Talk:Emma Curtis Hopkins/Archive 1

Comment moved here from main article
Comment below moved here from main article. - TB (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

- ''The above paragraph on Emma Curtis Hopkins appears biased. The sub-text reveals the editor defending the Christian Science view from it's critics; ad hominem attacks on Hopkins as a person, and not her ideas; casting Eddy as an originator and above suspicion; and on re-reading it is unclear whether the demand to "give her the next Normal class [whatever that is] and authority over all Christian Science west of Buffalo" is talking about Hopkins or about Plunkett. Since later it states that "Plunkett would again ask Eddy" we can assume that it was Plunkett and not Eddy that made both demands. The last sentences seek to discredit Hopkins not by her own behavior, but that of Plunkett. Can the Plunkett material be put on a Plunkett page instead?'' JohnEdwin1 (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)JohnEdwin1 -