Talk:19 Kids and Counting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Television / Reality (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Reality television task force (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject United States / American Television / Arkansas (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject American television (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Arkansas (marked as Low-importance).

New article[edit]

This is an entirely different article from the one that was deleted in 2006. While there may have been questions back then of the family's notability, I don't believe there should be any problem establishing such nowadays--Google News turns up 30+ news articles just about the announcement of their 18th child. Propaniac (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur. They are the subject of numerous TLC specials and now have their own TV show, are regularly featured on national news programs, and are generally noteworthy. Quidam65 (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Family Life[edit]

"Jim Bob Duggar and his wife report that their children are blessings from God, since his wife miscarried while on birth control and was able to conceive many more times once she stopped taking birth control." >No ----. You are usually able to have children once you come off of the Pill. Why does this even belong?

That tidbit has since been moved to Jim Bob's article, but I will answer your question nonetheless.
Why does it belong here? Because this family is notorious for having so many children. They say they had so many because the wife could not have children while she was taking the pills. Once she got off of it and a horrible miscarriage, she was able to start their legacy.Dasani 23:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
That's not what the user was commenting about. The user was commenting on the "Well...duh!" tone of the statement. If she comes off of birth control, of course she is going to conceive, unless they completely abstain (which, after 18 kids, it's clear they don't). I have since removed the statement and added an additional one that better explains it. --132 20:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this will help the first writer but, on (family website), it specifically mentions that Michelle Duggar was unsure as to whether or not she could again conceive after her miscarriage and subsequent end of birth control use. Perhaps this is where the statement came from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No Controversy Section?[edit]

I've heard and read lots of things that say having so many kids just isn't fair to the already existing kids. Shouldn't this at least be mentioned? Mrmcdonnell (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have some materials which meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources and verifiability and specifically discuss the Duggar family, not just large families in general, then it would be appropriate to add them to the article. Anything added to this article should also meet the policy on biographies of living people. I'd be happy to help you with a controversy section if you have some online sources that meet these criteria. Stardust8212 00:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Stardust here. There are general concerns about overpopulation and whether large families such as the Duggars contribute to the problem (if it truly exists), but these are common to large families as well; one could argue that the Gosselins' (Jon & Kate plus Eight) decision not to undergo selective reduction would fit this criteria. Also their support of Bill Gothard may be controversial but this is due to Gothard's views on subjects, which do not appear to have adversely affected the growing clan. If someone has materials about the Duggars themselves which may be controversial, and can be properly verified to reliable sources, then it could be added. Quidam65 (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
There either needs to be a controversy section on here, or on the parents' article. (Can't we just merge the two articles?) 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. -- (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I also agree with Stardust's opinion. The article needs to be fulling reviewed in my opinion. --ThyCantabrigde (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

All of the references in the controversy section were individual blogs and message boards. These are not reliable sources that support encyclopedic content. I removed the entire controversy section. If someone can find more reliable sources, go ahead an re-do the section. --User101010 (talk) 12:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

And now that controversy section is back. I don't want to start an edit war here, but that section really needs to be gone. I am again deleting it per the guidelines of self published sources: WP:SPS#Self-published_sources --User101010 (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree there should be no controversy section. There is already a link to an article about the Quiverfull movement which contains a criticisms section about having many children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

A controversy section would be fine, but keep in mind that it has to follow three "rules" (so to say). 1)It needs to be cited with reliable sources. 2)It cannot be the focus of the article. This article is about the family, not the criticism of the family. 3)It has to be about the Duggars, and only the Duggars. The source has to specifically be pointing out the Duggars. It cannot, say, be a criticism against the quiverfull movement (that belongs on the quiverfull article). If you keep those three "rules" in mind, then yes, it can have a criticism section. --132 20:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I came on here specifically to ask the same thing -- why the hell is there no controversy section? Aren't the Duggars in some kind of legal trouble? I seem to remember reading about it a year or two ago. Somebody add it, please. The article is WAY too kind to these people. I suspect a lot of supporters have been working on it.. -- (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no controversy section because this article contains biographical information and any and all comments that would generally be considered negative must be backed up with extremely reliable sources (please click that link to see what is considered reliable). Blogs, forums, and hearsay are not at all reliable and any information garnered from them cannot be included. If controversy, covered extensively by verifiable, reliable sources, can be found, it can be included. Until then, it will be removed. Thank you. --132 22:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why there is no controversy section talking about the families very strict gender roles. They are able to support those kids so I don't care what they do, but what about the gender roles. Women aren't allowed to wear pants and one episode two guys tried to cut down a tree and the girl told them how and they ignored her for several hours only to realize she was right. Just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This would be considered synthesis, which is not allowed in articles, especially articles about living people. Unless you can find and cite a reliable source that directly addresses this criticism/controversy, it can't be included as it would be considered original research. --132 02:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't it just be the heading, "Controversy", then underneath just link to the Quiverfull movement? You're not bashing them specifically, just pointing out that their lifestyle is considered controversial. Also, this article is wayyyyy too nice to them. It sounds less like a neutral voice and more of a coddling, "Oh, those sweet li'l Duggars" kind of voice. Just saying. Maybe somebody should edit the whole thing while they're at it. ( (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC))

Absolutely not. That would be the very definition of synthesis. You're taking one thing that may be controversial and trying to apply it to the family, despite there not being any reliable sources that criticize the quiverfull movement as it pertains to the Duggars. Besides, there's a lot of debate about whether the Duggars actually practice it anyway. --132 17:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, I really don't see how the article coddles the Duggars. A lack of criticism does not mean the article is coddling them. Period. Criticism could be added at any time so long as it is accompanied by reliable sources. The problem is there isn't a lot of criticism outside of a very small population that rants on their blogs and on forums, which isn't reliable. Unless reliable sources that can verify the criticism can be found, it just can't be included. Sorry. --132 17:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean "debate about whether they actually practice it anyway"? They have EIGHTEEN children who they constantly squawk that they are gifts from God! If that's not the very DEFINITION of Quiverfull, then I don't know what is. ( (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC))
Err, the quiverfull movement doesn't have anything to do with children being gifts from god. The quiverfull movement is about "being fruitful and multiplying" which means having as many kids as possible just to have as many kids as possible, not choosing to have many kids because you want a lot of kids. It's a fine, but distinct line. In fact, if I recall correctly, Michelle has been quoted saying they don't follow the movement. That said, this page is for discussion of the article, not the discussion of the family. Please limit your comments to improving the article, not ranting about the family. Thanks. --132 17:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry there, Thirteen squared. Just trying to level the playing field. After all, you seem awfully intent on preserving the family- er, the family's ARTICLE, without questioning the questionable. ( (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC))
Please make an attempt to start assuming good faith. I have no connection to the family and have only seen half of one episode. To assume that I'm trying to preserve the family is entirely incorrect. The problem you seem to be overlooking is that, since this article is talking about living people, it must also comply with WP:BLP, which comes with a lot more intense requirements for sourcing, especially for controversial information. "Well, there should be a criticism section!" is just not going to cut it. --132 17:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
"the quiverfull movement doesn't have anything to do with children being gifts from god." That's weird. The Quiverfull article says:
"It promotes procreation, and sees children as a blessing from God,[2][3][4]" [Special:Contributions/|]] (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
There's quite a bit of difference between a blessing and a gift. --132 13:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, please see guilt by association. The suggestion you brought up would be a direct violation of this. In other words, you're suggesting that since there is criticism for the quiverfull movement and the Duggars (may or may not) practice quiverfull, then there is criticism for the Duggars. This is, quite clearly, a fallacy and would not hold up, even more so since they're living people. Sorry. --132 17:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
TL;DR. Make a criticism section.( (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC))
If all you want to do is rant about the Duggars, please go get a blog on Livejournal and do it there. This is not the place for that. --132 18:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

All right, what about a CRITICISM section? Perhaps there isn't a full-blown controversy, but quite obviously there is serious criticism of their "lifestyle". Just look up "Duggars" in Google and you'll find hundreds of articles of people who disapprove of these parents as they list the countless reasons why, not just rant. ( (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

All controversy still needs to be covered under WP:RS. Unfortunately, the vast majority of sources just don't meet policy. --132 04:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm not a fan of them, nor the way they raise their kids. However, the sources do not meet policy. A blog doesn't cut it. Should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I edited this article to have a controversy section since there was none. It has subsequently been removed. I will provide what I consider several major sources criticizing their family. is fairly major media - Criticism of the Duggars.

Gay activist organization "Good as You" criticizing the family's support of what they call anti-gay people/groups. - Good as You has been featured on PBS and is not just a blog.

These are both legitimate sources. Also, the Duggar family website itself reference things like Young Earth Creationism. If young earth creationism isn't controversial, I don't know what the word means. They also have links to groups like the IBLP, which is controversial enough that it has a support group for ex-members, much like a cult (the group is considered a cult by some).

I request that this section be put back in. I would like to assume good faith, and I hope nobody's trying to protect the family. There is CLEARLY enough evidence that the Duggars are controversial to mainstream society by any reasonable definition of the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your second to last paragraph is that it is all synthesis and guilt by association and cannot be included. The Slate piece is an editorial blog entry and isn't considered reliable and I cannot find the credentials for the "Good As You" link which makes me lean more toward the unreliable side. --132 03:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, 99% of what you added landed under WP:SYN, WP:OR, and quite a bit of it violated WP:NPOV, nor did the citations actually source what you were citing. I'm not at all surprised it was removed. --132 04:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I request that it be put back in as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


There are many insinuated slurs about the family and their children via the links. IE 'video production' links to 'pornography' and 'mom' links to 'prostitute' —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the page back to a previous edit that wipes out the vandalism of this page. --devnet (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok somebody added Aspie to Jill Michelle notes, I'm not sure if it was vandalism but it was added today, so I'm removing it since it sounds like a slur. Unless Aspie is a proper term for Aspergars Syndrome I don't see why it should be there. Should of mentioned that this user Unicornmethlab added the Aspie comment.Anto103 (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if that's what it is, it's still not a good term to use and, even if the child has it, it would still need to be cited with a reliable source. Good move in removing it. Thanks. --132 05:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge Duggar family into 17 Kids and Counting. -- 132 20:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this article should be merged into the Duggar Family article because they say essentially the same things. --*Kat* (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


  • You know, I completely forgot about this show having a page, so I mean why not. But instead of merging with Duggar Family, why not merge it here with the 17 kids page. Makes alot more sense, I think.--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 05:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirecting Duggar Family to this page makes more sense to me, too. If they are the subject of future shows or specials, then Duggar Family would then be changed to redirect to the newest show or special.--User101010 (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with a redirect from the family to the show (like Jon & Kate Plus 8). I went through and edited both and, I swear, I read through the exact same article twice. Since there hasn't been any disagreement and it's been just over a month, I think the redirect should be made.. --132 20:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Birthdates and age listed in table and twins[edit]

Can we please discuss this now instead of mass reverting with vague, confusing, or no edit summaries?

I merged this information to this article a few days ago. I teetered between whether to have static dates or dynamic dates and decided to go with the latter for three reasons.

1) The MOS for dates of birth says to use the birth and age tag in infoboxes for people who's date of birth is known. This table is essentially a smushing together of the individual infoboxes. Considering it would be redundant to have 18 separate infoboxes with essentially the same information, keeping them together in a table makes formatting easier and the page look less cluttered.

2) The page for this specific tag states this:

"These templates...return a person’s date of birth and optionally his/her age...Using this template rather than simply inserting the date into articles allows for the inclusion of hidden metadata about the date. This metadata can be used by web browsers and other software tools to extract the details, and display them using some other website or mapping tool, index or search them."

This clearly states that dynamic tags are highly preferred over static dates. Also, the ages are optional. That means that it can be included or not included. Considering the subject matter, I think the ages are appropriate, along with the dates. The children are born incredibly close to each other. Showing the ages, along with the dates, emphasizes that. However, with just the dates, it can be incredibly confusing, overwhelming, and overstimulating simply because there are so many of them. I feel the ages with the dates makes the table appear clearer, more organized, and less cluttered and it doesn't require the regular user to have to have to figure out every single age or think about how far apart each individual child is, which can be really daunting with 18 of them.

3) This table was on Duggar family for months...literally (since August, I believe)...without receiving as many edits like this to it as it has in the past two days. Further, that article was edited by many, many administrators and established Wikipedians and no one removed or changed the tags. I feel this speaks volumes about how appropriate/inappropriate it is.

Since I'm also not sure it's clear, these dynamic birth and age tags automatically update the age every time a birthday rolls around. It does not have to constantly be manually updated. If this was the cause for concern, I hope that clears it up.

Now on to the issue of twins. I really don't see how denoting that they are twins in the notes section is a problem. There is nothing wrong with denoting it in the section specifically for that is the whole purpose behind the notes section, to make note of things that were different with that birth, clarification, and other information regarding that specific child. To continue removing the denotation seems ridiculous. I am just completely flabbergasted that this is even an issue and I really can't fathom any good reason for continually removing them. If you've got one, I'm all for seeing it. --132 21:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Concur with 132 on all counts: 1) the table is an appropriate way to identify the children, equivalent to the use of infoboxes; 2) dynamic auto-calculating age tags are appropriate, given the known dates of birth; 3) the table has been an accepted part of the article. I see no coherent reasons provided for the recent deletions of material, certainly no known policy reasons. Besides, the article is called 17 Kids and Counting! Dl2000 (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I also agree with 132 on all three points. I think readers would be disappointed if they read the article and still didn't know how old the kids were. What good reason could there possibly be for removing the table or the dynamically updated ages? --Andrew Kelly (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Why would readers be "disappointed" if there's no age mentioned? You mean to say no one can add and that stating the obvious is needed? Josh is born in 1988 and we're in the year 2009. The two, currently, youngest Dugger kids are still babies so their birthdays would be the easiest to add. I would think people can add the ages, all by themselves. Since when are ages included with people on any reality show? Why this reality show and not any other Also why these people and not celebrities? What's so special about these kids, other then there are 18 of them? Nothing that I can see.

It's not necessary and people will not be "disappointed". My first thought when seeing the ages listed is, why? Doesn't look right to me to have ages listed, it made me think that you're treating the readers like they're too dumb to calculate an age of a Dugger kid.

Also why put a note about twins when their birthdays are listed which would tell everyone there are two sets of twins in the family. Not to mention it's already mentioned above, in the summary about the show. I'd rather just have birthdays and that's it. No ages, no notes about twins, unnecessary stuff. (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"It doesn't happen elsewhere" is not a sufficient reason for removal. Maybe the other articles SHOULD list ages. The issue is THIS article, not those. Discussion should be related to this article and not those. I'm also positive this isn't the only article that mentions ages of characters or contestants in television related articles (for instance, all of the individual seasons of Survivor list their ages), so that point is moot.
You seem to be incredibly focused on how "disappointed" readers might be and insist that everyone should be able to calculate the ages of the children. How you, personally, feel is irrelevant to what should or should not be included. The fact remains that this is a legitimate tag on Wikipedia with a very specific purpose (that is, to convey the age of the subject). It has been around for an extremely long time and will continue to be around. You may not like it, but, honestly, that doesn't matter. If you don't like the tag and don't think it should be used, take that up on the talk page for that tag. Whether you think the tag should exist or not is not our problem. We're using it as the tag suggests. Also, the infant tag exists for the sole purpose of calculating an infant age. We are also using it as the tag suggests.
You have not brought up a single reason other than you don't like it and that ages aren't listed elsewhere. Neither of these points is at all acceptable for removal, under any circumstance. You need to argue your point using guidelines and policies, not feelings and opinions. Period.
As for the twin issue, the problem I have with you constantly removing them is that you remove them. You don't change it to something more acceptable. It should be noted in the table that they are twins and birth dates among a massive list of birth dates is just not sufficient. There are better ways to show they are twins that saying they are twins to each other, but instead of trying to figure out how to do that, you do a mass removal with the reason that it is "unnecessary stuff" when, in reality, it IS necessary stuff and you just happen to not like it the way it is.
So, try again. This time, please use policies and guidelines, not feelings and opinions. Also, do not change the table again until you gain consensus through discussion. A single message is not discussion and it certainly isn't gaining consensus. You have been reverted over and over again by myself and others. That means that your change is controversial, which means that you need to gain consensus before you change it again. Thank you. --132 20:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I move them because they're are NOT needed. You're stating the obvious as if no one can figure out how old the Duggar kids are or who's a twin to who. Also I've said before the twins are mentioned above in the summary about the show, so basically you're repeating yourself.

The question to ask is why were the ages and twin notes added in the first place? What makes this reality TV show family so special? I can look at Josh's birthday and realize his age without seeing on the tablet. Same with everyone else. Either you guys think everyone's too stupid or too lazy, which is it? (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If you truly believe that everyone is being too stupid or lazy to calculate ages and we shouldn't ever list them, then please take that up on the talk page for that specific tag (linked above) and get it changed there. Until then, we are using the tag in the way it is supposed to be used. It has nothing to do with thinking people are stupid or lazy. People shouldn't have to be forced to calculate (which is a two step process, both for figuring out the years and then if the current date is before or after the birth date) 18 ages when there is a perfectly acceptable tag to do it for them, which is widely used throughout Wikipedia just because you, personally, think they should calculate it based on nothing other than you think they should. Again, if you don't like the tag, that is another matter entirely and you need to get it changed at the source, that is, the talk page there, not here where we are using it correctly.
Whether or not it's stating the obvious as to who is twins to whom is your personal opinion, which has no place here. I think there are better ways to say it (for instance, doubling up that line and listing them both in the same row), but to remove the notation entirely is a bit ridiculous.
And, once again, "It doesn't happen elsewhere." is not a good reason for removal...ever. And, once again, this isn't the only reality/television show to list ages and it surely won't be the last, but that doesn't matter. We're discussing listing the ages on this article and this article only, not all of those other articles so please leave them out of the discussion. Thank you. --132 19:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I will also mention that in the entire time that this table has been on this page or Duggar family, the age tags and twin denotations were not removed by a single person. It has been around for months and, not only are you the first person to change it, you're the only person fighting it. You really need to look at the bigger picture here. You've been reverted over and over again by myself and others, the page has been protected several times because of the disruption, and you keep trying to justify it using the same, old, tired arguments and, yet, your changes continue to be reverted. You either need to get your point across better (preferably using policies and guidelines and in a less inflammatory way than calling people "stupid" and "lazy") or back off. The way you're going about it now is just not going to gain consensus and it certainly isn't going to get it changed to your preferred version. --132 19:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
There is still no valid policy reason or reasonable case presented to degrade the table by removing accurately autocalculated age information here. The existing table content provides context and verifiability, especially given the concept of this TV program. It's definitely not WP:ABF to provide facts in a helpful manner to many Wikipedia readers. Again, User:132 has made the best case here. Dl2000 (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I can give you a "valid reason", you want to treat readers like they're ignorant, plain and simple. Apparently they can't add. (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines are "valid reasons." This opinion of yours is not only inflammatory, but it also contradicts the very purpose behind the tag, which means that it violates policies and guidelines set down within Wikipedia. Thus, your reasons are not valid. The tag was created for the very purpose we are using it for (ie: to convey the age of the subject). If you don't like the purpose behind the tag, get it changed through discussion and consensus on the talk page for the tag, not here. Until then, we are using it correctly, according to policies and guidelines, and will continue to do so unless shown where and how we are violating current policies and guidelines. Period. --132 21:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

So basically me having an opinion means I have apparently to be "tagged" and called "inflamatory". Last I checked, I was entitled to my opinion, without using big or fancy words! Why do I even bother, when you guys have already made up your minds that readers are stupid and illiterate! I look at the ages and twin notes and think; you guys feel everyone who reads the information are idiots, apparently.01:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Please read the pages for assuming good faith and remaining civil. I'm not going to continue tolerating you throwing around insults and baseless, inflammatory accusations. I've left an official warning on your talk page. Hopefully you read it and learn from it. The way you are going about this is not going to get changes made in your favor and it's only going to get other editors to lose respect for you. Considering you have made very good contributions in the past and seem to genuinely want to help, not hinder, I just can't understand why you are still going down this path. --132 01:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have used rowspan="2" to merge the Date of Birth/Age fields for each pair of twins, and added a small (Twins) indicator to the DOB/Age. In doing so, some redundant information was consolidated into a more compact form. In my opinion, this is far less obtrusive than the "Twin to ___" notes, which will free these fields up to show when Jana Marie and John-David get married, etc. I also un-bolded, un-capitalized, and italicized the unborn baby placeholders to distinguish them from the actual names and birth dates. I believe that these changes represent a tasteful compromise between the two competing factions (either that or y'all will each hate me equally for being such a dunderhead).The Monster (talk) 04:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL, this was a pretty old discussion that hasn't really been an issue recently. I really like the changes you made though. It makes it far less cluttered and repetitive, but still keeps the notations. Thanks! :) --132 19:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I know it's old, but I just happened on the page and saw the clutter. I think this version captures each single fact such as "Jana Marie and John-David are twins", rather than pretending that "Jana Marie is John-David's twin" and "John-David is Jana Marie's twin" are somehow two separate facts. I'm also pretty good with the HTML and CSS under the hood; I'm one of those hard-core geeks that likes tweaking esoteric templates. (See template:NFLBracket/doc for the most complicated one I've worked on so far.) I'm taking a look at the two different Date of Birth/Age templates this page uses, with an eye toward making a single template that does both jobs (automatically shows ages under 2 years as "x months" and under some threshold like 3-6 months includes months and days–I haven't figured out the details yet. The Monster (talk) 05:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Moving this and episode list to new article[edit]

I've put in speedy delete requests for the two redirects blocking page moves for this article and List of 17 Kids and Counting episodes‎. If they're granted, I'll move the pages immediately. If they aren't, I'll put in a request at WP:RPM and get them moved. TLC is now listing the show as "18 Kids and Counting" on their main site and they have aired one episode with this title. I think we can now say, officially, that the new title is "18 Kids and Counting" without any hesitation.

For those who may be inclined to preemptively move the pages through copy/pasting, please realize that this is strictly condemned because we want to move the page's history, along with the text. When you copy/paste, you move the text, but not the history. Please wait until the redirects have been deleted and move the entire pages with their talk pages using the "move" tag at the top. If it won't allow you to move it, is because those pages haven't been deleted yet and you need to be patient and wait. Thank you. --132 19:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I decided to add a request at WP:RPM anyway. Hopefully we can get this moved soon. --132 20:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The move was made. --132 22:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The date for when the show changed their name is wrong. Listed is February 23 which is a Monday, the show airs on Tuesdays, so the date should read the 24th. (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll fix any incident of an incorrect date. --132 21:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


132, in their last edit to this article, said that they didn't know if they liked the new version of the table. In an effort to establish consensus, or to at least have a reasonable conversation, I would like to say that I liked the older version better and, to my knowledge, it did not violate any Wikipedia guidelines. Perhaps if enough people feel this way, we could change it back to the old version. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been in a string of discussions for a while if you look two conversations up. It kind of got jumbled in with the issue of tags, but, yes, I agree with you completely. THANK YOU!!! --132 03:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for changing the table back. Since it doesn't violate any Wikipedia guidelines, it seems to me like it ought to be formatted the way the majority of the people like it. And seeing as we're the only two that have discussed that particular change so far and we agree, I'd say we win! :) --Andrew Kelly (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Duggars not against college[edit]

The statement that the Duggars are against college, for girls in particular, is rubbish. In this article where the Duggar children were interviewed the children clearly stated jobs where college is essential - midwife, nurse, policeman etc: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That statement, as well as others added by the same anon user, have been removed. It was almost all original research and synthesis, plus it was poorly sourced, so someone removed it. --132 17:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I was surprised to find quite a bit more unsourced/poorly sourced criticism is still there, or has been re-added. I'm making some major edits to remove unsourced information, especially since WP:BLP applies to this page. --Ginkgo100talk 17:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
My mistake: I posted this on the wrong talk page. Disregard. --Ginkgo100talk 17:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Never mind again. I did not realize there is a merge in progress. My comments stand but apply to the Duggar family page, not the TV show page. --Ginkgo100talk 17:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
BLP still applies here because the show is about the family, which means information about the family is, obviously, going to be here and that includes controversy and criticism. It still needs to be as carefully sourced as the family page or biographical pages would be. The only way BLP wouldn't cover this page, is if we remove all information that directly pertains to the family (ie: literally just production, the names of the children/parents, and season/episode information with nothing specifically about the family). --132 17:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I will also mention that there was already a consensus to have Duggar family merged to here and the merge was made. I really think the fact that nobody bothered to discuss recreating that page shows a rather strong disregard for the way Wikipedia works. I think the recreation should be overturned and re-merged here until a new consensus can be made on whether or separate article is necessary. --132 17:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

19th Duggar Name[edit]

Hey!Can we pick a suitable name for the 19th Duggar?Names are switching all the time and we need to stop it.Narnia2514 (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The only name that can be included is the one that can be cited with a reliable source. --132 22:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
No, we can't name the new kid ourselves. That's up to the family. There's speculation that Jim Bob will call it Jarrett if they have a boy, however nothing has been confirmed. It has to stay at "TBA" for now. Dasani 18:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Johannah Faith[edit]

I've noticed that it says the Duggars' sixteenth child, a daughter named Johannah, was born October 8. The explanation is that TLC listed this as her birthday on their official website. My questions: Where is the source for it? When you go edit the table, it clearly states TLC put that on their website, but there is no link to reference such a claim. Also, even People Magazine stated that Michelle gave birth on October 11, 2005. Perhaps Michelle's due date was October 8 or she checked into the hospital that day, but she didn't have Johannah until October 11th. Anyone want to add a source for the TLC thing? Dasani 18:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Google, every site still says she had Johannah on October 11. TLC most likely misreported and/or misinterpreted the birthdate. Dasani 18:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
This page on TLC clearly states October 8th. People magazine is far less reliable than TLC. While TLC may have made an error, I'm far more trusting of it than gossip magazines and the websites that trust them. --132 18:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
To throw a twist in this, the episode that aired recently "20 Years, 20 Duggars" has her birthday as the 11th. I'm now more apt to believe this date as it is more current. What do you think? --132 02:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, I still believe it's the 11th. If it really were October 8 (which it could be, but if they put it on TV from the Duggars themselves that it's October 11, then it probably is), she and niece Mackenzie are the same age. I see it's been changed in the table now. (talk) 05:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I forgot to log in. That was me. Dasani 05:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Not same age, same birthday. Josh and Anna had her on October 8, 2009. Johannah was previously believed to be born October 8, 2005. Dasani 05:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hint for Non-American Users required[edit]

Please someone make clear at the beginning of the article that the whole topic and even article is neither a hoax nor satirical. International Wikipedia users from other English-speaking countries (Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa et al.) might not know American 'real life' entertainment TV series as they got their own national TV systems and will not understand that this bizarre family with their grotesque beliefs and lifestyle are American reality and displayed as something positive there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

While we're at it, could we make a few more articles about how America is the scourge of the English-speaking nations and use inflammatory language throughout, then pipe them via the comment above? (I'm only kidding.) On topic, while the Duggars' sheltering of their brood from most outside media sources (and firm belief in "Be fruitful and multiply") may seem unusual, it cannot be rationally classified as bizarre or grotesque by anyone. They're fundamental Christians, and Jim Bob Duggar isn't exactly Warren Jeffs; everything seems to be above board, if a bit stuffy and old-fashioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Changing "hugging" to "Christian side hugging"[edit]

I changed the entry which states " All meetings between a couple include a chaperone, and they believe in abstaining from most types of physical contact and intimacy until marriage, except for holding hands and hugging" to read "Christian side hugging" because it is a misrepresentation of the Duggars' views on interactions between the sexes. None of them ever give a full-frontal hug to the opposite sex in the show, but instead pointedly side-hug, even when Josh had just gotten engaged to his new fiancee Anna. To say they advocate frontal hugging attributes more lax moral standards to them than they actually have. I think replacing "hugging" with "Christian side hugging" is entirely appropriate; it was not meant in a spirit of snark or mockery. Vizzini101 (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No Info on the time of the show?[edit]

This article does not mention when the show currently airs, and I think this should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Josh's kids[edit]

I was thinkg, once Josh's second child is born, maybe someone could put a link to his name and start making a seperate chart for him and Anna. They plan to follow his parents' plan for the number of children, so it makes sense to start one this summer. GiantTiger001 (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed a poorly-spelled line in the body of the text about Josh's wife's third pregnancy. She hasn't had the baby yet. Should the pregnancy be stuck in this part of the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


GiantTiger001, we appreciate your eagerness to edit, but please know that your last two revisions were reverted because they are not according to proper wiki standards for infoboxes.

1. See to see what a "related" show is. They might be similar; they may even have the same producers, but that doesn't make them related.

2. Also see You removed the "preceded by" entries under Chronological. Something that's in the article body should also be in the infobox (and vice versa). They are basically separate things.

Thanks Musdan77 (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Age Template for Jordyn and Josie[edit]

I noticed that the age template for both babies show "2 years and 2 months" and "1 year and 2 months". Shouldn't it show up as 26 and 14 months, respectively? GiantTiger001 (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI[edit]

Just FYI, from page 92 of Michelle and Jim Bob's new book A Love That Multiplies: "We find it amusing how many reports copy and paste information they find about us that someone else has copied and pasted without checking the facts. For instance, even though Wikipedia and some Internet blogs report that we are part of a QuiverFull movement, we are not. We are simply Bible-believing Christians who desire to follow God's Word and apply it to our lives. God says children are a gift and a blessing, and we believe it." As I post this, I see no mention of Quiverfull in the article, but in case it is readded, I thought this quote might be good to have on hand. jengod (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

i haven't read that book, but is it possible they have had some previous association with the quiverfull movement? had some fall-out, and are now trying to retcon their involvement? in other words: have they ALWAYS said they had nothing to do with that group? Selena1981 (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Duggars on facebook[edit]

I believe that it's important for us to post that the duggar family members expect for Josh, Amy, Deanna do not have facebook, myspace and twitter. That way people know that they do not run any of these sites but Fans have sites set up for their family.--M42380 (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Your well intended beliefs not withstanding... (1)There is no source/citation given. (2)The second reason I gave for removal was that it is misplaced under the Online Releases section. (3)This article is not about the Duggars per se. It is an article about a TV series. (4)The use of words with all-caps is definitely incorrect. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
They have posted it on their family website and along in their new book. I don't know how to post ref. on this page. Here's the from the bookpage 231 from A love that Multiplies "The learning hannel maintains a facebook page for our series, 19 kids and counting, but at this pint none of our children living at home has a facbook, myspace, or twitter account, even thought there have been many impersonators out there pretending to be one of us." and this one is from their website: "The have received many emails from people saying that they are "friends" with members of their family on Facebook. No immediate members of the Duggar Family have Facebook accounts and they do NOT have accounts on any other social networking sites including Twitter and MySpace. Please report anyone impersonating the Duggars online to the administrator of the site(s)."

