Talk:Suleman octuplets/Archive 1

Picture

Would it be possible, under fair use rules, to use a small image of the press conference that virtually every news agency is using? [1]. It is tagged with the copyright: (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes). Has the tag line: Drs. Karen Maples (left), Harold Henry (right) and Mandhir Gupta take questions at a news conference at the Kaiser Permanente ... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure it really adds to the user's understanding of the article, which would be part of the justification under the "Purpose and Character" prong of the fair use doctrine. SDY (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Beyond what Somedumb has said, there are multiple problems. Firstly if the image is copyrighted AP that means they are making money of it. We very rarely use media images unless they are so iconic (e.g. the burning girl in Vietnam) that we aren't likely to result in a loss of profit. In a case like this, there's a good chance we are. The other issue is we almost never use fair use images of living people solely to show what they look like. It's not clear there's any reason why people need to see the press conference so it seems likely the image is there solely to show what the people look like. Nil Einne (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Maiden name - Gutierrez

According to ABC article, Gutierrez is her assumed last name when she was married to Marcos Gutierrez. Given that they are divorced, I don't think it is appropriate to state that "Nadia Suleman Gutierrez" is still her name. I think it should only be noted that she had gone by that name in the past. --Voidvector (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Identity of Mother

Why is Wikipedia so behind the times? This woman has already been identified by every news outlet. Latest from ASSOCIATED PRESS:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ilIx-PXnXPpwF1a_nlRYF00fzBIQD961UN600

"Multiple births this big are considered impossible without fertility treatment, but the doctors who delivered the babies would not say whether 33-year-old Nadya Suleman had used fertility drugs or had embryos implanted in her womb... Nadya Suleman's fertility doctor has not been identified. Her mother told the Los Angeles Times all the children came from the same sperm donor, whom she declined to identify. However, birth certificates reviewed by The Associated Press identify David Solomon as the father of Nadya Suleman's four oldest children..."

Radiomanny (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Wiki should reflect what's current. If the info is false, it can always be updated. At any rate, there is no liability here since every news report has identified the woman, including every TV show last night. Chances are your newspaper already has her name in it this morning. Marie jj (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I just looked at my little local newspaper and her name was right there: Nadya Suleman. People, get with it and quit being so anal. Frankmathis (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is Nadya going to sue for revealing her identity? Her mother? Basesalt (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Lawsuits are not our primary concern. Our WP:BLP policy goes further then what's required by law. Also wikipedia is not a newspaper but an encylopaedia so if you want the latest info, you really should check out a newspaper not wikipedia. If you don't like your local paper, check out wikinews Nil Einne (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You're way off base. Name one other wikipedia article where the identity of the subject is public knowledge and wikipedia keeps the subject anonymous.Rocky 17:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sudanese goat marriage incident Sumbuddi (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is somewhat irrelevant. My point was that it doesn't matter whether we're going to be sued, it's not our primary concern and we don't aim to cover latebreaking news so if people want late breaking news then they should be checking out a news paper Nil Einne (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your "point" was in response to a comment that asked why wikipedia shouldn't publish her identity. If anything, your comment about "latest info" was more irrelevant than subsequent comments that actually deal with putting the woman's identity on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.72.193 (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't publish her info when it was not well sourced and ubiquitious which I presume it was not at the time. As you can see if you bother to read the discussion above, some editors believe lawsuits are our primary concern, I accurately pointed out they were not. If you bother to read WP:BLP (have you?) you will find out for yourself. Some editors also seemed to be complaining that we were behind news sources. As I accurately pointed out, this should always be our intention and if people want news, they should read news sources, like their local paper or wikinews. In other words my point was entirely appropriate to the discussion that was taking place. Note that if you'd bothered to check out the history, you would have found out that when I made my point, the name was already in the article (see [2] and [3] if you don't believe0, and I made no attempt to remove it nor did I suggest anywhere above it should be removed. Addressing issues that come up within a discussion, even if they are subsequent to the original discussion, is entirely appropriate Nil Einne (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/31/earlyshow/health/main4766068.shtml says "her family supplied her name for The AP to make public." Wiki is supposed to be BOTH accurate AND real-time. If a newspaper (you know, the kind printed on tree paper and delivered by a newspaper boy) is more up-to-date than Wiki, then there is something wrong Davecolt45 (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia dosn't have things like reporters and newswires. We can't source live tv news broadcasts until they publish it. We don't have 24h staff in the hundreds whos only job is to write news as it happens. So yes, wiki is going to behind the conventional news outlets. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

wiki may be behind conventional news outlets, but being behind on purpose shouldn't be an actual goal of wikipedia editors.

Actually it should be. As has already been mentioned, we are an encylopaedia and not a news source. If you want a news source, you really, really should be checking out one like wikinews. As an encyclopaedia, we have many content guidelines. For example, names are not always included if they don't have widespread coverage. For BLPs, it is vital, we ensure information is well sourced and widespread before we mention it. We don't worry about gossip and we don't aim to cover late breaking news nor do we aim to be realtime. If we are ahead of news sources, then there is something wrong with wikipedia. If you are unwilling or unable to accept any of this, wikipedia isn't the place for you. Nil Einne (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that wikipedia should be behind news sources in terms of timeliness. However, that is quite different from saying that it should be a goal of wikipedia editors to be behind on purpose. If a fact is verifiable by multiple reputable sources (dozens of them, in this particular case) there's no reason to not go ahead and update the page with that fact. No one is publishing gossip by putting this woman's name on the page. It seems that you were adamant at one point about not putting her identity here, and now you're really reaching to make a different point that really, no one is arguing about. The whole question was "should Nadya Suleman's name be on this page", and I think the answer at this point is rather obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.72.193 (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? I was not involved at all in the discussion of including the name and only joined the discussion after the name was already in the article and did not attempt to remove it. Instead of making baseless personal attacks, perhaps you should actually check out an article's history? And yes, it should be our goal to be behind news sources on purpose because by definition we can't make sure all our information is adequetly sourced unless we wait for that information to be published in reliable sources. It is important, that editors understand BLP policy and BLP policy is clear that names should only be included when well sourced and already relaively ubiqutious, not before. If you are unwilling or unable to understand please don't edit wikipedia Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You were clearly unreasonable. Admit you were wrong once in a while. If every news source has confirmed and double and triple-checked that the sky is blue, and after every newspaper from Peoria to Podunk, Siberia has committed it in print as fact, will you insist that Wikipedia says the sky is not blue? KlotzEsq (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. Once every news paper has printed it then maybe it will be appropriate to include it in the article. But clearly not before as many people suggested it should be. Note as I mentioned above, I never asked for, nor attempted to, remove the name, I only joined the discussion after the name was already in the article and well sourced. Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Longest-living octuplets in history?

