Talk:Jim Bob Duggar/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Cleanup

I have tried to clean up this article. There is some more information about the family, a link to their website (yes, they actually have one), and I removed the pejorative comments about welfare and the kids disinterest in Bible study (these are not proven or cited). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.190.62.54 (talk • contribs) 13:41, October 13 2005 (UTC)

Moved to Duggar family

Since the father is really only semi-notable for his past political career in state government, yet the family is extremely notable in popular culture, I've moved the content of this page over to Duggar family, cleaned it up, and hopefully will engender more participation. --Kickstart70-T-C 03:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Religious background

If they are strongly influenced by Bill Gothard, they are Mormons, not Christians. There is a vast difference! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.80.83 (talk • contribs) 22:06, June 17 2006 (UTC)

"Mormon is a colloquial term used to refer specifically to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" - Mormons ARE Christians. --Kickstart70-T-C 23:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Bill Gothard is not mormon!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.217.5 (talk • contribs) 13:07, August 2 2006 (UTC)

Mormons are Christians? What's your source material? You might as well say Catholic are Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.160.175 (talk • contribs) 06:02, August 14 2006 (UTC)

This is not the right place for this conversation. - Richfife 22:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Bill Gothard is not in any way affiliated with the Mormons. His background is from an independent Bible church in the Chicago area. His material (with which I am quite familiar) in no manner espouses the teachings of the LDS church. The only similarities the two have is that both are supporters of couples having large families. Quidam65 16:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I confirm the above by Quidam65. CyberAnth 19:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article is poorly written. Excessive use of parenthesis are throughout. Also many of the claims in the article are unsourced. We need to pay heed to WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS. I will work on this when I get some time. Feel free to be bold and get to work on improving it! Vivaldi (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

November 27 Overhaul

I just did a semi-major overhaul to remove the paretheses and useless wording. Feel free to revert, but I tried my best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.108.15 (talk • contribs) 03:24, November 28 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. —Mets501 (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Jim Bob Duggar → Duggar family — Jim Bob Duggar is best known as the father of the Duggar family, which is well-known in popular culture for the sixteen children born to Jim Bob and his wife, Michelle. Jim Bob Duggar, despite his political career, does not seem to meet the standards for notability on his own. However, the Duggar family is sufficiently notable for an article. I have prepared an edit of the article that features the content about the family prominently. Joie de Vivre 00:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Support - I've seen how this has gone back and forth by looking at the histories of both articles and this looks good. (I was going to say that starting with the third paragraph (The Duggars are highly....), the article was only about the family. Then I saw the Survey.) Please keep the redirect from Jim Bob Duggar. --EarthPerson 22:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I knew of both articles but have not looked back over them and the related AfD. I'm neutral on one or two articles. I'd just like a re-direct from one to the other should there be only one.--EarthPerson 18:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - in view of the exiting history at Duggar family, which was turned into a redirect after the AfD, a merge would be more appropriate, surely ? -- Beardo 17:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. AfD has already decided that we should have an article on JBD. This appears to be an attempt to bypass this decision, and I don't think we should have a bar of it! Andrewa 08:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please. This is not an "attempt to bypass" anything. I wasn't even aware that any of that had happened. If you look, I hadn't made any edits or comments during that time and I wasn't aware that this had already been discussed and decided. If you can manage to keep your hat on I will take care of this next year. Happy Holidays! Joie de Vivre 22:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Comment - this seems to be the opposite of the AfD discussion - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Duggar_family , where it was held that the family was non-notable but Jim Bob was (borderline). There is a history at Duggar family, too - hidden by the redirect. If we want to move, it should be a merge, not a move. -- Beardo 17:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Jim Bob Duggar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jim Bob Duggar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: Title Introduction

