Talk:Jim Bob Duggar

Vandalism

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

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

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

Websites

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

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

Names and birth dates

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

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

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

Website

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

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

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

add

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

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

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

About Jim Bob's age

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

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

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

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

This line should read:

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

or simply

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

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

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

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

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

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

I guess it depends on your definition of 'known'. :D Strawberry Island 16:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment

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

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

Duggar family 2006 image

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

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

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

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

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

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

The restoration of an image which had been in the article for nearly a year, with a request for discussion on the talk page for discussing improvements to the article, was neither the act of ‘a vandal’ nor did it ‘break policy.’ Please observe the civility and no personal attacks policies. Thank you. — Athaenara ✉ 22:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And I didn't say it was vandalism. I said that warning a single user on an article's talk page is not appropriate. It very clearly was breaking policy though, see the top of WP:FUC. --lucid 22:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a user issue, it's an issue of wikipedia articles and images. There is nothing at ‘the top of’ the Non-free content criteria page which supports targeting individual good faith editors. — Athaenara ✉ 22:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And there is nothing in WP:AGF that says "Assume someone is wrong and revert them without checking" either. In fact, that's kinda the opposite of the point. Please, I have no interest in getting an argument with you. You broke policy, I made you aware of it, that's all that needs to happen. Just let it go. --lucid 22:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The claim that I ‘broke policy’ is false. Repetition of that claim is both dishonest and uncivil. — Athaenara ✉ 23:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) false how? WP:FUC is a policy. You went against it. Therefore, you broke policy. It's not uncivil, it's a statement of fact. Please stop accusing me of 'targeting' you and 'lying' about policy, as that's no better than what you're accusing me of --lucid 11:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please specify where in Non-free content criteria there is support for a claim that my restoration of an image to an article with a request for discussion on that article's talk page was a violation of policy. — Athaenara ✉ 22:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone understand where the claimed rule comes from, 'Fair use images cannot be used in BLP articles?' I did not find that stated anywhere as a rule. Editor Lucid must be getting it as a deduction from other rules. If that rule is being followed elsewhere, there should be at least one Talk thread that Lucid can point to. EdJohnston 13:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Related discussion found here. — Athaenara ✉ 03:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added two images to this article which have been licensed under an acceptable free license. To clarify why fair use images generally cannot be used on biographies of living persons, it is necessary to look at our non-free content criteria. I will quote it here:

1. "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.

Since the subjects of biographies of living persons are, by definition, alive, then it is generally considered on Wikipedia that a free equivalent could be created simply by finding that person and photographing them. It's not until the person is dead, really, that photographs of them become irreplaceable with freer alternatives. This is re-stated in our non-free content guidelines as follows:

"Here are other images that if non-free would almost certainly not satisfy the policy.

12. Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career."

I hope this has clarified for you the position on Wikipedia with respect to fair use images on articles about living people. - Mark 04:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

1. The image in question, however it is described, is not non-free content: Image:Duggar family 2006.jpg is a printed campaign card of which hundreds, possibly thousands, were given away.
2. User Lucid's attitude, that one restoration of an image with a request for discussion on the talk page of the only article in which it was used is comparable to vandalism and broke policy, is wrong.
3. Aside from particulars of the campaign card, user Mark's explanation is quite clear and uploads of more recent images with permissions even better. — Athaenara ✉ 02:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

1- There's a big difference between gratis and libre. This is EXTREMELY basic rules on copyright on Wikipedia. Hell, look right under the save page button, "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted." -- just because something is free FOR YOU TO LOOK AT does not make it FREE FOR YOU TO USE. Wikipedia is strictly free content, and that image was not. It was fair use at best, but like the links you have already been shown three or four times now say, fair use does not apply to articles on people that are alive 2- I never said your edits were comparable to vandalism. I said very clearly that it was warning a user on an article's talk page that was silly, not that your edits were vandalism. And as you have been multiple times, you did break policy. 3- you can thank me for getting them. Mark was kind enough to upload them for me as I have left Wikipedia (He also left that note at my request), but I am the one who bothered to ask the family for them instead of simply allowing people to break policy repeatedly. ---lucid 03:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

… "drawn back more to try to drill this through your lead skull"? I think you should not continue to indulge in such appalling incivility. — Athaenara ✉ 06:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Postscript: I have never downloaded or uploaded any image, and I was not the editor who first added it to the article. — Athaenara ✉ 06:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC) & 06:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Senate, 2002

The article reads: "Duggar was a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, but lost to Tim Hutchinson."

As it is written, Tim Hutchinson won the Senate race. This is not factual. My understanding is that Duggar was in the running for the Republican nomination but lost the primary to the incumbent Hutchison. Hutchinson was then defeated by Democratic Party member Mark Pryor in the United States Senate elections, 2002.

DDD DDD 10:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)