Having survived the week, the Suleman octuplets became the longest-living octuplets in U.S. history (S.F. Chronicle, February 2, 2009.)[4] I don't know if Wikipedia's list of multiple births is complete and comprehensive, but is anyone aware of octuplets outside the U.S. who have lived longer? — Doppo145 (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

In just the last hour, Newsday is referring to the Suleman octuplets in a story as the "world's longest surviving octuplets." I have updated the entry. — Doppo145 (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(To be accurate, Newsday first used the "world's longest-living octuplets" locution about 17 hours ago on a story compilation page.[5] "Longest-living" is Wikipedia's formulation, of course. Do Newsday's overnight editors read Wikipedia and its Talk pages? What did journalists do before Wikipedia?) — Doppo145 (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement that the Suleman octuplets are the longest surviving octuplets suggests that none of the past octuplets had survived. Am I mistaken in this interpretation? Would it be a good idea to clarify that in all other octuplet births, one or more of the children have died soon after birth, thus making the Suleman octuplets the first to survive, in entirety (meaning all eight), for more than a week? Wiki emma johnson (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

largest surviving multiple birth in history

When will journalists begin saying this? — Doppo145 (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

They need to, because it appears all eight will survive.--Susan Nunes 8 February 2009

Nadia Suleman page needed

I am the original poster on this and yes, it was hacked and deleted. If someone knows how to revert it, please do. I had said that there needs to be a page about Nadia Suleman, not just the birth. She is an absolute sociopath, having done this expensive and dangerous birthing of eight babies while already having six babies, receiving welfare, food stamps, and two kinds of disability, and all the while managing to get as much cosmetic surgery as Michael Jackson. She is a real piece of work that people would like to read about. To say that someone who every media outlet in the world wants to interview is unworthy of a free Wiki entry is laughable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.211.40 (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(someone else removed the original post in this section, I imagine because it disparaged the mother) Townlake (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E. In fact, I'm concerned the article currently gives undue weight to the bio of the mom. Townlake (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A separate page is not needed, but, yes, this article has too much info on the mother when the article is on her offspring. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

While I think it would be difficult to separate the octuplets from the mother on Wiki, I do think that the mother's background deserves more attention. -Wiki emma johnson (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Her plans are to become a "television (childcare) exert". Pop quiz: is that likely to make her more or less notable in her own right?--Spellage (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Were it only that we could just ignore her completely. --Trefalcon (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to include...

Suleman reportedly lives with her children and parents in a 1,550-square-foot home[35] in Whittier, California,[13][21] on a cul-de-sac[13] in a neighborhood described as having small one- and two-story homes with two or three bedrooms,[21] in a largely lower- to middle-income, predominately Hispanic community. The Suleman residence is described as a "ramshackle house with a barren front yard. A front window is held together with electrical tape."[28]

all this? Next thing we could do is tag Ms. Suleman with a transmitter and have her every move followed...
(This is not an earnest suggestion, as I regrettably find necessary to add.)
--128.176.93.234 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC).

That is beyond ridiculous. Maybe in a few years it will look better, but for now, such a high profile news event will invite this kind of nonsense. Anyways, point noted. --Tom 19:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed some of that less-important stuff.--Spellage (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I neutrality-tagged the article due to the critical description of, and strong focus on, the mother. The article is supposed to be about the octuplets, but currently it's functioning as a coatrack. Townlake (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed it. At best, the NPOV objection applies to the "Personal Life" section (but even that is not a true "coatrack," in my opinion). It's unfortunate that facts have been doled out and accumulated the way they have been, but I think the article reflects good NPOV practices given the unusual circumstances of the octuplets' birth, the intense media scrutiny, etc. We've been good here on Wikipedia not to editorialize and psychologize about Ms. Suleman. It's not correct to tar the whole article with NPOV. — Doppo145 (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have made a few new sections to help sort the matter out.--Spellage (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Matching baby names to letters

In her interview, she identified Noah as Baby A, Isiah as Baby C, Nariah as Baby D and Jeremiah as Baby F. Should these be put into the article? Also, Jonah was the "tiniest one" and "troublemaker". Matching names to letters would remove confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.179.18 (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Suleman has connected names to some of the birth letters, and it would be good to begin a chart with the known information.

We know of three birth weights as well: the largest baby at 3 lbs 4 ounces, the smallest baby at one lb 8 ounces, and "Baby F," a boy who weighed 2 pounds 12 ounces. — Doppo145 (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Will people call them the Suleman octuplets or the Solomon octuplets?

AP reported the last name given to them is Solomon. Tripodian (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that they are "best known as" by the Suleman name. Since Nadya Suleman plans a career as a "television (childcare) expert", it would seem to me that unless her career is factored out of this article, it just does not matter. Clearly, the pre-verbal infants not yet branded (in the crass marketing sense that they are some sort of entertainment product) and the legal names of these minors hardly seems to be the point. For instance, I would expect that any upcoming books will be authored by the Nadya Suleman name since that is how she has been referred to in her first round in the press.--Spellage (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Definitely Solomon when they're in school. For now Suleman and Solomon sound kinda the same anyhow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chevyrepoman (talk • contribs) 04:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that the 'father' has the same name as the mother? David Solomon is the Anglicized version of Doud and Suleman. Many Arab Americans with the names of Doud/Daoud have changed their names to David and Suleman is Arabic for Solomon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kickitmama (talk • contribs) 14:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

David=Doud and Solomon=Suleman so, are you suggesting that we should ask if the grandfather is the biological father of his own grandchildren and that the IVF was incestuous? If this were some sort of back-alley IVF (if such a thing exists) then maybe it would lead somewhere but that is not the case here. If this were fiction, then I would allow for the possibility since name-mutation is a common literary technique. You are free to investigate further but I am inclined to think it is just an odd coincidence.--Spellage (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I was vague. I have been questioning for days whether the name of the father was another figment of her imagination. I was trying to say that she made up the name. Her father was reported in a newspaper (I read this after I posted) that she had made up the name of David Solomon and whomever is the sperm donor isn't her boyfriend and isn't named David Solomon. He was upset that she had falsely put it on at least four of her older children's birth certificates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kickitmama (talk • contribs) 21:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yikes! With what the grandfather is saying today (that "David Solomon" is not the bio father's true name), my confidence is shaken. Well, let's hope the next headline does not refer to incest. Putting a false name on a birth certificate is a felony, so headline of "Octomom behind bars" is no longer out of the question.--Spellage (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That marketing-branding of the octs is clinched with the new web site name: http://www.thenadyasulemanfamily.com/ . Less than three weeks old and the octs are already branded for life.--Spellage (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