--M42380 (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

M42380, I just added a link to the facebook page (see how I did it) in External links. I think that's all we can do on this encyclopedic article. --Musdan77 (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


Why make 19 different tabs? That doesn't make sense. why not just use one tab for the whole list of grandchildren?!--M42380 (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

In the Family section are subsections, one for parents, one for children, and one grandchildren. In the grandchildren section are the only Duggar grandchildren there are (so far). The heading is made to show whose children they are. If and when any other Duggar kids have kids during the series (remember this article is about a TV series), then it will be decided on what to do. But that won't be for at least another year. Musdan77 (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Either one of us know when the other children will have kids or get married.--M42380 (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Amy's last name[edit]

This has been a matter of contention and confusion. Cousin Amy was born Amy Jordyn. She also used that name on her album. However, she currently goes by Duggar on her facebook page and other places (I guess, because she wants to be associated with the show). But, if anyone has a reliable source that says what her official name is, please give it. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Amy says it herself that she was born before her mom married her father. She decided not to take her dad's last name when her parents married.--M42380 (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Where/when did she say it? (...and why did she use Jordyn for her album?) --Musdan77 (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The comment above doesn't make sense. If Amy was born with her dad's surname (Jordyn) already and the parents married after she was born, how could she change it? Her mother is a Duggar. She would of had to have been born with the Duggar surname. As it is, the article currently reads Amy Jordyn. Dasani

I don't know. It's confusing. It's making my head hurt. All I know is: on her music career site (which is the ref. given in the article), It repeatedly says Jordyn, but when you click on her contact email, it says "amyduggar@..." --Musdan77 (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, I looked her up on Intellius (a bit too personal, but oh well) and she is indeed Amy Duggar. It lists her relos as Mary and James Duggar (grandparents), alongside Deanna Duggar (mother). Also see this page. Clearly, we should have it changed in the article... Dasani 20:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

20th kid[edit]

So as we know, the Duggars announced their 20th child. As such it was added to the article text and the table. But it was removed from the table per WP:CRYSTAL but left in the article text, it it crystal balling or not? You can't have it both ways.

And for the record, I don't buy the Crystal ball argument in this case as they have announced it and their is reliable sources. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 19:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The announcement is worthy in the text. The table is in the "Children" section -- for the children that they have. There are 19 rows for 19 kids -- because that's all they have yet. I hope that is "crystal" clear [wink]. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
LOL! That makes much more sense. Thanks. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 14:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No longer a 20th[edit]

This article has been temporarily semi-protected mostly due to a couple of anonymous IPs who don't understand that there are still only 19 kids, and were causing disruptions. Well, now there's a registered user who can't seem to grasp the fact (among other things) that the baby (unfortunately) died before it could be born. And it was not stillborn either. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Michelle & Jim Bob Duggar have approximately 19 (nineteen) children. Repeatedly adding a 20th child into an article that is called "19 children and counting" is disruptive editing, especially since the additions are unsourced. Adding a 20th addition into the list of Duggar children suggests that the Duggars now have 20 children, which does not correspond to the truth. Wikipedia editors like User:GiantTiger001 are strongly urged to stop their disruptive editing. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
She still has 20 children however the baby was born stillborn!--M42380 (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
As I said before, she was not stillborn. The baby died in utero (which means in the womb). Stillborn means: when the mother gives birth, the baby dies. Michelle wasn't even close to the time of labor. I put a wikilink on the word miscarriage in the article where it talks about the first time that Michelle miscarried. Please read that article. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
actually that's not what sill born means. Stillborn definition specifies that fetal death is termed a stillbirth after 20 weeks gestation or the fetus weighs more than 400 grams (14 oz). Once the fetus has died, the mother may or may not have contractions and undergo childbirth. Michelle was at 20 weeks when she miscarried Juilbee.--M42380 (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know where you got your definition, but I went to 3 dictionaries and they all say that stillborn means "dead at birth." And the very definition of miscarriage means "not carried to term." Anyway, it serves no purpose to debate about this here. Your disagreement is with Michelle and Jim Bob, and their doctor. Take it up with them. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Miscarriage is a term that doctors used as a woman is under the 19 week of her pregnancy. Michelle was at 20 weeks there for making the baby as a still born. I know where i got my definition because that is what i learn in my childcare classes. They cover pregnancy terms about stillborn and miscarry. --M42380 (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

read this article explains alot (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Your link is a deadlink, but it wouldn't make any difference to the situation anyway. This is a non-issue regarding the article. According to all reliable sources, the article is correct as is. Otherwise, the show's title would be changed (and that's not going to happen). --Musdan77 (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Since, according to this People article (,,20552978,00.html), the Duggars had a funeral for this dead child, who was named Jubilee Shalom, the Duggars, and everyone else who thinks that life begins at conception (e.g., everyone who watches their show?), would consider her to be the Duggars 20th (21st?) child. My God, the Duggars even took, and posted, baby pictures!! ( I think the table should include baby Jubilee. Lahaun (talk) 02:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

One more thing. This 14 Feb 2012 LA Times article ( identifies Jubilee as the Duggars' 20th child, not, "would have been 20th." BTW, the title for the Duggar show that TLC chooses for marketing reasons, is irrelevant to the factual issue of how many children, living or dead, the Duggars have produced. I'll wait a few days before changing the article. Lahaun (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No, not everyone else who thinks that life begins at conception consider her to be the Duggars 20th child. There's a difference between life in the womb and life outside of the womb. I repeat: the baby was not stillborn. It died in the womb. It wasn't a funeral. It was a memorial service.
It is unfortunate that the writer of that blog mistakenly wrote 20th child.
The fact is that this article is about a show called 19 Kids and Counting. We can't have an article that contradicts the title. And an issue like this would definitely need to have a consensus before changing. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
So, it's Wikipedia policy that personhood begins at birth? As I noted earlier, the name of a television show is totally unrelated to facts on the ground. "Stillbirth" = fetus dies in uterus, so, if your argument is only the "stillborn" count as babies, it fails. Lahaun (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The TV show (including its title) is the only thing that matters when it comes to this article. But to quote from the article you linked to:
"In the United States, there is no standard definition of the term 'stillbirth'. Each reporting area has different guidelines and definitions; many do not use the term "stillbirth" at all."
So that issue is debatable, but this is not a place to debate on it, because that is not what this article is about. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 December 2011[edit]

The Duggars elected to delay having children and practiced birth control.[7] It was three years before Josh, their eldest child, was born. They then resumed using birth control; despite precautions, Michelle conceived again but suffered a miscarriage. They did not know the sex of the baby, but planned on calling the child, Caleb (Source: (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: I'm sorry, not sure what the actual request/change is here. Shearonink (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe it is done. I know that the person making the request didn't really explain it. But, the first part was already in the article, and the last sentence was added a few days ago. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

21 and Counting: 19 living and 2 dead[edit]

This is a continuation of the earlier discussion, above, titled, "20th kid." I believe this article should address Michelle Duggars two miscarriages. Duggar herself, in her audio letter to her last dead baby, Jubilee, says she has had 21 children, not 19, and that "two are in heaven." See: The Duggars have even posted a photo of the dead baby on their website. See: One editor who makes frequent changes to this article, seems to be under the impression, for reasons that I do not believe he has explained, that only "stillborn" babies count as children. Well, although I do not agree that some kind of stillbirth test has relevance to the question, Duggar baby Jubliee was stillborn, according to People Magazine. See,,20553968,00.html Lahaun (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read the following carefully! I'm getting tired of repeating myself:
  1. There needs to be consensus on discussion page before making changes of this kind. (also, the lead was like that since it was first created -- and you didn't even give a citation anyway)
  2. This article already addresses the two miscarriages.
  3. You misquoted (or misread) that article. It says, "you were baby number 21."
  4. It doesn't matter what word you use, the baby died before it could be born. (and off-topic discussions are against the rules -- plus People magazine is not exactly the the most reliable source)
  5. This article is about a TV show called "19 Kids and Counting", not "19 living and 2 dead kids"!
  6. If you want, you could create an article for Michelle Duggar and put some of that info in it, but it doesn't belong here.
--Musdan77 (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Three responses. 1) I am not aware of a wiki rule requiring consensus before articles are edited; if there is such a rule, please cite it and you will have my apologies. 2) Are you saying you that you, personally, are a more reliable source than People Magazine; if so, please see WP:NOR? 3) There used to be a separate article about the Duggar family, but it was merged into this one three years ago, please see "Merge proposal," above; are you saying that was an erroneous decision? Lahaun (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  1. See these policy articles: WP:EP, WP:CON, WP:EW.
  2. I did not give any original research.
  3. Of course I know about the merger. It happened because they had most of the same content. Twice you've asked "are you saying that...?" Where are you getting this? Don't add things to my words. The answer is no and no. There is currently an article for Jim Bob Duggar, and some of content that was in this article was moved to his, and there's probably more that could be transferred over (if it has more to do with him and his family than it does with the show).
  4. No discussions in the edit summary field. See your talk page -- for what doesn't belong on this page.
--Musdan77 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I keep asking, "are you saying," because I am having a hard time understanding your rationale for wanting to keep the article the way it is. It seems to come down to:

  1. You own the article, contrary to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.
  2. It's been this way for a long time,
  3. Something about stillbirth, which you have never even tried to make clear, with me or with others, earlier, and
  4. Deference to what the show says about itself in the section about the Duggars personnally.

Perhaps reversion to a separate article about the family might be the best solution. To avoid the duplication that you spoke of when there were separate articles in the past, most of the Background section should be removed from this article and transferred to the new one. What do you think? Lahaun (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't own (or think I own) this article. Anyone who looks back on the history will see that. I just happen to be (it seems) one of the few editors currently monitoring it who understands what the article is about. There are specific types of articles on Wikipedia. There are television program articles (see: WP:MOSTV), and there are biographical articles (MOS:BIO), and the two should not be mixed.
Which brings us to your proposal. At first I didn't think it was a good idea, since there's already an article for Jim Bob, but then after some thought, it might not be a bad idea. If you want to begin creating that article, I will be as helpful as I can. Keep in mind that with 3 articles, there is inevitably going to be some (but not much) of the same info on all 3. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't clear. My proposal is to expand the Jim Bob article to include the whole family, not create a third article. Comments? Lahaun (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, you could add those things to that page, but the name would have to be changed to "The Duggar Family" because it would no longer be an article just about Jim Bob (though his politician infobox could remain next to his section), assuming that there would be info about Michelle and the pregnancies, etc. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed table[edit]

How about this? Is this a compromise? Note that the miscarriages are deliberately not numbered. I could not find information on the date of the first miscarriage. --User101010 (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


Name Date of birth Notes
1 Joshua "Josh" James (1988-03-03) March 3, 1988 (age 26) Married Anna Keller on September 26, 2008; has 3 kids
-- Caleb Unknown gender, miscarriage
2 Jana Marie (1990-01-12) January 12, 1990 (age 24) Birth via C-section
3 John-David
4 Jill Michelle (1991-05-17) May 17, 1991 (age 22)
5 Jessa Lauren (1992-11-04) November 4, 1992 (age 21)
6 Jinger Nicole (1993-12-21) December 21, 1993 (age 20) Homebirth
7 Joseph Garrett (1995-01-20) January 20, 1995 (age 19) Homebirth
8 Josiah Matthew (1996-08-28) August 28, 1996 (age 17)
9 Joy-Anna (1997-10-28) October 28, 1997 (age 16)
10 Jedidiah Robert (1998-12-30) December 30, 1998 (age 15)
11 Jeremiah Robert
12 Jason Michael (2000-04-21) April 21, 2000 (age 13)
13 James Andrew (2001-07-07) July 7, 2001 (age 12)
14 Justin Samuel (2002-11-15) November 15, 2002 (age 11)
15 Jackson Levi (2004-05-23) May 23, 2004 (age 9) Birth via C-section; featured in Discovery Health special
16 Johannah Faith (2005-10-11) October 11, 2005 (age 8) Birth featured in a Discovery Health special
17 Jennifer Danielle (2007-08-02) August 2, 2007 (age 6) Birth featured in a Discovery Health special
18 Jordyn-Grace Makiya (2008-12-18) December 18, 2008 (age 5) Birth via C-section
19 Josie Brooklyn (2009-12-10) December 10, 2009 (age 4) Birth via emergency C-section; featured in a TLC special
-- Jubilee Shalom Female, miscarriage on December 11, 2011
Oppose: I don't believe it belongs in a table. The info in prose is sufficient. If, however, consensus is for it, I will have to go along. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Dancing forbidden[edit]

This is worth mentioning in the article, in part because its so bizarre. The kids aren't allowed to dance. --RThompson82 (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The family just doesn't believe in it. --M42380 (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but dancing doesn't have anything to do with believing in it. It exists, its not god or anything. They forbid it, which is something completely different. -- (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
each family has their own morals and there is not to dance. --M42380 (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Josh's Family[edit]

May I make a suggestion? Once his third child is born, maybe make a colour coded table, same as the one used for Josh and his siblings? BBB76 (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe if this pregnancy is with twins. --M42380 (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Why woul it have to be twins? BBB76 (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


The show's logo, its official TLC website and sources such as People magazine [1] all indicate that the title has an ampersand, like that of the show Law & Order. Is there any reason not to retitle the article to reflect this fact? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have Dish Network, and it shows it with "and", while showing Law & Order as such. And the official site has it both ways. I would not be opposed to changing it, but I don't really think it matters. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the logo in the infobox makes the article title seem like an error. I'm a little confused: The show on Dish Network uses a different logo than the broadcast and cable versions? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I was talking about the title as it's shown in the info, etc. I just thought I'd mention that, since you brought up Law & Order. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, and I apologize for being dense, but I'm not sure what "as it's shown in the info, etc." Did you mean "intro," as in the onscreen logo? Or did you mean Dish Network's printed material? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I assume it's this way for all DVR receivers - when you press info on the remote, the description of the show comes on the screen with the title, summary, etc. I don't know how much "officiality" (or whatever the right word is) the logo brings to it. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The logo comes from the show's creators, whereas any particular onscreen-guide spelling is simply what someone at Dish Network or other satellite or cable provider inputs. TV Guide unfortunately is no help: It spells the show two different ways here. I'm not sure what to do, but given that the official logo in the infobox contradicts the article title, we have to address this somehow or other. Anyone have any ideas? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, if we want to go by grammaticality, an ampersand is usually used for when two things have an equal value, like: law & order, salt & pepper, or rhythm & blues. But 19 kids and counting is not like that. (my thoughts) --Musdan77 (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, and speaking as a professional editor here, that's really not how ampersands work. "Law and order," "salt and pepper" and "rhythm and blue" all are common renderings. No, what we need to look for is how a title is rendered officially and contractually via copyright and trademark. Now that I think of it, the US Patent Office has an online registry of trademarks — when one of us has time we might want to check that. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that the examples I gave can't be with an "and". But, there are rules of usage, and although there are times when they can be used interchangeably, there are times when they can't. But, having said that, I do know that when it comes to titles, they don't always go by the same grammatical rules as prose. And as I said before, I don't think it really matters in this case. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

In any case, we need to address the show's onscreen logo since it appears in the infobox and the different spelling creates confusion. TLC spells it with an ampersand almost everywhere, but in a couple of pulldown menus and such on the site, it spells it with an and. While I'd prefer to move the article to the official onscreen spelling that the producers and the network generally give, I think we can cover all bases with a text mention in the lead in order to make the infobox consistent with the title. Doing so now. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Why were my corrections removed?[edit]

Why were my corrections removed, and, more importantly, why were they labeled "test/vandalism"?

The previous language was obviously biased:

What I watch on T.V. is not limited to what this family might watch, and there is certainly nothing unwholesome about it. How I dress is not in line with the clothing rules this family has, but it is certainly not immodest. What these people consider wholesome and modest is purely a matter of their own personal opinion, and I don't see how it's Wikipedia's obligation to endorse those personal beliefs by allowing such biased language.

Did the person who removed my corrections even *read* the text before they did so?

- David Russell Watson — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the editor who reverted your edit, but it was not wrong to do so. Your added comments to status quo was unnecessary. Though I do agree that it should not have been labeled as test/vandalism. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


On September 26, 2008, Josh and Anna were married. In about four months into their marriage, the couple learned that they were expecting their first child. They learned that the baby was a girl and named her Mackynzie Renee. They welcomed Mackynzie on October 8, 2009 just a couple of days after their first wedding anniversary. A few months later, Josh and Anna learned that she was pregnant with their second child, however the pregnancy ended in a miscarriage.

In about four months into their marriage, the couple learned that they were expecting their first child. Why does it matter when the couple learned they were expecting? Does it add anything noteworthy to the article? Why not just state when the child was born? In about four months just sounds stupid. They learned that the baby was a girl and named her Mackynzie Rose. Why not just state the child's birthdate and her name? They learned the baby was a girl and named her Mackynzie Rose just adds useless info. Also why does it matter that the child, Mackynzie was born just a couple of days after their first wedding anniversary? That is not noteworthy, and happens to couples all the time,it's just more useless info.

On Mackynzie's first birthday, Josh and Anna learned that they were expecting again and that the baby was a boy. The couple welcomed their second child, Michael James, on June 15, 2011. They learned that they were pregnant again in September 2012, right after the family got back from their Asian trip.

Is it really important to note that they found out they were expecting on Mackenzie's first birthday? How did they find out what the sex of their baby was on the day they found out SHE was pregnant? Did she take a magical pregnancy test at home that stated its a boy on the test? Most women don't find out the sex of a baby until around the fourth or fifth month of pregnancy,usually from an Ultrasound. This is why the facts need to be simple. Why not just state that Josh and Anna had a second child, a son named Michael James, born June,15, 2011? Is the word welcomed really necessary? This isn't a local newspaper announcement.

They learned that they were pregnant again in September 2012, right after the family got back from their Asian trip. Why in the world does it matter when SHE found out she was pregnant? Also, THEY are not pregnant. SHE is. A man cannot be pregnant. I know it's the cute for couples to say we're pregnant, but its not true. A woman is pregnant,a man is not.

Marcus Anthony joined his family on June 2, 2013 under the care of a midwife at her home. Again, this is not a birth announcement in a newspaper. Joined his family? Why not just state that Josh and Anna have 3 children,list the names and birth dates at be done with it? (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)