Talk:Jon & Kate Plus 8

Archiving?

In other news, this talk page is waaaaaaay too long. There are some discussions that haven't had any activity since last year! :O I would say that anything that hasn't had any activity since March should be archived and anything that has had activity in April or later be kept. From eyeballing the page, that would take out 1/3-1/2 of the length of this page. What say you? --13² 19:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Wikiwikikid (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. KASchmidt (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Every discussion with no activity newer than April has been archived to /Archive 2... but this page is still very long. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there away to make this talk page look more professional and less like a soapbox for people to bash the people in the show? I do agree that this page need some major clean up could it archived for new activity after may? This page talk page and article's attract a lot of vandal's as well, can they be protected? Marvelousdaze06 (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that it's mid-June, I think we could archive everything that hasn't had a reply since mid-May. I think we may also want to consider setting up an auto-archive for every couple of weeks. The main page is already on an indefinite semi-protection due to high levels of vandalism. Unfortunately, we can't get this page protected. Since this is the talk page, it needs to remain open to anyone to bring up issues in the article. All we can do for now is to revert the vandalism, warn the editors, and, if they persist, report their behavior at WP:AIV. --13² 12:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's sounds like a good idea to me. Anyone else support it or know how to archive it? Marvelousdaze06 (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Are we still moving towards archiving this talk page? It looks like it was started, but still some old discussions remain. Cactusjump (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed wording for information on Jon's affair

I would like to delete this line: "The couple has denied these allegations, saying the woman Jon left with was a long-time friend.[8][9] " I can't recall Kate ever claiming the woman was a friend of the family. Though I'm sure Jon may have said it. But the line should be removed because both links do not talk about it. One is down and the other has nothing to do with the couple claiming she is a friend. I'll delete unless there is an argument about it. 76.112.196.104 (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Do NOT remove that line. The link that is no longer working is the one that said this. We don't remove information just because the source is defunct (which happens often on internet articles). Instead, we try to find another source that says the same thing. Since it is very clear you have not tried to do so, I will just assume you are trying to put a slant to the section (and, it is clear, the entire article given the other messages you've left). In the meantime, I will begin looking for a new source for that statement. --13² 17:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you need a refresher on assuming good faith? Just a suggestion. I didn't know it was "very clear" I hadn't attempted. Didn't know you were sitting behind me while I was on the computer today. And from what I can remember, (my memory is terrible btw) the only few comments I made was that having a picture of Jon with a woman is not proof of an affair. And just so we are clear, I despise Kate and think she is exploiting the children. I feel so much better explaining myself to you now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.196.104 (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I see why you are so upset now. My comments about not needing a PHd to determine if hitting someone is abuse/assault. I apologize. My wording was overly harsh.

I am no wiki expert, but would assume that if the link is bad (one is bad and the other does not talk about the "couple" admitting she is a friend) and we have no other links to verify it, it should be removed. By all means, add it back when you do find the source. That's what wiki is all about and why it changes every split second to reflect the most accurate information. 76.112.196.104 (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I was a little blunt or assuming in my message. It has nothing to do with not assuming good faith and everything to do with the fact that this page gets spammed like nobody's business by dozens of anon editors trying to put their particular slant on things. When you came in, noted a defunct link within a stale topic, didn't bother to find a replacement, suggested full-scale removal instead of rewording or finding a new source, and brought up irrelevant issues in other stale topics, it's pretty much the only logical conclusion to come to.

No, if you find a statement that is sourced, but may be iffy due to the source being defunct or what-have-you, you should add a {{fact}} tag and/or try to find a replacement source. If you add the tag and, after a few days, a new source isn't found, then you remove it, noting in the edit summary that a new source hadn't been found. Since you can't edit the article due to its protection and did neither, but brought it up here and caught my attention, I went to find a replacement. It took me, quite literally, five seconds to find a replacement source. --13² 00:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I still do not see in either of those sources where Kate claims it was a family friend. I see Jon says that (of course) but not Kate. And certainly not as a "couple" denouncing it. 76.112.196.104 (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Is this thing on? Your sources DO NOT state the affair was denounced as a couple. 76.112.196.104 (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Because I believe there is now a general consensus, with wikiwikid, KASchmidt, myself, VegaDark, Honeymane, and several other editors moving for inclusion, having stated their grounds, in accordance with the common interpretation of the rules, and having listed a number of reliable sources, and with only SCjessey still being flatly against inclusion of the information, with 13 seeming to have objected mainly to wording and citation issues and WP:Crystal, it should come in.

Here is a piece confirming that Jon has had an affair, http://www.usmagazine.com/news/jon-and-kate-dads-three-month-affair-confirmed-200955

Here is a video of Jon leaving the woman's house, http://www.usmagazine.com/news/see-jon-and-kate-dad-sneaking-out-of-mistress-home-200955

Here is a link confirming that it will be discussed on the show, http://www.tvguide.com/News/Jon-Kate-Plus-1005820.aspx

Here is a transcript of the coverage on CNN, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0905/01/sbt.01.html

In Canadian Print, http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Kate+plus+plus+hangover+plus+paparazzi+equals+divorce/1550666/story.html

And identifying the other woman, in Canadian Print, http://www.vancouversun.com/Kate+plus+Mystery+woman+revealed/1565467/story.html

Here is my proposed wording, to be added to the "Family History," section.

"In April of 2009, it came to public knowledge[cite, CNN transcript] that Jon was unhappy in his marriage to Kate.[cite, May 11 issue of US Weekly, pages 50-55, quoting family members and coworkers.] Uncomfortable with "life in the fishbowl,"[cite, Vancouver Sun link 1] he began an affair with a woman named Deanna Hummel in January of that year.[cite, USWeekly link 1] While Kate Gosselin has publically denied that Jon Gosselin was having an affair, this information was confirmed by relatives of Ms. Hummel as well as video footage of Jon leaving the woman's house. [cite, USWeekly link 2, which is a video.]

Feel free to shift things around and add more citations, I feel this is a nice, short, neutral VP summary of verifiable information coming from reliable sources. I am not going to rehash the discussions we have each had, since I feel those points have been debated and decided in favor of inclusion.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually like 13's wording, and placement, it seems I was proposing the edit at the same time it was being made. If anyone feels the need, they can redact the name of the other woman from my post here, but I prefer the information is easily accessible at least on the talk page until someone feels differently.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I actually prefer your version pink, with the exception that "Kate has said the issue will be addressed in the upcoming season, premiering May 25." from 13's post. I think this is important/relevant info, but...either way, I feel as though this has finally be handled very well. Thanks for your contrib. Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

More information has been printed in reliable sources, so I am incorporating the references.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

How can any of this be listed as "Affair" if sourced from tabloids and is being trumped by the Sister who states that there is a contract from Kate to Jon, stating that Jon must oblige his duties to continue filming and promoting the show/the Gosling 10 or whatever their LLC is. Plus in stated contract was the ability for Jon to date whomever he chooses and the marriage is over. More so could any of this be listed under any title of Affair when if such a contract exist and is worded in that, that Jon can date whomever he chooses, does it not become an "Open Marriage" and therefor an affair is not really applicable?-- here is the link to source? http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/05/exclusive-new-interview-jon-kates-secret-marriage-contract —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.184.135.2 (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. That source is not reliable and the information from it cannot be used. Also, considering how incredibly bogus that sounds, you're going to need something pretty gosh-darned reliable to even be considered, let alone added. --13² 21:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll also throw in that the particular article you linked to was posted over a week ago. If the information contained in it had any substance it would have already exploded everywhere by now considering the rather large claims it makes and the period of time it was released (right before the season premier). Take hearsay with a grain of salt. --13² 21:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You cannot state that "he began having an affair with a woman named Deanna Hummel in January of that year" - you have to state it as rumour, since the rumours are verified, but the facts aren't. There are clear photos of Jon in situations that illustrate his poor choices; most likely he had an affair or was close to consummating it. But there is no reliable evidence that they actually did consummate it. Deanna's brother is a source, but he is angry at her and is an unsavourable character (Canadian spelling), so we can't rely on him. And really, even if they signed up for being in a fishbowl when they started their reality TV show, I don't think it's fair for the scrutiny to be as intense as it is. I hope it doesn't last too long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.48.224 (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the way it is worded now is fine...Is this still up for debate? However, I didn't read anywhere that Deanna's brother was angry or unsavory. Whatever his motives are, he provided the media with video and photos of Jon leaving the premises, which seems more reliable than just hearsay. Cactusjump (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Cactus, you are correct. The wording might change as more information is added, but these are not rumors, and the information is relevant to the article.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Where does it confirm there was an affair? From all that's been provided that's what the tabloid states as a rumor. There is no evidence, nor correlation even to promote such a theory. Jon went to a party, and got a ride with a female friend. Please tell me where this is stated differently. Wikipedia should hold itself up to higher standards than wild blind speculation. --76.166.97.51 (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no "wild blind speculation" in the article as it stands. Cactusjump (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Birth Order of Sextuplets

Hello, if I'm not mistaken, Joel was born before Leah. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.124.31 (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Right now I can't find any information about this. Everything I'm Googling about their birth order is quite clearly using this page as their source, so that wouldn't show any change. The TLC site only lists them alphabetically, not in birth order. The family's official site is down due to exceeded bandwidth, so I can't check there. If you can point me to an external link that is reliable and doesn't use this page as the source, please let me know so I can verify it and change it. Thanks! --13² 21:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm almost positive the birth order listed is correct. Jon and Kate have said several times on the show that Leah is the youngest girl, but Joel is the "youngest youngest". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.210.130 (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Respect

Ive seen Jon and Kate try to be excellent parents who love and are devoted to their children. I'd like to see more of them respecting one another and be just as devoted to one another, too. From my own observations, Kate has issues with being respectful to her husband, and giving herself honor by honoring him. And Jon sits back and takes any kind of insult as if it were just any old thing, and it chips away from his character. After having been married for nearing 25 years, and having 7 children ourselves, I understand the pressures and stresses of life, but you cannot disrespect each other in such a way and have a healthy marriage for very long. I certainly wish them the best though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.130.182 (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

ratings: The season five premiere of Jon and Kate Plus 8 delivered the best ratings in the series' history Monday, drawing 9.8 million total viewers, including 4.3 million in TLC’s target W18-49 demo.

The premiere also delivered the highest ratings in TLC history among W18-34 (9.1), M18-34 (3.6), and P18-34 (6.3).

The previous record holder was the season four finale, which aired March 23, 2009 and drew just over 4.6 million viewers, including 2.07 million W18-49. The premiere ratings were higher than anything on television Monday night, beating all of the broadcast networks.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.105.27 (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't these astounding ratings be included somewhere in the article? Cactusjump (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It was already added to the intro by someone else earlier. :) --13² 00:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

well you obviously are mistaken because Joel is the last! The kids' birth order is Cara, Mady, Alexis, Hannah, Aaden,Collin,Leah, and Joel... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.134.72 (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Child Exploitation

There are a growing number of people who are concerned that the children in this family are being used as a source of income.

The realization that children who are featured in Reality TV Programs are not afforded the same protection as child actors, has ignited a push to bring forward those protections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.2.85 (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Find reliable sources (remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources) and we can include it. I have no doubt there are issues with this, but, in the past, it's been very difficult to find good sources to verify the information. --13² 20:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This article on CBS News discusses it, entitled "Jon And Kate" 8 Being Exploited? Concerns Raised Over Privacy Issues, Possible Emotional Distress." Cactusjump (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it wouldn't work. It only poses a question about exploitation (it does not actually say or even imply that they are), gives a couple of quotes that show they may be, and then goes on to talk about how the children are protected by law and that Kate is not endangering the children. It refutes its own hypothetical question on whether or not the children are being exploited. --13² 00:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I will also mention that it's going to be a lot more difficult to find something that says or even suggests they are being exploited. That's something a lot of people are hesitant to actually say, so it's going to probably a hair harder to find a source than simply Googling "Jon & Kate plus 8 exploitation". I think, if it came down to it, we could probably use this source, but we'd have to be very careful about the wording since the source never actually suggests or says they are exploited. --13² 00:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Would it be valid to include that there is speculation and controversy surrounding the show in regards to the children possibly being exploited? Cactusjump (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe say something like, "Some sources have questioned whether the children are being exploited. However, the children are protected by law and Kate has said she would not endanger her children." or some-such? --13² 20:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The source doesn't say that the children are protected by law as far as receiving earnings or compensation for their appearance, just that the laws are applicable in California (not where the Gosselins reside in Pennysylvania). Perhaps something like "Criticism has been raised regarding Kate's intentions of continuing with the show, and whether or not the children are being exploited. At this point there are no laws in Pennsylvania regarding childrens' appearances on television, and Kate defends her position that the children are happy and healthy, and not in danger." Cactusjump (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"But the children, according to Allred, have some legal protection. "Every state does regulate to protect the health, the safety and welfare of little child performers," Allred said. "And these little ones are only eight years old and five years old, they can’t protect themselves, so the state has to be sure that they are safe in their workplace."

I read that as saying they are protected by laws in their state, even if they didn't get into specifics within the article. PS: I like your version better. --13² 21:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. Alright, I'll put my version in. I'll add Allred's quote, as well, just to be safe. Cactusjump (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Foreign broadcasters

It is also broadcast in Canada, dubbed in French, on Canal Vie, as "8 à la maison". See Template:Fr http://www.canalvie.com/emission/8-a-la-maison/

The infobox can be updated.

70.29.208.129 (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Link to Kate Gosselin page

I didn't think this would be a controversial addition to the article, but since User:R7604 has reverted my edit twice... Is there a reason why we can't have a See Also section that links to the Kate Gosselin page? Cactusjump (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

She should be in a see also section and also get a link from her name the first time it appears in the article.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. According to Wikipedia Layout, the See Also section is a valid part of an article and should appropriately link articles that are along the same subject, such as Kate Gosselin to this article. So I put it back in. Cheers! Cactusjump (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the edit was reverted again by User:R7604. I don't want to edit war, so if anyone else has an opinion, they can put it here. Cactusjump (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Per Wikipedia:Layout re. "See Also" sections: "These may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." Cactusjump (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Also per that page: "Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"...A "perfect" article then might not require a "See also" section at all." That section of that page, despite cactusjump's quote above appears to heavily favor not including already-linked to items and not creating a "See also" section just to have a "See also" section. Also, keep in mind, "See also" sections are generally reserved for links that have a strong connection to the topic, but aren't linked in the article for some reason or another. I don't have an opinion either way on this, but since all that's here is support for inclusion, I figured I'd play Devil's Advocate. One idea is to actually go ask the people over at WT:GTL and get their opinion on it. *shrug* --13² 00:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Valid point, and I have asked for a third opinion on this. I'm surprised it's even an arguable topic, but from my perspective, the only way I saw that there was a Kate article was on this talk page. So why not help other readers? Cactusjump (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I don't see this as a "perfect" article...yet. Cactusjump (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, Devil's Advocate: Perfect articles don't exist, even featured articles are not considered perfect, which is exactly why it is in quotes on that page. The statement is still valid. You shouldn't add a "See also" section just to add a "See also" section. There should be a valid reason to have one. Repeating links that are already in the article is probably not a valid reason...I wish R7604 would come and argue his/her point since they seem so adamant to keep it out. --13² 00:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, cactusjump, you may want to edit your request over at 3O. It might get removed without being reviewed because it is not a neutral request. You should have just left it at "Disagreement to add a See Also section in the article pointing to related article Kate Gosselin." --13² 01:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm so over this disagreement anyway. R7604 has been invited to come to this talk page a couple times, but has chosen to use my talk page instead. I've agreed to concede on his talk page. I just wish he could've participated in a discussion on this page as I asked him to much earlier today. Oh well. Cactusjump (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that see also sections should exist to point out important other articles, even if they exist in the text of the article, since you might have missed the link while reading the article. (especially if it's a piped link) 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the biggest arguments to be made against inclusion is that, since it's already linked, it shouldn't go in the "See also" section. Excessive linking is a big no-no on Wikipedia. If a reader wants to read more about Kate, they can either go up and click on the link or do a search for her. I'm probably just slightly more in the camp in not including it, just because I think it's a waste of space (since it's already linked) and unnecessarily lengthens the article. Just like you wouldn't repeat information in the article, you probably shouldn't relink either. --13² 14:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

← From WP:3O - The purpose of the See also section is to link to related topics which are not already discussed in the article. If it is not restricted, in many articles it quickly balloons past the point of being useful to the reader. A better option is to add the |starring= parameter to the {{Infobox television}} at the start of the article; I note that there is also a |list_episodes parameter which could be added. If there is a whole family of related articles, it might also be useful to add a navigation box sorting these to the bottom of each article in the family. An example using both of these solutions may be seen at Squidbillies. If you would like me to set up either or both, please ping my talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a kind of policy/guideline that is not useful for the purpose of the encyclopedia, since if people use Wikipedia to find information on things, and they can't find it, it's not really useful. Major related topics should be easy to find. If you link things through a piped link it certainly may not be obvious that the linked to article is about the topic you want. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Err, because the guideline exists at all is because it's useful for the purpose of the encyclopedia. If it weren't useful, it wouldn't exist. It is extremely easy to find information on this site. Besides being linked to within related articles, see the search box on the left? Plus, if you do an internet search for almost anything, Wikipedia is almost always in the top ten hits. Please argue this issue based on policies and guidelines because this "We need to hold the readers' hands!" thing is rather irrelevant. --13² 14:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

One further comment from someone not conversant with the show - it might also be worthwhile to rewrite to include or to add sections dedicated each of the actors who has an article, and link using {{main}} or {{also}}. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the suggestions. I really like your suggestion about adding who stars in it in the infobox (this is a television show, after all) so I will go ahead and add that in (I will include a linked Kate plus non-linked Jon and the kids). --13² 14:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm just going to have Jon and Kate in the infobox. With the kids included, there would just be too long of a list for it. Plus, the show is more about the parents and how they deal with the eight than it is about the eight anyway. --13² 15:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad a decision was reached. :) Cactusjump (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

identical?

so, this article says something about there being six sacs with seven embryos when kate was pregnant with the sextuplets. Are any of the sextuplets indentical? and I'm assuming one of the babies died? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.39.44.145 (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As a fraternal twin, I can tell you. If there are boys AND girls among the multiples, it's impossible for them to be identical, due to the different chromosomes. And they have to ALL be fraternal. You can't have "some identical" and others fraternal. If they all shared the same sac they'd be identical; either all boys or all girls. Cactusjump (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Cactusjump, you are incorrect. In multiple births you can have fraternal twins, identical twins, and in the case of more then two, combinations (or higher order) twins. Consider two eggs fertilized by two sperm, yielding fraternal twins (different resulting DNA), now consider one of those eggs splits. You now have triplets with two being identical and those being in fraternal relationship relative to the third embryo. The article on wikipedia on twins is actually decent, and covers even the "half-twin" scenario where DNA identical twins develop differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.118.251 (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw my answer previously and realized I had explained that a bit mixed up. I was speaking specifically to twins. Twins who share a sac are identical. If there are multiples who share a sac, those are identical, while a seperate sac may hold a fraternal sibling in the same womb. Cactusjump (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

proper spelling of Canada

Please refer to release dates of show. Following certain regions (bottom part of the article) its not Cananda but CANADA if you are referring to the country pretty bad typo

All I've got is...wow. Thanks for bringing that up. I've fixed it. Let me know if there's one I didn't catch. --13² 12:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Youre Welcome...I dont see anything else so far

In the future, if you see a typo, just FIX IT. Discussion is not necessary. DFS (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Dogs Adopted ... Dogs Purchased

I've seen this changed every day at least three or four times. Can anyone verify if they purchased or adopted the dogs (with a source) so that it's not edited hourly? Cactusjump (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It's actually fairly confusing so I actually do understand why people keep changing it. The Gosselins were going to purchase the dogs from a breeder, but the breeder told them at the last minute that he was going to give the dogs to them for free. --13² 20:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember seeing on the show that they wrote a check to the breeder, but all the money went to a charity. How could that be worded? I'm actually wondering...Are the dogs an important part of the show to be included? Cactusjump (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly? I don't think so. They were featured on a whole one episode and have only been seen a couple of times since. I think the "Gosselins" section should be strictly limited to actual Gosselins...that is, animals of the human variety. ;) --13² 22:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But every time it's deleted, it's put back. Cactusjump (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove it again. We can always just revert and point to the talk page later. --13² 20:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see we tamed fire, conquered space and the atom, and invented Wikipedia so we can talk, verifiably, about someone's dogs. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sarcastic, snarky comments are unnecessary. Please consider contributing to the discussion in a more productive way. --13² 20:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. How about this: I don't believe that the dogs are important enough to be included. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, which was why I removed them yesterday. Hopefully it stays that way. --13² 12:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Divorce

http://www.popeater.com/television/article/jon-and-kate-gosselin-divorcing/537333?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main%7Cdl2%7Clink3%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.popeater.com%2Ftelevision%2Farticle%2Fjon-and-kate-gosselin-divorcing%2F537333

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20286254,00.html

This is not a confirmation but an early "heads up" that it was anounced here first. Whether they announce it on the show or not, its being reported so I'm adding it to this talk page. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

they never said on the annoucment that they are divorcing they are only sepearting. --M42380 (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In episode 98 near the end, a message displayed saying; "On monday June 22, 2009, LEGAL PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED IN PENNSYLVANIA TO DISSOLVE THE TEN-YEAR MARRIAGE OF JON AND KATE GOSSELIN." This highly suggest that Jon and Kate filed a divorce. ([[Use--Boydean (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Guess what? it's a lied about their marriage is ending. It's just for more viewers to watch and see how "divorced" parents work out their lives for their children. --M42380 (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is pure speculation and original research. Where is the reliable source that can be verified and says it's being made up? --13² 14:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There might be issuess but Jon and Kate promised their children that they would stay together. However, with news that the show is being made up to gain viewers and how the viewers are wanting. I mean that how much is this show is real-life for the family?--M42380 (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point entirely. What you are saying might very well be true, but you have no reliable source that can be verified to show this. Your personal opinion does not matter at all. It doesn't matter how much is "real-life" or not. What matters is what the sources say. I think you're wrong anyway, but what matters is that what the article currently says is verified by reliable sources. Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There are many things that the producers on the show that have claim to be true. Only time will tell what happens with the family. There are many stations or articles are just trying to get people to read them and want them to be true. Now, Kate might have filed legal things but we don't know what they are. I have to find the information. I will.

http://brokencontrollers.com/jon-and-kate-plus-8-not-plus-divorce-t1651458.php --M42380 (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source. --13² 15:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, that message on the forum was posted in March. Back in March, there were no plans for divorce. This is a recent issue. You can't use old information to support some conspiracy theory that's based on current information. Sorry. That's not how it works. --13² 15:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

further, the show (and the cited sources) specifically said that the legal filings were to disolve the marriage. so you are incorrect. we DO know what the filings were for (according to verifiable, reliable sources). you're fighting a losing (and incorrect) fight here, buddy. Wikiwikikid (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC) http://www.nj.com/entertainment/celebrities/index.ssf/2009/06/jon_and_kate_plus_eight_produc.html Production on the show has been suspended C3pjo (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added a little blurb about it. Thanks! --13² 16:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Eh. It says, "The show has been canceled." Not the right wording lol Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone changed it from what it was. It has since been reverted back to the correct version. --13² 20:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

More proof that the show is making things up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BwydB_2kZY&feature=quicklist

Again, that's not a reliable source, buddy. Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Typo error under section "Production"

Under "Production" in the second sentence of it says "Jon & Kate Plus Ei8ht is filmed three days...". 'Ei8ht' needs to be changed to '8'.

 Done Killiondude (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality?

I do not see any problem with the neutrality of this article, so I will remove the tag for that. Am I completely blind? Bearian (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's fine to remove it. It probably should have been removed a while ago. The issue that caused it to go up was resolved fairly quickly; the tag just never got removed. So thanks! --13² 15:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Family History

The 'family history' section goes from birth of the sextuplets right to 2009 allegations of infidelity. Is there really nothing to say about the period in between, like, when they decided to appear on a reality show? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of Affairs

I mentioned this on the Kate talk page, but is there a reason why Jon's accusations of an affair are included, but not Kate's? Both have been vehemently denied, yet only Jon's extra-marital allegations remain here. I believe to be fair, both allegations should be included, or none at all. Cactusjump (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

They both were denied, and that is relevant, but at this point, Jon's has been proven by photo, video, and the woman's brother. So Jon's must be included.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 07:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There are no photos or videos proving he had an affair. They have pictures of him hanging out with a woman. There are millions of these types of photos with Jon...and even Kate (ffans or friends). A video of a man walking on a sidewalk also does not prove an affair. In addition, the brother is a non reliable source who has sold his story to tabloid magazines. Magazines which are not reliable according to wiki policy. The only "verifiable" sites that mention the brother, quote directly from the tabloid magazine. I think it is a grey area with wiki, but including content from a reliable source that states they received their information from an unreliable source is simply circumventing the rules of wiki.

So if you are going to include one, I guess you should include the other.

I agree with the unsigned above, if neither are "proven" and both are disputed, it's gotta be all or nothing. It's a glaring omission to not have Kate's allegations of infidelity, when Jon's are right there. They're in Kate's article, I believe. Cactusjump (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

the only thing is that you can not go by what a brother says. he has been to jail and has had his own isssues. he is probably just doing this for the publicity. now the thing is that kate, well they have no prof of her cheating where jon they do. the main thing that was out there was the other women sunbathig on there front yard while kate was away. that is just to much to be friends. now for kate just because there is a body graund in the picture does not mean that they hace cheated. please just get over it about kate jon did the wrong thingh and there is proof.--Beachbabe0517 (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

sorry, but your statements qualify as Original Research, which isn't allowed in Wikipedia. Your personal opinions do not matter in editing articles. Sunbathing, even if sunbathing NUDE, is not technically cheating. Wikipedia is not a news article. We do not report truth. We can only record what verifiable, reliable sources say. And to be certain, there are such sources saying that either of them might be cheating. Wikiwikikid (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I have to repeat myself, because it's not coming through. The issue is not who did what, or what appears to be inappropriate. That is opinion. The fact is that BOTH have been ACCUSED of cheating. And both Jon and Kate have denied it. To give more weight to Jon's allegations and to completely ignore Kate's is not maintaining neutrality. If there are no RELIABLE sources for either (as the unsigned above alleges), than this section should be deleted entirely. But to highlight Jon's allegations and not Kate's is just lopsided. Cactusjump (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. As Wikiwikikid stated above, there are sources saying that either or both of them might be cheating. For example, in this article from the Vancouver Sun, a source used to support Jon's cheating, it outlines allegations brought on to BOTH Jon and Kate. Cactusjump (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Since no one has put forth a valid argument since June 25, I added a short couple sentences about Kate being accused of cheating, as well as her denial -- both cited. If people feel this should be erased, then Jon's accusations of cheating should also be erased to give equal weight to the issues. Cactusjump (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, I wasn't arguing against including hers, just that his is well documented enough such that it must be included. I don't care about fairness, just proof.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally got that. And I agree: proof on both is necessary. Cactusjump (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Tiny typo

