. It is valid for a relative comparison within the ARIS data set, and perhaps to some of Gallup's polling along the same lines. But the best it can do for the membership estimates is provide a sanity check, and those estimates pass that check. Which is to say, the ratio between the two numbers is about one expects to see between affiliation and membership. Mangoe (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Except you misstate the ARIS methodology which uses multiple questions to make sure the person is properly in a specific group -- the claim that is includes scientists who are Christian is errant and misleading, and pretends that the people doing the ARIS study are imbeciles at best. They aren't. And for the ARIS numbers to be off by a factor of three is statistically so improbable (a million to one odds) as to boggle the mind, while the "scholarly estimates" are made by "multiplying churches by 87" which is REALLY SCIENTIFIC. Cheers -- but refusal to accept a scientific study is absurd. Collect (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• The report's authors say that ARIS randomly dialled numbers and asked “What is your religion, if any?” They say the survey sought to check "subjective rather than objective standards of religious self-identification." SlimVirgin 00:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Collect, I would feel so much more confident about the 2008 ARIS figure of 339,000 if any of the usual CS experts had commented on it. Actually, nobody has commented on it in a published article. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• As the church figures seem quite in accord with the ARIS self-identification figures, it appears that you are saying the only source that you do not yrust is the church figures, because it is ever so much more scientific to multiply churches times 87 than to trust church figures or rely on actual querying of people <g>. Do you realize just how ridiculous that argument seems to actual scientists?
• As to methodology, you grossly over-simplify the nature of the survey:

This summary is just the tip of the iceberg of statistical data on a much larger number of religious groups than can be handled here and many more social variables than are highlighted here.

The value of this unique series of national surveys, which allows scientific monitoring of change over time, has been recognized by the U.S. Bureau of the Census The Bureau itself is constitutionally precluded from such an inquiry into religion, and so has incorporated NSRI/ARIS findings into its official publication the Statistical Abstract of the United States since 2003.

In short -- I hear a lot of whistling in the wind. Collect (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I am not misrepresenting anything. The ARIS notes are quite plain: "Moreover, the self-description of respondents was not based on whether established religious bodies, institutions, churches, mosques or synagogues considered them to be members. Quite the contrary, the surveys sought to determine whether the respondents themselves regarded themselves as adherents of a religious community. Subjective rather than objective standards of religious identification were tapped by the surveys." They state specifically that their numbers cannot be construed as membership, and as I've said over and over again, those of us who work with church statistics know that self-reported affiliation is consistently two to three times recorded membership where the latter is known. You may find the estimation methods distasteful but they are not unreasonable, and the results they give are consistent with the ARIS numbers. The only church number is quite old and nobody but you takes it seriously. I would say "in short" but it seems inevitable that you will hang on, for whatever reason, to your personal and idiosyncratic position which is in direct contradiction to what the ARIS authors say about their own numbers. Nevertheless, you are quite wrong in your insistence. I've worked with the Episcopal Church numbers for a decade, and as a vestryman at present I am responsible for compiling part of that data; I was also one of those who cleaned the membership rolls something like fifteen years ago. Everything I've said is in agreement with what all church statisticians know, and it's time you climbed off your high horse on this and accepted the numbers you have been given instead of making an invalid choice among them because you don't like the lower values. Mangoe (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Mangoe, for your needed perspective. Binksternet (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

