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 Ashi b aka 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 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 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   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 1 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 ).

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

Galloway
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)

The Christian Science Monitor has changed a lot in the past two years. Can you help me update this page to reflect those changes?
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)

Brosen219 (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Reply 27-AUG-2018
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.

Unformatted request: 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

Displays as: 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:

Formatted request: The sun is pretty big, but the moon is not so big. The sun is also quite hot. Displays as: 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)


 * Please stop using the help me template for this and use the requested edit template instead. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  15:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you consider editing the section about our circulation and modernization? It only reflects
I'm the social media editor at The Christian Science Monitor. I noticed the below sections only describes our circulation and state of affairs up to 1992 or 2009, depending on how you read it. In the past two years, we switched our circulation model to a paid digital product. Can you consider updating this page to reflect our current status as a news outlet? I feel like the section, as it currently exists, presents an archaic picture of our readership and the way we deliver news to our audiences. Thank you!

For reference, here's the current sections in their entirety for references:

Circulation
The paper's overall circulation has ranged widely, from a peak of over 223,000 in 1970, to just under 56,000 shortly before the suspension of the daily print edition in 2009. Partially in response to declining circulation and the struggle to earn a profit, the church's directors and the manager of the Christian Science Publishing Society were purportedly forced to plan cutbacks and closures (later denied), which led in 1989 to the mass protest resignations by its chief editor Kay Fanning (an ASNE president and former editor of the Anchorage Daily News), managing editor David Anable, associate editor David Winder, and several other newsroom staff. These developments also presaged administrative moves to scale back the print newspaper in favor of expansions into radio, a magazine, shortwave broadcasting, and television. Expenses, however, rapidly outpaced revenues, contradicting predictions by church directors. On the brink of bankruptcy, the board was forced to close the broadcast programs in 1992.

Modernization
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)


 * 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. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  16:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you consider adding David Rhode to the section about reporting? He won the Pulitzer Prize for his efforts.
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brosen219 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this specific Rhode request, if you could propose how this information ought to be worded in the article, this would be helpful. Blanket requests to "add" information do not elucidate how that addition is to be made. Generally, it is the COI editor who proposes this finished wording for review. Thank you!  spintendo   22:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Reply 28-AUG-2018
Thank you for formatting the references correctly. Here are the remaining challenges with your edit request.
 * 1) References 1-3 are placed at the beginning of your request to reference the claim that the circulation model was switched to a paid digital product. That information already exists in the article (as of 22:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC).
 * 2) The Circulation paragraph contains only one reference placed in the first sentence. This unfortunately renders the rest of the paragraph as unusable.
 * 3) The Modernization section's first paragraph contains 6 separate claim statements but only contains one reference which is to a dead URL.
 * 4) The Modernization section's second, third and fourth paragraphs all contain claims which are already in the article (as of 22:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please provide references for the parts of your request which were unreferenced (namely, the entirety of the Circulation section and the first paragraph of the Modernization section) and feel free to resubmit these sections at your earliest convenience.
 * Regards,  spintendo   22:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)