Jump to content

Talk:List of Christian Scientists (religious denomination)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Johnski (talk | contribs) at 19:24, 24 December 2005 (Evan David Pedley). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I'm working on justifying. I think at the moment it is certainly as justified as List of Scientologists, but then again I'm biased:) --T. Anthony 09:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think it's going to die. Although as it stands now I feel fairly good about it. Except that I think elements of the notes would need to neutralized to avoid POV. I intended to keep working on that, but there's likely no point now. Otherwise it's become very well sourced for a list I think. Plus I learned some things of use. Here's the main thing about the deletion that still bothers me.

I didn't get any warning. I know you don't have to warn people, but I wish the problem had been noted earlier with a "Merge to Church of Christ, Scientist, "verify", or "cleanup." At the very least put something on the talk page about how it should be deleted. Instead I just open my watchlist and I see it got a new edit. Then I see the edit is deletion.

A smaller thing is inaccuracy on the delete page. This is not a list linking religions to a profession in the way List of Christian scientists was. I divided into occupations because that's common in these List of people by belief. Although admittedly it's a bit linking to professions now, that's so it can be justified.--T. Anthony 23:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hold the phone this might actually survive. Although it'll likely be given a new, and hopefully better, name.--T. Anthony 02:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found some evidence Doris Day is not interested in any organized religions these days. However most things on her mention her as CS, so should I keep as part of her story? Delete? Quit wasting my time as this may soon be deleted?--T. Anthony 08:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 18:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recent stuff

Eek, sorry about initially using only the white people figure on the 1936 census. It was totally an honest mistake. I looked for the largest "total" it listed and thought I had the one that was a total for everyone. It turned out I missed it by mistake. I fixed it as soon as I could.

Outside of that I decided to put Joan Crawford and Alfre Woodard back on. I'm not sure the AFI list information is very meaningful, but in least it's something. I calculated their percentage in 1936 on my own, it's not listed anywhere I found, based on the data given. I hope I'm correct in assuming though that putting the numbers in a calculator isn't original research.--T. Anthony 09:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To my surprise I have maybe found a scientist who is a member of this religious denomination. There's a Dr. Laurance Doyle of the SETI Institute who has an article in their website and I guess writes on the religion as well as on science.--T. Anthony 12:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the main article's notable list

These had been in earlier versions of this list, but I took them out due to discussions on the AfD. However a few of these, like the athletes, seem fairly legitimate. I'm just not sure how to fit them into the list as it's currently focussed solely on entertainment and politics.

Evan David Pedley

Should Evan David Pedley be on this list?

Due to the past AfD attempt additions have to be sourced. If you can find a valid source saying he's CS feel free to add him. I'm just not sure where you'd put him, maybe the "other" section or whatever it was I added. Now I really must be going.--T. Anthony 09:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Anthony, Thank you for answering. Would the Melchizedek Bible which is published be a good source? However, I think we would have to mention that he may have converted to Melchizedekianity from Christian Science, or that Christian Science influenced him in writing the Melchizedek Bible. In that case could he be put in the section of those that may have been influenced by Christian Science? Or because he is considered a founder of the government of the Dominion of Melchizedek, in the political section? Sincerely, Johnski 19:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]