So is Solomon the octuplets' legal last name? AP ref seems to say so. Or do they go by Suleman while the six go by Solomon? Tripodian (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Religion of the Octuplets

In the article it says she's half Arabic and Lithuanian Protestant but I find that hard to believe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania#Religion 666isMONEY (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Lithuania is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic, but her father is Mid-Eastern (Muslim? Catholic? whatever...), her mother Lithuanian(or is it the other way around?), the biological father's name is Solomon (Jewish?), she has admitted to being "unconventional". I would not be shocked if she described herself as merely part of Abrahamic religions or Ecumenism or whatever. She does mention her "church" as part of her support system so I would take a wait-and-see approach.--Spellage (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In the Islamic religion children are born Muslim and then convert to other religions not sure if the bloodline follows the father (I think it does), unlike Jews, who are born to a Jewish mother.

In regard the "Protestentism," we'll hafta wait on that 'cause the church she said was going to give her a house and help denied knowing her. (See, "Ethnicity of the Octuplets," below.) 666isMONEY (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The grandparents

Let us avoid getting into any cat fights that might emerge between the mother and the grandparents. If the grandparents divulge additional info, then just share the factual info as such and let it go at that. If the mother and grandmother have disagreements of opinion, then that is just typical, non-notable parenting differences or hurt feelings or whatever.--Spellage (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Her mother Angela is providing a healthy "reality check" to what her daughter is saying on TV, and so far her mother has come across to most people as more credible - or at least more grounded/reality-based. If it hadn't been for Angela, all we'd have is Nadya and her publicists... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.55.116.255 (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Let us keep in mind that the grandmother seems to disapprove of some of her daughter's behavior. Let us play the role of Joe Friday and strive for: "Just the facts, ma'am".--Spellage (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Names

The names Maliyah, Nariyah and Makai agree with the first source cited. However, the second source cited (and everywhere else that I have seen) gives them as Maliah, Nariah and McCai. (I remember as they are such horrific names!) It's difficult to just go with the commoner versions, though, as at this stage so many sites may just be copying each other. Salopian (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Since I wrote the above a short time ago, the wording has been changed to "The babies' names are Noah Angel, Jonah Angel, Jeremiah Angel, Josiah Angel, Isaiah Angel, Maliyah Angel, Makai Angel and Nariyah Angel. All share the middle name Angel and the last name Solomon." The change is that Angel is now specified in each case as well as stated generally in the second sentence. This repetition just sounds idiotic.

Also, the names are given under the Birth section. This makes no sense as they are not listed with their birth weights or in birth order, and they were not named till they were two weeks old. Salopian (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes the paragraph looks and sounds idiotic.Chevyrepoman (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph might still look idiotic, but I updated the names and added another ref. It seems that the early AP article source got it wrong.--Spellage (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That name spelling "McCai" is especially suspect. I changed them back for now. Can you find some more research on these spellings?--Spellage (talk) 08:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

http://www.thenadyasulemanfamily.com/ check here for any doubt, probably the most reliable source for the moment. Sky83 (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP and this article

While thorough information is wonderful, the names of the children are not relevant to the topic discussed. Ms. Suleman is WP:NPF, and her children in particular are for the most part out of the public eye.

Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and personal information and details should be avoided when they are not relevant to the story. Notes which give context on the family's financial status (i.e. the residence) or that might affect the mother's ability to care for the children are fine (i.e. one of the children has autism), but more is not better on details when they do not add to the reader's understanding of the social, ethical, historical, and medical issues presented. SDY (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The woman herself has given out the names of all her kids, listing those isn't an invasion of privacy at all [6]. And if the woman is making TV appearances and hiring a PR firm, she's hardly a NPF. --Minderbinder (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

She is notable for only one event, and her other kids are definitely not notable. This isn't a privacy issue, it's a "what an encyclopedia covers" issue. SDY (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The other kids are (probably) not going to get their own, individual BLP. But this post-TV-interview Ann Curry article trots the them out on the last page with the line "Meet the six children whose lives are about to change dramatically..." and then the older ones get prompted with a friendly Q&A. It is not like the Internet is going to forget their names...--Spellage (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because it's verifiable doesn't mean that this article must be a collection of all possible trivia that has been reported about the family. Why are the names of the other children relevant? SDY (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The names have been removed and I am OK with that.--Spellage (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The other kids aren't individually notable, but the fact that she had six kids already is notable. --Minderbinder (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That there are six of them is relevant. Their names are not. Honestly, I WP:DGAF, but it doesn't seem right to me. SDY (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not care one way or the other, but there seems to be an appetite for the names of all the cute darlings amongst our editors.--Spellage (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section should be inclusive

I am inclined to merge all the sideshows into the "controversy" section. For now, that includes the Medical Board stuff. The relatives (grandparents) are not sideshows. This article seems to be drifting about from being about the octuplets and rather more like a pseudo-BLP for everyone involved with their creation. It is certainly a pseudo-BLP for the mother. My expectations are that a few more "controversies" are going to erupt so let's just let that stuff pile up in that one section. Again: "Just the facts, ma'am."--Spellage (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie obsession

I'm not sure how reliable this source is [7], but it seems that Suleman has an unhealthy obsession with Angelina Jolie, perhaps even undergoing cosmetic surgery treatments to look more like her. I think the article would benefit from a section devoted to, or at least a mention of, this issue -- Suleman is obviously a deeply disturbed person, and this provides more of a motivation for her irrational acts. D haggerty (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not (or at least not supposed to be) an article about Ms. Suleman. See WP:BLP1E. SDY (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought she was acting more like Gene Simmons or Steven Tyler. For now, I would say that her specific appearance and current/former antics are not yet notable. Let's at least wait until Nadya starts wearing false-color contact lenses to get her irises to match.--Spellage (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, this octuplet thing is so deliberate that I think I will reverse myself. While they are in Los Angeles and the grandmother's name is Angela, the babies' middle name is Angel and... Angelina....yeah, that was deliberate also and not an act of God (although her professed deep faith in God may have affected her taste or judgment or whatever).--Spellage (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I find after reading the "references" to articles about the so called "Angelina Obsession" reinforce the belief that people are sheep. All of the references are to tabloids, blogs or "news" stories based upon nothing more than a tabloid magazine's story. From what I have read all the info hasn't come from Angelina herself, there's nothing to substantiate cosmetic surgery and these references need to be removed from the article as well as the implied "obsession" for Angelina-it has no place here. Writing a fan letter to a star doesn't an obsession make-I would suggest we revise the article to reflect the children and not fan tabloid sensationalism at its worse. Brattysoul (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

All it gets now is a reference in the Ann Curry interview, just to provide context for Suleman's denial of any obsession. At least, that is all we say; sure, some of the rags and the blogosphere are incredulous and then we just let each reader decide for themselves. What's the problem?--Spellage (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem dear Spellage is that rags ans blogs are merely innuendos and are not accurate refs to the octuplets. If it is supposed to reflect Ann Curry's interview then fine, leave them, however when I reviewed the rags, blogs, etc they did not reference Curry's interview, but reference rumors. Let's clean it up so that the crap isn't here. Enough of it is available for people to read online if that is what they want, but wiki shouldn't be ascribing or utilizing tabloids as a reference for an encyclopedic article. *smile* Brattysoul (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. Go ahead and rescue the article from certain infamy. I will not interfere.--Spellage (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

Can we hold off on the quotes? There is a lot of gossipy/opinionated stuff that probably does not belong here. That even applies to the grandparents. I would that we could restrict the quotation marks to the novel facts like:

• "television childcare expert" - which is the mother's intended career path
• "David Solomon" - which might be a made-up name

The rest should be our own prose.--Spellage (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity of the Octuplets

Someone noted that the mother is "half arab, half lithuanian protestant", and it has 8 references.

Isn't the former an ethnicity and the latter a religion? Kind of like saying xxx is half Irish, Half Southern Batpist?

Vulture19 (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the source for the information (footnote 4), which says, "She described herself as 'half Arabic, half Lithuanian' and said she was brought up Protestant and continued to practice her religion." Made a slight correction to the article to clear this up. 666isMONEY (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. There are enough other editors on this page that I didn't want to jump in and muddy up the waters. Vulture19 (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The waters are muddied enough that I removed the sentence altogether. If it is important enough to include, we can work it out here. Maybe if both grandparents assert their ethnicity and we find out the ethnicity of the father, then we can focus on the ethnicity and religion of the octuplets. Of course, then Richard Dawkins would tut-tut us for assigning a religion to the octuplets so early in life. Calvary Chapel Golden Springs is already denying that they are making any organized effort to aid Suleman et. al. This article: Diamond Bar church offers aid to octuplets' mom suggest that the aid is merely to help line up babysitters and little else. It seems that Calvary is some sort of Protestant church. Does that make the octuplets Protestant?--Spellage (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity of the octuplets is important . . . Calvary Church has denied ever seeing her at the church. (More pathological lies from Nadya.) 666isMONEY (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Depending on who the father is, the octuplets might be one-quarter or less of any named ethnicity. They are here in the melting pot of America. When it comes to "important", the devil is in the details.--Spellage (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Split this article?

I do not know if we can manage this, but I noticed that Yahoo lists two searches at the top of its page at the moment: octuplets and nadya suleman. It is easy for them to maintain such a split. Should we split this article along those lines? This has been also suggested in seciton #Nadia Suleman page needed. --Spellage (talk) 08:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue would be that the mother is not notable notwithstanding the media coverage of the birth of the octuplets.   user:j    (aka justen)   11:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Mention website

I'm not sure why mention of Suleman's website[8] is deleted. This phenomenon is a many-tentacled beast and the whole public relations aspect of it (PR agent, attempted book deal, public statement, media circus, some kind of identification with Anjelina Jolie) is a significant part of it. The website is the subject of a number of pieces in major reliable sources. In addition to the LA Times article there is an article and video segment on CNN, for example.[9] Wikidemon (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see much value added to the page except that they have a blog and it's accepting money. The link in the EL section also doesn't seem to be working. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Worker's Compensation

What is the relevance of the worker's compensation claim? Lots of people make legitimate entitlement claims and those claims are generally kept private unless they have some special bearing on the public issue. If there is some special bearing, it should be spelled out explicitly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.0.173 (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The worker's comp claim is a published fact and goes to support the chronology of her career. There’s nothing in the article to indicate it's a pejorative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.212.99.11 (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Article getting worse

A few days ago, footnotes actually corresponded to copy and there was a higher level of detail and accuracy. What happened? Casual Wikipedists came in with bulldozers here, cutting a lot of good stuff, stranding footnotes, adding a lot of bad prose. Now the article has devolved into a careless paraphrase of events. Can we please go back to earlier references and copy? Anyone trying to rescue this article should look at the entry a few days ago. — Doppo145 (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I take responsibility for the results. I find that the information might benefit from another copy-edit but my intent was to organize the information better. There were several issues with the whole focus of the article (mother vs. octuplets vs. the "event") and the relatives and the indications are that the mother is going to continue to be the focus of attention in the press as a "television childhood expert"... Who the biological father is and the fertility clinic are now know so it is silly to keep around references about them being unknown or dwelling on exactly when the info go out. Who the bio father and clinic should be introduced as part of the mother's background and her fix six children rather than introducing it all later. There was also some unimportant details that I removed (see sections above for complaints about such) so most of the info remaining is covered by more than one source. What you are looking for is micro-referencing (several references per sentence) and I suggest that such practices are suggestive of unimportant details that should be yanked. It is not a very long article but it has over 50 references, and far too many of the them are early news accounts that were dwelling on the hysteria around finding out all juicy details that have mostly now come out. Let all that now build up the in the "Controversy" section. Perhaps you problem is that now it is quite clear that only the relatively brief "Birth" and "Post-delivery" sections are strictly about the octuplets. You might want to ask yourself why that is the case (I remind you again of the mother's career plans).--Spellage (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So you know, I wasn't calling you or anyone out. The article is getting a lot of traffic and a lot of edits, particularly to the top paragraphs. In the process of this winnowing-down, some of the historical narrative (the fact that Suleman's name and the names of the octuplets were withheld by the hopsital, the early media speculation that she used fertility medication, etc.) has been lost, and by losing those elements the overall quality of the article is diminished. Those lesser narratives are relevant to the way Nadya Suleman and the octuplets were and continue to be perceived by the culture. I think the article needs a dose of "how things played out," and that part seems to have been lost. I'm not looking for "micro-referencing." I'm looking at facts and footnotes lining up with each other, that's all, and avoiding a lot of footnotes accumulating after phrases they don't modify. I also like clean, accurate prose, good spelling, etc. (But enough of my high horse, right? I can go back and restore what I think is important.) — Doppo145 (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two things that we should try to avoid: all the he said / she said that can go on in a high-publicity story like this; I am thinking in particular about the public tiff that the mother and grandmother are/were having. The other thing is the "data burlesque" aspect of this story. We should not be here to dwell on when a certain fact dribbles out into the press; we should provide a coherent background on the mother and the "how did this happen" and then give the "controversy" kibitzers and the relatives (and whatever) their own sections because it is much better organized that way.--Spellage (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happened to the old article? Seems a lot of folks contributed to it. Now why are all the references bunched up at the end of each paragraph? Somebody needs to look at - and FOLLOW - the Wiki help guidelines (it says you put a reference pointer wherever and whenever it needs referencing, and not wait until the very end of a paragraph and have an amalgamated mess). This is freshman college stuff. Sheeeshhhhhhh. Chevyrepoman (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It strikes me as odd that an account that is less than a day old is expressing concerns about yesterday's version of the article in a manner that focuses on fine points of guidelines rather than on coherent, organized prose.--Spellage (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, my account is a lot older than a day, and I can say this article looks very weird. I didn't look at it before today so I have no comment about information that was removed, but the footnotes should be after the sentence they verify, not at the end of the paragraph (that's not a "fine point of guidelines," that's just the fact of where footnotes go), and there's certainly no need for ten different footnotes for every paragraph. You could probably cite all the info currently in the article using fewer than a dozen articles. Propaniac (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Your concern about the appearance seems to focus on how finely the references are sprinkled. Go ahead and sprinkle away but the structure of the article has remained stable because it better organizes the information.--Spellage (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

