Talk:Vision Forum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vision Forum Inc[edit]

I believe that Vision Forum Inc is the one that maintains Jonathan Park. Jehorn (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

'Vision Forum' vs 'Vision Forum Ministries'[edit]

Is the correct name for this organisation 'Vision Forum' or 'Vision Forum Ministries'? The article states the former, all the ELs appear to state the latter. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the name has been changed from "Vision Forum" to "Vision Forum" Ministries, which transition was completed in 2009. It was rather confusing for the time that the ministry held two official names, but the current official name is "Vision Forum Ministries." E. Novachek (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be of help to note that there are two separate entities, Vision Forum Inc., and Vision Forum Ministries. It is Vision Forum Ministries that runs Jonathan Park. Northern Book Lover (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Phillips, anyone?[edit]

Shouldn't there be made any mention as to who started/runs Vision Forum, like Doug Phillips? Invmog (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there should be. He's mentioned in the Quiverfull article, and I put his name in the opening paragraph, but we could do with more info. StAnselm (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sexist"[edit]

Unless other sources can be added, the section should remain like this. The word "sexist" is debatable, as it may violate Wikipedia:Let the reader decide (an essay, but still useful). American Eagle (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It should go back to an earlier revision that didn't have the word "sexist". Since the word isn't used in the original article Midwest Christian Outreach article, it shouldn't be used here. StAnselm (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it should. It isn't debatable that the Midwest Christian group [i]alleges[/i] that Vision Forum's views are sexist, so the link is just fine, and is a useful read for anyone interested in the subject matter. See Wikipedia is not censored. You're alledging that the article "accuses" the organization of being sexist, when it doesn't. It simply states that their detractor has accused them of that, which it has. (ex. "Shawn Hannity said global warming is not real" isn't the same as saying "Global warming is not real" for a fact).--SuaveArt (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No - I'm saying the accusation of sexism is not in the Midwest Christian Outreach article. So it is debatable that they allege it. StAnselm (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is to say, we should use this revision of the paragraph in question. StAnselm (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like the term used should be removed until proper reliable sourcing can be found to back it up to ward off OR. Invmog (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also endorse StAnselm's proposal. American Eagle (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By all three of us supporting it, I've reverted back to that revision. If anyone disagrees with my change, I'm more than willing to discuss it. American Eagle (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nanny Incident[edit]

I am not sure why there is an issue with having "sexually abused nanny" in the lead when it is sourced and seems to be the same issue as the extramarital affair, are you claiming they are separate incidents? Lipsquid (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source you added does not say this is the reason VF closed. It's talking about the same event - Phillips admitted to "marital infidelity" but not sexual abuse. It was the former that VF gave as the reason for closure. (That is, it closed due to what Phillips did, not due to the allegations of what he did.) If we want a deeper/further/different reason as to why it closed, it needs to be reliably sourced. StAnselm (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is sourced, I moved the source already in the article. Now unless you are claiming that the affair and the sexual abuse are two different incidents and I don't think that is correct from the sources, but it could be, but if you want the article to say that you will have to source that it was two incidents. I will certainly apologize and revert my change if it was two incidents. Lipsquid (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the source say that that VF was closed due to the alleged sexual abuse? StAnselm (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are running in circles, sexual abuse is a form of an extramarital affair, but I have a new source that you are requesting that ties both together. Serious waste of time, but okay I can see why you could argue that it is unknown if not sourced. Lipsquid (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source you added is fine, but once again - it says it was the confession of the "inappropriate relationship" that led to VF's closure, not the allegations of abuse (which came later). StAnselm (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After more information becomes known to sources there is nothing that keeps us from portraying the complete story of all known facts in the lead, in fact it is encouraged. Any other complaints? We both know this is factually correct and it is line with what reliable sources say. What is it exactly you object to? You don't have much to stand on so suggest a compromise. Lipsquid (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not factually correct. It's a bit rich asking for a compromise when you have not provided a single source suggesting the closure was a result of the allegations. StAnselm (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the first sentence if the article. "Last fall home school leader and Biblical Patriarch Doug Phillips made a public confession of an inappropriate relationship with a young woman, leading to his resignation, the closing of his organizations and much behind-the-scenes jockeying." Lipsquid (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Nothing there about allegations of sexual abuse. StAnselm (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are WP:NOTHERE on this subject. it is clearly in the source. Good luck getting an RfC to agree with your nonsense definition of not in source. Lipsquid (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When contentious material is removed from an article, it should not be re-inserted until a consensus to do so has been established on the talk page. Please read WP:BRD and then stop re-inserting this contentious material. David in DC (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the change that could be make is to change "Doug Phillips' marital infidelity" to "Doug Phillips' admission of marital infidelity" or "Doug Phillips' confession to marital infidelity". After all, it closed precisely when he publicly admitted the "inappropriate relationship". StAnselm (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tenets[edit]