"is a eality television"

This is missing the "r" in "reality"

--Out There Live (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hiatus dates

Since the next episode that airs June 29 is a recap show, doesn't that make them on hiatus from filming from now until August? Cactusjump (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Typo?

Under family history, it currently says "The couple have denied these allegations" but shouldn't it say "The couple has denied..."? It is referring to a singular group. Kylel2005 (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect chart

The DVD multimedia chart near the bottom of the page is incorrect. The release dates were the same in the US and Canada, with certain States and Provinces getting it later. (Alaska, Hawaii, Northwest Territories) Having (Canada) after a list of 3 dates is misleading and just plain unnecessary. Also it's not referenced, and the link to the DVD regions have been removed. I tried to change it a few times and was verbally attacked by the chart creator. lol

If it's unreferenced and incorrect it should be changed to show just the one date for Region 1. Any comments/concerns ? --PhilthyBear (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I'm still at a loss for why this is even an issue. --13² 19:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Because Canada has NOT gotten the DVDs on the same dates as the U.S. This can be confirmed at Amazon.ca or TVShowsOnDVD. If you look at other shows, you'll see that they list two dates for the same region but the second one has a different country listed in brackets.

Also why do you need to link Region 1 or any regions for that matter? People know the regions the DVDs are meant for by now. If not then they've been living under a rock. It's not necessary, to state the obvious. R7604 (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you ever stop to think that Amazon doesnt receive stock of every DVD, Book, CD on its original release date ? The release date is probably the day it was released on Amazon for purchase. The three dates needs to be changed. And I would say most people are unaware that their are "DVD regions". Deleting the link is counter productive--PhilthyBear (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't get my message to your reply. Check Amazon.ca, check Chapters/Indigo, both of these will say the same thing, Canada got the DVDs on a different date!! Chapter/Indigo has them in store too. The dates are correct for Canada!!

If "most people" are "unaware" of the DVD region codes, by now, then they have apparently been living under that rock. I refuse treat people like they have nothing between their ears. DVDs have been around for a while now, (late 90s) and everyone knows which region is which. If not, they can look it up, that's what Google was created for. A person using the internet and even this site, definately knows the regions codes as far as DVDs are concerned.

Not to mention the fact that when I first created the "chart" for the DVDs, no one was concerned with either the dates (which are correct) or linking the codes. So why after almsot three months, is there a sudden need to change everything?

Here's the other thing, Season 4, Volume 2, does have the same release date in all of North America. If Canada was supposedly getting the previous DVDs at the same time as the U.S. then why is Amazon.ca & Chatpers/Indigo are listing a matching date only now? Btw it's not "some Provinces" that were getting a different date, it was all of Canada. Why on earth you would think some Provinces are different from others, I don't know. As for the U.S., you'd have to ask someone from Alaska and Hawaii, for proof about those two States, since, PhilthyBear, you and I both live in Canada. R7604 (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again I think online stores get their stock after it goes on sale. But even if ALL of Canada gets it 1 month later than the US, putting (canada) after 3 dates is confusing and it crowds the chart. And the "Region 1" link should be restored. --PhilthyBear (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I still completely agree with PhilthyBear on all points. I have not seen anything convincing to keep those edits. --13² 12:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Avoid MSN articles

Hey guys, when sourcing stuff, try to avoid articles from MSNBC. They take them off of their site so fast that at least one of the sources we were using was already defunct, despite the fact that these allegations surfaced a mere two months ago. If you can, please try to find a duplicate article on another site and use that instead. Also, if there are any other MSNBC articles being used as sources, please help find replacements for them. Thanks! --13² 00:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section tag

I'm confused...Why would there be a question on the article's neutrality placed on the Criticism section? I believe it to be written neutrally, as it presents the criticism that exists, and how Jon and Kate and TLC have responded. The link from the tag goes to a short essay that basically says "Sometimes you should have a Criticism section, and sometimes not." So then what's the point of the tag? Cactusjump (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism sections are, ideally, supposed to be interspersed throughout the article, rather than in a separate section. A good example is Peace Corps. It's got a TON of criticism in it, but it's talked about throughout the article in the appropriate sections, as opposed to a specific section dedicated solely to criticism. Essentially, it's best to avoid a specific section, as opposed to having it in appropriate places throughout the article. I hope that explanation wasn't too wordy or repetitive. --13² 04:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that makes sense. I guess my next goal is to work it all in. Thanks. Cactusjump (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"8" vs. "Eight"

Logo of the show indicates that the number is spelled out ("Eight") and not the single digit value ("8"). Article is locked so I can't edit it and it needs to be edited numerous times throughout the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoudFlatulence (talk • contribs) 02:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

TLC lists it as "Jon & Kate Plus 8" (numerical). Unless we can get a more reliable source than the actual network website this is aired on, we can't change it. Sorry. --13² 04:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the logo actually has the numeric "8" in place of a "g" in "eight". Just an observation that could show it could go either way, even within the logo. However, the logo is still not as good of a source the site. --13² 17:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. A logo is just a stylized title. It's not necessarily the exact phrasing or wording of the title. Cactusjump (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I also wondered why it's not "Ei8ht" since that's how I see it on TLC's site. http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/jon-and-kate/jon-and-kate.html I think it should be words not the number except to replace the letter "g".R7604 (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Umm...where do you see that anywhere on that page (and not within a logo, mind you, which I don't see anyway)? I've done a page source search for that page and never once found "Ei8ht" anywhere on that page. At all. However, I have found "8" referenced as the title...8 times...which is somewhat amusing as well. You're going to have to do better than simply claiming TLC uses it as the title without actually showing any proof. Sorry. --13² 17:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Make that 9 times. It's also the title of the page. --13² 17:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Kids ages/chart

I've noticed that a certain editor (R7604) has some sort of dispute over adding the kids ages to the chart. Why shouldn't this be allowed? 18 Kids and Counting (AKA Duggar Family) has all of their kids listed, and they have two sets of twins as well. Not everyone actually knows the kids birthdays, and I think that it would be great to just keep that in the article. By the way, s/he said that the sextuplets had turned one in the first season; nope, they turned three (they were born 2004; first season debuted 2007). ★Dasani★ 00:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm indifferent on this. On one hand, unlike the Duggars, there are only two sets of multiples and no other children, so the information is either repeated once or six times with nothing in between, which sort of clutters the table. However, on the other side, I really don't see any harm in it. One alternate idea would be to keep it how it was, without a chart, but replace the text birthdays with one "birth date and age" tag for each set of multiples. It would cover all of the kids, but not look as repetitive and cluttered. Just a thought. :) --13² 00:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example of my suggestion:

Twins - born (2000-10-08) October 8, 2000 - in birth order:

• Kid 1
• Kid 2

Sextuplets - born (2004-05-10) May 10, 2004 - in birth order:

• Kid 3
• Kid 4
• Kid 5
• Kid 6
• Kid 7
• Kid 8

I hope that makes more sense than my simple text explanation did. --13² 13:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Thirteen. It's both cluttered and repetitive to list their ages individually. I like the suggestion you made, Thirteen with the layout. Cactusjump (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure what to do, because Jon and Kate have an unusual case in which they were blessed with TWO different sets of multiples. I really do like your suggestion. Now if somebody could just go ahead and change that for us... ★Dasani★ 21:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As usual, discussing a concern here is so much more fruitful than just reverting (as some editors choose to do). Cactusjump (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that the page protection has been lifted due to the strong consensus for the DVD section below, I've gotten it changed! I also went ahead and added the "birth date and age" tag to Jon and Kate in the section as well. I hope that was all right with you guys. --13² 12:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the page. Please use the talk page to get consensus for changes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --13² 13:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

With a clear consensus below for the later version here, the page is unlocked. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

DVD section

Besides the points raised by Philthybear in the above section, here are the reasons that I keep reverting R7604's channges:

1. Other people don't agree with the changes and R keeps reverting their reverts without even attempting to gain a consensus here. If there were anything resembling a consensus on this talk page, I wouldn't revert it.
2. The "Region 1" really needs to be linked. Just because you, R, understand what "Region 1" means doesn't mean everybody else does and it's incredibly rude to say things like "they've been living under a rock" if they don't understand it. IT IS NOT COMMON KNOWLEDGE, even if you think it should be. Heck, I didn't even really understand it until a few months ago and this is from an avid gamer of 20 years.
3. R's version is incredibly cluttered and confusing. There are three dates slashed like this: Date1/Date2/Date3. While you have specified that the last date is for Canada, using parenthesis, but you haven't for the other two. Where on earth do the other two dates correspond to?!
4. Parenthesis and slashes are generally frowned on. If you want to specify within Region 1, that there is a country with a different date than the other countries in Region 1, you need to add a separate column within Region 1's box that shows the separate countries with their individual dates underneath them.

As you can see, my issues with it have nothing to do with the actual information (though I think someone may have brought it up elsewhere). My issues are 100% consensus, internal link, and style. It'd be nice, R, if you'd stop making assumptions about why I, and others, are changing this. --13² 13:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example of what I mean by #4. The specific example would be letters B, C, and D, where "B" would be "Region 1" and "C" and "D" would be the individual countries (like "Canada"). --13² 13:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

After reading through the discussion above with Philthybear, R, you seem to be relying an awful lot on what Amazon says regarding release dates. Just to let you know, Amazon is not considered a reliable source for this information. I don't want to get into possible misinformation (I'll let someone else tackle that if they want to), but I will inform you that, not only are you going to need to cite the differences, but you're also going to have to cite it with a reliable source, neither of which are in your preferred version and Amazon doesn't make the cut. --13² 16:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed that Amazon is rather inconsistent with release dates. I am not sure where to direct you to find the "right" ones, but Amazon is probably sort of... mediocre. Half of the albums, singles, and books I looked up were "released" either too early or too late. Also, there's the problem with them offering many different editions, so you have to make sure you have the exact right title (I don't watch the show, so I wouldn't know, but just sayin'). ★Dasani★ 21:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe the consensus is in favor of the opposite of what R desires, seeing as how Thirteen, Philthybear, Dasani, and I all seem to agree. Your reasons for reverting are totally valid. Cactusjump (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, phew, I'm glad. I knew BovineBoy and Philthybear agreed since they've been the ones to initiate the change, but I'm glad to see some more people coming out to support it. I don't like conflict so this whole thing has gotten me feeling pretty uncomfortable, especially since it forced me to choose a "side" unlike most of the stuff that happens on this page. --13² 23:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that every date for "Region 4" is TBA. Is there any reason we are keeping this in? I mean, if news comes out that it'll be released there, then, of course, it should be in the chart. However, if there's still no plans for it, why is it there? I'm just a little confused. If someone could clear that up, that'd be great. Also, we need to make a push to get more specific dates for "Region 2" than just "2008". --13² 13:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope you're happy, my choice was to have accurate information but apparently not. Now all that is listed is an online release date through Discover's website. I did say I would delete it since no one liked all of my work to look up the dates and later on create a table for them. Interesting how three months later, after I created the table, everyone jumps in and say I'm wrong and useless. Nice to know I'm apprecidated and no I'm not leaving this site, just because you people don't like my work I did for the DVDs. I'd like to know why no one else bother putting the information for release dates or a table before me? R7604 (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how this became a personal issue with you. If you had followed Wiki Policies and remained open for discussion on this page instead of attacking editors who disagreed with you on their talk pages, perhaps you wouldn't feel as if "everyone jumped in" suddenly and said that you were wrong. Sometimes we don't get what we want, sometimes our ideas presented here are not agreed on (see above for examples), but that's Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with you or your hard work. It's based on a consensus of other editors. If you are taking it personally, perhaps it's time to step back and take a Wikibreak. Cactusjump (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a good response. Thank you. --13² 18:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If that's the release date for the Discovery site then that is the release date for region 1. When it goes out to other stores is irrelevant if it can still be bought somewhere. --13² 18:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through and edited the chart with the most correct information at this time and, more importantly, I've cited it all. I can't find any proof that any of the disks have been released sooner on the Discovery site as opposed to other stores or later either. If anyone can point me to a source that says this, please do so. Further, the dates listed on the two sources I looked at were identical (they were Amazon (which I did not cite) and TVShowsOnDVD (which I did cite)), so I changed them to match. Also, some of the titles were incomplete or incorrect and the first two seasons were bundled as one, not separated as two. --13² 19:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice work! Cactusjump (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) --13² 20:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I will say this for the last time (I hope) and maybe you people will both read it and understand. Canada did NOT get the DVDs for Seasons 1-3 or S4V1 at the same time as the U.S. If we did, I wouldn't have been looking around for it. It happens, sometimes, that Canadians get DVDs for some shows at a later date. Want irony? Degrassi: TNG is a Canadian show and the first couple of seasons were released later on in Canada.

Another thing, other shows have more then one release date for the same reason, so there's no reason why this show can't too. What shows? Gossip Girl for one.... Look around I've seen a few shows that same thing as I do.

And what's with putting back all the old references I've removed over the past year?

One last thing, since you don't read my notes when editing, go to Amazon UK and type in Jon & Kate Plus Eight, there you'll find 'ALL information, like I did. I don't know why no one else did that instead of putting "citation needed". R7604 (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you coming to the talk page to discuss your edits, albeit after the fact, and in a quite an uncivil way. Nevertheless, I still don't know why you erased all the citations that were with the dates, citations that made them valid. Just because you removed them previously, doesn't make it "wrong" for an editor to put them back. You don't own the article or the section, and it can and will be changed without your permission. More importantly, as you see in the above discussion, a consensus was reached regarding the chart, and it was agreed upon by not just 2 editors, but four that it should be the way that it was before. Cactusjump (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, going to Amazon UK would provide no assistance to anyone, as Amazon is not a reliable source. Cactusjump (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. Amazon, Chapters, and other various stores are not considered reliable sources. Reliable sources for this information would be DVD release databases, press releases, and information from official sites (for this article, things like those would be the TLC site or the Gosselin family site). If a source can be found and cited (not just saying you had a source, but providing an actual source that we can click on and go to) that says the Canada dates were released later, we should use the manual of style I pointed out in number four in my original message. Slashes and parentheses look cluttered and disorganized. --13² 22:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Country vs Region issue

Now there seems to be an issue with using regions or countries for release. I think since DVD's are generally released per region (although some countries may have a delayed release) we really should be using Regions. And it wouldn't be incorrect to have only one release for each region; taking a leaf from WP:FilmRelease, the first release date for each region should be noted. BOVINEBOY2008 16:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Like I said elsewhere on this talk page, the first release within the region is the release date for that region. If it can be bought somewhere in that region, then it's been released in that region. Also, we still need an actual, cited reliable source that says Canada gets it later; not just a notation, not just an edit summary that says to go to some website that doesn't actually say it, or anything like that. An actual, cited reliable source, otherwise it can't stay in as it is considered original research. --13² 16:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Just want to add with the above comments, that a cited reliable source does not include Amazon.com, whether it be Amazon UK or US or Timbuktu. Once again, AMAZON IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE. Cactusjump (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Archived

Per the discussion at the top, I've archived everything that was stale or resolved (essentially anything without replies in July). This page is still really long though. :( --13² 20:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I just archived three discussion strings from May. All had been resolved or were inconsequential. Cactusjump (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Location

Since John and Kate have decided to move, and both no longer stay exclusively in PA, should their new addresses be added to their location? Jon is in NY and recently Kate decided to move next door to me in MD. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)