Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WarriorScribe (talk | contribs) at 03:07, 2 December 2005 (→Removed again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Atheist" Family

This:

"They were revealed as parents who neglected their children, spent far too much time on their computers, exhibited anti-social behavior, made their young son do enormous amounts of chores, etc."

Isn't just POV pushing, it's getting into libel territory. Mark K. Bilbo 01:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll change "revealed" to "portrayed". Better? --Jason Gastrich 02:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I proofread the entire article and fixed its poor grammar. Verting my entire contribution because of a word is awfully impolite.--Jason Gastrich 02:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

To use "portrayed" instead of "revealed" is still to inculcate a point-of-view that may or may not be shared by others whom viewed the program. How the couple was "portrayed" or "revealed" is a matter for the viewer to decide, and there's no good reason to single out this particular episode in the manner that it was. - WarriorScribe 02:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

By my reading the reversion was not due to the use of a single word. - WarriorScribe 02:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

All I did was state the facts. Something about Wife Swap's (possible) distortions should be mentioned; in some way, shape, or form. In the particular case I mentioned, I know the person who was on the show. I saw the show. I have evidence that he says the show was inaccurate. Did you see the show? --Jason Gastrich 02:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You stated no "facts." You included a point-of-view that may or may not be shared by other viewers, whom may see them simply portrayed as a typical, "pretty normal", modern-day American family, as is clear by some of the comments in the thread on the subject at The Infidel Guy site.

You are not stating facts Gastrich, you think you have an opening to attack Reggie Finely and you're trying to use the Misplaced Pages to launch an ad hominem campaign against him because of the conflicts you had with him. And you know that's the truth of the matter. Mark K. Bilbo 02:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Making this personal is absurd. --Jason Gastrich 02:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not "debating" this with you. You know what I'm saying is the truth. Mark K. Bilbo 03:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Not hardly. All one has to do is start here and read forward to see that this all started on the IG page and you're trying to bring it here.

I stated the facts AS they were portrayed.

Others feel that they were "portrayed" somewhat differently.

It really isn't hard to do, either. For those that didn't see the show, here they are:

• The oldest boy does too many chores and basically does everything.

How many chores are "two many" chores? Ah, ha...we seem to have a matter of opinion, don't we?

• Reggie admittedly works 70-80 hours on the computer.

Disingenuous. The time that Reggie puts in on the computer is mostly as a consequence of the Infidel Guy radio show, is it not? And how much time do you spend on your "ministry" in a week?

It's not unusual for a person to put in long hours to get something in which he believes going.

• The wife drops the kids off in daycare, so she can play on the computer. She has no job.

Why does it matter that she doesn't have a job; and as was shown in Amber's segment, she believes that day care has some value for children.

• Reggie said he hadn't been outside with his kids for a month.

My father was in the Navy, and there were times when I wouldn't go outside--or anywhere else--with him for several months. This is a common way of life for lots of people.

• Reggie's wife said she doesn't like going outside at all.

Lots of people aren't thrilled with being outside. Where's the problem?

These things, true or not, were seen by the viewers of Monday night's Wife Swap. Reggie Finley says they are distortions.

You claim that they are not? Wow...POV pushing.

Therefore, a mention on the Wife Swap entry should be made that questions Wife Swap's integrity. This is all I have done. Future reverts will be met with more reverts and moderation. You have no good reason to silence the fact that Wife Swap may be distorting the truth. Do you work for them?--Jason Gastrich 02:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Met with moderation? You think you own this place? You are the one trying to use the Misplaced Pages to attack someone you have a grudge with. That is against the policies here. So go whine to somebody that you're not being allowed to launch a character assissation of Reggie Finely. Please. Whine away. Mark K. Bilbo 03:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

As much as you may want to dodge your motives, the thread to which I refer above (and again here) makes it clear that you did not have altruism in mind. - WarriorScribe 02:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the current edit I made might be a compromise. I don't see any harm in stating that people felt they were wrongly portrayed. --DanielCD 02:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. It's less obvious whom we are talking about with that wording, and perhaps some of the problems with some of the other episodes could be listed, as well. - WarriorScribe 02:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Mewtwo_X: I thought I'd just put my two cents in here... why exactly is it important to mention a specific episode in a wikipedia article devoted to the ENTIRE show? Just asking...

That's a very good question. See this page at Infidel Guy, and read forward. - WarriorScribe 02:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, if it's true the family feels this way, it says something about the show, that not everyone agrees with how things are portrayed and that there could be bias in the editors in how they choose what aspects of a family's life to show and what not to show. People might be interested to know that the subjects feel this way.

