Talk:Robert Peel (historian)

Untitled

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)

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)

COI edit request

Hello. I’m new to Wikipedia and a paid employee of the Church of Christ, Scientist. As such, I will be following COI requirements. My user page says a bit more about myself: FirsthandPOV-CCS. I’ve had close contact with Robert Peel’s work for many years and thus bring potentially useful knowledge of his scholarly work, ecumenical activity, and the positions he held for several decades at the headquarters of the Church of Christ, Scientist.

I appreciate much of the work that has been done on this article, though I do feel that something of Peel’s standing as a scholar is currently missing here. I would welcome the opportunity to participate in the conversation.

Extended content

A fuller portrayal of Peel is well conveyed in an article on him by Frederick Newlands Hunter in American National Biography. Wikipedia often includes fair and thoughtful articles on religious scholars. The article on Robert Peel doesn't seem to meet that standard. For comparison of other similarly situated scholars on Wikipedia, see articles on Leonard Arrington and Richard Bushman in relation to Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Rufus Jones (Writer) in relation to the Quaker faith, or Abraham Joshua Heschel in relation to Judaism. I’d like to propose in this initial post adding the following to what's in the lead: Peel’s work as an educator and journalist, specifically his work as an editorial writer for the Christian Science Monitor, and later his service as an editorial counselor (rather than editorial consultant) to the church’s Board of Directors as well as to its Committee on Publication. The suggested description of the work of the Committee on Publication traces to Gillian Gill on page 453 rather than page 581, which does not mention the Committee on Publication. I’m also suggesting a quotation from University of Chicago scholar Martin E. Marty concerning Peel’s biography of Mary Baker Eddy. An example of how these paragraphs could read, with brackets around added text, follows: Robert Peel (May 6, 1909 – January 8, 1992) was [an educator, journalist,] historian, and writer on religious and ecumenical topics.[1] A Christian Scientist for over 70 years, [Peel worked for The Christian Science Monitor as an editorial writer and, later, as an editorial counselor to the] Church of Christ, Scientist’s [Board of Directors and] Committee on Publication.[1] The latter was set up by Mary Baker Eddy (1821-1910), the religion’s founder, to [correct misstatements in the press about her church and herself].[2] Peel is best known for his three-volume biography, Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Discovery (1966), [Mary Baker Eddy:] The Years of Trial (1971), and [Mary Baker Eddy:] The Years of Authority (1977). [Summing up Peel’s biographical trilogy in The New York Times Book Review, Martin E. Marty, who was professor and endowed chair of the University of Chicago Divinity School, noted that Peel “has begun to break the barriers between apologists and critics” of Mary Baker Eddy.][3] References[edit] Note: Included here are only citations for the Introduction. 1. “Robert Peel,” American National Biography online, by Frederick Newlands Hunter: https://doi.org/10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.0802361. 2. Gillian Gill, Mary Baker Eddy. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books Group, p. 453. 3. Martin E. Marty, New York Times Book Review, March 12, 1978.

FirsthandPOV-CCS (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I've added to the lead that he was a journalist for the Christian Science Monitor and counsellor for the Committee on Publication. I've added "Mary Baker Eddy" to the latter two book titles in the trilogy. I've also added lower down "begun to break the barriers between apologists and critics", according to a New York Times reviewer; there's no byline on it. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

COI edit request

I sincerely appreciate recent steps that have been taken to improve this article. You seem to care about this work a great deal. I expect you’d agree that it’s good news for Wikipedia readers whenever steps are taken in the direction of upholding the standards of being neutral, verifiable, accurate, and reliable. I believe that the final section still has some distance to go to meet those standards. Much of what is in the section entitled “Reception” was introduced by “user: I have a big foot,” who was suspended for suspected sock puppetry and has been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia. Due to that fact, the integrity of this section appears to be compromised. Would it be fair to ask whether this section should be retained? If the consensus is that the section is essential, I would like to propose an alternative approach that I believe would provide Wikipedia readers with a balanced look at the issue of critical reception. (One note: The NYT review was verifiably written by Martin E. Marty, as can be confirmed here. Marty’s name appears above a grouping of reviews, including the one quoted here.) The Reception section could open as follows:

Edit request

Summing up his biographical trilogy of Mary Baker Eddy in the New York Times Book Review, Martin E. Marty, who was professor and endowed chair of the University of Chicago Divinity School, observes that Peel “has begun to break the barriers between apologists and critics.” While Peel’s volumes on Eddy may have begun breaking through those barriers, his subject was too fraught with controversy to receive a unified critical reception. Peel’s objectivity as a church insider writing about Eddy has been called into question by some critics; at the same time, a number of non-Christian Science scholars and reviewers have praised the intellectual rigor and “lack of parti pris interpretation” exhibited in his scholarship [ref: Kirkus Reviews, July 18, 1966: https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/robert-peel/mary-baker-eddy-the-years-of-discovery/]. To provide readers with a balanced picture of this topic, in addition to the mostly skeptical quotations currently included, some of the following should be interspersed. (Let me acknowledge the recent expanded quotation from Gillian Gill in this section, which began the process of correcting the imbalance that has been displayed there.) Note: There are additional favorable reviews, which I have not referenced here. ° Stephen Stein, Chancellor’s Professor, Emeritus, in the Department of Religious Studies at Indiana University recognizes Peel as “the most distinguished biographer of Mary Baker Eddy.” [Stephen J. Stein, “‘Retrospection and Introspection’: The Gospel According to Mary Baker Eddy,” The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 75, No. 1 (January 1982). https://www.jstor.org/stable/1509666?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents] ° Christian Herald editorial consultant and President of the Christian Herald Association, Dr. Daniel A. Poling, noted that “hitherto unavailable material – and a wealth of it – has been drawn upon. There is objective balance with sympathetic insight.” [Daniel A. Poling, “Doctor Poling Looks at Books,” Christian Herald, November 1966.] ° “Yes, this is an insider’s biography,” notes a Christian Century critic, “but Peel is by far the best equipped and most objective historian Christian Science has yet seen. Both the earlier volumes were praised for their literary excellence and accuracy, and we expect a good reception for this one too. …No one who wishes to do justice to her or her church can or will want to work without this.” [“This Week’s Arrivals,” The Christian Century, March 1, 1978, 219] ° “Peel is a painstaking and imaginative scholar whose . . . volumes must,for sheer extensiveness of documented research, take precedence over earlier lives of Mary Baker Eddy.” [Raymond J. Cunningham, The American Historical Review 84, no. 1 (1979): 264-65] ° Peel’s “is an honest and scholarly biography,” Orr Kelly noted in The Evening Star. “One can only wish that all ‘authorized’ biographies were presented with such intellectual honesty.” [Orr Kelly, “Biographer Probes Life of Mrs. Eddy,” The Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), September 3, 1966] ° “Both as biography and as a biography of the founder of Christian Science this is a very fine book.” [J. Stafford Wright, "Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Discovery," Churchman (Summer 1967).] ° “It would be hard to imagine another serious book on this psychologically fascinating theme which would be at once so readable and, both intellectually and morally, so virtuous,” wrote Kathleen Nott in the The Daily Telegraph (London), Oct. 27, 1967. ° “Mr. Peel, who writes from within Christian Science is apparently scrupulously fair in his use of sources, his accounts of healings, his recital of highly controversial events during the formative years, and in his treatment of Mrs. Eddy’s antagonists, of whom there were many.” [William G. Willoughby, “Christian Science Movement Shown,” Progress-Bulletin (Ponoma, Cal.), January 15, 1972.] ° “Peel is a Christian Scientist,” notes book critic Linda Yorton, “and his biography is on the whole admiring, yet it is balanced and scholarly, with the virtue of original research which documents events to get at the truth. ...Peel’s objective account is timely today, when there is much interest in feminist history.” [Linda Yorton, “Finally, an Objective View,” The Evening News (Southbridge, Mass.), January 18, 1978] ° “This 500-page book concludes Robert Peel’s three-volume biography of the founder of Christian Science, surely the definitive work on this colorful religious leader.” [“New Biography Readings,” The AnnistonStar (Anniston, Ala.), December 4, 1977.] ° “Nowhere indulges in special pleading….” [Thomas E. Cooney, “Mary Baker Eddy: The Year of Discovery,” Book-of-the-Month Club News, Midsummer 1966, 10]

FirsthandPOV-CCS (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Reply from Spintendo

Reply (Part I) 17-SEP-2019 Your edit request contains some issues with formatting. The citation style predominantly used by the Robert Peel article appears to be Citation Style 1. The citation style used in the edit request consists of unformatted bare references. Any requested edit of yours which may be implemented will need to resemble the current style already in use in the article – in this case, CS1. Citation ref tags have not been placed within the requested text indicating which portions of the text these sources are referencing. In the collapsed section below titled Request edit examples, I have illustrated two: The first shows how the edit request was submitted; the second shows how requests should be submitted in the future. Request edit examples INCORRECT The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles. Tristan Sjöblad, The Sun, Academic Press, 2018, p. 1. The Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles. Paramjit Harinath, Size of the Moon, Science, 51(78):46. The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin. Shū Uemura, The Sun's Heat, Academic Press, 2018, p. 2. References (None generated) In the example above there are three claims made. Each claim has its source reference immediately follow the claim being made. None of the references have been placed using Citation Style 1, which is the style predominantly used by the Robert Peel article. Additionally, ref tags have not been placed within the text at the exact positions where the information they reference resides. Because of this, a reference section is not immediately generated in the text above. The COI editor's current edit request is similarly formatted in this manner, with the unformatted references following the requested claims. Using the correct style and the correct positioning of the ref tags, the WikiFormatted text should resemble the following: CORRECT The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles,<ref>{{cite book|last1=Sjöblad|first1=Tristan|title=The Sun|url=http://www.booksource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2018|page=1}}</ref> while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Harinath|first1=Paramjit|title=Size of the Moon|journal=Science|issue=78|volume=51|url=http://www.journalsource.com|date=2018|page=46}}</ref> The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Uemura|first1=Shu|title=The Sun's Heat|url=http://www.websource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2018|page=2}}</ref> Which displays as: The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles, while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles. The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin. References Notes In the example above the references have been formatted according to Citation Style 1, which shows the author, the source's name, date, etc. Also, the ref tags are placed in the exact location where the text which they reference resides. As Wikipedia is a volunteer project, edit requests such yours are generally expected 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 shown in the collapsed section above. If you have any questions about this formatting please don't hesitate to ask myself or another editor. In the meantime, I offer part II of my review below, where I address the individual reviews proposed to be added to the article. Reply (Part II) 17-SEP-2019 The reply above addresses the issues of formatting, which are — in their own small way — quite important. However, there are other issues with the proposed content, which I shall address below. Review of the reviews Stephen Stein, Chancellor’s Professor, Emeritus, in the Department of Religious Studies at Indiana University recognizes Peel as “the most distinguished biographer of Mary Baker Eddy.” [Stephen J. Stein, “‘Retrospection and Introspection’: The Gospel According to Mary Baker Eddy,” The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 75, No. 1 (January 1982). https://www.jstor.org/stable/1509666?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents]  Comment: This review mentions the "distinguished biographer" but says nothing else about that which makes the subject "distinguishable". Christian Herald editorial consultant and President of the Christian Herald Association, Dr. Daniel A. Poling, noted that “hitherto unavailable material – and a wealth of it – has been drawn upon. There is objective balance with sympathetic insight.” [Daniel A. Poling, “Doctor Poling Looks at Books,” Christian Herald, November 1966.]  Comment: Unfortunately because this was published more than 50 years ago, its views on "hitherto unavailable material" are outdated. Objective balance and sympathetic insights may be lost after 50 years of information which may have been discovered since then. “Yes, this is an insider’s biography,” notes a Christian Century critic, “but Peel is by far the best equipped and most objective historian Christian Science has yet seen. Both the earlier volumes were praised for their literary excellence and accuracy, and we expect a good reception for this one too. …No one who wishes to do justice to her or her church can or will want to work without this.” [“This Week’s Arrivals,” The Christian Century, March 1, 1978, 219]  Comment: This review appears as if it hasn't yet accounted for other peer reviews at the time (i.e., "earlier volumes were praised for their literary excellence and accuracy, and we expect a good reception for this one too.") This of course does not take into account the intervening 50 years of other reviews. But for what it's worth, this review does state unequivocally that the subject is the "most equipped and most objective", but the term "the most" may or may not apply 40 years later. "Peel is a painstaking and imaginative scholar whose . . . volumes must,for sheer extensiveness of documented research, take precedence over earlier lives of Mary Baker Eddy.” [Raymond J. Cunningham, The American Historical Review 84, no. 1 (1979): 264-65]  Comment: The ellipses used here is odd, and suggests that a course of action should be to see the entire statement without the redacted information covered by the ellipses. Peel’s “is an honest and scholarly biography,” Orr Kelly noted in The Evening Star. “One can only wish that all ‘authorized’ biographies were presented with such intellectual honesty.” [Orr Kelly, “Biographer Probes Life of Mrs. Eddy,” The Evening Star (Washington, D.C.), September 3, 1966]  Comment: This review is forthright (if not short) but again, it was written over 50 years ago. "Both as biography and as a biography of the founder of Christian Science this is a very fine book.” [J. Stafford Wright, "Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Discovery," Churchman (Summer 1967).]  Comment: Again, over 50 years ago and does not elaborate past "very fine book". It would be hard to imagine another serious book on this psychologically fascinating theme which would be at once so readable and, both intellectually and morally, so virtuous,” wrote Kathleen Nott in the The Daily Telegraph (London), Oct. 27, 1967.  Comment: I doubt Ms. Nott considered the intervening 50 years of books she didn't have access to which may have changed her outlook written at the time in 1967. "Mr. Peel, who writes from within Christian Science is apparently scrupulously fair in his use of sources, his accounts of healings, his recital of highly controversial events during the formative years, and in his treatment of Mrs. Eddy’s antagonists, of whom there were many.” [William G. Willoughby, “Christian Science Movement Shown,” Progress-Bulletin (Ponoma, Cal.), January 15, 1972.]  Comment: "Apparently scrupulously fair" may have indeed been the case in 1972 (and no one is saying it wouldn't be now) but the time which has passed has not been taken into consideration when this review is accounted for. "Peel is a Christian Scientist," notes book critic Linda Yorton, "and his biography is on the whole admiring, yet it is balanced and scholarly, with the virtue of original research which documents events to get at the truth. ...Peel’s objective account is timely today, when there is much interest in feminist history.” [Linda Yorton, “Finally, an Objective View,” The Evening News (Southbridge, Mass.), January 18, 1978]  Comment: The observation which Ms. Yorton makes that the "objective account is timely today" is an apt one: is this an objective account which is timely today, in 2019? "This 500-page book concludes Robert Peel’s three-volume biography of the founder of Christian Science, surely the definitive work on this colorful religious leader.” [“New Biography Readings,” The AnnistonStar (Anniston, Ala.), December 4, 1977.]  Comment: Like Ms. Nott's review earlier, this statement that the work is "definitive" must be weighed against more than 40 years of intervening works. "Nowhere indulges in special pleading…." [Thomas E. Cooney, “Mary Baker Eddy: The Year of Discovery,” Book-of-the-Month Club News, Midsummer 1966, 10]  Comment: Merely stating what the account doesn't contain only tells half a story. These are, of course, only my views on these reviews — so I would appreciate hearing other's comments. I'll leave open the template in order to solicit them. Notes

 Spintendo  19:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

FirsthandPOV-CCS, when I left a note on your talk page explaining that you could request edits, I should have discussed the limitations of doing so. I apologize for not having done that.

The Christian Science church can't rewrite our articles on Christian Science. Our articles have to be written independently of the church. You're welcome to point out errors if you find any, or anything that's misleading, but please do not suggest lengthy rewrites or additions. Even suggesting sources can be problematic.

It's worth noting that your ellipsis in your summary of Cunningham's review ("Peel is a painstaking and imaginative scholar whose ... volumes must,for sheer extensiveness of documented research, take precedence over earlier lives of Mary Baker Eddy.") skips over two paragraphs, including points such as "his treatment is uncomfortably reverential and, except in minor matters, generally uncritical", and Peel's treatment of a plagiarism issue ("blandly passed over with the startlingly irrelevant observation that the incident serves to show Eddy's occasional published pieces to be fallible").

Finally, because this is a biography and not an article about one of Peel's books, including even more book reviews would not be appropriate, in my view. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: as requested, I've added Martin E. Marty as the New York Times Book Review author. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

FirsthandPOV-CCS, are you able to shed light on the publishing sequence of the trilogy, and what year the Christian Science Publishing Society published each of them? WorldCat is showing inconsistent results. Also, did the Christian Science Publishing Society purchase the copyright from Holt, Rinehart and Winston, or did it already own it? Any pointers would be appreciated. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

So as not to confuse the COI editor, my replies above to their request need not be answered, since the issue of placing the reviews was deemed not possible by Sarah — and I defer to her judgement on not using them (and note that I also raised the question of the ellipses as being an "odd" situation — my thanks to Sarah for providing the missing text). With regards to Sarah's current questions, if FirsthandPOV-CCS could kindly change the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes to |ans=no when they are ready to answer them, it would be most appreciated. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  20:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Sarah, just to let you know that I will be providing requested information on the publishing of the trilogy. FirsthandPOV-CCS (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Sarah, I hope this proves to be a useful response to your question. Holt, Rinehart and Winston initially published each of the books. Peel copyrighted all three books at the time of their initial publication. Later, when the books were republished by the Christian Science Publishing Society (CSPS), the copyright at that time was conveyed to CSPS. However, in the United States, this conveyance did not extend beyond the copyright renewal, which reverted to Robert Peel’s estate. CSPS continues to publish and distribute the books through a license arrangement.

Years of Discovery copyrighted by Peel in 1966. First published by Holt, Rinehart and Winston in 1966. The Publishing Society first published Years of Discovery in 1972. After reversion, CSPS continued printing under license from 1994 to present.

Years of Trial copyrighted by Peel in 1971. First published by Holt, Rinehart and Winston in 1971. The Publishing Society first published Years of Trial in 1978. After reversion, CSPS continued printing under license from 1999 to present.

Years of Authority copyrighted by Peel in 1977. First published by Holt, Rinehart and Winston in 1977. The Publishing Society first published Years of Authority sometime after 1982. After reversion, CSPS continued printing under license from 2005 to present. FirsthandPOV-CCS (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarah and Spintendo, for clarifying several points. It makes perfect sense not to further expand the Reception section, given that this is a biography. However, in regards to your request to point out anything that is misleading, I do feel that the article could be edited to provide Wikipedia readers with a more balanced and accurate picture of how the trilogy was received without adding to the length of the section. I’m not suggesting tilting the section one way or the other, but achieving a balance that would more accurately reflect the trilogy’s overall reception.

Also, since this section is about the reception of a series of books published 40 to 50 years ago, most of the reviews naturally come from that time as well.

Finally, I noted that under external links, the link to the original version of Robert Peel’s article, “The Christian Science Practitioner,” leads to a “no results found” page. The following url leads to the article: https://johnsonfund.org/robert-peel-the-christian-science-practitioner/

FirsthandPOV-CCS (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

With regards to the link to the original version of Robert Peel’s article, “The Christian Science Practitioner,” leads to a “no results found” page the article is archived and the archive link is the one displaying in the article, so no update is needed there. The archived link is superior to the newer link, since placing a newer link will only renew the possibility that this newer link will eventually die itself — whereas the archived link should always work. With regards to the responses to @SarahSV:'s questions, I'll leave her to answer those. Regards,  Spintendo  21:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

FirsthandPOV-CCS, thank you for the information about the publishing history. Spintendo, there is no specific request remaining, so I think it would be reasonable to close this. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you for your help! Regards,  Spintendo  03:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)