Revision as of 01:22, 29 March 2007 editJoie de Vivre (talk | contribs)9,472 editsm →Biography← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:45, 30 March 2007 edit undoLilkunta (talk | contribs)814 edits →Biography: replies to joieNext edit → | ||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
::2) As I have repeated numerous times, "bloggingbaby.com" fails ], particularly ]. I have reverted the inclusion of that source because it violates basic policies and standards of quality. The reason I don't just slap the <nowiki>{{Fact}}</nowiki> tag on it is that per ]: | ::2) As I have repeated numerous times, "bloggingbaby.com" fails ], particularly ]. I have reverted the inclusion of that source because it violates basic policies and standards of quality. The reason I don't just slap the <nowiki>{{Fact}}</nowiki> tag on it is that per ]: | ||
:::''"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."'' -- Jimmy Wales, founder of Misplaced Pages | :::''"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."'' -- Jimmy Wales, founder of Misplaced Pages | ||
::I guess you will have to wait to state that there is another pregnancy until the Duggars make such an announcement on their website, in the newspaper, on television, or via another reliable source. | ::I guess you will have to wait to state that there is another pregnancy until the Duggars make such an announcement on their website, in the newspaper, on television, or via another reliable source.<FONT FACE="Chiller" SIZE="2" COLOR="green"> Excuse you? That is very smug! Bloggingbaby rec'd an email from JimBob confirming the pregnancy. Y dont u email the Duggars? If they say they arent pregnant, THEN delete it. </font> '''] 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)''' | ||
::3) Per the ]: | ::3) Per the ]: | ||
:::*Headers are only supposed to have the first letter capitalized. | :::*Headers are only supposed to have the first letter capitalized. | ||
Line 88: | Line 87: | ||
::I ask that if you wish to include information, please consider ''adding'' to the version I worked to improve. ] 01:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC) | ::I ask that if you wish to include information, please consider ''adding'' to the version I worked to improve. ] 01:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
:::<FONT FACE="Chiller" SIZE="2" COLOR="green"> You see how u said that "i worked to improve". You want this article to say what you waant it to say, and disregard other's addditons. Do you have proof that Michelle's friend ? In the interview M gave she said her friend ''told her'' about the movie. U r changing the factual info ! </font> '''U DONT OWN THIS WIKI PAGE!''' ] 12:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Syntax/ Grammar/ Etc ( wording )== | |||
3) Per the ]: | |||
*Headers are only supposed to have the first letter capitalized. | |||
*References go ''outside'' punctuation, not inside. | |||
The version to which you keep reverting reinstates all of these errors, which took me a long time to fix. ] 01:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC) <FONT FACE="Chiller" SIZE="2" COLOR="green">Then correct the 'errors' instead of again''' everting back 2 ur verison. '''] 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)''' | |||
==U Added Religious References== | |||
<FONT FACE="Chiller" SIZE="2" COLOR="green"> U to prostelyzing, contraception, etc. This page was just for info about the Duggars having alot of kids. MAny ppl come here after watching Disc & TLC ch specials about their large families. But now u've made it in2 a page that is preaching ministry &/or advocates the bible. '''] 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)''' | |||
==U violated the 3RR rule== | |||
<FONT FACE="Chiller" SIZE="2" COLOR="green"> U have violated the ] so many times. Consider other ppl's additons! '''] 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)''' |
Revision as of 12:45, 30 March 2007
Biography NA‑class | ||||||||||
|
Original comment
I have tried to clean up this article. There is some more information about the family, a link to their website (yes, they actually have one), and I removed the pejorative comments about welfare and the kids disinterest in Bible study (these are not proven or cited).
Moved to Duggar family
Since the father is really only semi-notable for his past political career in state government, yet the family is extremely notable in popular culture, I've moved the content of this page over to Duggar family, cleaned it up, and hopefully will engender more participation. --Kickstart70-T-C 03:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Religious background
If they are strongly influenced by Bill Gothard, they are Mormons, not Christians. There is a vast difference! {unsigned|24.255.80.83}
- "Mormon is a colloquial term used to refer specifically to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" - Mormons ARE Christians. --Kickstart70-T-C 23:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Mormons are Christians? What's your source material? You might as well say Catholic are Christians.
