Talk:Stay-at-home daughter

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Bible

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Women in Religion Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

npov[edit]

"The movement, however, emphasizes women who are "educated, empowered, and strong"." This is what they claim of course. It is not true.

"The key pioneers of this movement are the Botkin sisters" This is an advertisement for a book Polygnotus (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see the ambiguity in the word "emphasizes". But this is from Christianity Today, an independent reliable source. The actual statement is that "In fact, the SAHD girls, along with their fathers, take great pains to show that these young women are educated, empowered, and strong." So perhaps we could tighten it up to say Members of the movement argue that stay-at-home daughters are "educated, empowered, and strong".

The last paragraph is also sourced to CT so it isn't an advertisement at all. St Anselm (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to copypaste whatever Christianity Today says. Christianity Today is an evangelical magazine, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

So the actual statement doesn't even match what was written in the article. Either way, it does not make sense to include this sentence. Kanye West calls himself a genius, but our article does not call him that (and he is not).

Again, just because something is sourced to an independent reliable source does not mean it needs to be included in Wikipedia. "Key pioneers" is puffery. What they did is write a bad book. Evangelicals promote evangelicalism; not just in book form.

Please try for a second to put yourself in my shoes. I understand these sentences make sense to you, but for someone far outside your circle they make no sense to include in an encyclopedia. Our tone should be dispassionate, maybe even bored. On Wikipedia, Max Verstappen is not "the best driver who ever lived". We just list his achievements. Polygnotus (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:ONUS "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.". So your edit summary has it the wrong way round. Polygnotus (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And, for the record, reverting without any explanation on the talkpage is not very nice. Polygnotus (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:STATUSQUO. The current consensus (mentioned at WP:ONUS) is that the information belongs. That consensus may change, but it will take discussion on this talk page. Your edit warring is, in fact, getting in the way of achieving that consensus. And I offered a compromise wording which you just ignored. St Anselm (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your editwarring is getting in the way of achieving consensus. Talk before you revert. STATUSQUO is an essay, WP:ONUS is policy. If you do not follow policy you might get blocked. I did respond to the compromise wording, but I did not agree with it. It was your turn to respond to my response, but instead you reverted without any further discussion. Stop the silly templates. Let's just talk about this. It is your turn to respond to what I wrote above. Polygnotus (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you self-revert if you want to have a civil discussion that will achieve consensus. St Anselm (talk) 04:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we follow policy and continue our civil discussion which you so rudely interrupted. We can ignore that mistake and move on. I am actually curious what your response to my comment above is, because I wasn't sure how to word it. Polygnotus (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have not shown yourself to be a good-faith editor - you complain about my template and then you templated me - and you don't seem to understand core WP policy. St Anselm (talk) 04:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can skip the metadiscussion? I would appreciate it if you would write a response to my comment dated 03:05, 18 September 2023 above. Ad hominems are distractions. We are probably both wonderful people, we just disagree a bit and that is OK. Polygnotus (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And that is why you shouldn't revert in the middle of a diacussion - and why you shouldn't have done that first revert - it leads to lots of meta-discussion and it means I can't really trust you. St Anselm (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also apply that rule to yourself? Metadiscussions and ad hominems are pretty boring imho; lets talk about the content of the article. We both want whats best for Wikipedia, even when we disagree. Polygnotus (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: What is the opposite of homeschooling? Is there a better way to word this? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know if they were necessarily against Christian schools - what's wrong with just saying "eschewing college"? St Anselm (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: If we use college we leave out unis and vice versa. What do you think about "higher education"? At least it is less clunky than "eschewing a college or university education and a career". BTW I would be incredibly surprised if they were not in favour of homeschooling their kids (staying at home gets you marked absent, even in Christian schools like mine was). Polygnotus (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Higher education" is great. I always thought in the U.S. "college" and "university" were the same thing, but I'm from Australia myself. St Anselm (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why all forms of education should just be called "school". https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png Polygnotus (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so sure what is more precise, so I looked at some sources

Bitch Magazine says: "forgo college"
marie claire says: "abstaining from college and career"
Time says: "forsaking education"
Jezebel says: "forsake education"
So it may be worth checking if they forsake all education, all non-home education or only college and university education. Based on what I've read I'm leaning towards all non-homeschooled education. Polygnotus (talk) 07:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, Vision Forum is certainly strongly pro-homeschooling; they published a book titled: "Building a Winning Curriculum: How To Use Vision Forum Products To Build a Winning Homeschool Curriculum". They sell stuff intended for homeschooling 7th-9th grade kids, so 12 to ~14. These kids are too young for college/uni.

And the Botkin sisters are also selling homeschooling stuff aimed at children, see https://botkinsisters.com/author/ae

So it seems a bit misleading to state in the article that they are only against higher education. Polygnotus (talk) 07:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Fail[edit]

I strongly dislike the daily mail so I refuse to use this source, but its here if anyone needs it:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2606528/Leader-Christian-ministry-followed-Duggar-family-TLCs-19-Kids-And-Counting-accused-using-teenage-girl-personal-sex-slave-1m-lawsuit.html Polygnotus (talk) 06:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]