Talk:Robert Peel (Christian Science)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Is there something missing from the second paragraph? I assume that Peel is "bridging the gap" between Christian Science and traditional Christianity. And the "her" refers to Mary Baker Eddy? --Dablaze 00:26, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The second paragraph

I commented it out for the time being.

The more I look at it, the more odd it seems, especially from a POV and defensiveness standpoint. For example, why mention Peel's methodology as a researcher, unless his scholarship (or impartiality) is in question? Sourcing is pretty basic stuff for researchers, like knife skills are for chefs. Why even mention it? And if it is important to mention, then the reason for talking about such a normally unremarkable topic should be mentioned as well.

Also, there seems to be a lot of concern about establishing Peel's bona fides as a scholar -- studied with "preeminent" scholar -- was "straightforward and meticulous" -- "drew praise from detractors". Why not just come right out and say that Christian Science was and is met with serious skepticism, and Peel worked very hard to address it while recognizing that despite his own scholarly efforts, his membership in the Christian Science church would be a mark against his mainstream credibility?

Then there's the POV about "misimpressions" and so on. I'd be careful about saying that Peel "corrected" any "misimpressions," but rather "addressed points that most Christian Scientists felt were previously misrepresented." I'm not an expert on Peel, or else I would have done it myself. But I think it's important when talking about religion to be very careful to separate out fact and faith.

--Dablaze 15:37, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I think it's entirely viable to the purpose of the entry. Of course anyone sources their points, but he went the triple distance for a subject whose previous biographies had been the subject of strong polemical controversy, and as anyone familiar with the subject knows, it's fair to note that the scholastic world at large recognized these works for that very integrity. As for your claim that membership in the church is per se a mark against mainstream credibility, that itself smacks of a predjudice element to me. As to prior misimpressions, they were legion, and thoroughly deconstructed in works whose footnotes almost rivalled the text size itself.

I consider it self-evident, as a historian myself, that segregating fact and faith is essential, but I think you could stand to read the works in question first to have some idea of the subject under discussion here. I'd be happy to review for POV again, and if you can make any specific objections (the guy discussed the historical objectivity at great length in his prefaces) that'd be one thing, but you're throwing abstract hypotheticals out at a simple description resting on the facts of the case themselves. -- Chris Rodgers 08:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not saying your points aren't valid, but if you'd reread what I wrote above, since a discussion of a scholar's scholastic integrity is unusual (it's assumed that scholars have scholastic integrity!), it might be a good idea to put this entry into context by mentioning what you mentioned above. I'm not disputing the integrity of the works he wrote, but rather the unexplained focus on Peel's scholarly skills instead of a more customary focus on scholarly significance. --Dablaze 14:03, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)