Talk:The Christian Science Monitor

message: Informative and reasonably well-written.  Needs some grammar editing (which I can do) and some NPOVing (which I can't, as an Aussie who's only read the CSM a couple of times).  --Robert Merkel 05:50 16 May 2003 (UTC)
Tossed in some NPOVing and interesting tidbits.  If you haven't read a lot of the CSM, don't assume that the newspaper and the religion have anything to do with each other.  The CSM is run with an NPOV-like editorial attitude in order to improve the general reputation of the Christian Science movement.User:clarka
: Actually, the stated purpose of the paper (with respect to the church) is to give church members knowledge of specific issues going on in the world so that they may prayerfully address them in their own thought an effort to bring about more harmony in the world.  MBE's stated goal for the paper was 'to injure no man, but to bless all mankind.’ WilliamKF 04:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to have managed okay.  To sign a comment with your name and time/date, type four tilde characters, they'll translate when the page saves.  Indent levels, add a colon or more in front of comment; others, search site or edit/observe/cancel out.  Chris Rodgers 07:13, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: If you reread the article, you'll find my mention of significant failures at journalistic integrity at variance with the marketing spin there now.  It's nothing like the paper it was even twenty years ago.  Chris Rodgers 07:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: See Christian Science for an explanation of the name of the church. --Dhartung | Talk 04:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article review

message: CSM "avoids coverage about medicine, disease and death" The request for citation seems appropriate from a Wikipedia perspective, but not sure how that would be satisfied. It's not a disputed issue, but would require either a statement by the organization or reference to an independent content analysis. Any suggestions on how to make this better? Otherwise, the 'fact' tag should probably just be removed. --Do go be man 00:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked at today's paper and in the headlines I found Pentagon releases video of deadly friendly-fire attack on British convoy which appears to be an article covering death.  I'd say the statement should be removed unless we find a source to cite.  It is my experience that there is no such avoidance, if the topic is newsworthy I think it is covered.  You could try the The Mary Baker Eddy Library for the Betterment of Humanity as a possible source one way or the other. WilliamKF 00:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the reasons for The Monitor's founding (which should be stated in this article, but is not) is that MBE felt newspapers were constantly projecting images of sickness and death. From the Christian Science point of view, you don't want people thinking about things that have no reality or power. I never closely followed The Monitor, but my memory is that you rarely saw articles about the latest plague, or "medical progress". MBE had nothing against ethical physicians (or hospitals, for that matter -- she made a major contribution to one in her community towards the end of her life), but this was because she saw them as making a sincere effort to alleviate humanity's suffering. A scare article about the dangers of flu and the need for immediate vaccination does not fall in that category. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was Move.  Standard practice for newspapers here appears to be to follow what is on the front page so I'd support as well.  The guideline is clear as mud but I find more instances of capital The in running sentences.  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paper avoiding topics?

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
* Support Consistency with The New York Times. WilliamKF 04:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Image:Christian Science Moniter logo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Christian Science Moniter logo.JPG

message: :Image:Christian Science Monitor frontpage.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Christian Science Monitor frontpage.jpg

message: * Could someone create an article for the former editor John Dillin.  He was extremely important to the Christian Science Monitor.  Thanks! Jccort (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Request article created

message: I just went through the the article and added a bunch of  tags where whole swaths of of the page were more written like a storyline and less like an encyclopedia article. Cat-five - talk 08:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the 4th and 5th paragraphs are a good place to start probably since those are a lot of conjecture and look to be original research and conjecture more than fact. Cat-five - talk 08:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge NPOV issues 

message: I placed a synthesis flag on the article.  This seems to be a argument without a source.  While the article is referenced that the author is talking about, I don't believe that that is sufficient according to The No Original Research Policy.  I even did a couple Google searches and could not find anything that suggested the authors complaint was widely recognized.  Thoughts?
cannona (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Jihad Issue

