Jump to content

Talk:Josh Duggar/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Pleas by Duggar's Brother-in-Law for Wife to Leave Him

Withdrawn by OP. Clearly not fruitful or purposeful discussion at this time. Will revisit in a few months.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the following two RS-supported sentences be kept in this bio or purged so that readers don't see it?

Following the release of Duggar's statement, Daniel Keller, the brother of Anna Duggar, called for the couple to separate. Keller publicly stated he had asked his sister to leave Duggar and to take the Duggar's children to his (Keller's) house. Keller went on to declare that he "won't stop trying to get that pig [Josh Duggar] out of our family."

Sources: Slate [2], WGN-TV [3], International Business Times [4], WQAD-TV [5], Fox News [6]

Survey

  • Strong Keep Don't know what else to say, really. Recently, a large number of userspace-identifying "Christians" have descended on this page and started making unilateral reversions of edits from high-quality RS, such as Slate and WGN-TV. While it's a little concerning and suspicious, I'm AGF for the time being. But this seems pretty open and shut. It's too bad the same three editors are forcing us to go through a RfC for every minor little edit that would, otherwise, be instantly green-lit. BlueSalix (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, WGN-TV, International Business Times, etc. are not "gossip magazines" just because their worldview may offend yours. BlueSalix (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should a 1-2 sentence summary of Duggar's admission of infidelity be included in lede?

Withdrawn by OP. Clearly not fruitful or purposeful discussion at this time for obvious reasons. Will revisit in a few months.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should a 1-2 sentence summary of Duggar's admission of infidelity following his widely publicized involvement in the Ashley Madison data breach be included in lede?

Survey

  • Strong Keep Don't know what else to say, really. Recently, a large number of userspace-identifying "Christians" have descended on this page and started making unilateral reversions of edits from high-quality RS. While it's a little concerning and suspicious, I'm AGF for the time being. But this seems pretty open and shut. It's too bad the same three editors are forcing us to go through a RfC for every minor little edit that would, otherwise, be instantly green-lit. BlueSalix (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
This isn't gossip. The lede is supposed to be an accurate synthesis of the content of the article. We include this in the article proper as an entire section. If you believe this is gossip, you need to be arguing to omit it from the article entirely. BlueSalix (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unless there is some notable public consequence beyond embarrassment and ridicule (for example, getting divorced) then I don't see his having admitted that he cheated as being sufficiently important to his biography to warrant inclusion in the lead. Dragons flight (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Omit. I am concerned about the categorization of this as "infidelity", because what Duggar means by the word is not necessarily what other people mean. The earlier controversy was highly significant (e.g. leading to the cancellation of the show), this seems comparatively insignificant. StAnselm (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Omit--what StAnselm says. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you serious, Drmies? I expected the regular gang to immediately appear and launch the deluge, and they have. I didn't expect you would bite on the interpretation we keep battling with, that the Biblical interpretation of infidelity includes "coveting" and not necessarily extramarital sex which is, at the heart, what this group has been arguing in the attempt to sanitize the Duggar sex scandals (scroll through the Talk page and edit history, if you like, to familiarize yourself with the subtext). BlueSalix (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
My agreement is with the note of significance. I'm not doing biblical studies tonight, which is a good thing for everyone I disagree with since I got a bad case of brimstone constipation. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scandal vs. report

Please do not engage in an edit war on the section title. This was just a report until Josh apologized for the alleged sexual assaults. The media has been describing the event as a scandal.[1][2][3][4][5] Dmarquard (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Scandal seems unnecessarily sensational. This is a BLP and it seems several editors keep forgetting that WP:BLP applies. We shouldn't be attempting to make this article as sensational as sensational news sources do. Neutral encyclopedic language and tone should be used instead. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The event has evolved beyond a report, which was the case on May 19th. I disagree that the term is unduly sensational. The incidents involve a number of people and the revelations have been high impact. Dmarquard (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

references

  1. ^ http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2015/05/21/duggars-reeling-from-joshs-sex-abuse-scandal/27741883/
  2. ^ http://www.today.com/popculture/tlc-pulls-19-kids-counting-amid-josh-duggar-scandal-t22671
  3. ^ http://www.people.com/article/josh-duggar-molestation-accusations-duggars-respond
  4. ^ http://www.startribune.com/19-kids-counting-pulled-from-tlc-schedule-after-josh-duggar-child-molestation-claims/304736801/
  5. ^ http://www.businessinsider.com/mike-huckabee-stands-by-duggar-family-despite-molestation-scandal-2015-5

