Jump to content

Talk:To Train Up a Child

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Michael Pearl)

Detailed Source

[edit]
  • switching their own 4 month old daughter (p.9)
  • switching babies who cannot sleep and are crying, and to never allow them “to get up.” (p.60)
  • whipping a 7 month old for screaming (p.70)
  • "“Please give examples of the kinds of things for which you used the rod, both as a training tool and as punishment, for children were under 12 months.”"
  • "if a child does obey before being spanked, spank them anyway....if you have to sit on him to spank him, then do not hesitate. And hold him there until he is surrendered. Prove that you are bigger, tougher...Defeat him totally.”"
  • Quotes from To Train Up A Child, whynottrainachild.com.87.178.121.171 (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Greater Joy Ministries

[edit]

I think that more could be said about NGJ. It is a ministry that makes around 1.7 million American dollars profit annually. The main subscribers/followers of Michael Pearl' ministry are right wing conservative Christians who homeschool their children. Despite the controversial nature of Pearl's child training advice many of these people believe that his methods have had positive results. However NGJ ministries does block people on youtube and facebook who make criticisms so it is difficult to know just how successful this child rearing is. Most people who object tend to be ones that have not adopted Pearl's methods and have sought to have the book To Train up a Child banned from sale on websites like Amazon. It is felt by many that Michael Pearl and his wife Debbie are not suitably qualified to write on the subject of child development and discipline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.113.10 (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

"Superior Court Judge Susan Cook showed no mercy to Larry and Carri Williams, found guilty of causing the tragic death of their adopted daughter, Hana, by using Biblical based parenting techniques found in the controversial child-rearing book, To Train up a Child, by Michael and Debi Pearl. ... sentenced Carri Williams to 37 years ... her husband Larry ... was sentenced to just under 28 years"

Qualifications

[edit]

Michael Pearl states his qualifications as a "Bachelor of Science" from Mid-South Bible College. He and his wife refuses to give us their relevant qualifications. Their "about us" affirms this: http://nogreaterjoy.org/about-us/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mongoletsi (talk • contribs) 12:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting a talk page discussion. Please stop edit warring. There are numerous problems with your insertion:
  1. What does "unspecified" mean? In any case, it's not in the source.
  2. The source says "when Michael is asked for his credentials on child training" - there is no mention of psychology.
  3. The doesn't say "refused". One could just as well have "prefer to point to his five children"
  4. The insertion makes it sound like Pearl has no formal training in psychology. That may well be true, but the source doesn't say that.
  5. Placing this in the "Controversy" section is original synthesis - it makes it sound like it is related to the controversy. That may well be the case, but we would need a reliable source making the connection.
StAnselm (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool story Bro, you're asking me to prove a negative.Mongoletsi (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. Or at least, I'm pointing out that to include the information, you would need to prove a negative. Which is why it should be left out. StAnselm (talk) 10:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But while we're at it:
  1. "Unspecified" as in "unspecified". I've done a lot of trawling yet can find no answer. Therefore, it is "unspecified".
  2. You're being pedantic, but I'll take that.
  3. You're being pedantic, but I'll take that.
  4. Again, you're asking me to prove a negative.
  5. Again, you're asking me to prove a negative.
I am really unhappy that you keep reverting my changes and disagree strongly with your reasons for doing so. Mongoletsi (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as you unhappiness goes, please read WP:BLPREMOVE carefully. I dn't think your explanation of #1 is very helpful. I still don't know what "unspecified" means? Does it have something to do with majors? (I live in Australia, by the way, and happen to have a Bachelor of Science degree as well - presumably also "unspecified"). StAnselm (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violations by User:ContentEditman

[edit]

This edit is still a BLP violation. Pearl may have written some of those things, but we should use reliable secondary sources, rather than the primary source (which isn't cited anyway). And the recently added text is not in any of the cited sources: I have looked at them all, and searched for keywords like "whimper" to make sure (a couple of them do have "magic wand", but not "beautiful place"). So obviously I am claiming a BLP exemption as far as 3RR is concerned. And The Wartburg Watch is not a reliable source. I don't know what you mean by "moving the goal post". StAnselm (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did not read all the references as they are clear and support the statement that I and 2 other editor have added. Let alone you calling someone out on a talk page in headline violates several Wikipedia rules you also have a long history of edit warring, 3rr, and even blocked for 1rr as well. You have reverted 5 times now so no your claims are not exempt. Last alone you did not even go to the talk page or read all the references till your 5th revert. ContentEditman (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • St Anselm, instead of repeated whole-sale reverts, you should be working with other editors to use the secondary sources that have been provided to construct text that does meet our policies here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Pearl. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article should probably be about Michael and Debbie Pearl, with a section for To Train Up A Child

[edit]

It seems most of this article is about the Pearls themselves, rather than the book. It seems like it'd be more useful to have it actually cover the Pearls first, and their book second, rather than the other way around. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:To_Train_Up_a_Child&oldid=1240375403"