Talk:Church of Christ, Scientist/Archive 1

message: This is all academic -- the question of a group being a cult or religion is completely subjective.
You should know that the word cult is not a neutral word in English, which I'm assuming is not your native language. It carries very strong and very negative connotations, and is highly problematic to use in a neutral way.
:I know it very well. The translation in French is secte and has the same very negative connotations. Note that culte simply means worship or religious practice, and is especially used in a legal context to qualify the activity of associations that support religious practice (thus, yes, the diocesan associations of the Catholic Church are associations cultuelles).
Given that a cult is in the eye of the beholder, all I'm saying is that to use the word "cult" without placing it in a very careful context would constitute POV, regardless of your intentions.
So if you're going to use it, I think the only responsible way to use it in the way you intend would be to say, "Some governments, such as France's, consider Christian Science a cult because of its rejection of medical science." Or, "Many evangelical Christians consider Christian Science a cult because it rejects the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus."
And if you're going to give a French parliamentary report in French as evidence, I think you should provide a translation of the relevant sections. I doubt that most readers of the English Wikipedia know French.
--Dablaze 16:35, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
:I think it is more complex than that. The French government, as I said, never considers religions per se, but only organizations. Legally, and constitutionally, it hardly ever officially deals with religion properly said, only with organizations.
:Furthermore, official government classifications are given in legislation on the one hand, regulatory instruments and decisions issued by the executive on the other hand; parliamentaries reports are neither, so they do not constitute anything like "the opinion of the French government". Therefore, reporting that the French government has classified any group as a cult, or not classified it, would be extremely misleading.
:I'll try to rephrase the matter. The point is, a significant proportion of the opinion in many countries would definitely consider a religion that orders its followers to be "cultish", even though it is respectable in the United States or in other exotic locales.
:Furthermore, it's not only a question of classification. Parents refusing medical care for a child whose essential well being is in jeopardy would probably face criminal charges and/or removal of child custody. I suspect that a "religious group" advocating breaching the law would not be in good standing with respect to public order, which is one of the criteria for being considered a bona fide association of worship with respect to the eligibility for exemption of taxes from donations. I'll have to check whether Christian Science enjoys this status. David.Monniaux 17:43, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The whole point!

message: Our article on cult is pretty good. As it makes clear, there's no bright-line definition of what's a cult and what isn't. "Cult" is for the most part a derogatory term that someone applies to a group that they don't like. 
The big point for me is that Christian Science has survived for almost a century after Mary Baker Eddy's death. I think of a cult as usually being tied to a particular charismatic leader and usually unable to survive without one.
Our article says "a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and new religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream."
Well, 
*Christian Science isn't "relatively new" (over a century old). 
*It isn't "relatively small" (probably well over 100,000 adherents, though exact numbers are hard to come by... and probably shrinking).
So, that leaves us with whether it has practices that are "far" outside the mainstream, whatever that means. Well, Christian Science is, in fact, Christian. The most controversial aspects relate to faith-healing. But you can make a pretty good case for faith-healing being not too far out of the Christian mainstream. Many Christian denominations, particular the evangelical ones, practice it, and there's reasonable authority for it in the New Testament. And, for that matter, what Christian Scientists do is not terribly different from a lot of New Age "alternative medicine."
Now, let's look at the dictionary. The two relevant definitions seem to be
# A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. 
# A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
Let's parse 1: a) extremist, b) false, c) unconvential living, d) authoritarian, charismatic leader
Speaking boldly, in the U.S. one could say Christian Science is generally considered to be false. At least, most people do not accept Christian Science healing as a valid substitute for medical treatment. 
But it's not considered to be extremist. It's just another church in town. Its followers do not live in an unconventional manner. They dress normally, don't live in central compounds, typically are middle-class and above and behave as such, send their kids to school, and so forth. In many areas of the U.S. people will have Christian Science neighbors and coworkers and have absolutely no idea they are Scientists until they happen to say something casually. And even Christian Science medical practices are not wildly extremist. I think you'd have to be a Christian Scientist to know the subtleties, and you'd probably get different stories from different people, but Christian Scientists do not usually let family members die for lack of medical attention
While you could have made a case for it once having had an "authoritarian, charismatic" leader, the fact that the denomination has survived Mary Baker Eddy's death by nearly a century... and that authority since her death has been conspicuously decentralized, she has no identifiable "successors..." 
So, I think Christian Science fails a, c, and d, and b is pretty much a matter of opinion.
Now, lets take 2. I do not think this applies to Christian Science (nor do I think this is the meaning people intend when they call Christian Science a cult) because it does not relate to curing a particular disease. 
I think it is way outside of the mainstream to call Christian Science a "cult."
(And it should be obvious from the language and terminology I've used in discussing Christian Science that I am not a Christian Scientist). Dpbsmith (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I agree, not a "cult"