Sexual assault vs. molestation vs. fondling

I suggest that we not avoid the use of the terms Sexual assault and Molestation in regard to Duggar's confessions of "fondling" under-age girls against their will. Please see the article on Sexual assault, which defines sexual assault as, "any non-consensual sexual touching of a person." Josh Duggar has clearly admitted to this. Therefore, he has admitted to sexual assault. --Crunch (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Too bad you have been so anxious to use inflammatory language in the first place which I rv. And I don't see anywhere in the police report or the Washington Post report that the girls included his own sisters. I wish someone would point it out if I am missing something. Quis separabit? 00:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. The word "fondling" is not specific enough as it can be used to describe consensual contact. Dmarquard (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
There is NO consensual contact on a minor even by a minor. A minor cannot consent especially younger minors and they believe the ages of these minors were 5-12 and he 14. Two of the victims were his sisters as reported by many CNN and TMZ.
The original police report wasn't terribly thorough as they went to a police friend to report it. The officer gave him a stern talking to. The officer was eventually convicted of having child pornography.
I watched CNN for this so you can probably see what CNN has written about that although it just aired on AC360 which you can catch again tonight. Mehsowhat (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I wrote that last night. I'm not sure why it was removed. The officer's conviction has been attributed to the Duggar's case sitting idle. Guess I'll go grab the code and add it right back. Dmarquard (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


See also this discussion: Talk:19_Kids_and_Counting#Whitewashing. The lede must be changed IMO.
Here is how CNN reported it:
"The channel's move came one day after Josh Duggar, who is now 27, apologized in the wake of an In Touch Magazine report that he had molested the girls when he was 15. Some of the girls were family members."[8]
The fact that the girls were "family members" must be added to lede.2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:5679:C32C (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Added, thanks. Dmarquard (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Category: American Sex Offenders

The Category:American Sex Offenders which was recently added [9] seems like it may be a WP:BLP concern. Joshua Duggar was never convicted of any sex offense. Also, he was a child himself when this occurred. Do they put children on the sex offender lists in the U.S? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

One does not have to be on a "sex offender list" to be a Sex offender. But you are correct, he was not convicted so "offender" may not be appropriate. He did admit to Sexual assault. Is there a Wikipedia category for admitted sexual molesters? That would apply for this biography. --Crunch (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Update, I removed "American Sex Offenders" category and adding "Child Sexual Abuse" and "Sexual Abuse Cover-Up" which both apply to this BLP. --Crunch (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
He did not admit to "sexual assault" and your biased editing is getting tiresome. Minors are treated differently under the law, as are victims of any sexual-related crimes, which makes gauging details almost a decade later even more tricky. Quis separabit? 00:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree that we should probably avoid the term "sex offender" absent a conviction. Sexual assault, however, refers not to a crime or criminal status, but to non-consensual erotic contact. His apology does not need to directly reference specific incidents or reports, journalists can draw that reference and we can edit accordingly. Dmarquard (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Dmarquard is correct. Joshua Duggar admitted to fondling the breasts and genitals of people without their consent. This is, by definition, sexual assault. Therefore Joshua Duggar has admitted to sexual assault. --Crunch (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The abuse

The type of abuse should be clarified (as much as it is possible within the framework of BLP). According to sources the abuse consisted of more than "fondling the breasts and genitals while the victim was asleep", and included sexually assaulting the girls when they were awake. See discussion here: Talk:19_Kids_and_Counting#What_did_the_abuse_consist_of.3F.

2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:5679:C32C (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the lead to include this. --Crunch (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Contradictions between this article and "19 Kids and Counting" article

Please see this: Talk:19_Kids_and_Counting#Contradictions_between_this_article_and_the_.22Josh_Duggar.22_article. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AA7A (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Confessed to sexual assault vs. Committed sexual assault

Let's clarify the issue of Josh Duggar's age, the age of the victims, and the fact that Duggar was never charged with a crime. Josh Duggar has not been charged with, or convicted of, sexual assault. Therefore, we cannot say he "has committed sexual assault." But he has admitted to sexual assault. Fondling someone's breasts and genitals without their consent is sexual assault, by definition. The fact that he was never charged or convicted does not negate the significance of his admission. --Crunch (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Crunch, it would be great if your edits to article space seemed as reasonable as your talk page contributions. Please remember this is a BLP and try to avoid sensationalizing things. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
BoboMeowCat has edited out the lede at 19 Kids and Counting and I reverted it. You're changing the article to suggest that the abuse happened only while the victims were asleep. Sources suggest otherwise. We shouldn't sanitize it. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AA7A (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Interesting how similar certain editors and IP's edit. The sources are stressing that this occurred while asleep and some do mention awake as well. Tweaked to make this clear.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Are you accusing me of anything? And what sources are "stressing that this occurred while asleep"? 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AA7A (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
BoboMeowCat ... While I appreciate that you approve of my edits on the talk page, let's all remember to follow WP:TPYES and specifically this: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." --Crunch (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AA7A, these sources stress that it occurred while the victims were asleep. [10],[11],[12], [13].--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
See the actual police report on[1], specifically the bottom of Image 21 to the top of Image 22 and this: "Jim Bob told police that about nine months later in March, 2003 “there was another incident.” Josh was again accused by a female minor of touching her breasts and genitals. Josh was accused by several minors of touching their genitals, often when they slept, but at times when they were awake." --Crunch (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

references

  1. ^ [1]

Categories recently removed

Crunch I recently removed Category: Child Sexual Abuse and Category: Sexual Abuse Cover-Up which you added with edit summary "adding general topic categories that were removed for no stated reason" [14]. I don't recall these specific categories being in the article previously, but the sexual abuse cover-up category seems to be a BLP violation. It is true that the gossip magazine In Touch and Gawker has interpreted Jim Bob Duggar's actions as a "cover-up" but we'd need better sourcing for a claim that amounts to criminal misconduct per BLP. I'm not aware of any sources regarding law enforcement describing Duggar's actions as a cover-up or any charges related to such. Also, the category child sexual abuse define sexual abuse as "any form of sexual activity involving children and adults as partners" [15]. This wouldn't apply here because he wasn't an adult at the time.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough about the Cover-Up category. It is true that Joshua Duggar admitted to sexual assault and the Duggar family never went public with it, but I agree that there is a leap from there to a deliberate cover-up. However, I see no reason not to include the Child Sexual Abuse category. The first sentence of the article Child sexual abuse, says this: "Child sexual abuse or child molestation is a form of child abuse in which an adult or older adolescent uses a child for sexual stimulation." Josh Duggar at age 14 falls into the "older adolescent" category. I've reinstated the Child Sexual Abuse category. --Crunch (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The reason for removal was clearly stated above. Click on this link [[16]] to read the description of the category page. It reads: "The term child sexual abuse encompasses any form of sexual activity involving children and adults as partners." If you use the article for reference, it still seems debatable whether 14 qualifies as older adolescent or not.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Photo?

It would be appropriate to add a photo, but I've yet to find a suitably licensed one. Anyone else want to try looking? Since he's currently living, we can only use photos where the photographer has truly licensed it as a free image (per NFCC) which is rather restrictive. Dragons flight (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Sisters

Apparently, User:StAnselm objected to mentioning that several of the victims were his sisters, calling the claim "very dubious". It's actually pretty unambiguous in the original redacted report [17], it says for example:

  • The offenses occurred primarily at the "Jim Bob Duggar Residence"
  • "The alleged victims are [LONG REDACTED], who live with their parents Jim Bob and Michelle ..."
  • Three victims were interviewed, and two explicitly say they live with "Dad Jim Bob" and "Mother Michelle". The last victim interviewed is clearly not part of the Duggar family but someone who was assaulted when she "spent the night with the Duggars" and was "sleep on the Duggar's couch".

I could go on, but it is pretty hard to read the primary source and not conclude that some of the victims were his sisters.

The secondary sources are more mixed. Some state explicitly that his victims include four sisters (Daily Mail, Inquistr, Fox News, Politico, US News & World Report), others state it as some of the victims were his sisters (TV guide, TMZ, Hollywood Reporter, IB Times, The Guardian, Star Tribune, etc.), and still others are very cautious and/or avoid any implication the victims were or were not his sisters (USA Today, People, E! Online, Washington Post, Christian Post).

Some of the latter publishers are presumably just being very cautious, but some of them might also be choosing not to mention the sisters out of a desire to protect the victims from any additional harm. Personally, I think there is more than enough sourcing and evidence to say that at least some of his victims included his sisters. That said, the question of harming the victims does give me a little pause. Should we avoid mentioning his sisters, out of a desire to avoid any further harm to them? I'm not really sure, but I would welcome other opinions. Dragons flight (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Dragons flight, I also find it disturbing that the press has identified his sisters as the victims of this abuse. The convention is to not identify minors who are victims of sexual abuse, and they were all minors at the time, it seems the press made an exception while sensationalizing this case. It does appear that it's not just tabloid type sourcing identifying his sisters, so I suppose technically we could include it, but I would not object to removing mention of them. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
As the names of the sisters is not included, mentioning the fact that some of the abused were siblings present no privacy concerns. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think policy prevents us from mentioning it, but it's still a privacy concern. It's not terribly tricky to figure out which four sisters these probably were.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Given the "family values" the Duggars present in their media profile, and his own role in forwarding these concepts, it is noteworthy. I am reluctant to remove mentioning this fact when we have a massive number of sources describing some of his sisters as victims. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@BoboMeowCat: As of January 1, 2003, his living younger sisters were ages 12, 11, 10, 9 and 5. I haven't seen anything to indicate that any particular one of the five is the one that wasn't part of it.Naraht (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Unclear on the concept

Someone wrote that Duggar was "between 14 and 15 years old" during the incident - then @BoboMeowCat: put back text that he was '14-15' because he had 'passed his 14th birthday'. [18] To me, this seems very unclear on the concept of what it means to be '14', i.e., to have had 14 birthdays but not yet 15. [note: I see a comment above about a later incident. March 2003 would be the month of his 15th birthday; nonetheless, we don't really know by reading the primary police report or the almost-primary InTouchWeekly report whether the 'incident' was the time this happened or the time it was reported. We know the kid was sent away on March 17, with his birthday on March 3, so it would be much too much to assume he was 15 when any of this happened, especially when the secondary sources don't say that.

While we are at it, does someone have the rundown on whether the earlier incidents were all when he was 14, or would '13-14' (i.e. between his 13th and 15th birthdays!) be accurate? Wnt (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wnt, I recall on another page that someone objected to 14, because some of the sources were apparently reporting 15 not 14, which seemed believable to me given sources talk about instance in March 2003 (he'd only have two days in that month that he wasn't yet 15), but now that you mention it, I googled and haven't found source that mentions he did these things specifically while 15, the sources that seem to specify age of abuse say 14. What I'm finding for 15 is they say he did that "treatment program" when he was 15 and first talked to the police at age 15. In absence of clear sourcing saying 15, I suppose it would be reasonable to change it back to 14 if you want to.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The primary source says that the first report of abuse made to Jim Bob occurred in March 2002, at which time several fondling acts had already occurred and it is not clear how long before that first report they originated. Further, that at least one incident occurred March 2003 and that Josh was sent for "treatment" March 17, 2003, and that no incidents are claimed to have occurred after that. Josh would have turned 14 in March 2002 and 15 in March 2003. So the known incidents essentially span the year he was 14. They might include a few days after he turned 15, and they might have started even before he turned 14. Saying he was 14 is probably a pretty good description in the absence of clarifying evidence. Dragons flight (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Time magazine says says some of the assaults occurred after Josh turned 15. I'm fairly certain Time meets most of the criteria of a reliable source, so it's probably worth citing it for clarification. Freepsbane (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2015

The article on Josh Duggar says that he molested five girls when he was 14 years old. However, numerous articles have stated that he was involved in that behavior between the ages of 14 and 15 years old. I propose that the article be edited to reflect that information. There was at least one incident in March 2003, when Josh Duggar would have been 15 years old.[1] 2601:9:4F80:9CE:60D0:8A93:D178:D432 (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

seems to have been done Cannolis (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

references

  1. ^ Jones, Allie. "The Web Has Known About Josh Duggar for Years. When Did TLC Find Out?". Defamer. Gawker Media. Retrieved 23 May 2015.

Additional investigative journalism from in Touch

This ads another dimension to the story: Duggar Molestation Case — Another Bombshell Revealed: Josh Sued the Arkansas Department of Human Services. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Education, qualifications or lack thereof (27-year-old former executive director of Family Research Council)

A sentence about his education should be added. He was homeschooled by his mother and didn't go to college.

He has a GED. Source: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithgoespop/2013/03/josh-duggar-says-hes-moving-to-dc-to-work-in-politics/ (And if you watch their TV show, they say that all of their children take the GED test at age 16.)

Sources that say he was homeschooled:
www.frcaction.org/josh-duggar
This source says they use Bill Gothard's Bible-based homeschooling program Advanced Training Institute http://gawker.com/the-duggar-homeschool-programs-terrifying-advice-on-sex-1706406324
http://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemcneal/a-homeschooling-program-promoted-by-the-duggars-has-troublin#.tbMM543vO 12.180.133.18 (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

While it is true that he has only a GED, not every true fact about a person necessarily belongs in their article, especially if the intent is primarily to ridicule rather than to inform, which seems to be the way you are framing this. Dragons flight (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wording of Molestation allegations

The intro currently says the abuse took place "while they were asleep and sometimes while awake without permission." This is odd wording. A child can't legally give "permission" for molestation. I'm deleting the words "without permission."Sadiemonster (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This was a case where a minor molested minors. Duggar has siblings close in age, and the "without permission" is added per details provided in the sources to make clear this was a violation against the victims and not just a case of kids "playing doctor" with other kids. There's an incest taboo issue here and per BLP, it should be made clear that only Josh acted contrary to that taboo. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

New police report

Josh Duggar confessed to his father Jim Bob Duggar on THREE separate occasions to multiple acts of sexual molestation against his sisters and a family friend, according to a new police report obtained exclusively by In Touch magazine. The document also makes clear that Josh was 15 years old when he molested his 5-year-old sister and committed at least SEVEN acts of sexual molestation. [...] the Washington County Sheriff’s document makes it clear that despite Josh’s chilling confessions the Duggars waited at least 16 months before contacting authorities about the molestations [19] - Cwobeel (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to add any new information that's not already in article, with the exception of the exact age of the youngest victim, which publicly identifies her because there's only one sister in the family that was that age at that time. She's still a minor and the article text says remaining police records were ordered destroyed by Judge Zimmerman to protect her privacy, yet apparently this didn't happen.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I find this to be an interesting interpretation. The fact that one of the victims was his 5-year old sister is all over the press, and it has already been disclosed. So I don;t understand the rationale for trying not to include that info here in WP. The other information that was not include previously is that the Duggars waited 16 moths before going to the police. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The amount of time waited could be determined from the dates already in the article, but some people are lazy about adding it up or bad at math, so adding 16 months seems reasonable. The adding of text that makes it clear that it was a specific little sister, one who has not self-identified as one of the victim, doesn't seem okay, even if some in the media are doing it. The tweaking to "much younger sister" gets the message across regarding the nature of the abuse, while still providing some anonymity (given the number of girls in the Duggar family) to a minor victim who apparently doesn't want to be identified publicly.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
This information serves to identify one of the underage victims and I believe it should be oversighted. Liz Read! Talk! 19:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Identification of Victims and BLP.

Am I correct that Wikipedia policies allow for identification of victims if they are currently over 18 (and properly referenced), but does not allow for identification of victims who are currently still under 18 even if a proper reference for that exists?Naraht (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

We only have WP:AVOIDVICTIM, bit we still have to exercise editorial judgement. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
So any of his sisters regardless of age would already count as having been identifiable for reasons other than being his victims, and the babysitter wouldn't be.Naraht (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The report was illegally obtained

See here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/tv/ct-josh-duggar-record-destroyed-20150522-story.html

There is a serious concern that Wikipedia may be complicit in allowing illegally obtained personal information to be displayed in a defamatory manner. A judge has already ordered that the report and all copies of it be destroyed, which In Touch Weekly refused to do, and Wikipedia had, until I added the information about the order, refused to even detail the fact that it was deemed to have been illegally obtained! Certainly, there is no doubt that we must, by law, include that section, and there is a significant concern that Wikipedia may be breaking the law by having such an article. I thought that in BLP cases we err on the side of caution. If doing that, we shouldn't have this article at all, I think. If we must have it, we must include the fact that a judge has ordered that the exposure of the record was illegal and ordered for all copies of the report to be destroyed. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

A judge who was appointed by Huckabee twice, and has no jurisdiction outside the United States, where many editors and readers are located. Legal injuctions can be sent to WP:ORTS - it's not for editors to decide (WP:NOTCENSOR).
-- Aronzak (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Arktimes piece - the court documents were not sealed. -- Aronzak (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The destruction order was directed at the Arkansas authorities who held original copies of the report. As far as I am aware neither In Touch Weekly nor any other member of the press has ever been party to such an order nor has In Touch Weekly taken a position on whether they would follow it if they did receive such an order. Dragons flight (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
This is "old" news. The reports that were not destroyed are those filed when Josh was no longer a minor. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2015 | Add age 5

Please add that Josh Duggar, age 14 or 15, sexually molested his then-5-year-old sister under her clothes when she was sitting on his lap and he was reading a book to her.

As the Wikipedia article is written now, it makes it seem that he just touched teenaged sisters over their clothes while they were sleeping (which is how the Duggars are spinning this).

Sources:

12.180.133.18 (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --ElHef (Meep?) 13:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Being sued by alleged non-family victim should be in article...

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/duggars-facing-lawsuit-from-nonfamily-molestation-victim-62115?previewing=true

As a quick comment, 6 months ago, I would have been personally against including anything from In Touch Weekly in an article, and they may yet go back to Weekly World News level reporting. But someone seems to have actually found that real news reporting works... Naraht (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Ashley Madness

The Ashley Madison data dump contains tons of unverified information. Unless there is solid confirmation that Josh was really involved, the BLP policy demands great caution. Gawker is not an acceptable source. I can't log in to edit the page, but this needs attention.

Whether information was originally "illegaly obtained" or not is of no consequence for Wikipedia. What matters here is treatment/publication in reputable media and considering WP:BLP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
See WP:BLP. This is tabloid stuff at its very worst. "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Which governs this article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Not sure why are telling me this. I made no objection against WP:BLP (on the contrary) and I'm familiar with the policy, I merely pointed out that "illegaly obtained" is of no consequence for WP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This ain't tabloid stuff. The notability of this individual is directly related to specific values that he proposed through his public life, which are in direct contradiction with joining Ashley Madison. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia only reports facts. Making a judgement about specific values that he proposed is POV pushing and does not belong here. Nyth63 16:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The reliable sources all use the term "rumor" and specifically cite Gawker. If you believe Gawker meets WP:RS, you err. If you think this rumour is of encyclopedic value, you are wrong. Just like the person who put the POV header on this talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Gawker definitely does not qualify as a reliable source no matter how many times other repeat information sourced from them. Nyth63 15:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
At this point, even if Gawker were reliable, this information should not be included due to presumption in favor of privacy. Nyth63 16:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Well Josh Duggar however seems to be a public figure, so the publif figure section in the cited policies applies. So if "reliable" or "retutable" pick up the issue, then it probably belongs in the article. However there is no need to rush things, the sensible approach here would be to wait for a few weeks and then review all the publications on Josh Duggar and Ashley Madison and then eventually incoprorarte it into the article or drop if it turns out that all the publications bear no merit and are not reputable/reliable enough.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand the concern, and will patiently wait until other sources report on this before pressing the case for inclusion. But the reasoning for inclusion I stated above are valid: we have an article on a living person based on its notability (otherwise we would not have such an article). If the person's notability is due to espousing certain views, then material that is related to these views, be these positive, negative, or neutral are to be included for NPOV, providing that the sources are reliable. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Case in point (my highlight): The BBC: One allegation hitting the headlines is that anti-divorce activist and US TV personality Josh Duggar had an account [20] - Cwobeel (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Other sources:

  • New York Post [21]
  • Business Insider [22]
  • Fox 8 (Cleveland) [23]
  • San Jose Mercury News [24]
  • The Week [25]

- Cwobeel (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

... and presumption in favor of privacy, does not apply here whatsoever. Read the policy. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree that presumption in favor of privacy does not apply. This kind of content, however, needs to be written just right so there is no editorializing, no synthesis, and in no way attempts to lead the reader to any conclusions regarding Duggar's alleged involvement in Ashley Madison. Do I think it's true? Yes, most certainly. Do I think he's a hypocrite? Yes, and I also think he's a confused individual who is a product of his parents' choices and expectations. But none of that should be a part of how I would edit this article. Nor should such personal judgments and feelings be part of how anyone edits this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above except the presumption of privacy part. Anyway, the issue here is the reliability of the information. Every one of those supposed new 'sources' listed above are again full of weasel words like allegedly and source back to the same thing. Others repeating the same allegation does not make the original source more reliable. Nyth63 17:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
And I think this person does not quite meet the definition of a Public Figure. Refer to A fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate people to public figure status. Typically, they must either be: a public figure, either a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, or a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved".. I don't see any thrusting here by the subject. Nyth63 17:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
You've linked to the Wikipedia article on Public Figure, but what is editing policy regarding public figures and BLPs and right to privacy? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. If you look at WP:PUBLICFIGURE, the fifth and sixth word in the first line link to the article public figure, thus providing the definition to be use for discussion purposes on the linking page. Do you follow? Nyth63 02:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Note that Josh Duggar has posted a statement on the official Duggar family website admitting the the porn/infidelity reports here.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Link doesn't work, Ponyo. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Odd, it still works for me.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This one works: [26]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Ouch. We should include some of his statements from here http://duggarfamily.com/news - Cwobeel (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Nyth83: Given the public admission, would you withdraw your objection? - Cwobeel (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Nyth83: See Josh Duggar and his parents, Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, have released a statement regarding reports linking the 27 year old to the Ashley Madison website. The former “19 Kids and Counting” reality star admitted to viewing pornography and being unfaithful to his wife, Anna Duggar. [27] - Cwobeel (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
A public confession about pornography and cheating as such, isn't saying anything about having an account at Ashley Madison.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Read the sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
For example CBS NY: Former reality star Josh Duggar called himself the "biggest hypocrite ever" and revealed he had "been unfaithful" to his wife in a public statement after his name was linked in news reports to a data breach of the Ashley Madison adultery website. [28] - Cwobeel (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
YOU read the reports again. The key word is link. It a weasel word no better than alledge. This is WP:SYNTH on the part of the news reports. Go and read the original apology. He does NOT mention Ashley Madison. Any news reports that state this link are making speculation and connecting dots without proof. Still unreliable. Nyth63 11:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This is getting even more weird (see the updates in that article) [29]. As of now, the apology page is no longer available. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Funny, I can still see it here. Not sure what he is confessing to. A strict old testament interpreter can claim that just thinking about adultery is the same as actual adultery. See Exodus 20:17 about coveting. And no, the apology does not mention Ashley Madison. Nyth63 02:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Unacceptable subtitle in the article

I'm not sure that a separate subtitle is really necessary as the relevant information could be filed under "Personal life", but if a separate subtitle really is necessary the one currently used in the article (i.e., "Ashley Madison data breach") is totally unacceptable. It sounds like Mr. Duggar did the hacking which is certainly not what happened here. Could someone please correct this as soon as possible? 184.162.103.228 (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with it the way it is. It was the data breach/hack that revealed Duggar's name as a Madison client, and anyone reading the section can quickly see that no one is suggesting Duggar had anything to do with the breach. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I changed it to "Extramarital Affairs." The substance of the story, vis a vis Duggar, was related to his extramarital affairs and "porn addiction." BlueSalix (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
We don't really know if there were multiple affairs. We only know that he admitted cheating on his wife. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Good point. I've changed it to singular "extramarital affair." BlueSalix (talk) 05:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
It is way more than an extramarital affair, so that sub-head is not good either. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
see WP:CRYSTALBALL BlueSalix (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Should details of Duggar's alleged online exploits be included in the article?

WP:SNOW, clearly consensus is against this being included. There is absolutely no point allowing this to run for another 29 days when it will not be supported. Mdann52 (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A wide breadth of RS, including CNN, CBS News, The Daily Beast, etc. have taken time to report on specific preferences contained in Duggar's alleged accounts. Should it be removed? Specifically:

According to the profile on Duggar's alleged account, he was interested in "experimenting with sex toys," giving oral sex, and bathing with others.

Second, should this be illustrated with a generic image for those who do not know what a sex toy is? To clarify: the RfC is asking two questions, for (a) consensus to remove (not add) the above line (as it existed at the time the RfC was opened but was removed by an editor following the discussion beginning), and, (b) to add (not remove) an image. BlueSalix (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Survey

  • Include Mention / Do Not Include Image This is not UNDUE based on the breadth of coverage in RS. If this was mentioned in passing in one outlet it would be inappropriate, but the volume of RS specifically making mention of this makes it a viable part of this bio. An image is not appropriate for obvious reasons. BlueSalix (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Not just no, but "Hell No" It's totally unencyclopedic, unnecessary, and most definitely WP:UNDUE. Anyone for including such content should explain how knowing these things will enhance their understanding of Duggar in an encyclopedic manner. Because, I really can't imagine how it makes the article more encyclopedic at all. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
It is not unusual to include political, commercial, and romantic preferences in a BIO (when available in RS) to allow the reader an holistic understanding of the personality. For instance, Marc Allégret notes his preference for "Congolese women," Paul Bernardo describes his preference for "rough sex," Anthony Mirra describes his penchant for "group sex," etc. BlueSalix (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see WP:Some stuff exists for a reason. BlueSalix (talk) 05:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Undue. That's all that needs to be said. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, no, that's not really all that needs to be said. I've advanced a substantial argument with specific examples showing a breadth of coverage, specifically noting - in my argument - how it meets our criteria. While you are at liberty to make a one-word reply, you should be aware it may not receive the level of consideration in a consensus evaluation. For more information, see WP:POLL. BlueSalix (talk) 05:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
While it seems early in the discussion, I've added the RfC template per your request. Thanks, Mandruss. BlueSalix (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep the content on the affairs, leave the stuff about Duggar's personal fetishes out. The first is quite relevant to his notability, the second seems the very definition of tabloid cruft. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No Clear violation of WP:BLP. For anyone at all on Wikipedia, sans exception. Note even the Daily Mail is very careful with its wording - a sign that we are still in rumour territory. Collect (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No. Neither the picture nor the sexual fetishes should be included. We shouldn't report tabloid-style gossip about people, even if it does hit the traditional, mainstream news sources. It's enough to state that he was caught up in the scandal without describing sensationalist details. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • no as per various reasons above.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • No He confessed to adultery, not an extramarital affair. Not the same thing. The Early life section stated that he was raised as a conservative Christian. Matthew 5:27-28 reads 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[a] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. No sexual intercourse is necessary to commit the sin of adultery. Nyth63 12:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Surely you're not suggesting that we use WP:SYNTH via the Bible to deduce whether Duggar had sexual intercourse with another woman/other women? Beyond WP:OR, personal spiritual beliefs, and the synthesis that would result, he already said he was a hypocrite, so I kind of think using the Bible to conclude the level of Duggar's infidelity is off the table. Nonetheless, we can't assume anything, we go with what he said and what the sources say. The last I looked, the Bible isn't a reliable source for BLPs. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - It should be noted that the proposer modified the questions after multiple !votes had been entered, calling it a "clarification". Read the questions carefully. If a No vote is interpreted as "no" to both questions, that will appear to support inclusion of the italicized sentence. I propose that this RfC be withdrawn as WP:SNOW, as a procedural mess, and as a waste of editors' time. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

As you have chosen to edit war instead of respect WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, this discussion is made not in good faith. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No edit warring has occurred. Edit warring has a specific definition that has not been met. Your accusation is not in GF. BlueSalix (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
You have inserted the material, which was reverted with a substantial objection, and you reverted it back. Then after the material was removed again, you reverted as well. That is called edit warring. Learn WP:BRD. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I reverted it with a substantial counter-objection as it's not customary to trump an active discussion with unilateral edits, which is what you did. After the third revert I stopped to avoid violating 3RR. Don't start lobbing bombs. We're trying to build an encyclopedia, not kneecap our imagined opponents. BlueSalix (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Learn WP:BRD, and also WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Your most recent (fifth) block was for editing over a content dispute. It seems you're falling into your old bad pattern again. Does your participation here need another review? BlueSalix (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I have been very civil, but edit warring is not an option. This is a BLP, and you have to respect WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, which you did not. Note that BLPs are under discretionary sanctions. And yes, I have learned my lessons. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear you've learned your lessons. You have valuable contributions to make and just need to work on policing the tone and style of interaction you choose to employ with other editors. BlueSalix (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Chastisement and lecturing about something that hasn't been an issue in this discussion is pointy and unnecessary. If you have something to say to Cwobeel, do it on your talk page where he already commented. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Cwobeel has been cautioned by multiple admins not to post on my Talk page for any reason. While I'm aware, as you note, he violated this direction a few minutes ago, I do not consider that gives me carte blanche to simply say "all rules are off." I believe it is more responsible of me to simply ignore this transgression which I am doing by not engaging him in a forum he's under standing caution not to use. BlueSalix (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you done? Really hoping so. If you're not, you should be. None of this has anything to do with the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is off my watch list. Have fun without me. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The default position is for the material to be deleted while there is as on going discussion. Quoting from WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE: the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies.. Once the material was deleted, it should not have been restored until the discussion is concluded. User BlueSalix is clearly in violation of this policy for restoring the information multiple times.
Just to note, my closure is based upon the question as it was based when people voted, and what they votes seem to indicate, as opposed to applying this all to the "remove" statement. Mdann52 (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Creating Anna Duggar's page

Hello,

I would like to create a new page for Josh Duggar's spouse, Anna Duggar. I have created this page and would like to edit Josh Duggar's page to link back to this page where Anna Keller or Anna Duggar is referenced.

Thanks! Sugarmommy6745 (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Sugarmommy6745, you'd need to be able to show that Anna is independently notable outside of her husband. This is pretty hard to do with spouses or family members in showbiz since they tend to be known for their spouse or in relation to a TV show. The article that you made (which is now deleted) only mentioned her in relation to her marriage with Josh. Has she been in the media for anything that she herself has done outside of the show or her marriage? If so, you might be able to justify an article for that, otherwise this is likely to just remain a redirect to Josh's article. (I chose to redirect here rather than the show since there's a little more information here and would be more succinct.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Josh_Duggar/Archive_1&oldid=1083939234"