Talk:The Christian Science Monitor

Article review

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)

Needed serious reworking; the Home Forum (separate link should be deleted, unnecessary) is a general family article different from the religious article, Eddy really had one son (the other was an adulthood adoption), plus a bunch more stuff. Also reworked paragraph integration heavily and filled in internal stuff non-adherents might not be conversant with. The paper's much touted NPOV fell off heavily in the 90's with an intense degree of staff turnover around and after the media expansion episode. Should probably fill a few details more: the first TV program was a half-hour monthly thing, then a nightly thing with John Hart on the Discovery Channel, then the superstation undertaking. Chris Rodgers 12:27, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I tried to add in some current information on the situation there. Feedback appreciated. And how do I add a comment to the above thread?

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)

Based on the positive comments about CSM in this article I went to their web site and read the currently-front-page article entitled A Marine company and a month in Fallujah. The article is FAR from NPOV. The slant was clear; if one of the soldiers mentioned professed religious faith, he was painted as a saint. If a soldier let it be known he was not religious then they always made sure to include information about his past crimes, body piercings, tatoos, and heavy metal music. I am a Christian myself, but I also know NPOV when I see it and the CSM is definitely not NPOV. This article needs to be modified to reflect that fact. If none more qualified than I will do it then I will certainly undertake it myself. --David Battle 23:17, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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)

Unfortunatly, the reason this is well written is becuase its simply a wikified rip of what the CSM has on their "About Us" page. That needs fixing Reid 20:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I would really appreciate someone with knowledge of the paper's current situation who is willing to make this article NPOV. As is, it reads more like an ad for the paper rather than an objective overview of it. Nailed 06:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Christian... Scientist??? Isn't that an oxymoron? Saccerzd 17:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not an oxymoron in the sense in which it's used in regard to the Christian Science Monitor. Adherents of the Christian Science religion are not religious fundamentalists, and do not have issues with regard to contemporary biology or cosmology. Indeed they sometimes claim that contemporary physics is coming around to their teachings in regard to the illusory nature of time and matter.89.100.37.108 (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Paper avoiding topics?

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)

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)

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)

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)

Requested move

Christian Science Monitor → The Christian Science Monitor – The name of the monitor includes the word 'The' just like The New York Times and should thus be named as such consistently. WilliamKF 04:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

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)
• Weak support per masthead, guidelines, but I'm not sure I support it for the NYT. --Dhartung | Talk 04:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support per style guide. Dekimasu 08:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - "the" more often in lower case in common use. Should be just "New York Times" as well. Thumbelina 17:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, style guide is stupid Ashibaka tock 01:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fair use rationale for Image:Christian Science Moniter logo.JPG

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Christian Science Monitor frontpage.jpg

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)

Request article created

• 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)

Huge NPOV issues

I just went through the the article and added a bunch of {{fact}} 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)

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)

Is this NPOV

The following section was recently removed as not being NPOV. Seems to be accurate to me and based on outside opinion. Perhaps we can get some citations to back this up. WilliamKF (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Project Censored noted that the Monitor often publishes articles discussing topics under-represented or absent from the mainstream mass media. In comparison to other major newspapers and journalistic magazines, the Monitor tends to take a steady and slightly upbeat approach to national and world news. Many readers prefer the Monitor because it avoids sensationalism, particularly with respect to tragedies; at the same time, the paper's staff does operate under the close eye of the church's five-member board of directors, and has sometimes been seen as avoiding issues that involve the church in controversial and unfavorable ways.

Yeah, it would be good to get citations. I thought I had found a book, but turns out it cites Wikipedia :) Shreevatsa (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Jihad Issue

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)