Simple, Jason Gastrich has a history with Reggie Finley. Gastrich is interested only in the episode that has Finley in it and which Gastrich believes makes Finley look bad. That's why one episode. Mark K. Bilbo 03:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I must confess I don't even know if this is the "christian" or "athiest" family or whatnot. I've in fact never even heard of this show. I'm just trying to see if I can help compromise a bit. --DanielCD 03:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you might want to consider that if the producers of the show take exception, that exposes the Misplaced Pages to possible legal issues. A vague comment that the show is misleading people could be problematic for the Misplaced Pages. Mark K. Bilbo 03:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Very good point! S'pose that's why encyclopedias are particular about objectivity and neutrality? - WarriorScribe 03:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is free press. People can say whatever they want. No names were named. I can see your point, but then again, I don't think it applies if the comment has already been made somewhere else. We're just reporting. But then again I don't know this... If such a statement was made in an informal media, then you are right, and it should be removed immediately. Where were the comments originally made; what's the source? A blog? --DanielCD 03:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You can get most of what you need as far as the viewpoints by reading this thread. It's rather long, but you'll get a feel for what's going on with the particular episode in question. I also have a copy of the episode in .avi form, and it can be retrieved using bittorrent. - WarriorScribe 03:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel like I've gotten out on a limb here in not knowing what exactly is going on. The statements should be removed altogether if they cannot be referenced, and if they stay, I insist that they be so. If they were made informally, then there is no reference and it never should have been brought up to begin with. I'm gonna back off now. LMK if you need any third opinion on anything. --DanielCD 03:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The show is being kicked around a great deal over at Reggie's online forum. Which is one place, interestingly enough, Gastrich has been hanging out of late. If you pop over here: you can see the threads. That, basically, is his source. He even stated above on this Talk page that "In the particular case I mentioned, I know the person who was on the show." Yes, he does. And had a domain name fight with him that almost resulted in Gastrich being sued. That's the part of this story Gastrich doesn't want you to know. Mark K. Bilbo 03:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep...I'd doubt very much that Gastrich "knows" Reggie in the manner that he wanted to convey, as if they are old pals, or something. Their interactions have been by phone, email, and on the boards, and it hasn't always been pleasant for either of them. The fact is that they don't like each other, and it was pretty clear what Gastrich was trying to do with this entry. After all, is it a coincidence that the "Wife Swap" article has seen no activity since the 22nd of November, and the 31st of October before that, but after Gastrich gets involved in the thread at the Infidel Guy site--today--he shows up over here to "proof read" it, and he just happens to feel that an insertion of a comment about what the show "revealed" in the specific episode featuring the family of the Infidel Guy was appropriate? Anyone who believes that should also come and see me...I have a bridge for sale. - WarriorScribe 03:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed again

Jason, I removed that paragraph again. A blog is not a proper source, and this one is more along the lines of a gossip column. It needs to come from something that has been through a formal publication with an author that can be cited. --DanielCD 15:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. We're talking about the truth; not about the conduit of the information. By contesting this citation, you are essentially contesting this fact; and you're wrong. It is known by Reggie Finley's blog (and his internet forum) that he feels he was misrepresented on Wife Swap. Furthermore, those are the only channels that Reggie Finley has to announce his displeasure. Making him have to announce it on other channels that are beyond his means, before his claims are taken seriously, is both wrong and absurd. --Jason Gastrich 19:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The blog is not an acceptable reference. Please see verifiability and reliable sources. .:.Jareth.:. 20:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Blog link was replaced by other link. I accept the current edit as nPOV and pertinent. Although Wiki rules warn against having a section like "Controversial" (or similar heading), I feel this works. --Jason Gastrich 21:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The blog link was replaced by an Internet forum which is also frowned on by policy. What's being in the article is hearsay. Hearsay does not belong in an encyclopedia. Mark K. Bilbo 21:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right. Taking it out. - WarriorScribe 22:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, he isn't right. In fact, calling Reggie Finley's OWN WORDS (who was a participant on Wife Swap) heresay is the funniest thing I've heard all day! And I've heard a lot of funny things today because I was around high schoolers. Just how can the forum owner, Reggie Finley, when he comments about Wife Swap misrepresenting him and his family be heresay? His only verifiable methods of communication are his forum and his blog. What in the world else do you want from the guy? Should he pay a publicist? In this case, since he was a participant and he is clearly writing these things in verifiable mediums, I think the Wiki rules can include his writings even though they usually "frown" forums and blogs. --Jason Gastrich 02:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, according to the established standards, he is right, and it falls to an adminstrator to rule otherwise--not another Wiki participant with an agenda. As much as Reggie's words are directly related to his own participation in show, they still represent a non-neutral point-of-view, and as such fall within the rationale for Wiki's tendency to exclude such things. The comments about hearsay were less about Reggie's direct commentary than they were about a great deal else that has been posted in the discussions, and that includes those on his board. If Misplaced Pages is to remain as neutral as possible in these things, it is best to use the verifiable sources that are as unbiased as possible, under the circumstances. The critic link seems fair to leave in, as the site from which it is derived is a site that engages in analysis and criticism of television as a communications medium. If this was more about truth and less about ego and getting one's way, this wouldn't even be necessary to note. - WarriorScribe 03:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that if we could find an analysis like on a review or "critic page," it'd be good. - WarriorScribe 22:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, being the pain in the keester that I am, I still have to point out that accusing a production company of "creative editing," "misrepresentation," and "exploitation" is potentially actionable if the production company takes notice. Fortunately, I didn't write that section and I oppose its very existence. Mark K. Bilbo 22:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I did write that, and was looking for wording that is as neutral as possible. As an opinion piece, I would question how actionable it might be, but I think you have a point when it comes to inclusion in an allegedly-neutral "encyclopedia" entry. As it is, it's not that the inclusion would have Wiki taking that position so much as acknowledging that there are those who believe that these things have occurred. Certainly, it's open to more thought and revision. - WarriorScribe 22:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

But over here, the guidelines are rather specific about phrases such as "Others feel." There's simply no verifiability here. And verifiability is policy. Mark K. Bilbo 22:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Right again! Well, now, this thing about maintaining a neutral point of view isn't as easy as it might appear, when one is clouded by his or her biases, is it? - WarriorScribe 22:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)