I think was the editor who originally added the Tenets (when it was still a live web page). It is now a deadlink, but it is available at this page. Even though it is hosted at a blog site, I can verify that it is a faithful duplicate of the original page. Thus, I think we can add the citation to the article. StAnselm (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You thought wrong, we can't use blogs and your verification means nothing, especially after recent reliability issues. We only use reliable sources. Lipsquid (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fine. I restored User:Theroadislong's version. Per WP:ROT, "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online." StAnselm (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted because it was no longer sourced at all. It is better than to have a dead link and citation needed than to post blog nonsense. Lipsquid (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The whole section is copied from the Biblical patriarchy article, I don't see why it needs to be here at all, the article states that they advocate Biblical patriarchy, if people want to read more then they can go to that article surely? Theroadislong (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Our article about biblical patriarchy is not Vision Forum's version of the concept. They seem to be similar, but there are differences in phrasing and in emphasis. It's better to accurately reflect their actual philosophy on the topic than to refer to our article on the topic. They're not identical. David in DC (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the content of Biblical patriarchy it is absolutely identical! word for word. Theroadislong (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but, in my view, the Biblical patriarchy article errs when it treats Vision Forum's version of Biblical patriarchy as coterminous with the original Christian Reconstruction concept. HuffPo gets that right. At some point, the Biblical patriarchy. wiki-article will need some changes. But in the meantime, I think we should be guided on the Vision Forum article by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. David in DC (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
but far more importantly [[reliable sources which we don't have. Theroadislong (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the content from Biblical patriarchy was copied from here, not the other way round. It was I who summarised what I thought were the interesting and significant bits of the "Tenets" and added them to this article, and then I created the BP article using them as an example. There is a Christian Reconstruction influence of Vision Forum (as Julie Ingersoll argues in her 2015 book Building God's Kingdom) but Phillips went in a different direction. BP should indeed be distinguished from CR - in fact, our article on Biblical patriarchy does not mention Christian Reconstructionism at all. StAnselm (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the reference that leads to the .pdf of the Wayback Machine archived copy of the original tenets page ought not to have been reverted. While the .pdf is posted on a blog, it's an image of the Wayback Machine's archived copy, which IS a WP:RS. I've posted a thread to the reliable sources noticeboard here, seeking additional opinions. David in DC (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the language of our Huffington Post source: "Phillips has promoted a view of the world infused with the Christian Reconstruction developed by Rousas John Rushdoony, though even some of Rushdoony’s followers (including some at Rushdoony’s own Chalcedon foundation) have distanced themselves from Phillips and his views, which are even more extreme." [Emphasis added]. David in DC (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came here from RS/N. I just wanted to point out that while a source not available online is not a problem, a source that no longer exists is something else and may well be a problem. This source was to a web page that has since been removed with no available archived version or archive.org. Unless and until we can find a reliable archived version, we have to assume that it no longer exists.
That being said, there seems to be an archived version at the blog site. I'm not sure who it was who said that we can never use blogs, but you're wrong. We can. We need to be extremely careful about using them, and we need to limit their use as much as possible, but the blanket statement that we can't use anything hosted in a blog is in direct opposition to what is stated at WP:SPS. So it seems to me the question that needs to be decided here is whether or not this blog can be considered reliable with respect to faithfully reproducing the contents of that web page in the specified .pdf file. I'm not going to get involved in that discussion beyond saying that while we have no reasons to suspect the .pdf is inaccurate, we also have no reason to suspect that the blog author is an "...established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (I think, considering the nature of this article, the second caveat there could be safely ignored). Since WP lives on consensus, I think it's time to settle down and decide which of those two hypothesis (the .pdf is altered or faked; or that the blogger is an expert on the subject) you guys want to go on. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am not here to push a certain POV, the blog author is probably going to fail on the second caveat and while I don't think any caveat on Wikipedia can be ignored, it is not of primary importance to me. What is important is the original document from some reliable source AND that it actually is encyclopedic material about the beliefs of Biblical patriarchy because the exact same material shows up on other pages. So assuming these tenets were true and that Biblical patriarchy was a notable and even somewhat current topic, one would certainly think that someone could find a reliable source somewhere that says what these people believe, otherwise how would anyone know what they believe? How would they find any new members of the movement? I don't care about the blogger notability, though that alone could remove the content, but I care very much that this is actually someone's beliefs and if so why are there no reliable sources if it is allegedly notable? Lipsquid (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't intend to get drawn into the discussion, but I did want to respond to one thing. You said ""...I don't think any caveat on Wikipedia can be ignored...", and I think this is incorrect. WP:IAR is one of our policies, and it exists to address situations (like this, maybe) where the normal rules can make things more difficult. I'm not saying this is absolutely the case here, but it's worth considering if maybe this subject is one where demanding any expert who blogs about this be published in the field (Which field, though? Theology? Biblical patriarchy? The Vision Forum?) is really the best way to proceed. Again, I have no opinion on the outcome of this discussion, I'm just hoping an outside voice can help keep it in a productive shape. :) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read what I wrote? "while I don't think any caveat on Wikipedia can be ignored, it is not of primary importance to me." and "I care very much that this is actually someone's beliefs and if so why are there no reliable sources if it is allegedly notable?" Talking about an issue that no one thinks is an issue is how to make the discussion unproductive. I don't care much about the blog, if this is notable, why are there no other sources on the tenets of Biblical patriarchy? since an editor here made the edits and created the Biblical patriarchy page, it seems like WP:OR unless they have some more extensive sources and if they do, there is no issue. Lipsquid (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly, what I see here, is editors who, in good faith, view some matters differently from one another and are struggling here to apply policies, guidelines, pillars and the like that, like most complex human endeavors, admit of more than one result. In such a case, the assistance of an experienced editor, willing to stay out of the substance, but to try to nudge the conversation in constructive directions is great. Dismissing the value that might bring is folly. Indeed, dismissiveness is precisely the problem. Disagreement is natural. Piling accusations of NOTHERE and IDONTLIKEIT on top of comments like "You thought wrong" and "Did you read what I wrote?" is unhelpful. It, like the announcement that there is no disagreement, suggest some sort of exclusive access to the one true answer. David in DC (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lipsquid: how is it OR? If you were to attend VF conferences, for example, and describe what you heard, that might be OR, but quoting from a published document certainly isn't. StAnselm (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is important is this is the original document from some reliable source AND that it actually is encyclopedic material about the beliefs of Biblical patriarchy. So assuming these tenets were true and that Biblical patriarchy is a notable and even somewhat current topic, one would certainly think that someone could find a reliable source somewhere that says what these people believe, otherwise how would anyone know what they believe? How would they find any new members of the movement? I don't care about the blogger notability, though that alone could remove the content, but I care very much that this is actually someone's beliefs and if so why are there no reliable sources if it is allegedly notable? I googled Biblical patriarchy myself. You are definitely riding the edge on WP:OR there is very, very little information other than the two Wikipedia articles that you added the information to. Christian patriarchy has many more sources, biblical patriarchy seems to be your invention. Prove me wrong, go get some sources or just change the article name to Christian Patriarchy. Lipsquid (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, "Christian patriarchy" and "biblical patriarchy" are essentially used interchangeably, as can be seen here and here. StAnselm (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles call it the Christian Patriarchy movement and only mention biblical patriarchy. Neither mentions a Biblical Patriarchy movement. Lipsquid (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rachel Held Evans calls it the "Biblical Patriarchy movement" here. In any case, it would be better to discuss this at Talk:Biblical patriarchy, possibly via a WP:RM. StAnselm (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond whether we can use the PDF, my concern would be that if their views are not covered or described anywhere else at all, are those views really notable enough for an entire section? It seems odd to me that no other sources at all would so much as summarize them. And absent any other coverage at all, I don't feel we can take it as a given that the PDF or even the original website is accurate - was the list there core to their beliefs, or was it just a summary an intern threw together? How important was this list of tenets? Does the version the PDF contains reflect what it always was, or did they update it over time? And so on. In general I'd try and find a WP:SECONDARY source describing their views, and rely on that instead. --Aquillion (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your first question, I think the answer is undoubtedly "yes". A Google Books search indicates that the Tenets is an important document for describing VF and understanding biblical patriarchy more generally. StAnselm (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, can we just use one of those as a source instead, and paraphrase them based on that rather than quoting them whole-cloth here? --Aquillion (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that edit. There really should be many more sources listing these tenants if one were to assume they are notable. A paraphrase should be fine. Lipsquid (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vision Forum. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 03:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vision_Forum&oldid=1207313863"