For some reason, this user, reverted my edits, labeled them unsourced and undid my message edit I left on their talkpage; failing to communicate his actions(mindless TWINKLING) -- if there is a reason for discontent or dissatisfaction with the edits feel free to discuss them here, since I've had no communication regarding them, I undid the edits again. Thanks. --97.100.176.192 (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. the so-called 'un-claimed sources' were actually titles that were derived from the article itself, in the body, and with such content it IS properly sourced. Thanks. --97.100.176.192 (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Jim Bob Duggar is not a politican. He was a politician. To claim that Duggar is a politician without providing any source, is not in accordance with Wikipedia's Rules. Furthermore, Duggar is not primarily known for being an author. He is known for being a television personality. When you have an issue with the article, then you should take it to the article's talk page as you've now done, and not the editor's talk page. Lastly, WP:CITELEAD clearly stipulates, that "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. Also, it reads "some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement." Removing inline citations quoting WP:CITELEAD thusly won't work. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you completely misunderstood WP:CITELEAD. "Neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article" very clearly states that it is optional, and thus its absence or presence can never be a justification for reversion. Your purported exceptions per WP:BLP also does not say exactly that. Emphasis mine this time: "some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned". The information in the lead sections are neither direct quotations nor are they contentious (things that require stricter sourcing requirements per WP:V anyway). That sentence does not mean that every single line in a biography of a living person should have a reference. WP:BLP is a very important policy, true, but it's not that anal.

The references you included are therefore redundant and unnecessary, as they are explained and sourced in greater detail in the text itself. Bizarrely, you are actually adding more clutter in direct contrast to the earlier reversion for WP:OVERLINKing. What you're actually doing now is WP:Citation overkill, adding even more references that all say the same thing with references already existing in the article, making it very difficult to even read the lead paragraph in the edit window. For an example of WP:CITELEAD being applied correctly, take a look at our featured article on Barack Obama.

This is also the first time you've mentioned that you had a problem with him being identified as a politician. Whether he is or was a politician (or what professions he is primarily associated with) is a question that was never raised in your previous edit summaries. And that can be clarified/discussed independent of wholesale reversion with a misleading edit summary rationale. Communicate, don't just revert.

I have no wish to get dragged into this, User:Amsaim you are exhibiting rather WP:BITEy behavior here. Is it because User:97.100.176.192 is an IP? I also advise User:97.100.176.192 to listen to consensus regarding the wikilinking of some of the terms per the Help Desk. And lastly, I suggest that both of you step back a bit and realize that this isn't a pissing contest. WP:AGF before this turns into an even nastier edit war and people start getting blocked. From an outsider's perspective, you're both squabbling over something extremely trivial. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Amsaim, there has already been a discussion, formal vote and I believe a policy regarding using was and is and the consensus came to conclude that despite someone was a specific title, they would still retain that affiliation. For example, canceled T.V. shows no longer were introduce as WAS but still as IS. --97.100.176.192 (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but a TV show doesn't equate with a person. The reason a canceled TV show is in the present tense is because (thanks to DVDs) it still exists. Duggar was a politician, and he is a former politician. I have corrected the lead. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Minor edit self-correction

Apologies: I removed a comma from the first sentence of the section, but incorrectly stated in the explanation that it was in the Biography. In any case, I removed it because two items in a list do not call for a comma. Gottfriede Brunito (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Involvement in Josh's sex abuse scandal

Jim Bob played a significant role in Josh's sex abuse scandal. I began editing this article last night and have been, of course, aiming for neutrality. If Jim Bob's role in 19 Kids and Counting merits inclusion in the article's introduction, so too does the sex scandal that ended it, which he was directly involved in. Dmarquard (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do not restore content removed per WP:BLP

Dmarquard, when content is removed per BLP, it's not supposed to be restored absent clear consensus that it's not a BLP violation. Stating Jim Bob was complicit in criminal misconduct based on tabloid and Gawker sourcing does not seem BLP compliant. The article text discusses that he went to the police. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I, for one, don't see a problem with Dmarquard's addition. It accurately represents what InTouch is reporting. And as the InTouch articles are at the center of the story, it is not at all irrelevant or inappropriate to include them. Just my opinion. hopefully a consensus can be achieved. Giving things time to settle down, in any case, probably isn't the worst idea. Wickedjacob (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

In touch is a tabloid type gossip magazine. It doesn't seem as if the opinion of a gossip magazine that Jim Bob engaged in criminal misconduct should go in the lead. As far as I can tell, no one from law enforcement has suggested Jim Bob was complicit in criminal misconduct and he hasn't been charged with this. The attempted addition to lead that he was "complicit in covering up incestuous molestations by his son" and following this with "according to the police report" seems very problematic. That's a gossip magazine's opinion regarding a police report. I've read the actual police report and didn't see where it said of implied that Jim Bob was complicit in criminal coverup.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but the police reports are primary sources, shouldn't we be using the WP:SECONDARY journalistic sources per policy for interpretations? 184.190.204.162 (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we add my interpretation of the police report to the article (although no where in the police report is any allegation of cover-up mentioned). My point is it seems in order to add what basically amounts to criminal allegations against Jim Bob Duggar, we'd need better sourcing than tabloid/gossip magazine per BLP.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Jim Bob and capital punishment for incest