When I was attempting to sort out the cites, I found that it was very, very difficult to track a fact to a specific article when all the cites are lumped at the end of paragraphs that can contain literally dozens of different facts. Several facts were, as far as I could tell, not actually contained in ANY of the cited articles, but it was next to impossible for anyone to verify that. I see that you are also doing this lumping of footnotes in the article about the recent Buffalo plane crash. Please stop doing this. The point of providing footnotes is so that the user can read the statement and click on the footnote to find the source of that statement. You may as well erase the footnotes entirely, if you're going to force the user to slog through twenty pages of various articles to find whether any of them contain a specific piece of information. This is why we HAVE footnotes instead of simply listing a bunch of articles at the end as references. Incidentally, I'm probably not going to do any more work to try to make the citations usable again in this article, because just fixing those first two paragraphs took nearly an hour, most of which involved searching GoogleNews for specific phrases to be verified, because that was ten thousand times easier than loading eight or ten articles (several of which spanned several pages) and ctrl-f-ing each page to try to find the date of Suleman's parents' divorce or whatever. The cites really are useless when they're like that. Propaniac (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The "plane crash" article is Continental Airlines Flight 3407. I did it there as well because the paragraphs were poorly organized. Now, the "crash" paragraphs focus on specific aspects of "what happened" rather than be driven by information as it dribbles out. I do not see the date of the grandparent's divorce as germane to the story of the octuplets because Nadya is an adult. If you cannot verify some factoid because only one reference covered it (and you cannot now Google it, while Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL gets me the info right away), then, considering the amount of coverage these two stories are getting, maybe you should introspect about your perception of the factoid's importance. On top of that, nobody else seems to have come up with a better idea: the article has been markely stable (considering all the publicity) since I made those changes. Please feel free to save the article from eternal mediocrity. I will try to not interfere.--Spellage (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the worst article on the net for a big current event. The references are so screwed up it's not worth fixing anymore. Not sure if people started writing the article that way or what, but you just don't have multiple cites for multiple data points at the end and you can't tell what's what anymore! But hey, I suppose it's Wikipedia for ya. Crownvictoriaman (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In my role as a tenured professor of religion at a private university, I respectfully disagree with your opinion of Wikipedia.TenuredProfessorAtPrivateUniversity (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Suleman is contradicted by her church - Her church is denying they're going to help her:

Suleman is contradicted by her church

Her church is denying they're going to help her:

Copyvio removed - please feel free to link to news stories but do not cut-and-paste them onto talk pages - Wikidemon (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(posted Radaronline) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.71.204 (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The removed information was Press Release Regarding Inaccurate Information - Calvary Chapel Golden Springs February 13, 2009. Ha! (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for info

The timeline in the article currently does not make any sense. It states that she had all of her previous children with Dr K using IVF from 2001-2008, then in 2008 approached a different IVF specialist, Dr K (same name) and used up the rest of the embryos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.192.250.8 (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone seen any informed (i.e. reliable source) speculation on why they transferred eight embryos, particularly to a woman who appears not to have had any trouble with prior conceptions? Another point of interest is the physician (the one that handled the IVF, not the delivering physician) involved and any interviews they may have done regarding the reasoning on this particular event. SDY (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There has been no reason given yet, but a number of articles have quoted other fertility experts who have all been dumbfounded that such a treatment may have been given. The fertility doctor hasn't been named yet, and considering the heat he is likely to get, I'm not surprised he's keeping a low profile. --Minderbinder (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the mother herself was a technician at the fertility clinic. In principle, she could have come across some discarded embryos in her line of work and impregnated herself. From what I read, the implantation is a relatively simple process that's done vaginally without any anesthesia. A technician would have known how to do that. (I'm not a doctor, and I'm just speculating!) --Itinerant1 (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that implanting live embryos isn't really a DIY project. With the controversy surrounding implanting 8 embryos into a young mother that already has 6 children, lives with her parents in a three bedroom home who have had financial trouble will far out eclipse the having eight babies aspect of the story. Medical licenses might be on the line, imho. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that it is not, in fact, necessary to transfer 8 embryos in order to have 8 babies. (This is a factual error that should be edited out of the article.) IVF embryos are notorious for higher rates of splitting (resulting in identical twins) than non-IVF embryos. The fact that the doctors were initially anticipating less than 8 babies also potentially indicates that fewer embryos were transferred. More than one embryo was obviously transferred (otherwise they would be all girls or all boys; besides, identical octuplets would be ridiculous), but whether it was 4 or 6 or 8 or whatever is not clear.AdevarulPur (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nadya's father was being interviewed on Oprah today (2/24/2009) and according to him Nadya didn't want to "waste" any embyos. However, I don't know where to get a transcript of the episode for use as a source. Fruit Blender (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If medical licenses are not on the line, they should be. Of course, if this was done in Mexico, there is no accounting for anything that goes on there. The idea of a woman with six children being given fertility drugs is obscene. John Paul Parks (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Obtaining live embryos is probably much harder than implanting them, see Embryo transfer. However, recent news articles no longer report that the mother works at a fertility clinic, so it must be a false trail. At this point it is more likely that she had her IVF done at a foreign clinic. Whittier is within a 2 hour drive from Tijuana, a popular medical tourism destination, where treatment is much cheaper and standards are considerably more lax. --Itinerant1 (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Another point of info that might be relevant to the article: were any of the previous children also from ART? SDY (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

They was all single births except for the most recent (i think) a pair of twins, would make sense that the first few was natural then she went a bit "nuts" with wanting more and started using ART. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 22:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Marcos Gutierrez, aroduce manager

Is this a typo for "produce manager?" If not, then this occupation if worth mentioning is worth explaining (at least via some link or reference). 74.34.187.93 (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• I believe he has a Ph.D in produce management, and currently holds the chair of Produce Endeavors at UCLA. The Scythian 10:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, his Ph.D. is in husbandry by proxy. TenuredProfessorAtPrivateUniversity (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well-played, a golf clap for you, haha. Allie (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Dr Kamrava a University of Illinois graduate?

"Is Dr. Michael M. Kamrava, the fertility doctor at the center of the octuplet-mom case, a University of Illinois graduate? The Web site at his West Coast IVF Clinic says Kamrava graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Illinois... But when I contacted the school's public affairs department to inquire about when Dr. Kamrava attended, officials said they have no record of anyone by that name attending the university. Responding to the e-mail request, officials said, "we have no record of a Michael Kamrava attending or graduating from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign." I also contacted public affairs officals at the Chicago and Springfield campuses, and neither had a record of a Michael Kamrava attending those campuses." From http://www.examiner.com/x-2884-Chicago-City-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m2d20-Octoplet-doc-claims-degree-from-U-of-I

TenuredProfessorAtPrivateUniversity (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A search of the records of the California State Medical Board says his name was changed but doesn't tell what his previous name was. Raquel Baranow (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic background of Suleman's mother?

I don't mean to be racist here, but was it ever revealed what ethnicity Angela Suleman (Natalie's ma) was? The news outlets all claim that her father "returned to his native Iraqi", but what is the ma, then? I always believed Natalie was half Caucasian and half Iraqi (is that the term?), but now I'm not so sure about the Caucasian part. If anyone ever finds out that bit of information, I think it'd be great for the article. ★Dasani★ 22:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

N Suleman is supposed to be hispanic. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Angela came to the US from Lithuania via Germany as a teenager —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.71.204 (talk) 06:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Source for that?! (This info may be important if there's ever a Wiki for Nadya.) Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Angela Suleman is Lithuanian. [10] I don't know about her being born in Lithuania, though. Some blogs state she was, but I couldn't find a reliable source stating she was. Moretti80 (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Twins within the octuplets

Assuming the claim that only six were transferred and there were two splits, that would mean within the octuplets there are two sets of identical twins. Have any sources documented which of the octuplets are identical twins? --Minderbinder (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Or there could be one set of triplets. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is this a Wikipedia Article?

This is asinine. This woman and her ?? fetuses will be forgotten within the middle of this year. If I had my way this article would be deleted post haste. She and her fetuses have made no history, no advance that had not been made already. This is not material worthy of Wikipedia. Administrators, do the right thing, remove this aricle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.33.109.12 (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Media Circus aside, the case has raised some problematic questions about the ethical use of reproductive medicine. It's not bad to have an article, though the current article is a piece of junk since it's mostly personal details and biographical information that are irrelevant to the bigger questions. SDY (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This is apparently the first time a woman has had eight babies with all surviving. That's definitely notable. This article isn't even at the woman's name so I don't see why anyone would complain about notability. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Work history of mother

I'm not sure if this is pertinent to the article but it strikes me as an interesting and informative piece of background history on the mother. Specifically she hasn't held a job since 1999, which makes me wonder, how did she pay for all this? How did she plan to pay for the kids once she had them? I mean does disability really pay enough to cover all this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seifried (talk • contribs) 09:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

How did 81 References drop to 68?

Come now, 81 was barely enough as it was! Who deleted more than a dozen painstakingly-collected references?

81 noticed on Feb 26 2009 or Feb 27 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minetruly (talk • contribs) 19:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems this edit removed a big chunk of the article. Plus theres probably more chunks people have deleted and noone has checked to reverse those changes or reorganize/move the info to newer sections. I think we need to be more careful about people removing chunks of referenced information, specificly if there is zero discussion about why it was removed! — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

More recent headlines

Octuplets Mom Said To Nix Free Care Offer

(CBS) The mother of the octuplets born a month ago has rejected a group's offer to care for all 14 of her children round-the-clock, for free, and in one home, according to the attorney representing the group.

"She did not accept our offer," Gloria Allred told co-anchor Harry Smith on The Early Show Friday. " ... There would have been no burden on the taxpayers. Instead now, it may be that the taxpayers are going to have to foot the bill for all of this."

Angels in Waiting was estimating that such care would cost $130,000 a month...

Octuplets mother fears infants will be kept from her

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - California's octuplets mom has told television therapist Dr. Phil McGraw that she fears not being allowed to take her newborns home from the hospital until she proves that she has the means to care for them...

Suleman says hospital wants proof she can care for octuplets (with video)

Nadya Suleman told TV host "Dr. Phil" McGraw on Tuesday that she fears Kaiser Permanente Medical Center may not release her octuplets to her until she proves she can care for them...

Theres plenty more but these are pretty shocking, not sure where they best would be added, to her article or this one. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Last names

I thought it was confirmed their last name is 'Solomon', heres a source [11] which I found in a few seconds. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger

Discussion is at Talk:Nadya Suleman#Merger Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Merger isn't on the table anymore, these articles will stand as-is. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Name

The name of this article seems really odd, as also the first line. A better name for this article is required. I would suggest Octuplets births in 2009 or California octuplets births. --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed the name to California octuplets, I don't think the "births" is needed at the end, simple as possible. LonelyMarble (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• I boldly moved the page to Suleman octuplets per existing practice of other multiple birth children. Tavix (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the move is a bit premature. California octuplets is still overwhelmingly the common name being used to label these eight babies and the actual name of the mother seems a bit disputed, at least legally. It might end up being known as the "Suleman octuplets" in the future, but I think the most common name right now is "California octuplets". I won't do anything though since I was the one that moved it originally. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there's not really any more ambiguity of her name you can forget what I said above, "Suleman octuplets" is the right title. No reason Wikipedia can't move as fast as the news since most news articles themselves are the sources we need anyway; only difference is Wikipedia has much stricter rules with biographies of living people, which this article is. LonelyMarble (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• If you look at the "See also" section, you will see this is the standard name type, as with Chukwu octuplets. — Reinyday, 05:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Most people who search for this article will probably search for "Octomom." This is also the most common name given to her in the media and in conversation, I have found. 128.210.12.39 (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Separate article for Nadya Suleman

Clearly Nadya Suleman has gained notoriety in addition to the historic octuplets and should be the subject of a separate article. Therefore I have boldly begun the separation of the two linked articles. The growing number of publicly documented controversies (finances, etc.) about Nadya should be included in her article whereas information strictly about the babies (including the controversy about the number of embryos simutaneously implanted) should be part of the article about them. Both articles are currently sorely lacking in being updated with full current documented information. Toounstable (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

She has NOT gained notoriety for anything that is not linked to the octuplets or the circumstances around their birth. Although I applaud your "boldness", the separation of these articles is premature and against Wikipedia Policy. The publicity of her various controversies all have to do with her octuplets. I agree that there is a lack of actual facts and citable sources, and the articles are riddled with speculation. However, under the Wikipedia policy: Biographies of living persons (WP:ONEEVENT) there is no need for a separate article for Nadya Suleman. Until she becomes known for something other than this one event and its circumstances a page dedicated solely to her would be against Wikipedia policy.Brendan OhUiginn (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please refer too Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nadya_Suleman_(2nd_nomination) and about the ONEEVENT rule, please see Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#One_event:_actually_policy.3F. Thanks! — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Names in Led section

It was suggested here that the names be moved out of the led section and if you look at other multi-birth pages, like Chukwu octuplets, McCaughey septuplets, Dionne quintuplets and others that this is the general format. Not all are formated this way, some are very badly formated and that should be worked on. I feel this format looks better, the article may not be sectioned in the best way currently, but having a huge led section I think looks bad. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I moved them out of the lede last week but that change was reverted here with the note that they were being restored in accordance with the Manual of Style. I have reviewed the MOS and can't see anything in there that suggests the individual names need to be in the lede. - Eron^Talk 06:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The idea is that the general convention (although I can't find an actual policy, doesn't mean it doesn't exist though) is to bold the proper name/article title in the led sentence. But convention dictates that other multiple-birth pages do not bold the names of the individual children, just the name of the page in the first sentence (which we have here). As far as I know no policy states that proper names are to be bolded, that would be silly. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the names of the children should be bolded or included in the lede as they are not the name of the article. The article is about the octuplets as a group, not the individuals. I agree bolding them would be excessive. - Eron^Talk 06:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The names

Of course it should be in the article, but not in the lead. Shouldn't it have a section? --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• The inclusion of the names in the article doesn't have any encyclopedic value. These children didn't ask to be famous and their privacy should be respected per WP:BLP. This is a new low for Wikipedia, publishing the name of children for the sake of trivia. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree, done. Physchim62 (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the removal of the names. Why have their older siblings names stated but not the ones that the article is actually about? They are FACTS, not just trivia. I believe the names should be included; just like with the Dionne quintuplets, Chukwu octuplets, Hanselman sextuplets, Dilley sextuplets, Walton sextuplets, and McCaughey septuplets. But I guess that could just be me. Angelicerin17 (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Physchim, just because you lost the AfD, doesn't mean you can come here and start ripping these articles apart and stripping them down. For your reference, listing names of multiple births is done on these pages: Chukwu octuplets, McCaughey septuplets, Dionne quintuplets, Kienast quintuplets, Rosenkowitz sextuplets, Walton sextuplets, Dilley sextuplets, Hanselman sextuplets, Brino quadruplets. Before you go advocating the great BLP violations, do some research first! These changes have been, and will continue to be reverted. Thanks! — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• I don't know what is the underlying melodrama here, but I will like to discuss the encyclopedic value of having names of children publish in an article. This family has been subject to public hate and death threats I don't understand the importance of the names. Why we want to subject these children to the torture of Wikipedia BLP issues is beyond me. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• Regardless if your personal feelings if this violates BLP rules or not, because it clearly doesn't, at best this should be left alone until it's discussed here, reverting it with just two people saying it should be this way within a few minutes of each other without presenting any valid evidence or policy quote that it shouldn't list children's names. If this is in violation then theres about 10,000 other pages in Wikipedia that violate it by listing children's names. Leave personal feelings out of this. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP:"Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases or occupations), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." --J.Mundo (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP:"Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases or occupations), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." Can you make a case that they're not widely disseminated otherwise your reasoning is invalid? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Note I requested some outside opinion on the BLP policy regarding this, here. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine, if this is so important to you have it your way. BLP articles have an impact on very real people and children. The potential for damage is there. Maybe we can't understand that because we have our usernames to hide our real identity and info. Well, I did my part to defend the privacy of these kids. Happy editing, --J.Mundo (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would share your concern if the names wasn't already plastered over thousands of news articles, papers, magazines, tv shows, etc... At this point, hiding them here accomplishes nothing but lowers the value of the article. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As per the suggestion on the BLP page the names was unbolded and moved to their own section. The BLP concerns about the names is a moot point now since the children's names are so widely published, which was the consensus at the BLP page about this issue. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Just providing notice here that the issue is now at the BLP noticeboard, here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Total Weight of the Babies, How Premature & Likelyhood of all 6 Embryos Maturing

Not sure how to edit this: Weight of the babies = 18.4375-pounds. (That's a lot of weight to carry around . . . I read somewhere that she she spent a month or more in a hospital bed holding the babies in her womb as long as possible.) Plus, I think it's significant to tell how many weeks these babies were premature. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, Dr. Phil and Nadya repetedly say that the odds of all six embryos attaching to the uterus and growing are something like .00000001%, i.e., to Nadya's credit, she didn't expect to have eight babies. (I know, "reference required" but maybe someone else has a ready reference.) Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

She knew the risk of having a multiple birth with the implantation of 6 embryos, and knew her current financial situation. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

She knew the risk and she also knew the likelyhood that all six embryos would attach (and two of them split). She expected that, as before, out of the six implanted, only one or two would embed in her uterus and mature. . . . I also thought it convienient to add up the total weight of the babies so readers wouldn't have to do the math. . . the average birth weight of a baby at birth is about 7-pounds. I agree it was economically irresponsible for her to contemplate haveing one or two more children but the likelyhood of all the embryos maturing (and two splitting) was, as Dr. Phil & Nadya repetedly said, less than .00000001% Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I lucked out and found this interview that I remembered seeing before:

Ann Curry: How many embryos were you implanted with?

