Talk:Jim Bob Duggar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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.

• September 2003 Parent Magazine
• 5 May 2004 CBS News Interview

-- 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia

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. 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)

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 Wikipedia’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)

I am restoring my posts. Pls dont move them. Lilkunta 08:36, 2 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. U also revert & then WRONGLY accuse others of reverting. 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)

This is my public post that I'm restoring my words. I read the Scare quotes page & it doenst apply to me.Lilkunta 08:49, 2 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)

But u dont revert agin & again? I think may end up hear after googling duggar. Those searches want to know about the family, so the religious links arent necc. But I guess they dont hurt.Lilkunta 09:13, 2 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 Wikipedia’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)

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)

(comment restored by lilkunta) 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)

Other resources which support this: Talk page guidelines and Refactoring talk pages. — Athænara ✉ 22:32, 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 Wikipedia’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 Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (quoting):

1. "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.)
2. "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)

Reverted changes to Talk (2nd time)

I reverted Lilkunta's changes, as above, because they reinstated several things which are either strongly discouraged or outright prohibited. See this diff for the explanation of my changes. Joie de Vivre 15:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask Lilkunta to observe Talk page guidelines and stop placing their editorial comments inside my comments. I am not trying to "censor" them by moving the comments, I am trying to maintain the readability of the page. I would not edit their comments at all if they would just place their comments at the bottom, underneath all of the previously-posted comments in the section. I also want to ask Lilkunta to stop removing the indentation of the paragraphs. Indentation is used to make it easier to differentiate between the comments of different editors. Joie de Vivre 17:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverted changes to Talk (3rd time)

See above. Joie de Vivre 22:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I recommend ceasing to deal directly with the disruptive user—no more reverts of reverts, etc. Instead, give your attention to structured processes which are conducted with civility and have administrative oversight. — Athænara ✉ 23:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not a disruptive user. Once again ppl r here labelling me but say nothing to Joie. This is very bias of you.Lilkunta 23:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Time for a break

I would like to recommend that both of you take a break from editing the Jim Bob Duggar page and its associated talk page for 5 days as a cooling off period. Both of you seem emotionally invested in the article at the moment and I think a break will help calm things down. While this break is going on I will post a request for review both with the Mediation Cabal members as well as to members of the Wikipedia Biography group. Hopefully these impartial editors will be able to offer insights into the article and perhaps another editor will make changes to the article during the break that will satisfy both of you. If during this break you feel the need to address your concerns further please post them on the case page. So for clarity since people from different time zones are involved please refrain from further edits, reversions and comments until Sunday, April 8th.--Ulysses411 04:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Joie de Vivre 17:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Amendment: I did not attempt to delete what they said but instead added a note about how I did not in fact make that comment here. Joie de Vivre 14:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I just want to state my support for User:Athaenara's recent rewrite of the article which occurred in the interim period. Thank you, Ulysses411, for mediating between myself and User:Lilkunta. As far as I am concerned, this issue is resolved. Joie de Vivre 22:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad I could be of assistance. I will go ahead and close the case today. Should new issues arise feel free to contact the Mediation Cabal again.--Ulysses411 02:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I will. Joie de Vivre 16:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)