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on The Christian Science Monitor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://carnegie.org/publications/carnegie-reporter/single/view/article/item/138/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've removed this text from the article. Without secondary sources commenting on the incident, it seems disproportionate to the overall topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galloway 

message: I'm the social media editor at The Christian Science Monitor and would like to submit several suggested edits to this page. In the last several years, specifically in the last year, we've changed how we deliver news to readers. In that time, we've focused our efforts more on online news and a paid digital subscription, which we deliver via email to subscribers every day. Right now, this page suggests we're still a print publication. While we still have a magazine, our focus is digital. If you could consider the suggested edits below, I'd really appreciate it. I have broken them apart by section. Thank you. 
The Christian Science Monitor (CSM) is a nonprofit news organization that has a subscription-supported website and daily news digest, the Monitor Daily, and a weekly print edition. 
Brosen219 (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop using the help me template for this and use the requested edit template instead. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Christian Science Monitor has changed a lot in the past two years. Can you help me update this page to reflect those changes?  

message: Your edit request could not be reviewed because the provided references are not formatted correctly. The system predominantly in use with the Christian Science Monitor article is Citation Style 1. The citation system used in the edit request consists of bare URL's. Any requested edit of yours which may be implemented will need to resemble the current system already in use – in this case, CS1 (See WP:CITEVAR). This would not normally be a problem in a request of a smaller size, whereas larger requests might be expected by some editors to have this formatting done before the request is submitted for review. 
The sun is pretty big.
 https://www.abcnews.com
The moon is not so big. 
http://www.newssource.com
The sun is also quite hot. 
http://www.somewebsite.com
The sun is pretty big.[1] The moon is not so big.[2] The sun is also quite hot.[3] 
References
----
1. 
2. 
3. 
In the example above there are three URL's provided with the claim statements, but these URL's have not been placed using the citation system predominantly used by the Christian Science Monitor article, which currently is the Citation Style 1 system. Using this system, the WikiFormatted text of the citations would resemble the items shown below:
The sun is pretty big, but the moon is not so big. The sun is also quite hot.
The sun is pretty big,[1] but the moon is not so big.[2] The sun is also quite hot.[3]
References
----
^ Sjöblad, Tristan. . Academic Press, 2018, p. 1.
^ Duvalier, Gabrielle. , Scientific American, 51(78):46.
^ Uemura, Shū. . Academic Press, 2018, p. 2.
In the example above the links have been formatted to show author, source name, date, etc., all information which is lost when only the links are provided. As I indicated above, since Wikipedia is a volunteer project, larger edit requests such yours might be expected by some editors to have this formatting done before the request is submitted for review. 
Kindly rewrite your edit request so that it aligns more with the second example above, and feel free to re-submit that edit request at your earliest convenience. 
If you have any questions about this formatting please don't hesitate to ask myself or another editor. Regards,  spintendo  00:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop using the help me template for this and use the requested edit template instead. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 27-AUG-2018

message: The print edition continued to struggle for readership, and, in 2004, faced a renewed mandate from the church to earn a profit. Subsequently, the Monitor began relying more on the Internet as an integral part of its business model. The Monitor was one of the first newspapers to put its text online in 1996, and was also one of the first to launch a PDF edition in 2001. It was also an early pioneer of RSS feeds.
In 2005, Richard Bergenheim, a Christian Science practitioner, was named the new editor. Shortly before his death in 2008, Bergenheim was replaced by a veteran Boston Globe editor and former Monitor reporter John Yemma.
In October 2008, citing net losses of $US18.9 million per year versus $US12.5 million in annual revenue, the Monitor announced that it would cease printing daily and instead print weekly editions starting in April 2009.  The last daily print edition was published on March 27, 2009.
The weekly magazine follows on from the Monitor's London edition, also a weekly, launched in 1960 and the weekly World Edition which replaced the London edition in 1974. Mark Sappenfield became the editor in March 2017.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brosen219 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop using the help me template - the requested edit template (as seen above) is the correct template to use and will put it in the queue to be looked at by a neutral editor. The help me template is for questions about editing or items that require more timely responses and edit requests do not fall into that category. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Modernization

message: I'm the social media editor at The Christian Science Monitor. I would like to ask that you consider adding David Rohde to this section. He won the Pulitzer Prize for the Monitor in 1996 for his reporting on the Srebrenica massacre. His reporting had an impact in Serbia in 2017{{cite news|title=Serbia is finally seeking those responsible for the 1995 massacre in Srebrenica|publisher = PRI University|url=https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-03-19/serbia-finally-seeking-those-responsible-1995-massacre-srebrenica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brosen219 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can you consider adding David Rhode to the section about reporting? He won the Pulitzer Prize for his efforts.