message: What about recent internal fiascos, like the cable Monitor Channel, or the Mary Baker Eddy library that so many church members are opposed to for its arrogance and waste of millions?
What about the church's authoritarian response to any sort of dissent, sometimes using excommunication to punish mouthy malcontents?
What about the church's (presumably) declining membership? They still have their big churches, but very few people actually attend services.
These are just a few of the controversies I can think of. I'm not a church member, but I grew up in the church, and my mother is still a hardcore, yet disaffected, member, so I do have some idea what I'm talking about, but not enough to really write about it.
Dablaze 21:28, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
:These are all serious issues; I've alluded to some of this in related articles but could give it some attention here in the near future, it's certainly relevant.  Chris Rodgers 07:18, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church controversies/politics 

message: I removed some sentence saying that Christian Science published "quite compelling" reports of faith healing. To me, it appears that all we can say without more information to back ourselves with is "which Christian Science claims to be compelling" – but it would sound a bit stupid to say it this way (hey, if they publish such information, it's surely because they think it somewhat compelling). If Wikipedia is to endorse the appreciation that these publications were "quite compelling", then we'd have to have the appreciation of doctors, balance it with criticism from other sources, discuss whether those faith healing cures appeared more frequently than natural remissions, compare with conventional medical treatment, etc. David.Monniaux 07:21, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Corroboration

message: This discussion about cult etc. from David is very French. Unthinkable also in Germany. There Christian Science is a recognised Church with the rights as Roman-Catholics or Lutherans.
These rights are refused to Jehova's Witnesses because they are seen as cult.--Frueh 23:59, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which rights? I note you haven't answered. Which rights are branches of the First Church of Christ, Scientist been refused? David.Monniaux 19:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: no cult

message: CS and the Holocaust. 
There is at least one official book that deals with this subject. Published in 1947-48 I think. Perhaps an interested person could contact the mother church to find out more info about this. 
CS was persecuted in Nazi Germany. Nazi theory is 100% incompatible with CS.
:Mind you CS isn't 100% compatible with Christianity either. Quadra23 06:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major expansions and some suggestions 

message: I Propose two articles:
Christian Science  Metaphysics, Healing System, Theology
Church of Christ, Scientist  Organisation, Church History, Manual, Buildings of the Mother Church
--Frueh 23:46, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: two articles

message: Do I really need to explain myself? I don't think so, but I'll try:
#This, like all other Wikipedia articles, is for a general audience, so I am including various facts about the Christian Science religion that most people probably don't know and are probably curious about. In Christian Science terms, I am including information from a "human" standpoint, not a "spiritual" one.
#I am not writing a press release, as the edits preceding mine seemed to do. There was some good info in there, but it should not supplant previous article text.
#I am not bending over backwards to explain the intricacies of the theology, since it's not that intricate. If others want to include it, then I don't have a problem with that, but please add the information, don't replace existing information with it.
Also, if anyone's interested in expanding the article with info about Christian Science and the women's movement, I think that would be great. Eddy was the only woman to have ever founded a popular religion, as far as I know, and most of her students were women (as are most church members today). There was a kind of proto-feminist vibe going on with the theology ("Father-Mother God", "Mother Church", Eddy's title "Mother", etc.), and it seemed to be a very empowering thing 100 years ago. Unfortunately, I don't know too much about it.
--dablaze 22:23, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
:Tenrikyo is, I believe, the largest religion ever founded by a woman. I'm discounting "movements" or schools within Hinduism or Buddhism or Taoism that aren't religions of themselves.--T. Anthony 16:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jan. 13, 2005 revert 

message: I removed the "Other Links" from the article - the first one was just a short news item regarding the fountain in the church plaza.  The second link had nothing to do with Christian Science but was about scientists that are Christian.  The third link was to a highly biased and misleading propaganda website by All About GOD Ministries, Inc.  If anyone feels that these three links added anything of real worth to the article, then please feel free to add them back.  I, for one, don't think any of them have any place here.  I mean, you don't see any anti-Catholic links on the pages for Catholicism.  There isn't a link to Michael Moore's website in the George W. Bush article.  I don't see why the Christian Science article has to have this kind of stuff.
--Brooks 06:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "Other Links" 

message: I am removing the suggestion that Christian Science is a cult because of differences from mainstream Christianity from the first paragraph.  This is too inflammatory for an opening paragraph and could be seen as biased.  (This topic is mentioned in the section on Public Controversy.)
Also importantly, theological differences between Christian Science and more mainstream Christianity are NOT the main reason that most people have when they aliken Christian Science to a cult.  Just because a group's beliefs differ from mainstream Christianity doesn't make it a cult; by that definition, all non-Christian religions and would be cults, which is clearly absurd (although I suppose some fundamentalists, evangelicals, and other conservative Christians might subscribe to this definition anyway).  
More relevant is Christian Science's traditionally authoritarian leadership and practices, possible mind control, and their encouragement of the rejection modern medicine, which can put members at grave and unnecessary risk for obvious reasons. -- Ithacagorges 02:19 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)
:I suppose it depends on your definition of cult.  I prefer the phrase Christian cult to which Christian Science applies itself due to its own contradictions many of the core (note the emphasis) beliefs of Christianity.  Perhaps you are not aware of the doctrine differences between Christianity and Christian Science?  If so, I would suggest you research before you immediately say they are the same.  Examples of these contradications are in Christian Science's beliefs concerning the basis of sin (as taught in Genesis 3 and throughout the Bible), the Christian Trinity and what salvation means.  If you don't define these as core doctrines of Christianity then I suggest you learn what Christianity really is before making such claims.  Quadra23 06:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV, removing reference to cult status from first paragraph

message: Cunado19 recently removed this sentence from the "Public controversy" section: "Because of this [reprisal against dissenters], and because it encourages the rejection of medicine, many consider it to have at least some elements in common with cults."  I assume that he removed it because it's the last remaining use of the word "cult" on the page.  However, the sentence sounds like a mild truism to me; frankly, the Church has been accused by many of being a cult.  Omitting any reference to such accusations strikes me as highly POV.  The edit also renamed "Public controversy" to "Opposition to the Church," which strikes me as less accurate.  One can make criticisms of the Church which make it controversial without being opposed to the Church as a whole, which is a much more extreme position and not really what the section is talking about.  I've undone the section renaming, but I'd like to hear from others about the sentence that was removed.  Any suggestions for rephrasing it?  --LostLeviathan 08:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word "cult" 

message: ...can be said to simply be those religions that are not in vogue amongst those in power at that particular moment in  history. 
The Egyptians fervently believed in their religion. The Greeks, likewise. Currently, bookstores feature a section on "Mythology" covering such religions, and "Religion" covering those that happen to be in fashion in this age. 
In another thousand years, perhaps christianity will also be in the "Mythology" archives, and something entirely different will be in its place. 
Those who believe a religion can never be objective as to the fact that it's just one more set of stories and beliefs in a long historical line of them.
Seeing as such, isn't it a bit presumptuous for anyone to declare anything a cult and anything a religion when none of them can be proven to be correct OR incorrect by any scientific means?
*The issue isn't whether Christian Science is "in vogue", the shady difference between mythology and religions, or whether or not any religion can be proven true or false (almost by definition, none can.)  By the most common modern definition of a cult, there are more specific, and potentially dangerous, characteristics that religions or sect regarded as cults have.  Christian Science's authoritarian leadership from the very beginning, and the discouragement of the use of traditional medicine, which for obvious reasons (except to believers) poses a grave danger at least in some cases, raise eyebrows among "cult-watchers".  And I repeat myself... the statement in the article did not declare that Christian Science was a cult.  It mentioned that some believe it is, or think it has some things in common with cults.  It is listed on the Wikipedia list of cults under "highest consensus."  These are true statements, not opinion or pov. --Ithacagorges 09:27, July 31 2005 (UTC)
::Ok, let's not damage the language any further here. A mythology is simply a written or oral tradition of story-telling. As such, C.S. subscribes, for the most part, to the mythology of Christianity, with a few additions and modifications of its own. Every religion that I know of is based on a mythology. This is not a pejorative term.
::As for the word cult... It is poorly defined at best as a marginal religion. As such, yes, C.S. is a cult. Nothing wrong with that, so are most of the world's religions (since there are a select few majority religions and an uncountable array of minorities).
::However, it is probably best for the NPOV nature of WP to avoid both terms which have negative connotations in their current popular culture usage. Being more precise is called for. Thus, I suggest using the terms "Christian doctrine" and "minority religion". -Harmil 13:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The definition of mythology... 

message: I had added:
::Although, an understanding of quantum mechanics shows that you can not separate the observer from the thing being observed, so healing on the basis of changing one's mind-basis to a more spiritual one can be seen as scientific.
But another editor deletes and comments:
::Spiritual healing has absolutely nothing to do with quantum mechanics so removed that anaology.
What do others think?
I think they do relate.  Quantum Mechanics demonstrates that the material world can not be observed without changing it.  I argue that the perception of discordant things (i.e. sin, disease, & death) is a false belief of a self-creative force other than god existing, it only seems to exist because we are observing it in our thought.  This so-called force, MBE calls mortal-mind.  In CS, as we spiritualize our thought, we detach thought from the false belief of mortal mind and join with the one Mind.  As our thought is spiritualized, we experience healing.  One consequence of this healing is that the shared human concept of the material world in the sphere of our own thought (especially our own 'body') comes into harmony with our thought, and the illusiory material discord disappears into its native nothingness.  We don't change matter, we change our thought, and matter seems to follow, hence matter == thing being observed, mortal-mind == observer.
:It sounds to me like an attempt to use a poor analogy with something scientific in order to make a spiritual idea sound more scientific. --Fastfission 00:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Science & Modern Scientific theories 

message: The whole Einstein thing was posted from a somewhat dubious webpage: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_chrsci.html#Einstein
If better sources can't be found for the information, I wouldn't include it. The supposed quotes don't sound anything like something Einstein would say. I'm also not sure how relevant it is to Christian Science as a whole. Einstein's religious views are certainly quite different than the CS church (he wasn't a Christian at all, for one thing!). --Fastfission 00:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Einstein

message: Please discuss any remaining NPOV issues that warrant the tag at the top of the article.
Disclaimer:  I'm a newbie to editing on WikiPedia.  I've read the policies to make sure I'm on the right track.  I've posted some responses to this talk page.  Based on my perusal of the history of this article, it seems that it has been improving over time.  I bring both insider and outsider perspective on CS.   I don't know why somebody originally threw the POV flag, but it seems to me that there are a few remaining issues regarding POV/NPOV and some important missing items which I hope to add a new section for below and keep that discussion distinct from this NPOV one. artbrock 11:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So... How long is it proper to wait for responses or discussion on these NPOV topics when there's a flag on the page?  It seems the flag has been thrown a couple of times with no explanation whatsoever, and has remained for many months.  I'll wait another week or so (to make it a month since I've posted the above comments in this section), then I'll go ahead an make my recommended changes if there have been no objections. artbrock 08:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this section is on the right track, I recommend that artbrock proceed with his ideas, they seem balanced. WilliamKF 03:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remaining issues? 

message: I removed the "See Also" section and links.  Neither of those links adds anything to the discussion of Christian Science and both have only a minor connection to the topic.  See the section above where links were removed from this article before (different links though).  Unless a link (outside or interwiki) gives a greater understanding of the topic at hand, there is no reason to link to another article or site.--Isotope23 15:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed Complimentary Writings on Metaphysics
*  Closer than Breathing: Healing Your Life Through Metaphysical Prayer and Understanding by Christopher Robert Grove less religious terminology (link to book site)on same basis. KAJ 08:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed "See Also"

message: I removed critisisim pages.......it just establises a negative veiwpoint, this is an encyclopedia, not a journal
:Funny, I see a lot of articles on Wikipedia that have a criticism section (Such as PHP, MySQL or specifically on religions RC Criticisms).  How is Christian Science some how exempt when even Roman Catholicism is not (implies Christian Science is better than Roman Catholic because it has no criticisms)?  Is this encyclopedia meant to biased on basis of Christian Science being perfect?  Mind you, I don't believe every criticism site should be referenced -- only those that are there to tell the facts without being biased on either side of the spectrum.  To remove all criticism is to choose a selective history just like many history books end up being.  Your comment actually solidifies the comments of individuals that say this article lacks NPOV.  Can you also please type out your name next time you make a comment?  Thanks.  Quadra23 23:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We should restore the criticism pages.  The article certainly should not have a "This portion removed" notice in it.  This article certainly would lack NPOV if we remove references to critics of CS. -Volfy 00:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ALSO 

message: I am no longer a Christian Scientist, though that is the religion that I was raised in, and remains the religion of my family.  I've read many of the comments made above, and the article in question, and believe that I might be of some help in the editing of the article, should the author wish to consider my input.  Is Christian Science a cult?  No Christian Scientist would say that it is, however, not only does CS conform to the first two definitions of a cult in Webster's Dictionary, but so does Catholicism, as well as Islam.  In the end, the word is rather explosive, and although CS probably fits all five definitions of the word, you are probably right to remove it, as it is such a verbal bomb.
On the issue of the stigma surrounding medical treatment within the community: While there is a quote (please forgive me that I can neither quote it word for word, nor do I remember which book it is from) that says if the patient is suffering from so much pain that they are unable to pray for themselves that they should seek a surgeon, there is still a stigma about using medicine.  I believe that this stigma increases and decreases regionally.  I have no experience with CS outside of the United States, however having lived on both coasts and in the Midwest, I think that I can say with some certainty that in the more politically conservative areas of this country, the ostracism when a Christian Scientist uses medical treatment increases.  This is also true in large communities of Christian Scientists such as in Boston and St. Louis.  It is true that it is unfair to say that all Christian Scientists that seek medical treatment are ostracized; however, it is also true to say that this practice is not uncommon.
The comment about CS being religious right I believe to be incorrect.  The followers in general I believe are politically conservative, however the religion in practice is actually quite liberal and unusual, which I think no one will disagree with that is of course why this discussion is being had.  However, that same entry did say that gays and lesbians are not welcome and this I know to be true; but I wonder as I get farther and farther from the religion how much of that is the people and how much of that is the book.
In the end, however, I believe that the way to fix this neutrality issue is to create separate pages for the church and its followers and the idea of Christian Science.  It is a fact that Mrs. Eddy had no intention of starting a church when first she published Science and Health.  She believed that her book would be accepted in all Christian Churches, quite clearly she was wrong; however, I believe there is a magnitude of difference between what she wrote and the church she was able to build.  The Catholic Church was not built in one life time by one person, it was built over centuries by millions and it has changed and been remoulded many times over, but the core writings of their faith have remained the same.  Why should Mrs. Eddy have been able to build a church that would last the test of time?  She could not, but her book will be published long after her church is gone.  I believe that to maintain the neutrality of this article it is essential to separate Christian Science from the Church of Christ, Scientist and its members.
Greenmistress 15:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remaining Issues? 