Nadya Suleman: The same as with the others. Six. . . .

Ann Curry: - that there was a possibility of a high-multiple pregnancy. Although, you didn't think it was likely.

Nadya Suleman: No.

Nadya Suleman: The statistics on that? .00000001 percent.

Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You could only really give that as a reference if you're going to say 'Suleman stated....', rather than simply say that was the stat, since it does sound like Suleman may have just given that as a random figure to emphasise the small likelihood of it happening. To give it as a scientific fact, would need a reference with a medical/professional opinion. Sky83 (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm certain that over time, this article will give more of the science behind how Nadya had eight babies. I looked for a reference to Dr. Phil saying ".00000001%" (as if he believes it's true) but it's in one of his dozen or so videos I've seen. Would a reference to Dr. Phil qualify? Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It all depends what exactly is said. I could say 'wow, it must be like a million to one chance that Suleman had eight healthy babies' but you couldn't quote that as a scientific fact. If Dr. Phil was stating actual medical knowledge on it (as in if there is research and odds behind it) rather than just a random figure, then it would be fine. But it must be certain that he is not just giving a random figure to emphasise that it was unlikely. Sky83 (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Found another one, here's a fertility doctor being interviewed by Dr. Phil sitting in for Larry King (scroll down to nearly the end of the page):

DR. JAMIE GRIFO, DIRECTOR, NYU FERTILITY CENTER: . . . I was curious about that myself, and then I researched the pregnancy rate in this doctor's clinic. And in the year before he treated Nadya, 70 embryos were transferred in women under 35 that made three babies. So less than ten percent of his embryos were making babies.

So you just do the math, the chance that six embryos would make eight babies, with that math, is about one in a billion. You say, gosh, this doctor must be crazy. But with the pregnancy rates there, I understand why he would do it.

Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that reference seems fine. But if you want to put it into the article, make sure it gets credited to the right person :). Sky83 (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much any event has a likelihood of happening in the billions or more. There are guidelines in place for these doctors for how many embryos that they implant, and this doctor clearly implanted more then what those guidelines said. Just stating that the odds that all 6 implant and two of them twin (And this hasn't been proven yet, for all we know the doctor could of implanted 8 or more and is lieing, until DNA tests prove the twinning) doesn't help the article. Stating the odds of a multiple birth with 6 embryos for a women of her age would be relevant(and I think that is high likelihood) but the odds of the rare occurrence that did happen if put in the article shouldn't be worded like she expected to only have one child when she had six embryos implanted. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I've read/heard, there were no "guidelines" at the time (maybe now). (How do U figure, "pretty much any event has a likelyhood of happening in the billions or more"!?) I should add: Dr. Grifo said the gestational period was 30 weeks, so that's 10 weeks premature. Nadya did expect to have only one or two, 'cause, as she stated (above), she was implanted with six embryos in each of her other pregnacies. (Yes, this article-revision will hafta be carefully worded.) Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge away controversy section

Resolved

 – Section repurposed. -- Banjeboi 03:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"Controversy" sections, especially concerning living people are inherently POV and, frankly, end up being magnets for more problems. All useable content should be moved into other areas of the existing article by editors familiar with the content. In general, and per WP:Lede, if a controversy is notable enough it should also be summarized in the lede. -- Banjeboi 12:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Which babies are identical

Nadya stated on a Radaronline.com video that it was Makai and Jeremiah,and Jonah and Josiah that were identical. There is also another online article stating that Jonah,the one with the cleft lip,was one of the identical ones,and due to this,Nadya stated that she had no trouble telling him apart from his twin brother.

(scroll to bottom): http://insidesocal.com/octorazzi/2009/04/world-wide-breaking-news-last-octuplet-arrives-home-with-proof.html

Nc40lady (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't a cleft lip thought to be genetic, and if so wouldn't both twins have it? I have the feeling shes making up the twinning or just is guessing. DNA tests are going to be necessary to prove this.. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 13:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It can be,although it can be caused by lack of nutrients,which I would presume is very possible in a pregnancy of eight babies,all competing for nutrition. Nc40lady (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure the article for it mentions that at all... we're going to need rock solid sources for this to add it to the page. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course.But whether she will ever submit them to DNA testing to be sure is anyone's guess ! Here's another one of her stating Jonah and Josiah are identical,although she fails to identify the other set in this video.Again,only her word,so who knows. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2396027.ece?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News Nc40lady (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In this article,Ms Suleman admits that eight embryos were implanted.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/03/earlyshow/leisure/celebspot/main5207772.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nc40lady (talk • contribs) 03:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Suleman, not Solomon

The page listed the children's last name as Solomon, instead of Suleman, so I changed it. I'm still not quite sure how that mistake can be made, considering that the article's title is Suleman Octuplets. If this was in fact supposed to be a second middle name of some sort, then I apologize. IwishIwereabird (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's in this sentence: "The children carry their biological father's last name." The real inconvenience here is that the children's father have a last name so similar to their mother's, since this causes no end of confusion. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how I missed that sentence. Thank you so much for the correction! --IwishIwereabird (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, you are not the first. I have tweaked the sentence a bit in a way that I hope will clarify for others. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

Do we REALLY need a rundown of what the octuplets did or did not eat for breakfast when they were a few days old? If nobody objects, I will be removing that. 99.30.79.193 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

embryo count and fresh vs. frozen debate

I moved the verbiage concerning the embryo count and the fresh vs. frozen embryos to the discussion page as much of it is unsourced. When someone can rewrite this properly, and if it adds any value more than the 6 and 12 shown in the main article, then you can add it back.

Here are the parts I cut:

• However, litigation against Dr. Kamrava indicated that 16 eggs were used to create 14 embryos, and 12 were implanted.

• It has been documented in many places that Nadya Suleman had at least eight embryos implanted (since no two of the children are identical), and also that she had 'fresh' embryos implanted, rather than the frozen ones which she claimed at the time. Her ex-publicist has stated in interviews that she had 12 embryos transferred and she told him personally of the great lengths she went to conceal the fact. None of the octuplets are identical (monozygotic) twins and she still has many embryos frozen in storage. All of her 14 children have been born as a result of fresh embryo transfer.

AngusWOOF (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC) More sections cut:

• Although Suleman claimed that she had used all of her remaining frozen embryos so they would not be destroyed. Additionally, time has shown there are not two sets of identical twins in the octuplets, which would have to be the case if indeed only 6 embryos were implanted as Ms. Suleman claimed.

AngusWOOF (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)