As we use the term "self-described adherents" the "membership" cavil is a Straw Man argument - as no one has here asserted that even the unnamed scholars have access to "membership." What is at issue is whether an extensive poll gives a better count of adherents than the scientific methodology of multiplying shurches times 87. I suggest the multiplication method is not a scientifically valid methodology, and certainly does not give "membership" eiher. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not s strawman; it's you ignoring my statement about the infobox numbers back at the top of this. Personally I would prefer the ARIS numbers to be presented only in direct comparison to other ARIS numbers. My statement in this case, to save you from the scrolling, is that infoboxes for churches should not show affiliation numbers obtained by surveys when we are showing membership numbers in other cases, because the values are not comparable, as the ARIS people are quire clear about. The temptation for the casual reader is to assume the two are comparable. And for the I've-lost-count-th time, your distaste for the estimation methods is immaterial. You are plainly not an expert, and as I've told you several times, it's not an unreasonable method for making an estimate. We are better off putting in a widely-agreed-upon estimate of the right number than a more precisely determined value for the wrong one. Mangoe (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Bingo. Binksternet (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Include The US Census, and any sources it uses definitely fit the Reliable Source criteria. Since there seems to be a discrepancy between estimates (which, in themselves, seem somewhat questionable to me, if only because they're either not backed up, or they are order-of-magnitude estimates, and not nearly precise) and the self-identification numbers. Instead of trying to decide which is right, Misplaced Pages, as a neutral encyclopedia, should present both estimates side-by-side along with their sources and leave it to the reader to decide which number they want to consider as representative of the number of practicing Christian Scientists. As others have said, the ARIS figure should be presented only at face value, and no wording should be added indicating that this is the actual number of members, only the number of people who self-identify as Christian Scientists. I think that the wording proposed is exactly correct, and, honestly, I don't really see what the controversy is; in general, when there's conflicting data like this, Misplaced Pages presents both, side-by-side. Arathald (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That is not a neutral presentation; please read all I've said about how the two number cannot be directly compared. Mangoe (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying the infobox should include the ARIS number. You make a good point that other religious groups display membership information (generally as reported by the organization itself). The membership estimates, though questionable, are more in line with what should be in the infobox. Christian Science's own estimate may be better, but I think that's a separate issue. The only thing I am proposing is stating that ARIS shows that a specific number of people self-identify as Christian Scientists, which is, indeed, exactly what that number is. If the article doesn't claim that as a membership number, I don't see how that isn't neutral. It's a simple fact, not in any way being interpreted, and it provides a counter to the other estimates which may or may not be correct. That is not directly comparing them, it's calling out membership estimates vs self-identification, and the difference in the two numbers is interesting and extremely relevant. You're not saying "I don't want this interpretation in the lede" (which would be a valid concern), but rather, "I don't want this well-established fact in the lede". I don't think that really fits with the spirit of Misplaced Pages. Arathald (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. Calling it a "fact" is a bit of a problem to begin with because the only thing well-established about it is that ARIS reported it; everyone who deals with religion statistics understands the sloppiness of survey numbers. But be that as it may, what I said was "report it in the body but not in the lead." But I'm willing to compromise at least to the extent of assenting to that inclusion but only if it is reported in conjunction with the estimated membership numbers for which we have plentiful citations. What I don't want is the survey number reported by itself, because it's too easy for the casual reader to misinterpret it. Mangoe (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The numbers otherwise (the 100K figures generally ascribed to unnamed scholars) should be reported as what they are: the number of churches times 87. And so far only one source even gives that as their methodology - so we should report that system, as well as the ARIS survey of over 54K people. Collect (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Mangoe, I don't think showing just the ARIS numbers is correct either, and I think showing *both* sets of numbers in the lede is appropriate. You're right that the only well-established thing is that ARIS reported that <x> number of people self-identify as Christian Scientists, and that, I believe is the phrasing that has been suggested in the first place. I also tend to agree with Collect, though, that if we're going to pare the ARIS down to the bare facts and leave them for interpretation, it's only right to do the same with the expert estimates. When I looked at the sources, the only thing that was well established is that someone had estimated the membership numbers in a very ballpark way. I do have some concerns about how those numbers are derived, and stating that explicitly, at least for the one we know about, will help preserve the neutrality (or at least the perceived neutrality) of the article. Arathald (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, no single reliable source should be given any more weight than any other reliable source on their estimates of self-identified adherents to the faith that is the subject of this article. To give one source more weight than another maybe seen as non-neutral, either in support of the subject (using only the high figure} or against the subject (using only the low figure). Therefore give a range in the lead without going into detail, then include a section that goes into the details of the different estimates, polls, etc. and how those numbers were created (if that can be verified).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Give range in lede/infobox and details in text body, per RightCowLeftCoast. Otherwise the top of the page becomes cluttered with unnecessary detail, which may be confusing without detailed explanations. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Give range - Agree strongly with Staszek Lem. The whole lead paragraph starting with "A census in 1936, at the height...." has to be deleted, and a simple sentence should go in saying something like "Estimates of the number of worldwide adherent vary but range between 100,000 to 400,000.". NickCT (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Membership records?

