Talk:Jim Bob Duggar/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

< Talk:Jim Bob Duggar Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:01, 1 April 2007 editJoie de Vivre (talk \| contribs)9,472 editsm changing header levels so that argument is under one header← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:17, 1 April 2007 edit undoJoie de Vivre (talk \| contribs)9,472 edits →Revert Next edit →
Line 149:		Line 149:

	''(removed personally-directed comment by Lilkunta to my Talk page)'' ] 23:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC) <FONT FACE="Chiller" SIZE="2" COLOR="green">Pls STOP censoring me. Thx. '''] 19:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)'''.		''(removed personally-directed comment by Lilkunta to my Talk page)'' ] 23:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC) <FONT FACE="Chiller" SIZE="2" COLOR="green">Pls STOP censoring me. Thx. '''] 19:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)'''.

			::It's not censorship to move comments around if the editors who write those comments cannot follow simple rules, like "don't attack others" and "don't put your comments ''inside'' other people's comments, put them ''after'' their comments." Yes, I moved a personally-directed comment made by you, about me, to my talk page. Yes, I moved your editorial comments that you sprinkled within the paragraphs I wrote. The fact that you use green font does not license you to make editorial comments ''within'' other people's written thoughts. I moved the sentences you wrote so that they were situated ''after'' my comments. There was nothing sinister about the manner in which I did this. There is no hidden meaning in it. I tried to preserve your meaning as much as possible, I placed markers indicating the comment's prior (erroneous) and new (correct) locations. I did this not to censor you, but to preserve the readability of the page. I am sorry if it annoyed you. I would not have had to do it at all if you would place your comments correctly, after the comments of others, in the first place.

			::To others who may be reading: the reason I am not putting this paragraph on Lilkunta's talk page is that they have a habit of copying conversations, in their entirety, and duplicating them in other places, so that there are two identical conversations going on at once. I did not want that to happen again so I placed this here. I apologize to the other editors for this discussion veering away from the article. ] 22:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

	==Controversy==		==Controversy==

Revision as of 22:17, 1 April 2007

A request has been made of the Mediation Cabal for mediation on this page.

Please do not remove this notice until the issue is resolved. Preloaded case page

Biography NA‑class

	Biography portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
NA	This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

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)

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.

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.

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)

Same thing 2 u. Y dont u correct the minor errors instead of reverting back again to your version? O & u DID revert, not surprised. Lilkunta 16:22, 1 April 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)

I regret the minor error in interpretation, regarding Michelle and the circumstances regarding the film she saw. I think that in light of the many errors that your version contained, that it would have been better for you to correct my small error rather than reinstate all the errors in your version.

Regarding the bloggingbaby reference, I will repeat it as many times as is necessary: that source cannot be used, because it fails WP:Attribution. I have not yet reverted but someone should. Joie de Vivre 20:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(Comment by Lilkunta moved by Joie de Vivre out of the center of my comment Joie de Vivre 21:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC))

(Moved another Lilkunta comment out of the center of my comment, moved it to the bottom of the paragraph -- Joie de Vivre 21:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC))

Regarding the Bloggingbaby reference: 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)

I already explained that I already took the time to correct the errors in your version, and that when you keep reverting and insisting on starting from the version that existed before I corrected the errors, you are essentionally saying that I should have to correct them all over again. That would be extremely tedious.

One user, Ulysses411 has come forward to state their opinion of my version: "Joie de Vivre's version most closely complies with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines in regards to style and WP:NPOV as well as presenting the information in a more encyclopedic manner.'

In an effort to build consensus, please consider the effort I already placed in correcting those errors. Please consider adding to the version that I put effort in to fix. Joie de Vivre 18:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ulys could be ur friend. Of course she/he will side with u. I too put effort in. Have u tried adding to my edits? When I look it is always reverted.Lilkunta 19:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Pls STOP censoring me. U have heavily fractures this thread. Lilkunta 19:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

If anyone is "fracturing" the discussionm, it is Lilkunta. They keep interspersing their comments within my comments. I move them out of my comments to the bottom where they belong. I do not edit the content of their comments in any way. I also moved a personal comment about me to my Talk page, where it belongs. That is not "censorship", it is preventing the Talk page from becoming completely unreadable. Joie de Vivre 21:57, 1 April 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 reverting back 2 ur verison. Lilkunta 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your use of scare quotes is not accurate because they are errors. Placing references inside punctuation is contraindicated in the WP:Manual of style, as is capitalizing anything other than the first word (or proper nouns) in a section title. I already explained that those changes were very tedious and time-consuming! I don't want to make them all again. Why should we start with a version that is more broken than another? Joie de Vivre 20:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont know what a scare quote its. I really dont care. U said dont revert, make changes. I think u should heed ur own worlds. Lilkunta 18:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)'

I included a wikilink to Scare quotes for just that reason. As I keep repeating, editors are encouraged to remove unsourced or poorly sourced information, such as the "bloggingbaby" reference. Joie de Vivre 18:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

(moving interspersed comment to bottom per WP:TALK - Joie de Vivre 18:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)) U also revert & then WRONGLY accuse others of reveting. Lilkunta 18:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)'

I have publicly announced that I am reverting your changes. You are not allowed to add unsourced material to the article, particularly since it is a biography of a living person. I will remove it as many times as you put it up. That does not violate 3rr. It cannot be here. Joie de Vivre 18:58, 1 April 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)

I included a Wikilink to Christian views on contraception for the phrase "contraceptive use was incompatible with their beliefs", and a link to proselytizing for the phrase "making visitations to reach out to potential church members". How does this "advocate the bible"? Frankly, I think the colloquial phrase that you included, "she committed her life to God" is a lot more preachy than the phrase I had used: "she converted to Christianity" (my version). Joie de Vivre 20:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ppl come here bc they google Duggar and this wiki comes up. They r interested in the family having alot of kids. IF they want info on the D's religion, the D' have their own website 4 that info. I dont think the religious links r neccess, but put it up to the majority to see what they think.Lilkunta 18:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, I tried that several times. You reverted it again and again. There is absolutely nothing wrong with including the information about their religion. It's sourced. Joie de Vivre 18:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted, per:

WP:BLP: Do not include unsourced biographical info. Bloggingbaby.com fails WP:A and thus the statement claiming there being a new pregnancy is unsourced. Need a verifiable source to include this.
WP:Manual of style: Capitalize only first word of headers. Refs go outside punctuation. Very tedious edits would take too long to change back by hand for a second time.
WP:NPOV: Bio phrasing fails. "...the number of children was for God to control--not them." "she committed her life to God": Are we to assume that everyone believes in God? Referring to unsuspecting bystanders as "potential church members" is completely POV. Should we refer to random people as "potential expatriats" or "potential ballerinas" or "potential Nobel laureates" based on what they might do? Would it be neutral if I referred to you as a "potential Goddess-worshipping lesbian"? Joie de Vivre 23:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(removed personally-directed comment by Lilkunta to my Talk page) Joie de Vivre 23:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Pls STOP censoring me. Thx. Lilkunta 19:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

It's not censorship to move comments around if the editors who write those comments cannot follow simple rules, like "don't attack others" and "don't put your comments inside other people's comments, put them after their comments." Yes, I moved a personally-directed comment made by you, about me, to my talk page. Yes, I moved your editorial comments that you sprinkled within the paragraphs I wrote. The fact that you use green font does not license you to make editorial comments within other people's written thoughts. I moved the sentences you wrote so that they were situated after my comments. There was nothing sinister about the manner in which I did this. There is no hidden meaning in it. I tried to preserve your meaning as much as possible, I placed markers indicating the comment's prior (erroneous) and new (correct) locations. I did this not to censor you, but to preserve the readability of the page. I am sorry if it annoyed you. I would not have had to do it at all if you would place your comments correctly, after the comments of others, in the first place.

To others who may be reading: the reason I am not putting this paragraph on Lilkunta's talk page is that they have a habit of copying conversations, in their entirety, and duplicating them in other places, so that there are two identical conversations going on at once. I did not want that to happen again so I placed this here. I apologize to the other editors for this discussion veering away from the article. Joie de Vivre 22:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

I am coming to this debate with absolutely no previous knowledge of the subject so I hope to be able to provide unbiased insights. After reviewing the two versions of the article, one by Lilkunta and the other by Joie de Vivre, it appears to me that Joie de Vivre’s version most closely complies with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines in regards to style and WP:NPOV as well as presenting the information in a more encyclopedic manner. As someone unfamiliar with the subject I did not find the links to Christian views on contraception or proselytizing to present a POV slanted toward the Bible or Christianity but rather an attempt, as most links are, to allow the reader to gain additional understanding of the reference if they should be unfamiliar with the subject. I think that both sides should adhere to the ideal that the edits being made are being done in good faith and without a hidden agenda. It seems to me that a request to honor another editor’s work by preserving as much of it as possible in revisions is not unreasonable. Rather than editing by using a blanket reversion instead consider adding any new material to the latest version of the article and only deleting or changing the material that you find objectionable. I urge both disputing parties to put aside their differences and come together in an attempt to provide an article that is encyclopedic in scope, verifiably referenced in compliance with the guidelines for biographies of living persons, and neutral in tone. I would be willing to act as an unoffical mediator if acceptable to both parties.--Ulysses411 03:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be glad to allow you to mediate any ensuing discussion. Thank you for offering your help! As I said earlier, I encourage Lilkunta and everyone else to add any material that they feel is missing, as long as that material meets WP policy and style guidelines. Again, thanks. Joie de Vivre 20:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted changes to Talk page

I reverted Lilkunta's recent changes, per Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines (quoting):

"Answer a post underneath it: Then the next post will go underneath yours and so on. This makes it easy to see the chronological order of posts. The one at the bottom is the latest. (Do not intersperse your comments within the comments of others.)
"Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it."

"Don't praise in headings: You may wish to commend a particular edit, but this could be seen in a different light by someone who disagrees with the edit!
"Don't be critical in headings: This includes being critical about details of the article. Those details were written by individual editors, who may experience the heading as an attack on them.
"Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed.

All editors should be aware of (and follow) these guidelines. Joie de Vivre 17:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories: