Talk:Jim Bob Duggar: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:10, 6 September 2007

Biography Stub‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jim Bob Duggar article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

Vandalism

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

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

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

Websites

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

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

Names and birth dates

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

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

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

Website

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

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

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

add

hiii well i would like too add this to jims bob wikipedia that he has anew daughter neamed jennifer duggar who was born on july 27 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.210.249 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

About Jim Bob's age

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

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

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

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

This line should read:

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

or simply

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment

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

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

Duggar family 2006 image

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revision as of 01:45, 6 September 2007 edit Athaenara (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 54,866 edits →‎Duggar family 2006 image: Correction: As per the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, discussion of such matters is precisely the purpose of article talk pages. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:10, 6 September 2007 edit undo Lucid (talk \| contribs) 5,964 edits →‎Duggar family 2006 image: It's a problem with the user, not the article. Next edit →
Line 78:		Line 78:

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

			:::And again, no, it is not, not anymore than telling a vandal to stop removing speedy tags belong on the article's page. The article talk page is for improving the article, not warning other users not to break policy. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">'''[[User:Lucid\|lucid]]'''</span> 11:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)