Does anyone think this subject should be included? See his cached Senate bid website here where he states If a woman is raped, the rapist should be executed instead of the innocent unborn baby. Adoption is an option. Many couples would love to adopt and are waiting for a baby. Abortion has been and always will be the destruction of an innocent child. Rape and incest represent heinous crimes and as such should be treated as capital crimes.

Mostly on the tabloidy side of the news so far and of course the blogs, but so was this entire story when it first began, it will probably be touched on by the respectable ones eventually. 184.190.215.159 (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

And when they do, we can think about including it. St Anselm (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

We could include his position or rape and incest as candidate, but we should avoid connecting the two aspects unless covered in reliable sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Is a Huffington Post article a mainstream enough source? 184.190.215.159 (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

NBC News and TODAY have addressed the comments. 184.190.204.162 (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Quiverfull claim

I'm copying the following paragraph from what I posted on the discussion page for the Quiverfull article:

So, the rule on Wikipedia regarding things like gender is that whatever a person self-identifies as, that's what they are no matter what anyone else says. Contrarily, that then equates to whatever a person denies being, that's what they aren't no matter what anyone else says. The Duggars have unequivocally denied being a part of the Quiverfull, therefore, it cannot be stated on Wikipedia that they are a part of the group no matter what someone here or there claims in an article or on a website. The material in this article stating that they are must be removed and not simply and very, very weakly countered with a "They don't self-identify" line at the very end of a large paragraph. That sort of tactic would never, ever be accepted on a Wikipedia article about a transgender person -- e.g. a whole paragraph describing the person as male with a teeny, tiny afterthought of a blurb that the person "doesn't self-identify as a male." 71.55.137.219 (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Josh Duggar in lead

I have removed the recent mention of Josh Duggar in the lead as undue weight and inappropriate for a BLP. Please discuss it here before restoring it. St Anselm (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Why are the miscarriages listed almost identically to the children who are unmarried in the table?

i know the Duggars name the miscarriages, but without a death date, it's very confusing. Those were not live births, and legally do not count as children in the US. The color coding and formatting of the table makes them undistinguishable visually from children who are not married, yet. This is not *encyclopedic*. Nor is it good information design.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2021

This edit request to Jim Bob Duggar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the section where Josh's sex crimes are mentioned, it hasn't been updated to mention the current charges or trial against Josh at which Jim Bob has testified.

As it stands now, that section reads like the family's discussion of struggles and the lack of formal charges over the earlier controversy was a definitive end. Roac-8942 (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2021 (2)

This edit request to Jim Bob Duggar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Josh Duggar their eldest son was found guilty for 2 counts of CSAM on December 9th 2021 in Fayetteville Arkansas. 74.59.46.183 (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Jim Bob Duggar has lost his Arkansas state Senate bid

Please include it in this article.^[1]2601:447:4080:10:CC32:DEF1:B21:BD7E (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC) Done BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

References

^ "Jim Bob Duggar of '19 Kids and Counting' loses Arkansas Senate race days after son's child porn conviction". The Huntsville Times. 14 December 2021. Retrieved 15 December 2021.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2021

This edit request to Jim Bob Duggar has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Place in Other political activities: Duggar fails to make runoff in Arkansas state Senate primary: https://apnews.com/article/elections-arkansas-senate-elections-primary-elections-springdale-eaf7a3586e28a2f4453a2771196af788 2604:3D08:4A7C:5430:1FF:BDF3:9E04:1078 (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Already done This has already been added by BubbaJoe123456 per the above section under Political career. I do not see a reason to duplicate this information under Other political activities. —Sirdog (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

[1] "Jim Bob Duggar of '19 Kids and Counting' loses Arkansas Senate race days after son's child porn conviction". The Huntsville Times. 14 December 2021. Retrieved 15 December 2021.

[1]