Talk:Missionary Kids

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Comment

I've removed all the information in this article which does not apply to Missionary Kids but all TCKs. If you have information that is specific to MKs then put it here, otherwise it is probably better suited for the TCK page.

  • Please sign your posts. It is not true that all of the information in the original article relates to TCKs in general. Much of the information here is specific to MKs. --Thorwald 15:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • First time wikipedian :) Thorwald, can you be more specific about which part of the 2 paragraphs are specific to MKs and not to TCKs? I've changed the first 2 paragraphs to be less specific to the nationality of MKs. When adding the attrition statistic, please add with a good reference. Awormus 06:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
      • "First time wikipedian"? Uh. No dude. I have been working with Wikipedia and WikiMedia for over two years now. Most of this article was written by me. I am a TCK and I understand what this entails more than the next guy. In fact, I am still living abroad. I didn't add the attrition statistic, so I don't know the reference for that. However, I do know that it is very high. Most of my good friends are former MKs and none of them share the same faith as their missionary parents. PS: Please discuss and debate your changes before you make them. This is the way we do it on Wikipedia. All the best! --Thorwald 09:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Was referring to myself as the first time wikipedian... breath in, breath out... just trying to help out, but if this is the way you do it here in wikipedia, then I'm more than happy to leave you to it. Awormus 10:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Awormus: Oh. Sorry. Thought you meant me. Anyway, there is no need for me to "breath in, breath out", as I wasn't upset at all. Just thought it was odd. Anyway, no, we should definitely work on this together. I am just against people making drastic changes without discussing it first. This article is not perfect and it very much is Wikipedian of us to collaborate on everything. All the best! --Thorwald 10:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
            • OK, sorry about the initial changes... a bit overzelous :) what do you think about my last edit... I think a link to the missionary page is better than trying to explain about the nationality of missionaries. Most of MKs are American (or European) but that is only because traditionally missionaries are those nationalities. I know MKs who are of Jewish origins, who's parents are not fundamentalist christians, and I don't really think that it is very relevant. About the attrition statistic, it was changed from your 70/80% to 98.1% with a reference which didn't turn up any results in google. I would say revert it to the original statistic.Awormus 10:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
              • No worries and welcome to Wikipedia. You wrote, "Most of MKs are American (or European) but that is only because traditionally missionaries are those nationalities". That is true and that is exactly why it should be in the article. That is, the article should point this out. Of course not all MKs are from fundamentalist Christian backgrounds (and that should be mentioned), but the fact that the vast majority are is significant and should be in the article. You also wrote, "I know MKs who are of Jewish origins, who's parents are not fundamentalist christians, and I don't really think that it is very relevant". I disagree. This is an encyclopaedic entry and it should be exhaustive on the subject. I believe it is very relevent to the article and should be even highlighted as a very common attribute of MKs. About the attrition statistic: I, too, am in favour of only posting specific statistics if we can cite credible sources. Since we can not, in this case, I am in favour of simply writing something like, "The attrition rate for MKs is thought to be relatively high". It would, however, be nice to be able to find an actual statistic on this. Who knows, maybe the rate is not that high? --Thorwald 10:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
                • Hi. I am also an MK, and I think you might consider changing the falling away stat. 98/1 percent sounds rather absurd. From personal expirience I would say somewhere around 30-50. 98 percent is extraordinarily high. Perhaps the thousand or so MKs I have met are rare, but I think that the stat is wrong

[edit] "cleanup-verify" tag

I am curious why this tag was added. Which parts of the article need to be cleaned-up and which parts haven't been verified? There is already an extensive list of sources/references . . . what hasn't been referenced? As a former MK, I can attest to the accuracy of the descriptions (most, anyway). I don't know anything about "home institutions" (e.g. Mu Kappa), but the rest of the article does a fairly decent job at explaining what I and many of my fellow MKs went through upon returning to our passport country.--Thorwald 22:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruth Reken

A person that you guys might want to look into is Ruth Reken, she's done a lot of research into Missionary Kids.Balloonman 04:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I have done a bit of reading; Has anyone else? That is, we have the "military brats" as a star-article. This article, the "Missionary Kids", should also be one . . . but we have a long way to go, don't we? --Thorwald 09:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Children of God Category

If the Category is added again, I will delete it again and call it Vandalism at that point. Children of God <> Missionary Kids. Missionary Kids is a sociological term that has specific connotations that "children of God" does not fit. Please provide sources before making this unfounded claim again. Right now I'm assuming good faith, but this is not a content dispute. Provide sources that indicate that you understand the term and that it is used to describe COG, and I will accept it. But right now, it is nothing short of OR that is unrelated to the subject and in my opinion inflamatory to TCKs/MKs.[[Balloonman 05:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Copied from User:Joie de Vivre talk page:

[edit] continued

Here is where I have a problem. The terms are in no way interchangeable nor do they apply accurately. Even if I accepted your notion that many COGS are TCKs/MKs would not make this an appropriate Category for MK/TCKs. Very few MKs/TCKs are going to COGS and you'd be hard pressed to convince me that a vast majority of COGS are MK/TCKs---thus interchangeable. The fact that some and that those few are enough to warrant the tag would be like saying, "The COG category should be applied to the XXXX Political Party because most COGS are XXXX." Unless you can show research into MKs/TCKs that show COGs are considered by definition to be MKs/TCKs or that COGs researchers identify COGs as MKs/TCKs, then (IMHO) it is original research and applying a category to a subject where it doesn't belong. Your links above are not proof that the terms are appropriate for TCK/MKs, it does show that McGowen and the Spence children are themselves TCKs, but you can't use that to make a broader statement that COGs are MK/TCKs. Many people who work for IBM lived overseas, but that doesn't mean that there should be an IBM Category associated with these articles.Balloonman 06:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