- This is not the right place for this conversation. - Richfife 22:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Mormons are Christians? What's your source material? You might as well say Catholic are Christians.
Bill Gothard is not mormon!!
Bill Gothard is not in any way affiliated with the Mormons. His background is from an independent Bible church in the Chicago area. His material (with which I am quite familiar) in no manner espouses the teachings of the LDS church. The only similarities the two have is that both are supporters of couples having large families. Quidam65 16:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- I confirm the above by Quidam65. CyberAnth 19:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup
This article is poorly written. Excessive use of parenthesis are throughout. Also many of the claims in the article are unsourced. We need to pay heed to WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS. I will work on this when I get some time. Feel free to be bold and get to work on improving it! Vivaldi (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
November 27 Overhaul
I just did a semi-major overhaul to remove the paretheses and useless wording. Feel free to revert, but I tried my best.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was no move. —Mets501 (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Requested move
Jim Bob Duggar → Duggar family — Jim Bob Duggar is best known as the father of the Duggar family, which is well-known in popular culture for the sixteen children born to Jim Bob and his wife, Michelle. Jim Bob Duggar, despite his political career, does not seem to meet the standards for notability on his own. However, the Duggar family is sufficiently notable for an article. I have prepared an edit of the article that features the content about the family prominently. Joie de Vivre 00:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Survey
- Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
Support - I've seen how this has gone back and forth by looking at the histories of both articles and this looks good. (I was going to say that starting with the third paragraph (The Duggars are highly....), the article was only about the family. Then I saw the Survey.) Please keep the redirect from Jim Bob Duggar.--EarthPerson 22:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I knew of both articles but have not looked back over them and the related AfD. I'm neutral on one or two articles. I'd just like a re-direct from one to the other should there be only one.--EarthPerson 18:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - in view of the exiting history at Duggar family, which was turned into a redirect after the AfD, a merge would be more appropriate, surely ? -- Beardo 17:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. AfD has already decided that we should have an article on JBD. This appears to be an attempt to bypass this decision, and I don't think we should have a bar of it! Andrewa 08:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, please. This is not an "attempt to bypass" anything. I wasn't even aware that any of that had happened. If you look, I hadn't made any edits or comments during that time and I wasn't aware that this had already been discussed and decided. If you can manage to keep your hat on I will take care of this next year. Happy Holidays! Joie de Vivre 22:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Discussion
- Add any additional comments:
- Comment - this seems to be the opposite of the AfD discussion - see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Duggar_family , where it was held that the family was non-notable but Jim Bob was (borderline). There is a history at Duggar family, too - hidden by the redirect. If we want to move, it should be a merge, not a move. -- Beardo 17:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Removed unsourced content
Please review WP:BLP. All content about living persons must have a verifiable source. "Bloggingbaby.com" does not meet the criteria. Removed content is not here, per WP:Attribution. Joie de Vivre 18:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just a note, This information was provided in the Discovery Health show 16 kids and Pregnant Again, which featured the Duggar family. Michelle and Jim Bob both discuess how they met, married and the use of birth control in the beginning of their relationship. 67.183.159.230 02:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting, but AFAIK, videos are not attributable. Joie de Vivre 18:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Removed references
These were just kind of floating in the ref section. Not sure what statements they are verifying. Please source statements correctly.
-- Joie de Vivre 18:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Official policies concerning content
Multiple editors continue to add unattributed content to this biographical article, even after it is removed with explanation. Please review the official Misplaced Pages policy at WP:Biographies of living persons for explanation of why unattributed content cannot be included. Please review the WP:Manual of style and especially WP:Attribution before making changes to this article. Joie de Vivre 20:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Biography
User:Lilkunta and I seem to disagree on what the biography section of the article should say. The two versions can be seen here, with Lilkunta's version on the left, and mine on the right. Please view the comparison before commenting
My concerns are as follows:
- I think that Lilkunta's version reads too much like a story, rather than a factual biography. Such sentences as "They decided having children was for God to control--not them." are unencyclopedic in tone, and POV in that not everyone even believes in a God, for instance. The entire biography section of Lilkunta's version is similarly problematic.
