Talk:Suleman octuplets

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.) 666isMONEY (talk) 15:15, 14 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)

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)

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)