message: Not a cult. 
Christian Science is not a cult. I've been in the religion since I was born, and this has been asked many times. I do not understand why people would say this? The way I can explain Christian Science is that we rely on prayer first and foremost for every situation. Prayer is very powerful, and it has helped me in many situations and I've had a number of healings. I do not understand why people would say Christian Science is a cult though? We have no affiliation with a cult whatsoever.
But...It is impossible for anyone to be neutral with this topic because the belief itself undermines people’s health. Whether you believe in it or not, the article must not support the religion totally, for it could influence a reader into not taking traditional medical treatments, and no article should pontificate a religion’s greatness; Therefore, the only way to avoid being dangerously supportive of a religion is to critique in a responsible manner by showing all sides of the religion...even its critics.
[This message was left from an anonymous IP at the top of the discussion page with no signature or heading.  I've moved it accordingly. --LostLeviathan 02:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't consider it a cult. I don't feel I share many of its values, but I even consider it another Christian denomination. It's a bit out of the mainstream for Christianity, but I don't like this "XYZ aren't Christians" stuff. Because in principle a part of me thinks that any denomination that doesn't follow the first seven Ecumenical Councils isn't Christian. Therefore virtually all Protestantism isn't Christian. However that's uncharitable and unhelpful. I mostly just said it to indicate the whole "they aren't Christians" stuff is way too contentious to open up.--T. Anthony 16:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  It cannot be neutral 

message: I was the one who deleted the critisisims Basejumper123 i am looking at the critisims of the other major world religions, and trying to establish a neutral viewpoint for every article of this type. Its ok to have critisism as long as there is a fair and equal testimonial section. Im not a christian scientist, but the sites that where linked here where not even perticularly helpful, they just dumped all over the religion, and the purpose of the article is to tell about the religion, not how people feel about it
:That sounds more reasonable.  Here are links if anyone wants to see what they were.  It seems like a shame to me to remove the link to Twain's work, because it has historical significance, but I don't see a way of integrating it into the remaining article.
:* Christian Science by Mark Twain a 1907 work mocking Mary Baker Eddy's writings and the Church's financial arrangements
:* God's Perfect Child: Living and Dying in the Christian Science Church by Caroline Fraser history and criticism about Christian Science (link to book site)
:*  Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty (CHILD, Inc.) is a non-profit national membership organization established in 1983 to protect children from abusive religious and cultural practices, especially religion-based medical neglect. A great deal of the cases they list happened in the context of Christian Scientist homes 
:As a tip, a typical way of signing your edits is a dash with four tildes, which will insert both your username and time. -Volfy 01:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry, 

message: I'm removing 
* Henry Fonda, actor
from the list of Christian Scientists, because our article on him says only that his parents were Christian Scientists: "He was born in Grand Island, Nebraska to William Brace Fonda and Herberta Krueger Jaynes, observant Christian Scientists." I don't think he should be reinserted in the list until someone can accompany his name with a verifiable source citation showing that Henry Fonda himself was also an observant Christian Scientist in adult life. 
I'm not saying he wasn't, I'm saying we should be fact-checking and citing sources for material we put in articles. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the List of Christian Scientists (religious denomination) I created I had him as "Christian Science background" for a time. When it got put on VfD I just took that section out as being too iffy. Anyway good idea to take him off here as most things I'd found just listed him as of that in background so I never put him in the main list at any point. Should names from that list be transferred over here? The list is so heavily annotated now I'd rather not merge it with the Notable section here, but I suppose I could add a few names from it. I think what I'll do instead, for now, is add some names that I took off of from that one because they weren't fitting the purpose of that list. Like the athletes, inventor, etc. Or just people who are CSer, but not significantly enough of it to fit the purpose of that list.--T. Anthony 10:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! I didn't have List of Christian Scientists (religious denomination) on my watchlist. Very nice!  I agree that List of Christian Scientists is now probably "too much" to merge. I'd say cut out the actual list here and just say "See List of Christian Scientists (religious denomination)." And copy any names on the list here that are not in List of Christian Scientists (religious denomination) to the Talk page of that list, pending source citations being found. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do. Originally that list was called List of Church of Christ Scientists or something. I changed the name on it surviving AfD.--T. Anthony 13:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry Fonda