Talk:Quiverfull/Archive 1

Discussion

This is what I was recalling re blog notoriety and "notableness". On the talk page for the Wiki page for Mary Winkler, Wiki editor Dennis Valeev, who has many Wiki entries to his credit, says:

If blogosphere is abuzz with the name and it's all over the news then it's most certainly a must to keep the article for as long as people show interest in it. --Dennis Valeev 12:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In my case, of course, the blogosphere was abuzz with the name and it was international news, but the article was deleted! So it seems to me Wiki editors are in a negotiation phase around the issue of whether blog notoriety gets calculated into "notability" even leaving aside the ED/Anon/4/chan stuff. Heartsees2 18:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, what Wiki pages have you created or edited, Josehunder? Heartsees2 17:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not contributed anything to this page (which Wiki people can verify because they can match IP addresses). Persons involved in its creation (who were unknown to me) e-mailed me to ask questions and to ask for my thoughts on various issues,and I responded, but that's the extent of it. I published a magazine for the better of 12 years (Gentle Spirit, no longer published, and the website is down at the moment because of recent attacks by Anon/4/chan/Encyclopedia Dramatica people). GS was international, glossy, full cover, on the newsstands, in the public libraries, circulation of 50,000 at its peak. The magazine advocated for the "full quiver" perspective, and that's why I was consulted re this article, not because I am a blogger (although blog notoriety is evidently coming to be understood as one component of "notableness". I will come back and post a reference as to that.) I am also listed on the Wiki entry for "Lists of Feminists." I had nothing to do with the creation of that page, either, and do not know who created it. Whoever did create it listed me as a "Third Wave" feminist, which isn't accurate. But I expect that now that I have posted this, those who continue to pursue the Anon/4/chan/Encylopedia Dramatica stuff which resulted in the AfD and in my discussion page having to be made private (a Wiki decision, because my page was repeatedly vandalized with racist and misogynist pornography and hate speech), someone will undoubtedly think my name should be removed from that page at well! At some point, it is just silly. Anyway, I will continue to pursue a dispute resolution process with respect to the (incredible) events around the deletion of my own page. In the meantime, I had nothing to do with this page. I am an expert as to the full quiver perspective. I lived it and taught it, via my writings and speaking all over the country, on radio and television, for many years. Heartsees2 17:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, Seelhoff's personal wikipedia page has been deleted as an autobiography, and I'm following that decision up here on the Quiverfull page. Thanks, Josehunder 04:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

An Afd on the basis of notability isn't a broad precedent that mandates the extermination of all mention of that person on other pages. If you think something needs to be changed in this article, there needs to be consensus for it on this talk page. Poindexter Propellerhead 12:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff's blog is not an adequate source, not impartial, and being a blogger is not notable enough to have her name posted all over the article. The edits concerning her were all from the same IP address, which makes me suspect she added them herself. Wikipedia is not a place for self promotion. Josehunder 12:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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.

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)

Contrasting the permit vs. promote model of the RC, QF advocates prefer not to use contraception, but might, if medically necessary (and not abortifacient). Anyone looking for an excuse to use a contraceptive measure, by definition, is not a QF advocate. This, alone, does not call their Christianity into question, it just means they do not adhere to this particular tenet. --Studio 126 (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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:

• the QF minisitries http://www.quiverfull.com/resources.php and http://www.aboverubies.org/aboverubies/books/neworderform.aspwhere feature sale of his book (and QF folks just do not feature anything they do not agree with);
• http://www.patriarchspath.org/wwwthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=quiverfull&Number=3378&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=all where the book is extensively quoted in a QF discussion;
• http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/Mommy2myBlessings/84835/ where Provan is quoted alongside Mary Pride;
• http://www.messiahnyc.org/ArticlesDetail.asp?printv=1&id=53 and http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=LiannasBigSis&nextdate=12%2f20%2f2004+17%3a21%3a35.700 etc.

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:

• http://afterdarkness.blogspot.com/2004_04_01_afterdarkness_archive.html - scroll down to section "The Recent Reformed Birth-Control Debate" to see
• http://web.archive.org/web/20041013051536/www.hornes.org/justmark/archives/002600.htm#002600 - where Jordan's article is being juxtaposed with the Quiverfull FAQ at http://home.fuse.net/mac47/quiverfaq.html already referenced in the article
• http://www.christianforums.com/t3314957-birth-control-and-the-bible.html - referenced in a Quiverfull forum as a criticism of "QF ideology"
• http://forums.crosswalk.com/m_1336857/mpage_3/tm.htm - referenced to challenge Quiverfull adherents

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

CyberAnth 08:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Quiverfull and recent U.S. national attention

• "Arrows for the War" - November 09, 2006, article on Quiverfull in The Nation
• "Making Babies the Quiverfull Way" - November 13, 2006, Newsweek article on Quiverfull

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)

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)

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)

Based on the following guideline, I have removed the Controversies--Andrea Yates section. It is about two living people, and is very pejorative, contradicting Rusty Yates' statements about the case. Some of the facts that are the most pejorative are unsourced or poorly sourced, such as that Rusty convinced Andrea to stop taking her meds, and that he was the "sole interpreter of the Bible."

“Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.”

In Rusty Yates' blog, he states that, 1. It was Andrea who decided to stop taking her meds before their fifth child. 2. He did not know that Andrea could be dangerous to the children, only that she was depressed. 3. He was not told at any time that she was psychotic. 4. He and Andrea chose to have a fifth child between themselves and against the doctor's advice because they liked having children and because they were not aware of Andrea's postpartum psychosis. They thought it was merely postpartum depression, easily cured the first time. 5. He and Andrea would not have chosen to have a fifth child if they had known about the psychosis. This and their other discussions about whether they would have more children contradict quiverfull teachings.

Furthermore, “Russell eventually divorced Andrea and remarried two days prior to the scheduled but postponed retrial.” is irrelevant to this topic. If "the Yateses never specifically self-identified as Quiverfull," as this article states then that should leave them out of this article, at least until after they die. We must use care in disseminating information about living persons. Michael Peter Woroniecki's wikipedia entry says nothing about "quiverfull" or anything about reproduction or birth control, so it is not evidence that they are "quiverfull" adherents.

If the Yates have denied being "quiverfull" adherents, and discussed how many children to have instead of accepting whatever children God gave them, then there is no connection between "quiverfull" and the Yates family, or their tragedy.

Pammalamma (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

"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)

From what I can see, this article is about 80% OR of the "synthesis" variety. I just popped in tho, to say that the Heppners actually have 17 kids (the youngest by adoption). Cheers, Tomer^talk 15:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is where it would go or quite how to do this.... but the Duggars have flat out said they are not in the Quiverfull movement and here is one video in which they state point blank they are NOT part of any movement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6WRJOL0_X0 I assume because youtube is a public 'arena' it is not not violating anything to post the link if so I apologize in advance. Cindy7293 (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the case with our family & others I have met. We did not sign up with an organized movement. We had an independent personal conviction and only later found out that others felt the same way. We accept the QF label for our shared core beliefs, but have not been preached into this position by any particular leadership. --Joe Webster (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia policy, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced...should be removed immediately." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons I have removed the Duggars from the list of notable adherents. Here is my reference:

"Even though Wikipedia and some Internet blogs report that we are part of a QuiverFull movement, we are not. We are simply Bible-believing Christians who desire to follow God's Word and apply it to our lives" Pammalamma (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

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. 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. 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)

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)

He isn't being called a "Holocaust denier". The article says he has written books on Holocaust denial, as indeed he has; for example, his book insisting that Holocaust deniers are incorrect, and that holes in the roofs of gas chambers did indeed exist. "Holocaust revisionism" is a euphemism that isn't used on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it takes a person terribly blinded by a personal agenda to call an author of a book that takes on holocaust deniers about the fact a holocaust denier. We don't call an author's work "holocaust denial" unless - duh - they deny the holocaust in their writing. We call them revisionists when their words only revise certain elements, as his does. Your re-insertion of the material will be a violation of BLP. Not every writer fits neatly into your preferred category. 74.233.86.83 06:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

He isn't being called a Holocaust denier. Please re-read my comments, and re-examine the edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

His work is being characterized by you as a work of holocaust denial. It is not. You might as well take this to arbitration right now. I will ever keep reverting this per WP:BLP to which 3RR does not apply. 74.233.86.86 20:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not being characterized by me that way at all; please re-read my comments and edits. And false invocations of WP:BLP do not excuse you from 3RR. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is patently false to characterize Provan's book as "Holocaust denial". It is not. It is a work that criticizes deniers for asserting a denial position. As such, it is a BLP issue. CyberAnth 23:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, read the edit. The article never said it was a work of Holocaust denial, it said it was a work on Holocaust denial. There is a difference. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fullquiver.jpg

Image:Fullquiver.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 Wikipedia articles 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 Wikipedia: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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 13:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No Infertility Treatments / Empty Quiver

Can someone who is fully informed on this subject please add a section on the "acceptance of an empty quiver"? This is a very distinctive aspect of this movement, which has been mentioned on the numerous television shows. I don't feel qualified to write the section.

Thanks!

Done. 74.233.164.112 (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Population and demography

This section sounds POV and makes quiverfull adherents sound like a bunch of racists (which is not an accurate dipiction of them). What is the context of the author of the quote? If this quotation is used, maybe it would be better suited in the Criticism section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.30.118 (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In any case, this minor quibble about quoting Joyce does not warrant tagging the whole article with NPOV! 74.233.164.112 (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Charles D. Provan - The Bible and Birth Control.jpg

Image:Charles D. Provan - The Bible and Birth Control.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 Wikipedia: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) 20:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Conservative politics

Beyond using the word "conservative," the platform described has absolutely nothing to do with conservatism. Conservatives believe in individual liberty and free-markets, not using government schooling to indoctrinate, or forcing corporations to behave a certain way. The means, if not the ends, are of the illiberal Left, not the Right.

you're an idiot. the "illiberal left", huh? remember that of course the illiberals...?... hate individual liberty, and schools are totally indoctrination centers, because god knows I"m sorry, I forgot I'm a (il)liberal, I mean science knows, I got my liberal leanings from my public elem/middle/high school...sure did. just like jesus had wings and flies a chariot made of unbelievers. and the roads in heaven are paved. they have tar in heaven, you know.

Removed Jeremy R. Pierce quotation

I removed the quotation by "Christian philosopher Jeremy R. Pierce" under Protestant Criticism. Why is the opinion of a random PhD student who is virtually unknown to the public given alongside John Piper, a well known evangelical leader? Additionally, the quote could be summed up as, "They think BC is wrong because they think it's wrong. Those who have thought it through know that it isn't wrong." This quote has no substance, advances no argument against QF, and the author isn't even noteworthy. It doesn't belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.168.178 (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

While I suspect that you may be right about the issue of whether the Peirce quote belongs, to a Christian theologian/philosopher it says more than you appear to credit. The "is wrong because they think it's wrong" bit is a reference to Romans 14:1-15:3 (especially 14:14) and thus also a caution for other Christians not to dispute with them over it. GRBerry 17:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi GRBerry. You make a good point, and on reading the quote again, I realize I was misreading the line: "For them, it is wrong to use birth control pills and condoms, because it would be doing something that they believe to be wrong." I interpreted "For them, it is wrong" as meaning, "In their opinion, it is wrong in general." With my faulty interpretation, the quote says nothing that isn't true of every opinion ever held by a person. However, rereading, I see the point Pierce is making, and the link to Romans 14. Thanks for pointing it out.

That said, and as you affirm, I think the quote doesn't belong for the other reason mentioned.

He's an instructor of philosophy, whether a PhD student still or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.86.85 (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this again. My point is not any claim against Pierce's credentials, but against his inclusion in this section alongside well-known evangelicals like John Piper. Far from being well-known, he is virtually unknown in evangelical circles and is in no way a voice representing evangelical criticism of QF. I suspect the anonymous user adding this quotation back is either a student of Pierce or Pierce himself. The quality of this article is diminished by its inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.168.178 (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

His assertion is very a important point in the article. 74.233.157.105 (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in here, seeing as how I'm being discussed. For the record, I have a Ph.D. now, but having or not having a Ph.D. has nothing to do with whether my reputation is prominent enough to warrant mention in a Wikipedia article. What I'm known for is not my professional philosophical work, which is still at the early stages. What I'm known for is my blogging, and I am in fact pretty well-known among evangelical bloggers. I blog at the First Things blog Evangel. I ran the Christian Carnival for several years. I participated among Christian bloggers in a fairly significant leadership role at the early stages of Christian blogging and was one of the more prominent bloggers in the Blogdom of God and various other early blog alliances among evangelicals and Christian more generally. I was one of a handful of philosophy bloggers when blogging was just catching on, and I co-founded the philosophy of religion blog Prosblogion. The fact that the quote in question came from a mere comment on someone else's blog (on that's even been taken down) should count against it, however, although it was at perhaps the most prominent evangelical blog at the time. I would have thought that my own post on the topic (http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2005/05/not_trusting_go.html) would have been more likely to warrant a reference than a comment at a blog that no longer exists. Parableman (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in. There is no way the comment should be included under WP:SPS. I am removing it now. StAnselm (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_fundamentalist_080608

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_fundamentalist_080608 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.86.85 (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yates references in Quiverfulls article

In regards to including Andrea and Randy Yates in the Quiverfulls article. I ask that the writer consider fairness and relevance when they write. In themselves, the article references I read which included the Yates had no automatic value because they were merely baseless opinions. I do not believe there is any justification to mention Andrea Yates in the Quiverfull article. There is no reason to believe she or Randy Yates belonged to the Quiver movement.

“Her husband, Rusty, was aware that she was depressed and unwell, and did not ensure that his wife was well enough to stay home and take care of five children.” Randy Yates felt that he tried to help Andrea by having his mother come to assist his wife as much as possible. He said this in television interviews.

Andrea Yates suffers from a serious mental illness. In all the discussion about Andrea and Randy Yates, where are the comments from individuals who are aquainted with both the symptomology of mental illness and the lack of knowledge spouses may have about those symptoms. Mental illness is complex. A mentally ill person might commit erratic, irrational, and devastating behavior regardless of the number of children, religious beliefs and sadly, sometimes despite treatment. Fortunately, such tragedies are rare; most mentally ill people do not drown their children for any reason. Therefore, there is a responsibility for an author who uses Andrea Yates as an example to be more knowledgable about her illness.

This Wikipedia article further states that Randy Yates remarried two days before the beginning of Andrea Yates trial. That kind of comment is designed to put facts into the worst light possible. In fact, the Yates children were drowned in 2001. Laura and Rusty Yates met at church in 2004 and married a year later in 2005. But, I am still scratching my head about why this is the Quiverfulls article. ~ ~ ~ ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shygirl1948 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a note on that...this seems quite the touchy page so I am not making the edit myself, but the Yates section as currently written specifies "A history of suicide" which I would find unlikely even if I didn't have the neccesary information to verify Mrs. Yates continued life. - ibored —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.149.217 (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Overpopulation?

I'm absolutely amazed that the criticism portion left out the issue of overpopulation. Overpopulation is the worse problem facing humanity for the simple fact that it greatly exacerbates any of the myriad problems humans face, from climate change to energy issues. The beliefs and practices of those subscribing to this "movement" for lack of a better word fly in the face of responsible earth stewardship (or self-preservation for our species, at least the majority of it!).

To think that Catholic criticism made the section but overpopulation didn't reeks of bias in this article. Come on, Catholicism AGREES with this position for the most part, and only qualifies that parents should multiply "responsibly." It's got to be a joke that this criticism made the article, but overpopulation, the single biggest reason to oppose this movement, didn't!

Tod Billings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.202.154.64 (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree; I came to this Talk Page because I was surprised and a bit bemused by the lack of any significant mention of overpopulation in any section of this article, most of all in the Criticism section. Someone who fixes this would be doing this article a large favor. 98.111.202.57 (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)James

Wikipedia however is not a discussion forum to have original criticism such as that one. Which, I might add, is a perfectly valid point of criticism to have. Why it isn't mentioned in the criticism section however, at least I'm assuming this is the reason, is because no one has, as yet, stumbled upon verifiable, external (non-Wikipedian) content regarding this point of criticism. In any case, it would seem to me this is fairly easily amended. Someone just needs to find some good and verifiable citable content about overpopulation and Quiverfull. -- Kharay1977^TC 02:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Psychological/Social Criticism

I think criticism from a psychological/social POV might also be warranted. I remember from a TV program interviewing the Duggars where some child psychologists claimed that in families with borderline obscene numbers of children such as the Duggars, the inability for either parents to give each child the enough personalized attention has a detrimental effect on a child's personality and social development. I remember the interview with with the oldest Duggar son, who was gonna get married himself, and how drugged/spaced out when he gave those essentially emotionless responses to the interviewer about how he was gonna follow in his father's practice and try to produce several dozen crotch-spawns himself. From a societal standpoint, families who adhere to the quiverfull ideology are mostly unsustainable, and must rely on social service such welfare/charitable handouts to maintain even the most basic living expenses. The Duggars themselves are an exceptional case because they actually own several business which barely support their lifestyle, in addition the donations they receive from the church. Go to any Quiverfull forum and you will see the reality of this lifestyle, with the majority of quiverfull families falling into poverty, numerous cases of child abuse and neglect(both from within and outside the family), development of depression, anti-social behavior and other mental illnesses, kids being removed by social services, welfare fraud, abuse of fertility drugs and subsequent pregnancy complications, and other detrimental effects on themselves and society as a whole. To respond to the overpopulation claim above, I'd consider it one of the more weaker arguments because you run the risk of going into eugenics territory. Karl23 (talk) 06:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you "liberals" only complain when its white people having lots of children? You'd think you people would call the millions of children minorities have "crotch-spawn" as well. Or is it because you realise without the minority horde you'd never win an election? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.33.223 (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion civil; your post reads like a comment on a Fox News article. I think there unfortunately hasn't been much written on the psychological and social impacts and effects of Quiverfull per se, but writing and research on impacts and effects of large families abounds, both focusing on impacts on a society-wide level and on impacts for individual families. Someone naive to the lifestyle reading this article would think that the only possible negatives are hostility from competing religions; this article needs to address the topic from a broader perspective. 98.111.202.57 (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)James

This article referenced

See Women’s Liberation Through Submission: An Evangelical Anti-Feminism Is Born - By Kathryn Joyce

First off, when God told Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply" he was commanding them and only them to multiply. Adam and Eve were the first two humans and the human race literally depended on their procreation. God commanded many people to do many things but that does not mean that they are commandments to everyone.

Adam and Eve were not the first married couple. Who married them God? That little fact is conspicuously missing from the Bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swanndogg (talk • contribs) 19:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Quiverfull is a cult

Why is Quiverfull not listed under cults?

Quiverfool is clearly a cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.147.95 (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

what, actually, is a cult? Does Quiverfull satisfy the definitions? Wefa (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

QF in itself is too issue-specific to be a cult. What you will see is many families in cultic levels of behavior that subscribe to QF views. But good luck finding good sources associating QF and cultic families. Leovenous (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Original Research and Synthesis Tags

I've tagged the second part of the "Non-use of contraception" section with OR and SYN tags. It is my impression that the author(s) presents his own knowledge here, possibly combined with his own assumptions. Furthermore he uses additional facts (birth control techniques) to create a certain image. Both violates core Wikipedia policy (see WP:OR). My impression is supported by the total lack of sources in that part.

I suggest rewriting that part, possibly removing the second half, and adding reliable secondary sources for whatever is left. Wefa (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I also tagged the section on Catholic criticism. The author here *creates* catholic criticism by quoting from general Catholic teachings, most prominently the 40 years old encyclica Humanae Vitae. This is practically a textbook case of original research by synthesis. There may or may not be actual criticism of Quiverfull by the Catholic Church, but neither Humanae Vitae nor the diocesan policy document he cites make any mention, neither directly nor indirectly, of Quiverfull or even the opinions they advance. Furthermore, the author tries to create doctrinal disagreement where there is hardly any, the Catholic Church does not, in principle, object to the absence of contraception. The criticism here is not only original research, it also relies on the author's erroneous interpretation of Catholic texts.

I suggest to either remove that section or find substantial catholic texts that actually criticise Quiverfull. Wefa (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Since noone reacted, I removed most of the material.Wefa (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Quiverfull and atheists

The claim that the Quiverfull movement is automatically hated by most atheists is completely baseless. Also, it is unfair to characterize all atheists with the vagina/clown car comment. Lokara (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the most recent iteration of the criticism from atheists section. It was written vaguely, lacked research, and drew conclusions based on two headlines. Lokara (talk) 04:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. Even one source is enough. PZ Myers is one of America's leading atheists. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have been removed again, though not by me. That being said, making any statement about atheists at large seems unfair. There are no governing documents of atheism, so an official or doctrinal view can't really be stated. Lokara (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Who said it was a "doctrinal view?" PZ Myers is a well-known, high-profile atheist who is very popular, very notable, and speaks for many atheists. Read the nearly 300 comments to his post I cited. You can find plenty of other non-reliable sources (popular atheist forums and blogs) which all share PZ's sentiments. I don't doubt that there are some atheists who don't agree with the derogatory comments directed at Quiverfull families by other atheists, but they are so few and far between that I can't find a single one of them. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I can concede that point, but the first part of the statement as-written is incredibly vague (i.e. "Quiverfull can be poorly received by some atheists"). It doesn't give any sort of meaningful information. Lokara (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not a stand alone statement, is it? Take something out of context and certainly it can be "incredibly vague." That's why you read further for details. If you have ideas for improvements, feel free to act on them them. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make this hostile. I wanted to discuss any potential edits first so as not to start an edit/revert war.Lokara (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Remove Jim Bob & Michelle Duggar reference?

I think the references to the Duggars should be taken out of this article, based on their own comments at [4]. Jim Bob: "Some people have asked us, are you part of the Quiverfull movement. We're actually not part of any kind of movement..." Michelle: "...other than the movement that God places in our heart."

Since the Quiverfull label itself can mean different things to different people, and they've specifically said it doesn't apply to them, it probably shouldn't be associated with them here. Mooveeguy (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think something should be added to the article about the Duggars often being mistaken as quiverfull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.216.36 (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the sentiment of many couples who are considered Quiverfull. We chose to surrender, first, and generally independently. It is just that since it happened so many places at the same time, the trend demanded a label. The Duggars appear to be protesting the notion of being part of an organized movement. This conviction is not (nor cannot be) enforced externally. --Joe Webster (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem, from a documentation standpoint, is that as soon as the Duggars started with TLC the Internet was quickly scrubbed of references between them and QF. QF isn't any type of official organization, they don't have QF conferences, so all thats left when categorizing someone in QF or out, is what they espouse on the core issues. It would be useful adding a reference to the Duggars espousing the core issues of QF. Leovenous (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to get myself or other Christians in a dither over this, but, are the Duggar family (though they claim to be Christians, but IMO not within the true scope of Jesus Christ) really atheists-agnostics, or Judaists? WikiPro1981X (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Are they white supremacists?

Honest question. I do not know the full back story of the Holocaust denial connection, and did not until today. But I have suspected from my earliest knowledge of the Quiverfull movement that if it is not out-and-out white supremacist, that it is at the very least friendly to its views, particularly to the 14 Words. I have never heard of a non-white Quiverfull family. What do you all think, and whether your answer is yes, no, or maybe, can you back it up with external references? Bucinka (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Since this is an extremely serious and damaging allegation, it is unwarranted and misleading to ask those disagreeing with it to back their disagreement up with evidence; especially it is improper to conclude from the lack of such evidence that they are actually white supremacists. In this case, the rules governing biographies of living persons can be applied accordingly - the only one who is under strict obligation to provide hard evidence is the one making the allegation. That would be you. I suggest refraining from such talk unless you can provide serious evidence. Wefa (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

In a word, "No." We hold that Quiverfull is an ideal (not a mandate) for every Christian couple regardless of race or racial mix. That is a very stupid accusation. --Joe Webster (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Joe, I'm sorry you think it's stupid, but it was an honest question I had. There are white supremacists (they call themselves "racially conscious" or "racially aware") who genuinely believe that they need to have large numbers of children to offset the population growth of nonwhites worldwide. Fred Phelps' family is one prominent example in the public eye. Phelps himself has thirteen children; Phelps' daughter Shirley has eleven children, and I saw her on a network news show explaining that their family is so large because of the dwindling white population in this country. Perhaps your view of white supremacism doesn't extend beyond white hoods and cross burnings. May I suggest some readings from the late David Lane (start here: http://www.freetheorder.org/DavidLane/Strategy.html and http://www.freetheorder.org/DavidLane/death.html) and checking out the Women for Aryan Unity site (http://www.w-a-u.net/) and going from there. To your credit, at least you said my question was stupid, not me personally. But I stand by my question and accept your answer, although I'm interested in other contributors' input. (@wefa: My original post wasn't an accusation, just an observation of similarities in the movements. I would provide more references if I had more time to go looking for them.)Bucinka (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Would your sheet-wearing, limited racist be able to freely type, "an ideal (not a mandate) for every Christian couple regardless of race or racial mix...?" Quiverfull families take their identity from Ps. 127, which was written by a Hebrew to (originally) other Hebrews; it is not a "white" idea, but it IS a Biblical one. The key motivation for various racial groups, like your white supremacist AND some jihadists, are stated are clearly to be demographically motivated. With QF, there is no guarantee of having a large family. Also, I would say it is a valid ideal for Arab Christians just like every other race. The issue in QF isn't demographics, it's another aspect of Romans 12:1. --Joe Webster (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd add that a good example of a minority family that adheres to 'Quiverfull' concepts is the family of preacher, author and speaker Voddie Baucham; they are African American. 64.122.192.37 (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

They prefer to be called White nationalists. Lets try not to offend anyone.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Mary Pride and her views on patriarchy

I am new to Wiki, but want to respect the "rules" here but don't know how to make edits and don't plan to make anymore, just this one. I added a citation and a couple of sentences where Mary Pride distanced herself from patriarchy movement. There were some statements that made it sound like she, as a founder of the Quiverfull movement, agreed with patriarchy as well, which she does not. I linked the article in Practical Homeschooling as reference, which I think is a reputable link and well known magazine/site in these circles. I didn't know how to do the citation properly, so my apologies. Thanks for your work on this page and brining knowledge to others. 69.152.255.160 (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Jessica

Patriarchy is not a requirement for being Quiverfull. They are independent of each other. Studio 126 (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.beacon.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=2007

  Triggered by \bbeacon\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 17:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Quiverfull & Mormons

    Is the Mormon belief in and practice of having many children a form of the Quiverfull Movement? Prsaucer1958 (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Salafism?

I find that the briefs references to Islam are misleading. While it is probable that Salafists would endorse Quiverfull, I think whoever wrote these references does not have an understanding of what Salafism is. In my understanding, Salafism is an extreme version of Sunni Islam which wants to bring about social conditions which mirror the 7th century. Furthermore, I believe that many modern jihadists identify with Salafism. Having said that, I am not an expert on the topic of Islam, natalism and modern Islamic attitudes towards family planning. As I said, I am not an expert, but I would assume that ideas such as Quiverfull would be appealing outside of Salafism, but of course not to all Muslims. I am going to remove the references to Salafism and wait for an expert on Islam and natalism to rewrite them.

Andrea Yates

I think Andrea Yates may have been removed erroneously from the see also section, or maybe she should be moved to the notable adherents section. According to her article and cited to O'Malley, p. 67 Mesaros-Winckles, Christy (September 2010). "TLC and the fundamentalist family: a televised Quiverfull of babies". Journal of Religion and Popular Culture 22 (3). ISSN 1703-289X(which seems like a reliably scholastic source, currently citation number 58) she and her husband were adherents of the Quiverfull movement. 184.190.215.159 (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

TLC and the fundamentalist family: a televised Quiverfull of babies: Also published in: Media Depictions of Brides, Wives, and Mothers, ISBN 0739177095 [5] - Cwobeel (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, Yates was recently added in, so we should get a consensus before adding her back in. Secondly, any unreferenced inclusions of living people must be removed immediately. Thirdly, we probably should only include people as adherents who self-identify as such, all the more so since it is quite difficult identifying reliable sources. Kathryn Joyce may well think the Duggars are quiverfull, but that is irrelevant. See the analogous Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. StAnselm (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

We can mention Joyce's journal article, with full attribution per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. If some people are considered Quiverfull, by scholars and reliable sources, not including their viewpoints violates WP:NPOV. So, yes, we need consensus for including them, but I will push for including content about these people, not just having an external link. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree - but that means describing it in prose, not putting them in the adherents list, and certainly not as a see also link. StAnselm (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Good job - I'm glad we could work something out here. The journal is definitely notable - I will start an article on it soon. StAnselm (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

One learns a lot from editing ... I was not aware of this movement before the 19 Kids and Counting controversy. Fascinating subject I must say, so I'll see if I can find some additional scholarly sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Here are two:

• A Quiver Full of Mommy Blogs: Ideological Subversion and Reinforcement of Mothering Models Online [6]. PDF
• Babies by the Bundle: Gender, Backlash, and the Quiverfull Movement [7]

- Cwobeel (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Mesaros-Winckles sources her claim to "Dixon, Multiply and Conquer, 39"
• Dixon in Bitch Magazine [8] says:-

At the time of her arrest, few people knew that Andrea Yates was part of a Quiverfull family,... (For more on this troubling and oft-elided detail about the Yates case, see Seelhoff's "The Quiverfull Movement, Hate Speech, and Discrimination Against Women as Women" post at her aforementioned blog.)

• Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff (or "Heart") says in her blog [9] (15 January 2007):

I’ve been getting a lot of hits from a new article on Wikipedia on the Quiverfull movement, probably partially in response to a Nightline program on the movement which was shown January 3. I think the Wikipedia article is pretty good. One thing I like about it is that it includes as a “notable Quiverfull Family,” Rusty and Andrea Yates.

• Wikipedia (which by the end of 2007 is citing Seelhoff for this) is at this point citing Dawn Freidman in The New Homemaker [10] Friedman does not describe the Yates as "Quivefull". she instead says:

It is a conviction that was probably shared by the Yates family. According to an interview with Andrea Yates's brother and sister, Russell Yates "wanted as many children as God wanted."

There seems to be nothing linking the Yates with the Quiverfull movement, merely an escalating set of assertions, notably by authors who appear to be against the Quiverfull movement.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC).

BLP issues?

According to an article published in the Journal of Religion and Popular Culture, the Duggars, stars of the reality TV show 19 Kids and Counting have become the unofficial spokespeople for the movement, in particular during the first season where the Duggars introduced themselves and their religious beliefs, with subtle and disturbing messages of "conformity and rigid male hierarchy" and women's subservient roles associated with the Quiverfull movement. The author also asserts that the show provides a platform for the legitimization of the movement, while downplaying "patriarchal gender roles and strict family conformity." Other aspects discussed in the article, include attempts by the Duggars to convince viewers that their beliefs and ways of life is best for raising healthy children, that a large family is a "biblical mandate", and that despite that there may be only several thousands of Quiverfull adherents, the Duggars have given it a "prominent place on popular culture." It also refers to Andrea Yates, whose adherence to the principles of the Quiverfull lifestyle has been posited as a factor contributing to the mental and emotional stress that she experienced. Yates confessed to drowning her five children in their bathtub.

References

I fail to see how the above presents a BLP issue. It is properly sourced to a peer-reviewed academic journal (our best sources!) and fully attributed viewpoint per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The quality of the article, and perhaps the journal, can be gauged from the sourcing used for the Yates claim, as explained above.

Regardless phrases such as "...with subtle and disturbing messages of..." are not NPOV and if we are to quote someone attributing these sinister motives to living people, we should make it an explicit quote.

Moreover we should avoid WP:UNDUE. I see no problem with mentioning or discussing the widely commented on relationship of the Duggars lifestyle with Quiverfull, provided we make it clear that they explicitly deny any association or affiliation. I do see a problem with using more than a small part of Mesaros-Winkles article, which is substantially personal interpretation, albeit informed by a particular philosophy.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC).

I hear you. I will correct per your suggestions. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: Hope this works for you. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a step in the right direction. The Andrea Yates thing, though we (Wikipedia) created it. Probably good to get more eyes on this somehow. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC).

I think we can do without the last sentence. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Anglican attitude to birth control

Not sure why this section is very relevant, but if it is why does it concentrate on the 1930s ? Even the very brief summary at https://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/medical-ethics-health-social-care-policy/contraception.aspx mentions far more recent deliberations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.63.170 (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quiverfull. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051001144025/http://www.familylife.com:80/fltoday/default.asp?id=5868&page=72&search=&strMonth=&strDay=&strYear=&guests=&keywords=&showType= to http://www.familylife.com/fltoday/default.asp?id=5868&page=72&search=&strMonth=&strDay=&strYear=&guests=&keywords=&showType=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Duggars.... again. Re: Wikipedia and self-identification.

So, the rule on Wikipedia regarding things like gender is that whatever a person self-identifies as, that's what they are no matter what anyone else says. Contrarily, that then equates to whatever a person denies being, that's what they aren't no matter what anyone else says. The Duggars have unequivocally denied being a part of the Quiverfull, therefore, it cannot be stated on Wikipedia that they are a part of the group no matter what someone here or there claims in an article or on a website. The material in this article stating that they are must be removed and not simply and very, very weakly countered with a "They don't self-identify" line at the very end of a large paragraph. That sort of tactic would never, ever be accepted on a Wikipedia article about a transgender person -- e.g. a whole paragraph describing the person as male with a teeny, tiny afterthought of a blurb that the person "doesn't self-identify as a male." 71.55.137.219 (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough - even though it's a scholarly article, it isn't enough to go against a lack (let alone a rejection) of self-identification. I support the removal. StAnselm (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Done, though a citation for that would be nice. Also, I figured a popular figure so associated with the movement should still be included in the article,

but a "People thought of as Quiverfull but not actually Quiverfull" section would be awkward and pointless. Dr Roach (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sterilization reversals

I think a case could be made for deleting this small subsection altogether. The link given in the reference for the "sterilization reversal ministry" run by Brad and Dawn Irons (blessedarrows.com) seems to now be some sort of tourism/hotel site. And no source is given for the Bill Gothard quotes. Can someone provide citations and/or new information for this section? Or should it be removed? --Baker 820 (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Quiverfull in U.S. national press

• This sentence lacks logic:

While Quiverfull had previously garnered some attention in the Christian press, the Canadian press in March 2001, and in various scholarly pieces, it began to receive focused attention in the U.S. national press in 2004.

The sources given for "previously garnered some attention in the Christian press" are both from 2006, which is not previous to 2004. Can anyone provide earlier sources for articles about Quiverfull in Christian media? If not, the sentence will need to be changed.

• Is it really necessary to provide the exact dates of publication of the various news articles in the body of the text? This information appears in the linked references anyway. To improve readability, I suggest simply giving the year, or perhaps the month and year of publication.

• "Quiverfull responses": I don't think this subsection adds anything to the article. It just says that some Quiverfull adherents liked the news coverage, some didn't, and some commented on the news articles to share whether they liked them or not. Can this be removed?

--Baker 820 (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

See also

Several of the Wikipedia pages listed in the "See also" section are a bit puzzling to me. Why include "breeder" and "childfree," for instance? I also don't see a direct connection between Quiverfull and traducianism or the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. Would anyone like to weigh in on what should and should not be included in this section? --Baker 820 (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)