The introduction currently says "The church does not retain membership numbers, but estimated in 2008 that there were 400,000 members worldwide." I have added a note asking for a citation of this claim. I am skeptical of the claim that the "church does not retain membership numbers." In fact I believe that the church does not publish membership numbers. But my understanding is that they collect a membership fee (I think it's called something like a per capita tax) from members every year. So I think it is likely that they know how many members there are, or at least how many are paying the fee and donating to the church. Furthermore since the church is not allowed to publish membership numbers I think it is unlikely that they would have provided an estimate in 2008 of the number of members. Perhaps they did but I would be interested to see the citation which shows where this estimate was published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser1239 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sourced in body of article to with a note that Eddy forbade membership tallies. I find no source for any "membership fee". The source for the lowest estimates is based on multiplying the number of churches by 87, and not on any empirical basis otherwise. Usually the lead does not need footnotes for cited material in the body. Collect (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

My concern is not about what the total membership number is. Rather I am skeptical of the following two claims: 1) that the church does not maintain a record of the number of members it has, and 2) that it provided an estimate of the number of members in 2008. The PBS interview does not seem authoritative for addressing those claims. Obviously the reporter did say that the church estimated there were 400,000 members in 2008, but that conflicts with the published church rules. The claim that Eddy forbade membership tallies appears to me to be incorrect. I looked up the official church rules (from the Manual of the Mother Church). It says Numbering the People. SECT. 28. Christian Scientists shall not report for publication the number of the members of The Mother Church, nor that of the branch churches. According to the Scripture they shall turn away from personality and numbering the people.. Since the actual rules specifically prohibit publishing the number of members I am skeptical that an "estimate" would have been provided to the press in 2008. Furthermore the same rules state Per Capita Tax. SECT. 13. Every member of The Mother Church shall pay annually a per capita tax of not less than one dollar, which shall be forwarded each year to the Church Treasurer.. If the members of the church are required to pay an annual "per capita tax" then it seems likely that this is associated with record keeping that would allow the church to know how many members there are (at least members who are paying the tax) and there would be no need to estimate the number of members.Wikiuser1239 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

After some more research I feel confident that the information from the PBS story is not accurate. A NY Times story from March 2010 notes that Though officials do not provide membership statistics, scholars estimate that the church’s numbers have dropped to under 100,000 from a peak of about twice that at the turn of the 20th century. This would seems to fit with the statement I quoted earlier from the church manual that Christian Scientists shall not report for publication the number of the members of The Mother Church. I don't know what would have led the PBS reporter to state that the church estimated there were 400,000 members as of 2008. Perhaps she interviewed someone who gave that number to her as an estimate. Regardless I do not think it is accurate to say that this was an estimate provided by the church because I have not been able to find any reference to it anywhere else. Instead I have only found information stating the church is forbidden from publishing the number of members that it has.Wikiuser1239 (talk) 03:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Judy Valente is a journalist for a reliable source. That is what we use per WP:RS - not what we do OR on, or do SYNTH on, or what we "know." Collect (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