- In terms of a confirmation of a newest pregnancy, "Bloggingbaby.com" website does not seem to meet Misplaced Pages's requirements for WP:Attribution
I have requested that Lilkunta discuss these concerns here. Joie de Vivre 20:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- 1)I put the {story} tag in the "beginnings" section. How michelle/jimB met is referenced numerous times in interviews that they have given. If u want to edit it 2 meet "pov" fine, but u always just delete the whole section to your version.
- 2) JBD sent email confirmation to blggingbaby, which is why it is here. If u doubt it, why not put {fact} until 27 July 07, bc on that day we will know for sure. U always just rv to you version. Lilkunta 00:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
- Response: Thank you for coming to the Talk page. I would like to address your answers:
- 1) The story tag is not intended to alert readers to an upcoming story-like section. Its purpose is to alert readers that the upcoming section does not meet Misplaced Pages's quality standards or conform to the WP:Neutral point of view. The addition of the tag means that the section needs to be changed. When you keep reverting to a version which needs change, it degrades the quality of the article. Your version's section on how Jim Bob and Michelle met is unencyclopedic in tone and has multiple errors in grammar and punctuation. I have made many changes to it and included a paragraph based on the sources you provided.
- 2) As I have repeated numerous times, "bloggingbaby.com" fails WP:Attribution, particularly Misplaced Pages:Attribution#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources. I have reverted the inclusion of that source because it violates basic policies and standards of quality. The reason I don't just slap the {{Fact}} tag on it is that per WP:BLP:
- "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." -- Jimmy Wales, founder of Misplaced Pages
- I guess you will have to wait to state that there is another pregnancy until the Duggars make such an announcement on their website, in the newspaper, on television, or via another reliable source. Excuse you? That is very smug! Bloggingbaby rec'd an email from JimBob confirming the pregnancy. Y dont u email the Duggars? If they say they arent pregnant, THEN delete it. Lilkunta 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- 3) Per the WP:Manual of style:
- Headers are only supposed to have the first letter capitalized.
- References go outside punctuation, not inside.
- The version to which you keep reverting reinstates all of these errors, which took me a long time to fix.
- 2) As I have repeated numerous times, "bloggingbaby.com" fails WP:Attribution, particularly Misplaced Pages:Attribution#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources. I have reverted the inclusion of that source because it violates basic policies and standards of quality. The reason I don't just slap the {{Fact}} tag on it is that per WP:BLP:
- I ask that if you wish to include information, please consider adding to the version I worked to improve. Joie de Vivre 01:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- You see how u said that "i worked to improve". You want this article to say what you waant it to say, and disregard other's addditons. Do you have proof that Michelle's friend 'took her to see the movie'? In the interview M gave she said her friend told her about the movie. U r changing the factual info ! U DONT OWN THIS WIKI PAGE! Lilkunta 12:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Syntax/ Grammar/ Etc ( wording )
3) Per the WP:Manual of style:
- Headers are only supposed to have the first letter capitalized.
- References go outside punctuation, not inside.
The version to which you keep reverting reinstates all of these errors, which took me a long time to fix. Joie de Vivre 01:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Then correct the 'errors' instead of again everting back 2 ur verison. Lilkunta 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
U Added Religious References
U added links to prostelyzing, contraception, etc. This page was just for info about the Duggars having alot of kids. MAny ppl come here after watching Disc & TLC ch specials about their large families. But now u've made it in2 a page that is preaching ministry &/or advocates the bible. Lilkunta 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
U violated the 3RR rule
U have violated the WP:3RR so many times. Consider other ppl's additons! Lilkunta 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Categories: