Talk:Jim Bob Duggar/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Expect more vandalism...

I removed the assertion that Michelle is a sex addict and the supposed quote by her husband. Would love to see it if it's true, but no citation. I think we can expect some more vandalism in the next few days with the announcement of the upcoming baby #18.MaterTerribilis (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the couple are probably just VERY anti- birth control. There's nothing wrong with a couple who regularly enjoy sex. - Mel

The reason that they have sex so often is that they believe it is their Christian duty to have as many children as possible. It states that on the article. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with this? She is good looking and I am sure Jim Bob is a normal hetro male and enjoys sex with women. This is just right and nothing wrong with it. They have a good thing going. On the other hand, it can be wrong to have even one child if you are not prepared to take care of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.116.212.32 (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

"clown car" huh? I think this might be a bit of vandalism. Jhhays 21:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It is. Theres an article about the 17th birth that made Fark's Main Page. I'll revert. 24.166.255.66 22:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Because of the recent increase in anonymous IP vandalism, I requested semi-protection for the article. — Athaenara ✉ 00:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Websites

I believe the jimbob.info link should be removed because it will either time out or will take you to duggarfamily.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilgornie86 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Athaenara ✉ 19:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Names and birth dates

Editprotected, I like to add kids names and birth dates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellylyn93 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

They are listed in detail in several of the article's references. — Athaenara ✉ 22:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Might be nice if they were in the article, too. In fact, the family has been a part of enough media attention, I would tend to think an article more focused on the Duggar family rather than on Jim Bob would be worthwhile. Derekt75 23:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Website

Okay, hopefully this won't sound silly, but would it be appropriate to warn people that their home site is VERY graphic intensive? Not to brag but my computer is pretty fast at loading things, giant pages rarely pose a problem, yet their site takes a hell of a long time to load. -WarthogDemon 22:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't notice any such problem. I did notice that a few links are broken but everything seemed to load fast enough to me. (Cable modem) Strawberry Island 00:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is very odd. Maybe it's not the graphics but sometimes it won't load for me at all. Weird. -WarthogDemon 03:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

add

hiii well i would like too add this to jims bob wikipedia that he has anew daughter neamed jennifer duggar who was born on july 27 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.210.249 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

2008? Wow, you don't say... ;) --Dmfallak 03:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, Jennifer was born August 2, 2007 and not july 27, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisonbreak 2005 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

About Jim Bob's age

Jim Bob wasn't born 1963, he was born 1965. He is older than Michelle by one year and she is born 1966. Michelle is 41 years old this year. So Jim Bob is 42 this year.

2007 - 42 = 1965. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisonbreak 2005 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What sources are you using for this information? — Athaenara ✉ 06:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar are best known for having seventeen children.

This line should read:

"Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar are only known for having seventeen children."

or simply

"Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar are known for having seventeen children."

They would be unknown to anyone otherwise. This is the one thing for which they are known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cletus the fetus (talk • contribs) 19:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not the only thing they are known for. That is 'one' of the things they are known for. I would tend to admit though that, that is probably what they are best known for... heh (not that I think we should use the statement, even if it's probably a fact we can't prove). Strawberry Island 00:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

They are not well-known for anything else, would not have an entry in Wikipedia, and would not be noted by anyone if they didn't have a herd of children. They may be known for something secondarily as a result of their fertility, but you never would have known anything else about them otherwise. Therefore, they are known only for having 17 children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.232.242 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Duggar is a former state legislator and candidate for the U.S. Senate. Eventually all of those people will have entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.171.0.232 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Being a state legislator does not make one "known" for something. Will every small-town mayor and council member, will every state representative from every legislative session in every state have an entry? Jim Bob Duggar would be unknown to 99.99% of the population but for one fact: he has a lot of kids. This is the one and only thing that makes him known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.199.49.245 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess it depends on your definition of 'known'. :D Strawberry Island 16:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like somebody is anti large-family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.42.55 (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no question that the Duggars are much, much better known for having 17 offspring than anything else. Clearly Mr. Duggar must have been known to some of his constituents to get elected to a stint in the state legislature, but state legislators are almost always obscure outside of their district, and certainly their state. I'd be surprised if even 5% of Americans know the names of their OWN state legislators presently serving. NTK (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To say they are "only" known for the 17 children would appear to be a biased intent to discount his political achievements. Many politicians, to include state legislators, have wiki pages. Don't be a fag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.116.212.32 (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment

I reverted an edit by 68.163.219.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). That edit included an external link to a savagely satirical Mark Morford column and misleadingly termed it "SF Chronicle editorial" in the edit summary.

Following up here on my own edit summary, I recommend the requests for comment procedure, rather than edit warring, on either or both issues: (1) listing the children's names, (2) including a link to an opinion piece of that kind in a biography of living person. — Athaenara ✉ 04:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about the column. Having previously read it--it being one of the more widely-read newpaper articles on the Duggars--I would agree that it is (self-admittedly) "savage," but it is not satirical. The author does employ "mean" humor, but as far as I can tell absolutely in earnest. It's his editorial opinion, and given the linkage and readership it has gotten, many would agree. Also relevant here is that the SF Chronicle is a national newspaper with the largest circulation of any West Coast daily. This is not an alternative newsweekly or a weblog post. I'm putting it back, and if you disagree feel free to take it to RfC if you feel it is still necessary. NTK (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[interjection] Circulation of largest west coast papers:

• Los Angeles Times: ~816,000 daily, ~1,173,000 Sunday
• San Francisco Chronicle: ~387,000 daily, ~438,000 Sunday
• San Jose Mercury News: ~231,000 daily, ~252,000 Sunday

Figures above rounded to nearest thousand. — Athaenara ✉ 22:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I misread the misleading intro to Chronicle wikipedia article that indicated only that it used to be the biggest a long time ago and now is the largest only in Northern California. Anyway the point was that this was a large daily paper, and per below, I don't think the link is appropriate unless and until there is a discussion of the coverage of the Duggar family, positive and negative. NTK (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I won't add it at this time. It's not really a source for anything in the article and not independently notable. However given that they are notable for their family size and lifestyle, there should be a discussion of that here and the reaction in the media would be appropriate. At which time a link would be apropos. NTK (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Duggar family 2006 image

After user Lucid (talk · contribs) removed an image from the article, I asked in my edit summary when I restored it that the user discuss it here on this talk page. The user posted instead on my user talk page:

“Fair use images are unacceptable on biographies of living persons. See WP:NFC#Unacceptable images (#12) and WP:FUC (#1). When someone points out a copyright (or anything relating to policy, really) problem, do not revert it, ask them instead. --lucid 00:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)”

The copy above is forwarded for input from other editors. — Athaenara ✉ 00:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I posted it on your userpage because it has no purpose on this talk page. Anyway, I emailed the family asking them to release a couple photos to us under a compatible license after I removed it, so hopefully we will get something we can use soon --lucid 00:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Correction: As per the Talk page guidelines, discussion of such matters is precisely the purpose of article talk pages. — Athaenara ✉ 01:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And again, no, it is not, not anymore than telling a vandal to stop removing speedy tags belong on the article's page. The article talk page is for improving the article, not warning other users not to break policy. --lucid 11:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The restoration of an image which had been in the article for nearly a year, with a request for discussion on the talk page for discussing improvements to the article, was neither the act of ‘a vandal’ nor did it ‘break policy.’ Please observe the civility and no personal attacks policies. Thank you. — Athaenara ✉ 22:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And I didn't say it was vandalism. I said that warning a single user on an article's talk page is not appropriate. It very clearly was breaking policy though, see the top of WP:FUC. --lucid 22:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a user issue, it's an issue of wikipedia articles and images. There is nothing at ‘the top of’ the Non-free content criteria page which supports targeting individual good faith editors. — Athaenara ✉ 22:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And there is nothing in WP:AGF that says "Assume someone is wrong and revert them without checking" either. In fact, that's kinda the opposite of the point. Please, I have no interest in getting an argument with you. You broke policy, I made you aware of it, that's all that needs to happen. Just let it go. --lucid 22:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The claim that I ‘broke policy’ is false. Repetition of that claim is both dishonest and uncivil. — Athaenara ✉ 23:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) false how? WP:FUC is a policy. You went against it. Therefore, you broke policy. It's not uncivil, it's a statement of fact. Please stop accusing me of 'targeting' you and 'lying' about policy, as that's no better than what you're accusing me of --lucid 11:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please specify where in Non-free content criteria there is support for a claim that my restoration of an image to an article with a request for discussion on that article's talk page was a violation of policy. — Athaenara ✉ 22:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone understand where the claimed rule comes from, 'Fair use images cannot be used in BLP articles?' I did not find that stated anywhere as a rule. Editor Lucid must be getting it as a deduction from other rules. If that rule is being followed elsewhere, there should be at least one Talk thread that Lucid can point to. EdJohnston 13:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Related discussion found here. — Athaenara ✉ 03:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added two images to this article which have been licensed under an acceptable free license. To clarify why fair use images generally cannot be used on biographies of living persons, it is necessary to look at our non-free content criteria. I will quote it here:

1. "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.

Since the subjects of biographies of living persons are, by definition, alive, then it is generally considered on Wikipedia that a free equivalent could be created simply by finding that person and photographing them. It's not until the person is dead, really, that photographs of them become irreplaceable with freer alternatives. This is re-stated in our non-free content guidelines as follows:

"Here are other images that if non-free would almost certainly not satisfy the policy.

12. Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career."

I hope this has clarified for you the position on Wikipedia with respect to fair use images on articles about living people. - Mark 04:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

1. The image in question, however it is described, is not non-free content: Image:Duggar family 2006.jpg is a printed campaign card of which hundreds, possibly thousands, were given away.
2. User Lucid's attitude, that one restoration of an image with a request for discussion on the talk page of the only article in which it was used is comparable to vandalism and broke policy, is wrong.
3. Aside from particulars of the campaign card, user Mark's explanation is quite clear and uploads of more recent images with permissions even better. — Athaenara ✉ 02:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

1- There's a big difference between gratis and libre. This is EXTREMELY basic rules on copyright on Wikipedia. Hell, look right under the save page button, "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted." -- just because something is free FOR YOU TO LOOK AT does not make it FREE FOR YOU TO USE. Wikipedia is strictly free content, and that image was not. It was fair use at best, but like the links you have already been shown three or four times now say, fair use does not apply to articles on people that are alive 2- I never said your edits were comparable to vandalism. I said very clearly that it was warning a user on an article's talk page that was silly, not that your edits were vandalism. And as you have been multiple times, you did break policy. 3- you can thank me for getting them. Mark was kind enough to upload them for me as I have left Wikipedia (He also left that note at my request), but I am the one who bothered to ask the family for them instead of simply allowing people to break policy repeatedly. ---lucid 03:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

… "drawn back more to try to drill this through your lead skull"? I think you should not continue to indulge in such appalling incivility. — Athaenara ✉ 06:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Postscript: I have never downloaded or uploaded any image, and I was not the editor who first added it to the article. — Athaenara ✉ 06:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC) & 06:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Senate, 2002

The article reads: "Duggar was a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, but lost to Tim Hutchinson."

As it is written, Tim Hutchinson won the Senate race. This is not factual. My understanding is that Duggar was in the running for the Republican nomination but lost the primary to the incumbent Hutchison. Hutchinson was then defeated by Democratic Party member Mark Pryor in the United States Senate elections, 2002.

DDD DDD 10:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this edit corrected it. — Athaenara ✉ 21:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Split

I believe that The Duggars or The Duggar Family should be split into a separate page from this one. The family is notable separately from Jim Bob, because they have had television specials based around them. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that Jim Bob served in the state legislature is enough for his article to stand on its own. The rest of the article should be moved and a link to the new article should be provided somewhere in the context of Jim Bob's article. --Fromnc (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The Duggar Family as a whole is far more notable than the individual Jim Bob Duggar. --User101010 (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am going to place a request that this article be split into Jim Bob Duggar and Duggar family. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the split. The article is currently quite short, so there's no need. But I think it might be better to move the article to Duggar Family, because after all, that's what Jim Bob is primarily known for.Ngchen (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose. Neither this article nor the new article would be very long at all and are perfectly fine together. Reywas92^Talk 00:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

In favor of split - the issue is not that the content is too long, it's that Jim Bob Duggar's political career and his family are two entirely different topics. If they must be placed in the same article, the article should clearly focus on the family as a whole and be moved to a title that reflects that. The new pregnancy was covered in literally over 500 news sources, according to a Google News Search. Establishing adequate notability to justify an article about the family is clearly not any kind of an obstacle. Propaniac (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a consensus to split the article? It looks to me like there are four people (including myself) who think the article should be split, one person who thinks the article should remain combined and at this title, and one person who thinks all the information should stay in the same article but the article should be moved to Duggar family. My impulse is to move the information about the family to Duggar family, and then if anyone wishes to merge the information about Jim Bob Duggar's political career into the family article, they could post a separate poll about that issue. But before doing anything I want to ask if there are any further objections to splitting it up. Propaniac (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that your idea is great. I haven't seen a whole lot of opinion on this issue, but that is what seems to be the main idea. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the split, moving the family content to Duggar family. Propaniac (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I really want to revert that now. This article is now only four short paragraphs long, and the family article is only four paragraphs, two of which are exactly the same as here. So we have six short paragraphs and a table of the kids. And many of the references are used on both. I really don't think that we need two articles for that little information. I don't care what it's called, but that's another article to worry about on the same topic. We could easily merge his political career to the family, but we don't need both. Reywas92^Talk 19:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I was also surprised by how short the Jim Bob article became after I moved that stuff. I am absolutely in favor of keeping the family as a separate article; there's still a lot of room for expansion there (for example, the article doesn't go into any kind of detail about the family's development into a media phenomenon). I would be fine with merging Jim Bob's political career into that article and making this a redirect; the only possible problem that I can see is that I think there's a rule or guideline somewhere establishing that any person serving in political office of a certain level is notable enough for his or her own article, and I don't know if that would preclude merging his information somewhere else. Probably not, but it's a thought that comes to mind. Propaniac (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the split was a good idea. He's been out of office for six years. Most people probably end up at this page because they want to read about his kids; they shouldn't have to wade through info on Arkansas politics. Actually, I almost changed the re-direct at "Duggar" to Duggar Family, but added a note at the top of this page instead (in case there was some obscure rule on re-directs and surnames I had missed). Ariadne55 (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no such rule that I'm aware of--I would have changed the Duggar redirect when I made the split, but simply forgot about it until I saw the hatnote you added. I'm going to go ahead and change the redirect now, assuming nobody objects (and, I guess, move the hatnote to the Duggar family article). Propaniac (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Homeschooled?

Are the children homes chooled? Relevant for the Wiki? --Frenkmelk talk 19:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, they are. However, we would need sources and also prove that it is notable. I think it would be, since the reason they are is specific to their religion. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

According to their documentary program, the children are home schooled, but I don't know what would serve as a concrete source. The program showed her home schooling them.--Peanut67.142.130.28 (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This link/ url, shows they are homeschooled.

http://www.duggarfamily.com/faq.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.113.19 (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

While the subject of every article must be notable, the notability guideline does not mean that every single fact mentioned in the article must be tested for notability. In any event, I think whether their children are homeschool is well worth including; it will tell us a lot about their family life and (probably) their values. Jacob1207 (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes the Duggar Children are all home schooled. You would all know this if you watched the show. It's part of their religion I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merl123 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

twins?

I undid this information (twice - please discuss here or find a valid source before reverting for the fifth time) because the article cited does not mention twins, let alone the baby's name.64.228.89.235 (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

More Information

Glamorati —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.63.190 (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? NO Controversy section? Really???

There needs to be a controversy section here. (Also, we need to merge the Duggar Family article and this article together.) The article is very lob-sided without it, and I don't know where you come from (or care) but yes, there are a lot of people against couples who have litters of children. --24.21.149.124 (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.149.124 (talk)

There's really no controversy here. So, this couple has 18 (soon to be 19) kids. They live their lives debt-free, though, and are not a burden on society. Unlike the Octo-Whore in California. So who really cares how many kids this woman pops out of her uterus? Apparently, she just takes the bible's statement on, "be fruitful and multiply", just a tad too seriously,... Dr. Cash (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think its controversial. I think having 18 or 19 kids is irresponsible in an overcrowded, overheated, overworked world. But, I need to go find sources still. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.245.194.253 (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

baby number 19

there is a rumor that Michelle is pregnant with their nineteen child. is it true? --24.20.178.58 (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Might've been a rumor back then, but it's not a rumor now: [1] Dr. Cash (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The 19th child was born via emergency C-section; she weighed just 1 lb., 6 oz. Let us pray Mrs. Duggar's womb is on its last laps. [2] 38.115.185.13 (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC) HelenChicago

more vandalism

I deleted this: Jim Bob and his wife are religious nutjobs.

I didn't read through the article, so there may very well be relevant information in it, but "nutjob" is clearly a word that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.Soojmagooj (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

References