Talk:Quiverfull

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On January 15, 2007, Quiverfull was linked from Women's Space., a high-traffic website.
All prior and subsequent edits are noted in the revision history.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Quiverfull article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

1) I think the links to the books belong because the books are in fact advocating for a QF mindset and are used by QF advocates to bolster their positions. 2) The weblinks serve to balance the piece in absence of a "Criticisms by Other Christians" section, which I plan to write when I have the time.

Contents

[edit] RC Promote vs. Permit

Any claims that the Catholic Church actively promotes needs a citation, and to include limitations to those circumstances, since the church teaching is that the use of NFP can be sinful. Goldfritha 01:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The sentence says While its moral use is limited, in some circumstances... - I don't see that as a blanket assertion.
From p.235-236 of The Art of Natural Family Planning by John and Sheila Kippley:
The question here is this: when, if ever, is "trusting God" a matter of presumption, not a virtue but a fault at best? Are there some circumstances in which we might be obliged to practice NFP to avoid pregnancy?
Yes. Since we live in extreme times, there are extreme examples. What if you lived in a country such as China in the 1980s and 1990s and already had the one or two children "permitted" by government policy? What if you knew that another child in the womb would be forcibly killed by abortion? We think you would be morally obliged to abstain during the fertile times to avoid pregnancy and consequent forced abortion...
Are there less extreme cases in which we might be obliged to practice NFP to avoid pregnancy? Drawing from his experience as a priest and bishop before he bacame Pope John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla wrote:
There are, however, circumstances in which this disposition [to be a responsible parent] itself demands renunciation of procreation, and any further increase in the size of the family would be incompatible with parental duty. A man and a woman moved by true concern for the good of their family and a mutual sense of responsibility for the birth, maintenance, and upbringing of their children, will then limit intercourse and abstain from it in periods in which this might result in another pregnancy undesirable in the particular conditions of their married life and family.[15]
Without being materialistic, it is easy to imagine such circumstances. Serious health problems. Dire poverty. Active persecution. And you may be able to think of others.
The Kippley's book has many other quotes from the Bible and Church documents to support their position that NFP use is sometimes morally obligatory.
I wouldn't mind rewording of the sentence to be more clear. I just don't like the style of "use is limited" "in some circumstances" "permit" "for grave reasons" - it's too many qualifiers. I'm not attached or opposed to any particular one, I just object to there being so many in one sentence. Lyrl Talk Contribs 02:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Too many qualifiers for what? To explain what is meant? If you can not explain without them -- and a difference from the Catholic position naturally needs an explanation of what that is -- they can not be too many.
Furthermore, putting scare quotes about the Catholic terminology is unacceptable POV. And the grave reasons are not identical to those which would make use of NFP morally required, which are much fewer; indeed, I have seen praise from Catholics for those with grave reasons not to have children who nevertheless do. If you want to say that the Church promotes NFP in some circumstances, you must expand it enough to include them. Goldfritha 23:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Too many qualifiers for easy reading. It is possible to explain what is meant in fewer words (and we seem to have agreed on removing the "use is limited" and "in some circumstances" phrases).
I apologize for the scare marks. I was thinking of the debate over translation of the word "grave" (a popular translation uses the word "just" instead) when putting quotes around it, and then just got carried away with the other descriptors.
I have listed the reasons for which the Couple to Couple League founders promote NFP, and cited their book. They're representing an organization, so they are more credible than individual Catholics distributing praise or criticism, but they are only one organization. Someone more familiar with the issues might have a conflicting Catholic source.
The paragraph now goes quite a bit more into depth on the Catholic view of family planning than it did a few days ago. I'm not sure how I feel about that amount of information in what is supposed to be a summary. If someone wants to edit it back down to be short again, I'm not sure I would object. Lyrl Talk Contribs 01:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
What is the point of putting the qualification that "grave" sometimes is translated "just" in this article? What does it add to the article, which is, after all, about the Quiverfull movement and not what Catholics mean by "grave"? Goldfritha 03:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
That part of the article is explaining when the Catholic Church permits use of NFP to compare with Quiverfull non-use... and "grave" has a significantly more serious connotation than "just". Maybe it would be better to say "grave or just reasons" instead of mentioning the debate? Lyrl Talk Contribs 22:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Or mention that there is a debate? CyberAnth 04:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open Embrace

Open Embrace is promoted sold on the Couple to Couple League website (an NFP group), and the link to the Torode's "update" talks about how difficult they found using NFP. The Couple to Couple League is actually ANTI-Quiverfull (they call it Providentialism). And the Quiverfull movement does not accept use of NFP.

Anyway, I have not read the book - but it, and by extension the update, does not seem to be relevant to the Quiverfull article. The Torode book, and also their update, are linked to in the Natural family planning article (and I used it to add more information to the history section of Rhythm Method, so thank you to whoever originally inserted it) - but I don't see their place in this article. Lyrl Talk Contribs 22:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Provan's book and James B. Jordan's article

I have several times placed these two sources into this article (see version of article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quiverfull&diff=76927867&oldid=75980710 ) but they keep being removed as "not QF." I disagree.

References to Provan's book The Bible and Birth Control are extensive among QF advocates because Provan's positions, except on his equating sperm with "children," are fully consistent with QF. Here are a few places where Provan is used in connection with QF:

Because of this, I think the book should be included with a comment in parenthesis (book frequently cited by Quiverfull adherents to support their positions).

On the same token, Jordan's article is frequently called into QF debates because it is critiquing Provan's QF ideas. For example:

Because of this, I think the article should be included as well.

CyberAnth 08:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

I realize that much of my recent additions are not yet cited. I am working on that and they will be shortly. I thought it more important to first improve and and give citations to Christian views on contraception, as I have done for much of it. CyberAnth 04:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I added citations for most parts. More to come. CyberAnth 07:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The citation attributing Quiverfull conviction to Russell Yates is hearsay, and the only citation for the Yates inclusion is the opinion piece containing the hearsay statement.Grkndeacon 06:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

See section below, Yates controversy. CyberAnth 07:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who is CyberAnth?

CyberAnth (see bizarre, anonymous user page) seems to have hijacked this article and spent hours every day turning it into a skeptic's term paper. Anyone know the real identity of this person and what is behind this? I'm ready to revert out my contributions back to my origination of this article, and put a dissenting reference to my own Web page. Rkinch 05:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no rules forbidding anonymity. Wikipedia (very luckily for me!) also has no limits on how often per day you can edit, or how long a timespan you can spend editing. In work I have done with CyberAnth (editing her edits and vice versa), and also in Talk page discussions (see above on "Open Embrace"), (s)he has been very reasonable and willing to work with me. If you have specific changes you want to make in the article, or ideas for improvements you want to talk about, that is what the Edit button and the Talk page are for. But unilateral reversion is uncalled for. Lyrl Talk Contribs 21:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your above comments, Lyrl, which I reciprocate.
Rich, I am pleased to make your acquaintence. I apologize for making many small edits to this article rather than one or just a few big ones. I am a Wikipedia newcomer who happens to have some time right now because I am on sabattical. (BTW, I happen to live just a few miles from you).
You would find me a pretty normal person, Rich. Kindly do not make personal attacks such as calling someone's personal biography "bizzare".[1]
Per Wikipedia, this article should be balanced and present a neutral point of view.[2] I have tried to expand this article (plus several others) lately along those lines. I am sorry, Rich, that you view what I have done here as "hijacking". Please assume good faith.[3]
Let's resolve any content disputes by Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes. I really am more than willing to work with other Wikipedians to improve articles.
CyberAnth 03:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Rkinch, if you are going to put a disputed tag into this article, you need to be susbstantive about what you mean by it rather than just saying "I dissent". So far your dissent consists of an Ad hominem attack. You dissent based upon what specific material? CyberAnth 07:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Also see Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. More specifically regarding the POV label from Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#Adding_a_page: "Please note: The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic."
Based upon the fact that this is lacking, I am going to remove the tag until such time as something along these lines is given on this page. CyberAnth 08:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC) - I will give Rk more time.
I removed POV tags since no examples were given by Rkinch, no discussion with him from his charge has occurred; I cited most of article that lacked refs; I removed adverbs which may contribute to perception of POV; and, I removed portion about Groupthink and mindguards which was probably the most controversial statement in the whole article (although I think it is factual). CyberAnth 07:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
My two cents:
  1. I think that the very name of this section (Who is Cyberanth?) is ridiculous.
  2. I looked over the article and agree that its POV is reasonable. Not entirely sure if I agree with the level of explicitness; I guess it is fairly reasonable for the subject matter.
--Whiteknox 16:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rkinch post

This article was my main trial of Wikipedia authorship, for me to test and experience Wikipedia and see whether it is worthwhile. Thanks to CyberAnth for quickly and efficiently curing me of any illusions that this is an enterprise worth my authoring time and effort. No doubt there is some cute "Wiki" word for people in my state of mind, Wikijaded or Wikispent or Wikiexhausted or Wikiburnedout. In consequence of my Wikineardeath Wikicoma, I don't care to detail all the POV problems and other flaws in this article. I was elsewhere shown the futility of Wikipedia editing, after several rounds of revert-warring with some overseas child who refused to accept a standard textbook definition for a topic in physics. This QF article has as much chance of being balanced as a UN General Assembly textbook on political science.

Let me sample a few POV problems by examining briefly the present first paragraph. It describes QF right off with the silly term "natalist", a word of dubious recent coinage and not applicable. To even introduce the topic with such an "ism" is to commit a faux-academic taxonomic fallacy. Soon after we are hearing of what Roman Catholics think of this distinctively evangelical and Protestant movement, conveniently embodied in another faux-academic "ism", as if opinions of those so far removed had any significance; why not tell us right off what Muslims or childfree'ers or Martians have to say about QF?

The present article is not just twisted in POV, it is flatly inauthentic. CyberAnth has rewritten everything from the bizarre concision of "theologically conservative ... liberation theology", being "radical", and a "pedagogy" informed by a list of Marxist academics (as the CyberAnth user page once said). Apparently "truth" is not a watchword of Wikipedia, so you're not supposed to label anything bizarre "bizarre", as it conflicts with Wikipedia principles of assuming good faith in those who show none, and not personally attacking persons whose personalities exude the bizarre. I remain comfortable with personal attacks and not assuming good faith in this case, since the person being attacked is not a real one, but an fictitious, anonymous persona, at least by the absence of normal Internet phenomena attendant upon real persons of good faith. The present article consists of shallow academic research from someone who seems to know nothing firsthand about QF or anyone holding to it. It strings together academic abstractions based on mechanical findings in the very few published sources on the subject, like some high-schooler who got hold of a thesaurus and picked out whatever words sounded close, without having any depth of understanding of who these people are or why they believe. It reads like a college course in comparative religion, which is a clinical tour in what quaint fables have been popular. Or a bemused, condescending New York Times article on those crazy Amish. Or a somewhat clever person playing a perverse masquerade. Or a self-described Marxist radical who finds, if religion is the opiate of the masses, then QF must be the crack cocaine.

In short, this is not a NPOV, it is a sophomoric, hostile, skeptical POV. Feel free to take ownership here, and dress it up as neutral and balanced. I've had enough.

Rkinch 03:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so you object to "natalism" and "Providentialism" being used to describe QF, the former because it is a perhaps a newly coined phrase and the latter because it is how Catholics often refer to QF.
I would argue that "natalism" is not a new term. However, it may be a good idea to make the term's use very specific, e.g., a CBN news article and NY Times columnist David Brooks recently refered to the movement as "natalism". Why? Because it is true and some people have likely heard this use of the word "natalism" (including ones who may have never heard the term "Quiverfull"); so, they can better "connect" with the article.
I think excluding Providentialism, the term RCs sometimes use to refer to QF, is a very bad idea. I think Lyrl's additions differentiating QF from RC views, which you began, are very important because, well, they are true. Confusion does exist. Adding the phrase at the beginning helps the section about the confusion.
Now, I only wish you would have spent the time you wrote the rest of the above to instead be constructive.
BTW, so you know my own POV on a lot of QF, it is nicely summed up in http://www.contra-mundum.org/cm/cm09.pdf (article begins at PDF page 4). I have sought my best to be NPOV in all writings here.
(Also BTW, if you have ever attended a Sunday School where the instructor facilitated attendees to be learners who highly engaged in dialog with one another and the instructor, rather than sitting passivley and listening to instructor monologues, you may have experienced how Freire and Shor and such informs my pedagogy. I have a disertation on file from Asbury Theological Seminary about this. I identify with liberation theology's emphasis on Christ as a champion of the oppressed. Does that mean I agree with everything in the movement or that its view delimits my view of the work Christ? Hardley! To charge me with being a Marxist is pattently false and is simply another ad hominen attack. But defending myself like this is superfluous. The only thing other editors need to know about me is that I care enough about this subject to contribute to it, which is the basis of the good faith policy, and that I can abide by and am committed to abide by all Wikipedia policies.)
I regret that you feel you cannot work with people who may view some things differently than you. When all is said and done, I wonder if the issue really going on here, based upon the bulk of your above post and the "Who is CyberAnth" one, is what Wikipedia:POV pushing talks about:
It is often necessary to examine a topic from more than one perspective. This is especially so with controversial topics — such as politics, morality, and religion. But many people come to Wikipedia unaware of NPOV or simply do not wish to abide by it, and hence they routinely and deliberately engage in POV pushing.
The reason they do this is probably that they believe that a neutral presentation of the views they advocate will look bad in comparison to opposing views. And the best way to win an argument is to prevent the other side from getting any time to make its argument. Failing that, the goal may just be to make the other side look bad (ad hominem) or to distort that side's views. (only underline added).
Again, based upon the bulk of your above post, I wonder if this is what is going on. It may well be that your own posts on this Talk Page are the best possible treatises for why this topic should not be articulated by you alone.
And apprently you do have your own POV. From the earlier version of this article of which you speak:
Most Christians are surprised to learn that such a movement exists, because the secular attitude toward birth control has become so nearly universal in protestant churches.
And,
Around 1950, and especially in the 1960s, as birth control became generally accepted in American society, most Christians adopted the secular view.
I feel that the best products, particularly encyclopedia articles, often come from people who do not think exactly alike but who nontheless work together to produce a give-and-take although excellent final product. I am more than, more than, more than wiling to do this. If you are willing, too, and are willing to work well with others per Wikipedia policies, I am happy to myself put the POV tag back into the article and get to building a larger consensus about it.
P.S. Send me an email, Rk.
CyberAnth 04:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Per Rkinch's suggestion, I have removed the term "natalistic" from the Intro and placed in "the popular press has recently referred to the movement simply as 'natalism'", and gave two citations for the assertion. CyberAnth 07:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

(The e-mail link on User:CyberAnth comes back, "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users." I turned on e-mail at User:Rkinch, or find my email address on the Web page linked there. Richard J Kinch 08:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC))

Ugh, I thought for sure mine was set to receive email. It is now, anyway. CyberAnth 02:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Books

I think that the subheadings under the "Books" heading (points 5.1 "Dedicated" and 5.2 "That contain a quiverfull position") are confusing and unencyclopedia-like. I'm not terribly sure what "Dedicated" even means. It doesn't look to me like the kind of naming typical of well-written Wikipedia pages. Maybe it just needs to be more clear. --Whiteknox 06:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed it. :) CyberAnth 10:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
No worries. I suggest the following as even better:
  1. Change "That contain a Quiverfull position" to "Books that contain a Quiverfull position", or even better, "Books advocating Quiverfull as a secondary focus". I'm not sure if that's a very good title. What I mean is that it needs to be obvious that the second group discusses books which are not primarily on Quiverfull but which do advocate the position.
  2. I think that the first group of books probably ought to have a heading to differentiate it from the second group. Perhaps "Books dedicated to advocating Quiverfull".
(Btw I do not necessarily endorse QF but merely want to better Wikipedia) --Whiteknox 23:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Your suggestion makes good sense. Things will be specified very clearly that way. I will make the changes. :) CyberAnth 01:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advocacy

I have been asked to come and look into some disputes here. I just wanted to drop a note to inform the concerned parties that I will be looking into the article and then the comments in the talk section over the next few days and then see if I can be of any assistance. All I ask is a little time as I am dealing with medical emergencies for myself and family this weekend. I hope to have another update for you soon. Have a great day! Kerusso 00:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quiverfull and recent U.S. national attention

[edit] David Brooks article

It was pointed out over on Talk:Natalism that the David Brooks article doesn't mention "Quiverfull" by name, and may in fact not be referencing "Quiverfull" specifically, but rather a wider spectrum of people with somewhat broadly similar attitudes toward children. AnonMoos 04:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right but others have made the connection. I will cite it and adjust the wording slightly to reflect this when I have more time, or anyone can. One of the references to the US national articles contain the connection. CyberAnth 08:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The connection is in The Nation article on Quiverfull: http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20061127&s=joyce CyberAnth 01:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] on reliable sources

From User talk:Coelacan:

Your edits to Quiverfull in apparent retaliation of me are groundless. The Digest falls clearly under allowable per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Non-scholarly_sources

  • Recognition by other reliable sources — A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or recommends it.
    • For The Quiverfull Digest this was done in:
      • A November 9, 2006, article in The Nation on Quiverfull
      • A January 3, 2006, ABC News Nightline segment on Quiverfull
  • Attributability—The more we know about the originator, either organization or individual, of source material, the better. This helps us measure the authority of the content. Expertise of the originator about the subject...
    • The Quiverfull Digest and its editors David and Suzanne were featured as authoritative sources of information about Quiverfull in ***A November 13, 2006, article in Newsweek on Quiverfull.
  • Bias of the originator about the subject—If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion.
The Digest and editor are certainly biased about QF. However, no opinion is being cited, only an un-exceptional claim: That QF-adherents exist in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, England, and elsewhere.
    • Editorial oversight—A publication with a declared editorial policy will have greater reliability than one without, since the content is subject to verification.
      • Very clearly declared in Digest.
One thing I did fail to do is note in the cite: (free subscription required to view). CyberAnth 02:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

First, drop the "apparent retaliation" stuff immediately. WP:AGF; you don't know what my motivations are and you can speculate all you want but keep it to yourself. I'm not ripping your article apart, which would be retaliation. I'm asking you to show reliable sources and drop POV language. That's pretty reasonable, and if we hadn't already crossed paths you wouldn't think anything of it. So let's keep this civil and impersonal; it'll let us all breathe easier. Second, where are these citations in The Nation and ABC? Newsweek? Third, the "editorial oversight" of the Digest is a tasteless joke, I'm afraid, but that's the last question rather than the first. Fourth, "United States, Australia, New Zealand, England, and elsewhere" is not an un-exceptional claim at all, it is a claim to international scope and I don't believe it from a biased source. An organization or publication lying about its scope is not at all unusual. — coelacan talk — 02:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Fifth, the little bundles from heaven sop would be POV no matter where it was cited, and it doesn't belong in the lead. We can describe their beliefs just fine without appealing to rank sentimentality. — coelacan talk — 02:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

And this, from my talk page (last time, I hope):

:LOL, also, I just recalled that Nancy Campbell, author of A Full Quiver, featured on all the above national articles, is a New Zealander and many issues of the magazine she edits and the book mentions the range of QF adherents. CyberAnth 02:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This would allow you to say that there is one New Zealand QFer. One. It would also allow you to say that "So and so magazine claims there are QFers all over the place!" But that's about it. — coelacan talk — 02:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the phrase ""United States, Australia, New Zealand, England," was added by Richard J Kinch, former editor of The Quiverful Digest for 4-5 years. CyberAnth 03:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the books referencing "their viewpoint is to eacgerly accept children as blessings from God"? This is THE CORE belief of QF in the pubs. CyberAnth edit summary

Are you sure about that? I thought the core of their beliefs was to fuck without ceasing (1 Thessalonians 5:17). You know, "keep your wife's quiver full"? — coelacan talk — 06:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess that bit above about him being a good faith editor is not so true after all. Coelacan is actually an admin. CyberAnth 08:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yates controversy

The citation attributing Quiverfull conviction to Russell Yates is hearsay, and the only citation for the Yates inclusion is the opinion piece containing the hearsay statement.Grkndeacon 06:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The criteria for something to be included in WP is not truth but verifiability, because only the latter allows one to adequately survey human thought on a matter. Sources have made the connection between Andrea Yates's views of Christianity and women's roles, non-use of birth control, and other correlates such as homeschooling to Quiverfull, probably in thinking that a pear by any other name is still a pear. It is responsible to include her because the inclusion is part of human thought about her and QF, as is the disagreement about her inclusion. The information in the text adequately states that her inclusion as Quiverfull is a contested view.
Think of it this way: If someone had never heard of QF but came here to get an overview of it, don't you think they would want to know that some people have connected Yates as QF but that many QF adherents contest her inclusion as such? Of course they would. We are here to neither make QF look good nor bad but to document human thought about it.
If you can come up with a few more references expressing a view that contests her inclusion as QF, we could perhaps create a section ==Controversies==, or rename the ==Criticisms of Quiverfull== section ==Criticisms and controversies==. We could then give coverage of this controversy in a bit more detail. I'd be happy to work together to move this issue to that section, but for the foregoing reasons will continue to oppose removal of her from this article. If you persist, we are going to need to bring this matter through Dispute resolution and to the Arbitration Committee if need be.
CyberAnth 06:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Hi, Grkndeacon and CyberAnth. CyberAnth has requested mediation here. I am willing to be the mediator as long as you both agree. A few things you should know: 1) I have no power to enforce any decisions or actions. Your compliance with the process is and would continue to be entirely voluntary. 2) I have no preconceived notions of Quiverfull, had never heard of them until seeing this RfM. Please indicate your acceptance or rejection of mediation below. IronDuke 20:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Accept. CyberAnth 21:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's necessary. Contrary to her assertion, my problem was the placement of Yates as a prominent qf. It seemed really out of sorts with the rest of the examples, and I explained as much in several edits. I think most reasonable persons could take a look at the amount of time CyberAnth puts into editing this article - and especially adding items that seem to discredit the movement - and find plenty of room for suspecting that a POV problem may exist. Since the Yates entry was moved to the criticism section, I've only touched up grammar. I still believe that the evidence for Yates' qf convictions is scanty - particularly the open and active welcome of children aspect that seems to be lacking in the Yates' fatalistic form of family planning.Grkndeacon 03:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty big slam, bro. "Especially adding items that seem to discredit the movement"?? As I have said, we are here to neither make the movement look good nor bad but to collect verifiable human knowledge about it. CyberAnth 16:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
All right. I'll go ahead and delist it then. Should you both agree at some point in the future that you would like mediation on this article, don't hesitate to drop by my talk page. Good luck and good editing.
IronDuke 03:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Notable families"

I am curious what the basis is for calling these families "notable". Are there any reliable sources which describe these families as notable or noteworthy? Most of the references seem to point to local church websites, or to their own websites, not to reliable secondary sources. Calling these families "Notable_Quiverfull_families" appears to be OR. Guettarda 20:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If no cites are provided, the section will be deleted. •Jim62sch• 23:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Which of the cites have you accessed and read and/or viewed? Kindly list. CyberAnth 07:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, lets do some analysis

  • The Arndt Family - featured on an episode of a TV programme, the link for which is broken. Family website does not mention Quiverfull. Not notable
  • The Bortel Family - Featured in a magazine article. Editor of a major QF publication. Notable.
  • The Carpenter Family - Non-notable film-maker, website given does not mention Quiverfull.
  • The Duggar Family - A notable politician, listed on Quiverfull website, but no reference explicitly quotes him as "Quiverfull"
  • The Farris Family - Notable, but no mention of Quiverfull on his article
  • The Frazier Family - Notable, but no mention of Quiverfull on his article
  • The Heppner Family - featured on two episode of a TV programme, non-notable. Family website does not mention Quiverfull.
  • The Jeub Family - featured on an episode of a TV programme, non-notable. Quotes Quiverfull bible verse on website
  • The Phillips Family - Non-notable, website given does not mention Quiverfull.
  • The Provan Family - A notable holocaust revisionist, article mentions Quiverfull but the reference given doesn't mention him
  • The Sproul Family - Notable, but no mention of Quiverfull on his article
  • The Trewhella Family - Non-notable, but referenced article does not explicitly link him to Quiverfull

How's that? --Steve (Slf67) talk 08:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, me-thinks you are acting in bad faith.

  • The Arndt Family - uh, did you watch the cited television show? Probably not, right?
  • The Bortel Family - Featured in a national magazine article about Quiverfull. Very notable in an article about Quiverfull, don't you think?
  • The Carpenter Family - Uh, gosh, did you see the ABC News Nightline episode or read the accompanying article? Probably not, right? Certainly, such a person who is person featured as QF simply could not be QF.
  • The Duggar Family - Ah yes, the very "poster family" of the QF movement! "Not QF", you say! Note reference.
  • The Farris Family - Uh, did you happen to notice the book his wife wrote, cited in the text?
  • The Frazier Family - "Notable, but no mention of Quiverfull on his article" - oh, you mean the material there YOU removed? I will get a solid ref for this
  • The Heppner Family - featured on two episodes of a TV program about Quiverfull. Gosh, why'd they pick them? Very notable. Are also in the Quiverfull Digest
  • The Jeub Family - see above. Are also in the Quiverfull Digest
  • The Phillips Family - non-notable? - gosh, you might want to list out how many hours of research you have done to determine this. Or is this drive-by stuff? This is the first time you have even heard of Phillip's, right? And you might want to check the fact that Doug Phillips' organization has published scads of QF articles and materials, and that his organization published Campbell, Nancy. Be Fruitful and Multiply. Vision Forum, San Antonio, TX: 2003. ISBN 0-9724173-5-4, and that he wrote the Preface for it, affirming he is QF. If Doug Phillips is "non-notable" in your drive-by opinion, I suggest you bring Bill Gothard to AfD, since their notability is about right on par.
  • The Provan Family - Uh, yea, let's see. A chief "theologian" for QF, quoted in a national news mag n an article on QF, is certainly "not notable" in an article about QF. Brilliant analysis!
  • The Sproul Family - Read again.
  • The Trewhella Family - Uh, read the ref.

This appears to be drive-by trolling you are doing, along with an enlisted "hit man" or two, not serious editor work. I suggest you might want to go do some serious editor work at the article of yours which has apparently brought on this apparent drive-by trolling of yours. As anyone can see here, you have actually substantive issues there begging your attention.

CyberAnth 09:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I read all the cites provided except for the Quiverfull Digest, which, based on the web site, does not appear to be a reliable source. None of them describe the families as "notable". Being featured in a documentary or TV show episode does not mean you are notable - it means that you are available to the producer of the show. Think of all the tv spots on autism these days - are you suggesting that anyone featured in an autism segment is notable and should be listed in the autism article? There are notable individuals, and one of them, Provan, appears notable in the context of "quiverfull", but there's nothing to suggest that the entire family is notable in the movement. As for the others, nothing is provided to suggest any notability of these families in the "quiverfull" movement, so making this assertion is (a) unsupported by references, and (b) clear OR. Guettarda 14:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Natalism

What evidence is there that "natalism" (per Brooks) is the same as "quiverfull"? The link appears to be OR. The Brooks article appears to be about something far more general than this. Guettarda 04:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Quiverfull is a manifestation of natalism and Brooks was describing it. See Joyce in The Nation. CyberAnth 07:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Nope. What the Joyce article describes is that "quiverfull" falls within the broader context of natalism, not that they are synonymous. Find a better ref. Guettarda 15:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop drive-by trolling

All you are doing is displaying your general ignorance.

  • Some of the beliefs held among Quiverfull adherents have been held among various Christians during prior eras of history. Like, read the freaking context Initially, all Christian movements opposed the use of birth control[citation needed]. Like, read the freaking references!
  • was the biblically mandated. This displays complete, total ignorance of the worldview of the subjects.
  • From their onset, Quiverfull ideas have sometimes had a rather polarizing effect between Christians who hold to the position and those who are skeptical of or disagree with them.[1] Hey, wake up! Read the reference!

I will not continue with the rest, it is all the same BS, except the spelling error. CyberAnth 21:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Were I in a less charitable and less-happy-wiki mood I'd note that a med-check may be in order. Erwache, indeed. •Jim62sch• 22:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. "Most of A" is not weasel words when attributed! Too, when summarizing someone's viewpoint articulated from their worldview, you summarize it from their viewpoint articulated from their worldview. All you are doing is continuing to display your drive-by ignorance. And this BS about OR - please, list for me the books you have read on Quiverfull cited in the article. Not one, right? In fact, you only heard about it maybe, last week or so, right? CyberAnth 23:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Provan

You are insisting on calling Charles D. Provan a "holocaust denier" when he specifically affirms it happened and takes on real holocaust deniers over the fact. While real deniers may prefer the title "revisionists" to cover their denial, the term is the only one that applies to Provan. You seem willing to judge someone by mere "guilty by association" of publishing in denial publications. I'd like a reply from you. Have you or have you not read Provan's No Holes? No Holocaust? If you have not, do you or do you not have authority to declare what this man believes on the matter? 72.153.177.109 06:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../q/u/i/Talk%7EQuiverfull_1c12.html"