I am having a problem with the way you are approaching this. First, I made it clear that I did not want you to copy and paste my comments elsewhere, but you just went ahead and did that anyway. You insinuated that I was lacking in knowledge, and that my actions were careless, but as soon as I explained myself, you admitted that you "may have acted in too much haste". You have also made it quite clear that you consider yourself the gatekeeper of what is going to fly as far as this article is concerned. I am not finding your actions to be civil. I don't see why I should continue a sham discussion if you are just going to do whatever you want. Please review WP:OWN as it seems you are particularly invested in these articles and it seems like it will take a greater effort on your part to remain neutral. Joie de Vivre 06:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I read your request not to copy it AFTER I copied it here... as soon as I saw your request, I tried to come back here and delete your comments... but was edit conflicted... I did delete your comments once I was able to edit here... As for this article and TCK... until I see something that associates COGs with TCK/MK, I will vigorously oppose the category you wish to add. It doesn't belong. Show us something that makes the connection and I'll accept it, but right now, all you've shown are a few specific individuals who fit the category. But those individuals do not make these COGs related articles. (As for this page, my edits here are virtually non-existent, it really isn't a page I care about too much.)Balloonman 06:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. Here's the deal: I don't think that Wikipedia categorization structure is as rigid as you think it is. Please review WP:Categorization#Grouping_categories. The rigid, hierarchical taxonomy is not the only method that is widely used. By the recommended methodologies, it is not a requirement that COG be "considered by definition" to be MKs/TCKs. I think it is useful to group the concept of TCKs and MKs with COG. The idea is that someone comes to the COG category and sees Missionary Kids. What are those? they ask. They click and discover that MKs are a broader category which can refer to children brought up in many groups. Again, please familiarize yourself with the categorization guidelines because I believe that they are actually much more flexible than you interpret them to be. Joie de Vivre 07:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I must go but I will return in about 10 hours. Now you have plenty of time to study.  :) Joie de Vivre 07:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me sleep on it... one of my concerns when I first saw your post was that I thought you were equating "Children of God" literally with "Missionary Kids"---which is why I saw it as offensive. (I realized when I saw your response on your page that you weren't, but fatigue had already started to set in and I severely botched the reasoning for your wanting to include the category.) I don't think you'll be able to convince me that the Category belongs... but you might be able to convince me that I shouldn't oppose it... let me get some sleep and think about it fresh tomorrow. ;-)Balloonman 07:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I've slept on it and I still oppose it... as it stands now. Even using a very loose criteria for Categories. In order for me not to oppose it, I need to see something that shows that COGs are likely to grow up as MKs/TCKs. It does not have to be something that says ALL or even MOST COG children fit the criteria, but it would need to be something authoritative that shows that your belief is not OR. I'm also somewhat reluctant about the MK because my understanding of MK has always been that one of the common features of MKs is that they are often the only children from their passport country. MKs tend to be among the most integrated of TCKs in their host community/country... Cults that goto other countries do so to isolate their members further from soceity. They may be passing out brochures/soliciting, but the typical cult member isn't there as a missionary. It is, IMHO, a significantly different experience from MK experiences.Balloonman 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No. No. The children of the COG members _are_ by definition TCKs _and_ MKs. Saying that the COG members do not engage in missionary activities is very much POV. While I find this group, the COG/The Family International, to be a cult (and a very strange one, at that), that is simply my opinion and does not belong in Wikipedia. If the COG go about trying to convert people to their Christian religion (even if pseudo-Christian), they are engaging in missionary activity. Their children, most (if not all) are born-and-raised in a non-passport country, are thus, by definition, TCKs and MKs. However, I am opposed to adding the COG category to either the TCK or the MK articles. A simple link in the COG article is sufficient, IMO, for the reader to find out what these terms mean. --Thorwald 00:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the definition of children born into the COG as MKs and TCKs. I also realized that a link from the COG article would be sufficient; and I added them this morning. Thank you for your thoughtful comment. Joie de Vivre 01:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I may be missing something... and it may be because of my lack of knowledge on COGs... but I don't see how they are by definition MK/TCKs. The sources provided so far are anecdotal sources from two famous/successful children. While I am willing to accept that they may be, by definition, MK/TCKs I would want to see something that says the typical member follows their parent into a forieng culture. EG I am not sold on the notion that COGs as a standard practice fit that expectation of being a TCK.Balloonman 14:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Well... at this point it doesn't really matter because the rules are not stringent when it comes to what to include in the See also section of articles. Unless there is something else that you mean...? Joie de Vivre 14:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to fight/oppose the inclusion at this point... I'm just not convinced that COG is by definition MK/TCK. I'd feel a lot better about the inclusion if you could show me why/how they are... I may be dense, but I am failing to connect the dots with how this group is by definition MK/TCK.Balloonman 15:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Balloonman: Just read up a bit more on the COG. There are plenty of sources listed at the bottom of the main article. After you read even introductory information on this group, you will understand that the children of COG members are, by definition, TCKs and MKs. If you don't wish to read up on them or don't have the time, then just accept it from me . . . they are TCKs and MKs. To point you to specific sources would be rather like asking me to point you to a source showing that Catholics revere the Blessed Virgin Mary. The sources are _everywhere_ in their literature.--Thorwald 00:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
You're the expert on MKs... so I'll trust ya...Balloonman 02:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)