UK Charity records have the financial statements of CS churches - and the text generally indicates that membership in the "Mother Church" is not required. Thus the main church would not get capitation monies from churches. . inter alia. If the "Mother Church" does not get capitation moneies, it is clear that all it can do is provide an "estimate" in the first place. Collect (talk) 09:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I am still skeptical of the validity of what Valente reported, however, I think it is fair to include that information within the correct context. However, the prohibition on reporting the number of members is clearly stated in the church manual. As such I think it is important to include this as context for the Valente numbers. I don't know how church officials might choose to interpret this prohibition on publishing the number of members, perhaps they felt it was appropriate to provide an estimate to Valente. I think that an appropriate compromise could be to keep the Valente numbers in the article, but to include the caveat that the church prohibits publication of the number of members. That way readers can interpret this information within the context of the facts that we have. The original statement seemed to me to imply that the church made some public estimate of membership numbers available in 2008 and that Valente was reporting on that. However, the only information that is available from the sources is that in 2008 Valente said that the church estimated there were 400,000 members. We don't know anything else about where she got that information from. And this action conflicts with the 2010 NY Times article which says that the church does not provide membership statistics.Wikiuser1239 (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Order of headings

While the article as it now stands has much merit, the background section comes far too early and the details of CS doctrine too late. Surely we should disclose the basic doctrines first. I believe that we should think of the reader. Most readers will want to know firstly and foremostly what CS is, what its doctrines are, and then may choose to continue to read the historical detail. What do other editors think? Michael J. Mullany (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Michael, the lead explains the basics. The development of the ideas then explains in more detail how the philosophy/theology evolved, and what it evolved into. There's a table of contents, so any reader wanting to jump over that to "Beliefs and practices" can do that. SlimVirgin 06:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Other religions/sects/cults seem pretty evenly distributed on the history vs doctrine order. Personally, I could go either way, both sections are quite good in my opinion. A merit for history first would be that it gives the beliefs historic context. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I certainly have little problem with the quality or content with what has been written. However, readers are usually guided by the order of presentation of writers. Do we want to say to readers that the most important aspect of CS is its history? Surely we should start by stating in some depth, its doctrines (however wrong to some) and then give the context? Michael J. Mullany (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

One can just as well argue in the opposite direction: one can better understand doctrines and stuff if presented withing adequate context; if first learned where they came from. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

NPR removal

After the discussion, full removal was clearly not justified. I attributed the statement to the person making it - Judy Valente who is considered a journalist, making a statement on a reliable source as a journalist. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Your source is this transcript. Are you saying it's been through editorial rigor? Was she reading a script? Where did she get the number from? This does not appear reliable at all. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I originally added a "citation needed" note to the claim that: "The church does not retain membership numbers, but estimated in 2008 that there were 400,000 members worldwide" because I was skeptical of it. I was skeptical of this claim for two reasons. 1) It seems likely that the church does maintain membership records because it keeps track of a "per capita tax." 2) The official church rules (the Manual of the Mother Church) specifically prohibit the church from publishing membership numbers. Thus it seems unlikely that the church would provide an estimate, though of course it is possible. In response to my citation needed note the PBS transcript was provided as a source. However, this transcript does not provide any detail about how the estimate was made or where it came from. I don't doubt that the journalist was provided an estimate from someone, but the way the sentence is currently written it implies that the estimate was something coming from the church headquarters. It is worth noting that Judy Valente was reporting from Chicago but that the church headquarters are in Boston. One possibility is that someone she spoke to while preparing her story gave her an estimate of 400,000 and she attributed that to the church in general. That is purely speculation on my part, but it is a valid possibility that doesn't discredit Valente but simply accounts for it as an honest mistake. If there is some other source for the 2008 membership estimate I would be interested in seeing it. But if the only source is a single sentence in a PBS news report I think that the claim should be removed since it conflicts with the typical behavior of the church not publishing membership totals. If the claim is retained then I think that it should be made clear that the source is only a 2008 PBS story, rather than an official estimate that the church made publicly available.Wikiuser1239 (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Philosophy and religion good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Christianity articles
• Top-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• GA-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• GA-Class New religious movements articles
• Top-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• GA-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• GA-Class United States articles of High-importance
• GA-Class Massachusetts articles
• Mid-importance Massachusetts articles
• WikiProject Massachusetts articles
• Massachusetts articles with to-do lists
• GA-Class Boston articles
• High-importance Boston articles
• WikiProject Boston articles
• Boston articles with to-do lists
• WikiProject United States articles
• GA-Class Alternative medicine articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment