Talk:Jon & Kate Plus 8

Jon's ethnicity & Jon's mother

Why doesn't this article mention Jon's mother and the fact that she's a Korean-American from Hawaii? It's relevant because the subject is addressed on numerous occasions and Jon and Kate have addressed several times that they want the kids to know about their Asian heritage. Also, newcomers who don't know about the family might be curious at first glance about the children's ethnicity. Can someone who has editing rights to this article add a quick note about Jon's mother or his heritage? I don't feel that it's irrelevant. --Mezaco (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Kate's caucasian heritage should be mentioned as well.

I had speculated, at first glance, that Jon must be some type of East Asian. But where exactly did you get the Korean from? I could not find a reference anywhere. Please provide sources. ★Dasani★ 23:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It is said several times throughout the show's history that Jon's family is Korean. --13² 17:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Jon Is half white (caucasian) and half korean (his mom is korean) he grew up im hawaii. Kate is white (caucasian). Which, makes the kids 25% korean and 75% white. The article cites jons ethnicity. Pwojdacz (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC) http://www.koreamjournal.com/Magazine/index.php/kj/2008/may/cover_story/just_the_10_of_us

right after I posted this I saw the episode prior to the Hawaii wedding. Jon says that his grandparents moved to Hawaii from Korea.

I feel that the ethnicity of Jon/Kate/kids is irrelevant. They are all Americans with different heritage just like everyone else in this country :). Maybe just mentioning where Jon and Kate’s parents are from in the article might help? Pwojdacz (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

the kids (as said on the show) are 25% korean, 25% hawaiian, and 50% caucasian --RCNARANJA 19:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

They're not 25% hawaiian, it says above that his grandparents moved to Hawaii from korea. And anyway, is Hawaiian an ethinicity? Since Hawaii's part of America, shouldn't it just be Native American? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.209.4 (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the show or the people to know their ethnicity, but yes, Native Hawaiian (also see Native Hawaiians) is an ethnic group (see Ethnic group). The US Census considers Hawaiians as Native Hawaiians or Pacific Islanders. Further, there was a push for Native Hawaiians to be considered Native Americans back in '07, but as far as I know it didn't happen. Hope this helps. Wikiwikikid (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The Hawaiian people are Polynesian in ethnic origins, and are not equivalent to Native American Indians. Native American Indians are more closely related to the Northern Japanese Ainu than to the Hawaiian Polynesians. All of which appears to be irrelevant as Jon appears not to have any Hawaiian genes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.148.84 (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, I heard he was of Thai background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.209.234 (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

You know, I'm watching CNN just now, and on comes this section about the criticism this show is receiving, and I've seen people like PZ Myers criticize the show (or in Myer's case, the fans) Now, I realize that Myer's blog isn't a reliable source, for example, but when I came to this article, I was quite shocked that it doesn't even have a single criticism section. I mean, what the hell is going on? Are you telling me that everyone appearently loves this show so much that no one has voiced a single bit of criticism/controversy? Further more, I was a little bit perturbed to find that the this section in question had be removed mere days ago, with little to no discussion of it on this talk page? What's going on?

Then I recall what the blogs Myer's cited in his post said, about how the fans seems rather rabid and fantical, and I can't help but wonder if this article hasn't been white-washed by these said fans.

At the very least this article needs a review by a non-bias eye, and it probably needs a great deal of revision to remove fan-cuff from this article (like, do we really need a list of appearances?)--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 08:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been covered before please read above. Tinhor (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was, and yet I come here and the section has still be removed, it shouldn't be that hard to keep this one section in the article. This article needs to be looked at hard for POV violations.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 09:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The "Controversy" section has NOT been removed. I only removed the paragraph that is blatantly WP:OR (also see weasel word). Tinhor (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about that.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 10:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source you are welcome to contribute. As far as I know, however, we have looked and were unable to find anything reliable. Vjydanz (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing related to "PennMommy" or "Possummomma" is remotely reliable. As far as I can tell from reading the accounts, the woman was a weird hoax who fixated on that family and lied about a relative dying. If you want reliable sources with some criticism, the KoreAm Journal article and Virginia Heffernan's piece in The New York Times are at least a start; they were outlined earlier when we pulled the entire section because some housewives with nothing better to do were citing their blogs and stuff. Mike H. Fierce! 13:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, if you had read my post, you would see that I'm not suggesting the Possummomma/Penn-Mommy discussion be put into the article, however, the point I was trying to make is that their appears to be some rather rabid fans of this show, which, had you read the link I posted, you would realize exactly what I was talking about.

Why was this section removed? Because 'housewives with nothing better to do were citing their blogs'? That's not really a good enough reason to remove the whole section, and it's especially not warranted if you're not going to make any attempts to rewrite the section--which you and none of the other users have done, as far as I can tell. Don't get me wrong, we all have RL problems and issues we need to deal with, but it's been 4 or so months since you removed the section; if you can't find anything other then the Herrernan piece, or the KoreAm Journal, add them, build a section around those two items, it doesn't have to be wrong; further more, a bunch of the stuff you objected to in the original section, to me, seems that it would fine, had the section been about criticisms of the show, rather then supposed controversies, because I agree, things like accepting charity money isn't really controversial, but that doesn't mean people don't like it and do critique people on it.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing Kate hit Jon and berate him, despite his protests, all covered in a weekly television series, isn't a valid reference? Wikipedia has some severe issues it needs to address. Primary sources are still sources. You don't need a NYTimes journalist to quote someone for it to be reality. Really idiotic. All this serves to do is censor topics that haven't found their way to mainstream news media yet. 05:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what reliable sources and original research are:

Have Jon or Kate said that Kate was abusive? Have the children said she is abusive? Have the producers or directors said she is abusive? Have the neighbors or family said she is abusive? Have the cameramen said she is abusive? All of these people I have mentioned are primary sources and, if they said that Kate was abusive, it could be included.

Here's the problem: none of them have. Since none of the primary sources have said it, you can't use it and you especially can't wave around the "But a primary source is still a source!" flag because, clearly, the primary sources have said nothing of the sort.

Since the primary sources haven't said it, why should we believe that she is abusive? Because you say so? What are your credentials to say that she's abusive? Do you have a PhD in psychology with a specialization in abusive relationships? Do you have the backing by the BBC that says that what you say is worthwhile? No? Then that's called drawing conclusions and making assumptions (IE: original research). It can't be sourced and it certainly can't be cited. If, by chance, you do have that PhD with that specialization, do you have any of your claims published in peer-reviewed journals? No? Then it can't be sourced and it certainly can't be cited.

See what I'm getting at here? Just because you say something is like that, doesn't necessarily make it so (surely you know of the "Queen of England" comment). Wikipedia doesn't care about truth (because all sorts of different people hold all sorts of different truths), but it does care a great deal about verifiability.

Here are the guidelines for inclusion, in a nutshell: If the primary source says it, it can be used. If the primary source hasn't said it, you must look elsewhere for proof. If that proof can only be found in blogs, forums, and comment threads, it is not substantial and it can't be included. If, however, that proof can be found in major newspapers, peer reviewed journals, and the like, it can be included (along with all proper citations, of course). These guidelines are in place so that Wikipedia doesn't turn into a giant rumor mill and, instead, contains only that which can be proven. --13² 17:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem isn't that there isn't any controversy, it's that people appearently don't want to include anything about it in this article. This segment from CNN's Headline news http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q370dVhn2bc is what I'm talking about, although this wasn't the segment I was referencing in my original statement, but I can't find the original video on CNN to reference it-- and I'm not surprised, I don't think CNN uploads all it's segments to it's website. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 18:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you when I replied (at least, I don't believe I was; no one signed that message). I was addressing someone who was clearly misunderstanding policy. Ignoring that point, I wasn't talking about the issues with the children growing up in the environment where they are constantly being filmed and being put on tv (which is what both sources you're talking about were addressing). My reply was specifically talking about the concerns about Kate's "abuse" to Jon, which is what the user I replied to was addressing. Regarding the specifics of your reply though, if it has a reliable source, it can be included. However, it still shouldn't be included in a separate "Controversy" section. Guidelines strongly encourage controversy and criticism to be placed throughout the article where appropriate instead of lumping it all into a single, separate section. --13² 00:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more interested in having some information about how the show is received. It seems like there's a few different issues here - whether or not the show is popular or effective; whether or not the show portrays subject matter that is controversial; and whether or not the show is good or bad for the people on it. Don't most entries for TV shows at least have something about critical reception? C3pjo (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC) c3pjo

Criticism should not be in an encyclopedia article. Google them if you're curious. --RCNARANJA 19:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That's entirely false. Almost every Wikipedia article about film or television includes a section on critical reception. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Critical reception does not equal criticism. The former focuses on how well the show is doing, while the latter is what people think is wrong, ethically/morally/whatever with the family and the show. That's not to say neither should be included. They should, but, either way, both would need to be extremely well sourced with reliable sources that can be verified to be included. Sorry. --13² 18:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the article about the show, so moral/ethical issues with the family could only be in this article if they were directly related to the show, as well as supported by high-quality sources. People need to be mindful of the strict rules of WP:BLP, under which this article now falls (by its association with Kate Gosselin). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I was mostly trying to point out the inconsistency of going from "criticism shouldn't be allowed" to "yes it should, critical reception is in every film/tv article." They aren't the same thing, not by any stretch. --13² 18:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In regards to "Critical reception does not equal criticism. The former focuses on how well the show is doing, while the latter is what people think is wrong, ethically/morally/whatever with the family and the show" by 13², I disagree. Can you provide me with references for these definitions? I interpret critical reception to be a collection of various criticisms. Critical reception is not synonymous with "how well the show is doing." Ratings describe "how well the show is doing." Critical reception and ratings are not always in agreement. It is possible for the collective opinion of experts to be in opposition to the collective opinion of the populace, who determine ratings. An example of a show that had a very positive critical reception but poor ratings is Arrested Development. MLSmateo (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Umm as far as abusive or not, etc etc ad infinitum... resolve by leaving that word out and just putting the fact: she is often hitting him and so on... the fact that not even that shows up stretches credibility in most people's books. I can bring at least 15 people I know who see this whole wiki article on Jon and Kate as a joke due to bias... its long past time some un-biased eyes gathered info and compared it to what is found on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.82.181 (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Glaring Omissions

I rarely find an article that demonstrates the "truthiness" that wikipedia is mocked for so clearly. I don't watch the show, still haven't. But, I know the one thing the show is famous for is Kates inability to function. I try to use wikipedia as a go-to source, but a thirty second search online results in 2,000 hits describing this lack of control, with no mention of it on wikipedia. I'm trying to make a legitimate critique and not use this as a general forum, but when the only thing this ridiculous show is going to be remembered for (if anything) is Kate's tendency to lose her temper; I can't help but feel that leaving that out to placate the show's viewers only adds to the bad "pop encyclopedia" rep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.98.157 (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

While it may be true, Wikipedia does not care about truthiness. What Wikipedia does care about is verfiability. All facts, especially facts that could vilify the persons in question, have to have a reliable source. If you can find a reliable source, it can be included. If you can't find a reliable source, then it can't. Simple as that. As it stands though, there have been many attempts at including this in the article, but no reliable sources have ever been found to verify the information. --13² 16:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Are these reliable:

http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/news-and-features/packaged-goods/e3i686368ba4cd6a88ccf66cfc8bf2dd217?imw=Y

http://www.examiner.com/x-1684-Philadelphia-Parenting-Examiner~y2008m11d24-Pennsylvania--parents-Jon-and-Kate-Gosselin-stir-controversy

I honestly don't know if they are or not so I'm throwing them out there. C3pjo (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The first source is an opinion piece so it is not reliable and the second does not address the issue brought up in this discussion at all (IE: Kate's anger issues) and only makes vague reference to other criticisms. So no, neither of these can be used. --13² 20:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the fact that there is controversy surrounding this show be better noted in this article? Criticism in itself is about opinion, so why aren't opinion pieces acceptable? It seems that this reality show is held under a different standard than almost every other reality show. Cactusjump (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism is more than allowed. However, it has to be accompanied by cited reliable sources. The problem with J&K+8 is that the vast majority of "criticism" comes from blogs, forums, gossip sites, and various other unreliable sources. Since this article is about real people, the criticism is set to a higher standard of verifiability and, thus, extraordinary claims must be backed up with extraordinary sources. --13² 20:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you seemed to have brought this up, I figure I'll address it as well. We can't just say "There is controversy surrounding the series." because "controversy" can't be quantified and doesn't meet relevancy issues. In an attempt to quantify the controversy and make the statement relevant, you have to talk about the types of controversy, which falls into the issue of original research and finding reliable sources. We're interested in verifiability, not truth. Opinion pieces are pure original research and absolutely cannot be used. --13² 20:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I know this is probably beating a dead horse, but now I'm confused. C3pjo listed two sources above (Brandweek and The Philadephia Parenting Examiner) with articles highlighting the controversy, including thoughts from Paul Peterson, who is not a blogger, but a child advocate. The article cites comments he made on CNN. Can't those be added to the article?

Whether it's called "Reviews" or "Reception", many movies and television shows have viewer response. Some of them are negative, some are positive. Negative response would constitute a reliable amount of criticism. So I still don't understand why reviews (both negative and positive) cannot be reflected in this article, especially since this Discussion page alone demonstrates that there is a need to get information regarding the the various views of the show. Cactusjump (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is beating a dead horse. Paul Peterson is a former child star, playing at being a professional child advocate. In reality, he is a former child star with deep-rooted issues of being a former child star, yet has no professional training in this arena and we really can't take his word at anything. For something of the magnitude he speaks about, we really need to have a child psychologist or something from someone equally experienced in child psychology to use as a source. Paul Peterson just doesn't cut it.

We never use viewer response as a reliable source (or shouldn't at any rate). What we do use are reviews from people who are notable for their reviews. Most movie pages have reviews from places like Rotten Tomatoes or Roger Ebert who are highly respected for their reviews. Reviews from any old person are not notable, nor are they reliable. Negative responses from viewers would NOT be a reliable source of criticism and it certainly wouldn't portray a reliable amount of criticism (people who are angry are far more likely to be vocal about their complaints than people are are happy).

There is no "need" to get information regarding the various views of the show on the article if all it does is devolve into a bunch of inflammatory statements without reliable sources. What we need is statements that can be verified by using reliable sources. Blogs, forums, viewer reviews, opinion pieces, and other unreliable sources cannot be used. Sorry. Please review the page for reliable sources to see what can be used. Thank you. --13² 21:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your response and the clarification. Cactusjump (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's...confusing...to say the least. After a while, it gets easier to understand the difference between verifiability and truth and it gets easier and easier to look at a source and figure out whether or not it's reliable. Thanks for wanting to contribute productively and wanting to learn. We need more editors like you. :-) --13² 01:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

INABILITY TO FUNCTION?? maybe that is what you think, how bout you have 8 kids (six at once) and you let me know how youre doing. this has no place in an encyclopedia article. she functions JUST FINE- watch the show. --RCNARANJA 19:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Gods we need a wiki of the Jon and Kate wiki discussion page. SERIOUSLY. This type of banter needs to be documented, 50 years from now this will be a huge insight into how wiki became what it will should it survive that long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.82.181 (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

ktae does not suffer from an ability to function but more or less a shortage of temper(understandable given the fact that she has 8 children's lives to maintain, which she does with incredible orginization0. Howver if you were to put anything about her temper problems in the article it would need to make it seem like an opinion or that it was a qoute by someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.34.246.81 (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

family

Shouldn't the family section include that Jon's family is from Hawaii, and that he's Korean? They keep going over that in the show. Or the meaning of the middle names of the children? 76.66.196.229 (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the family should be a separate article, to provide better coverage without making this into a biography article. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No, because it would just be a regurgitation of the same material. The family just isn't notable outside of the television show. This is why Duggar family was merged with 17 Kids and Counting. --13² 21:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Unlike the Duggar family, which is just a family with a large number of sequentially produced offspring, and where many antecedants exist in history of similarly large families, the Gosselins are a set of sextuplets, and we have articles on sextuplets, just because they are sextuplets. Giannini sextuplets; Dilley sextuplets; Rosenkowitz sextuplets; Walton sextuplets; So the situations are not entirely analogous. Yes, they both have TV shows, but this family is a family with a set of sextuplets in it. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually think the fact that they have a show makes them more like the Duggar family than the other sextuplets. The reason these sextuplets are notable at this time is because of the show, not simply because they were born. Further, each of those sets of sextuplets you linked to were unique in some way. The Waltons were the first surviving all-female sextuplets. The Giannini sextuplets were the first surviving in Europe. The Dilley sextuplets were the first surviving in America. The Rosenkowitz sextuplets are the first surviving ever. The Gosslins aren't the first...anything. What makes them unique is the show. That said, though highly unlikely, if an article can be written that would be substantially different than this article, it can stay. However, if an article is created and it is essentially the same as this one, it would just be redirected to this page anyway. --13² 14:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

they were the first set of sextuplets that already have multiples in the family —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.100.152 (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Er...you got a source for that? --13² 01:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, how is that notable? Where does the line get drawn? Personally, I think firsts should only pertain to the actual set of six, not the family makeup before or after their birth. That line can't be drawn and you shouldn't have to try to conjure up a "first" just to get it to pass. --13² 01:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

New $1.1 million dollar home in Wernersville, PA

Where can it be mentioned in the article that Jon and Kate just moved into a $1.1 million dollar home at 298 Heffner Road in Wernersville, PA? This seems to contradict a theme in the show of them always needing coupons and scraping by to support their children. The property is listed in the Berks County public records under the CWN Rev Trust Agreement. [1] OddibeKerfeld (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone look up CWN Rev Trust? CWN is the Christian World News, which i believe is an affiliate of CBN and the 700 Club. I find this particularly interesting because i have seen Kate Gosselin on the 700 Club several times. The house could have been donated by the Christian organization in lieu of speaking arrangements, etc. since it has been mentioned in interviews that Kate and the family frequently appear at churches for motivational talks. --162.80.36.13 (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Christian World News is a news organization. It does not do property law and / or contracts on the side. Furthermore, the notion that they, or any company, would pay for a million dollar home in exchange for two television appearances (and none of 'Christian World News'), is ludicrous. Please take your crackpot theories elsewhere. Besides, CWN stands for plenty of things.

And one more thing. The link provided to the property records lists the name "CWM Rev Trust Agreement", not "CWN". Please do some research before posting your specious claims.Wcrickards (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so a property at that address is listed[2] with a "VALUTOTAL" of 482900. Where do you get $1.2m and where do you see the Gosselin name listed there? --Geniac (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Easy, the deed amount is $1,120,000. You are looking at the accessed amount. Those are two different things. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Geniac. Besides that issue though, unless you can find a reliable source that connects them spending a large amount of money on a house being ironic to them coupon clipping, it's all considered original research and can't be included. --13² 23:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying we need a news story that mentions that they moved into an expensive home? It's no secret. It's on the show and in public records. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you need a reliable source that shows the fact that it is "expensive" is notable because, honestly, I don't see how it is. --13² 03:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Must be nice. You don't think spending a million dollars on a home is a bit more than the average family pays for their home? Jon and Kate's show is built around how "hard" they have it and how much skimping and saving they have to do to make ends meet. Moving into a home which cost over a million dollars indicates that is no longer the case. If anything, they have become "Jon and Kate, Inc." and are making a great deal of money allowing the lives of their children to be filmed. It doesn't fit with their story. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please confine your comments to the article. This is not a forum for discussing the program or its subjects. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Would it be okay to include the median home value in Wernersville at the time? It gives perspective without being original research. [3] The median home price is currently ~$180,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.106.34 (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No. To be honest, the value of the house has nothing to do with this article, which is about a TV show. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

298 Heffner Road, Wernersville PA 19565 Map Sold for $1,120,000 on Oct 23rd, 2008 5 br 6 ba 6,055 sqft Farm/Ranch Description provided by Trulia. Description provided by Realty Trac. This Farm/Ranch located at 298 Heffner Road, Wernersville PA 19565 sold for $1,120,000 on Oct 23, 2008. 298 Heffner Rd has 5 beds, 6 baths, and approximately 6,055 square feet. The property has a lot size of 1,040,212 square feet and was built in 1997. 298 Heffner Rd previously sold for $1,120,000 on Oct 23, 2008. 298 Heffner Rd is in the 19565 ZIP code in Wernersville, PA. The average price per square foot for homes for sale in 19565 is $98. and it has a pool http://www.trulia.com/homes/Pennsylvania/Wernersville/sold/20515867-298-Heffner-Rd-Wernersville-PA-19565 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthprotector (talk • contribs) 04:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

i think it should be included. this show started out as a struggling family with all these kids and now theyre rich and its not about them struggling its about their nannies and how they travel all the time and get whatever they want. this is ABOUT the tv show, which is what this article is about. --RCNARANJA 19:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC) RCNARANJA is 100% correct. The Christian right agenda of "boot straps" is being pushed here by hiding the spoils handed to them by the 700 Club types. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.20.11 (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as the set of any television show is relevant, I would agree that the house where this show is produced is also relevant.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. The show is about the family's life, and that would include their home. I don't agree, however with the unsigned user who made the jab at Christianity. I wish some people would maintain some neutrality in their comments and not resort to such attacks. Cactusjump (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Rumors about Jon

http://www.parentdish.com/2009/03/06/jon-gosselin-caught-in-the-rumor-mill/?icid=200100397x1220251172x1201360299

Anyone think this should be added. Just bringing it into the light. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 05:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The title contains "Caught in the Rumor Mill"...what do you think? --13² 05:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, its out in the open, so we'll find out soon. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll clarify my statement. The source is not reliable in any way whatsoever. Every source they used to report was from some gossip site or to another article on their own site that was reporting from a gossip site. Completely unreliable. If it's true, the producers or J&K themselves will probably release something eventually. If it's not true, I wouldn't be shocked if it wasn't brought up at all. The only sources we can use for something this inflammatory must come from either the producers/TLC or J&K themselves. No one else. --13² 21:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

While i'm not sure if this counts, in last night's season finale, Jon & Kate talk about the future of the show and the fact that Jon has not been able to accept living in a fishbowl or being able to accept that he is a pubic persona. He stated that when he goes out, he's "not just Jon," rather, "Jon & Kate plus 8" and that when he does something there is someone there to take a picture of it or publicize it and that is not something he is used to. While they did not go into the details, they both made it sounds like perhaps this was either the last season of the show or a change might be taking place. All of this was happening while he WAS staying with his mother, who was recovering from a broken foot and her hunsband who was out of town. VERY interesting. --162.80.36.13 (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Allegations are valid reporting; and reporting an allegation does not endorse the claim. Controversies, such as this, may not be provable, but to delete them from the record seems inappropriate. Also it seems a little naive to not report something that is so widely reported in the media. Also, there is precedent for the reporting of unsubstantiated allegations... for example, Wikipedia has reported unsubstantiated claims that John Kennedy was involved in Marilyn Monroe's death. Also Wikipedia posted the allegations that Sen John Edwards had an adulterous relationship that resulted in an illegitimate son. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.121.228 (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no section on this about the recent conflicts between Jon and Kate. Last night was the opening of season 5 and I personally this page will know, and was, having a huge amount of traffic. Seems this isn't quite up to the task? TheFSaviator (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There already is a paragraph talking about this issue. To create a separate section would be adding undue weight on the subject when a simple paragraph within the family's history is sufficient at this time. --13² 17:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no proof that Jon AND Kate deny the rumors of his affair. Only Jon has denied them. Kate continues to say that Jon has made "poor choices". 98.220.60.24 (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

They both deny it. The actual show is not the only place they've talked about this. She never specified what those "poor choices" were (be they the affair or the partying or the way he handled things). All we have to go off of is what she has said and she has, indeed, denied it. 13² 22:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The denial is relevant only insofar as it is also relevant that Dick Cheney denies waterboarding is torture. I feel that, given the weight and coverage given to this issue in print and on television, and the fact that affairs are generally considered to be serious matters in a marriage, that this information has crossed the line and is deserving of its own section. If someone wants to separate the affair information into such a section and expand upon it, I would support it.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

vidcap

A vidcap of the whole family would be good. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

marriage trouble reports

Say it ain't so! Star Magazine is reporting that Jon Gosselin, star of the hit TLC reality show, "Jon & Kate Plus 8" may be cheating on his wife.

According to the Magazine, Jon--who along with Kate and the rest of his brood recently moved into a $1.3 million dollar mansion in Pennsylvania--recently crashed a party at Juniata College in nearby Huntington, PA and played beer pong with members of the women's volleyball team.

The following night he apparently went to a nearby sports bar, again with members of the women's volleyball team and allegedly made out with a number of them.

The Magazine quotes a witness at the bar as saying:

"He was dirty dancing with several of them, making out, kissing them on their necks and mouths. I thought it was rather surprising for a father with his wife and so many kids at home to be acting like this. He was all over one girl, a long-haired blonde who's nearly 6 feet tall. He left with several of the girls, including her."

Jon is also said to be frequenting other bars close to his home, even spending Valentine's Day away from Kate. Supposedly, he's even tried to pick up women while out with his mother.

Star Magazine also features a screenshot of this Live Journal entry and photo of a very drunk-looking Jon at a bar with two girls.

I must say, this all really breaks my heart. I recently interviewed Kate Gosselin and although she may come across as irritable on the show at times--her response to my asking her for a reason for this was, "Walk a day in my shoes and you'd be irritable too" which I completely respect -- she was a very kind throughout our phone conversation. I know some will speculate that the stresses of raising such a big family may be causing a strain on Jon and Kate's marriage, but I hope that the couple's strong Christian faith gets them through all of this--whether it's true or all just nasty rumors. (http://blog.beliefnet.com/idolchatter/2009/03/jon-gosselin-of-jon-kate-plus.html) Later in the week this report came out, "It is certainly hurtful for people to spread rumors and lies about us. It certainly makes me reluctant to live my life like the average person would," said Jon in a statement issued by his rep and obtained by Zap2it.com.

"This has made it very clear that the simplest innocent gesture -- such as taking a picture with a fan, can be taken out of context. As you can see on the show, I am not perfect, but I am a part of a loving family and couple."

The incident in question reportedly occurred February 6 when Jon was allegedly at Mimi's martini bar in Huntington, PA, which is located three hours away from the new $1.3 million home he shares with his wife Kate and their eight children.

While at the bar, Gosselin reportedly met some girls from Juniata College -- who subsequently invited him to a house party, where he proceeded to play beer pong.

The evening out reportedly continued at Memories Sports Bar & Grill, where Gosselin allegedly continued to drink and flirt with girls from the college.

"He was dirty dancing with several of them, making out, kissing them on their necks and mouths," an eyewitness previously told Star magazine. "I thought it was rather surprising for a father with his wife and so many kids at home to be acting like this. He was all over one girl, a long-haired blonde who's nearly 6 feet tall. He left with several of the girls, including her." (http://blog.beliefnet.com/idolchatter/2009/03/jon-gosselin-of-jon-kate-plus.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.185.229 (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

All of this is completely irrelevant unless you can find a reliable source to back it up. Besides, this article is about a television show, not a person. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The picture is definitly him. And he himself hasn't denied being there. The kissing may or may not have happened, but as you can see in the picture he is blitzed. I don't see how its irrelevent because they don't have their own personal pages. It should be noted under a "Controvery" section. Because the show and them have gained widespread attention. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is the article about the show. It is not a rumor mill. Please confine your comments to the article, and how to improve it, and leave idle speculation and chatter to the forums and blogs. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

this should be looked into again as theyve now BOTH admitted to cheating, are seperating and have done numerous interview to confirm this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.156.186 (talk) 06:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

For anyone looking here, the overwhelming consensus is to include the information regarding the affairs and marital trouble, as it is relevant to the show and printed in reliable sources. So, if something new and major comes along, by all means, source it and include it.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

other recurring characters

There should be a list of other people who recurrently appear on various seasons of the show... like the crewmembers who show up occasionally, and the paid helpers, and sitters, the helpful neighbour and "Aunt Jodi". 76.66.193.69 (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

i dont even know the names of most of the helpers but Aunt Jodi and Benny, OH YEAH --RCNARANJA 19:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

So can someone add them? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Puppy Name

The dog's name is Shoka, not ShoOka —Preceding unsigned comment added by RocketKid97 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's Shooka, not Shoka. Please see the official TLC site. --13² 19:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Since it's not on the main page anymore, here's a link to a description for a video with the correct spelling: click. As you can see, it is Shooka, not Shoka. --13² 19:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to note, the episode, “Sun, Seashells and Scrapes” had the subtitle "Shoka" when Joel mentioned its name. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The subtitles cannot be considered more reliable than the actual website. The subtitles are constantly baby-fied and words are spelled how the kids say them, even if it's not the correct spelling, like Alexis saying alligator and it being subtitled as "aldergator" simply because that's how she said it. Really though, I'm not too sure why the dogs names even have to be included in the article. --13² 14:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't have to reply. And what you said makes no sense. Theres only one way to say the dog's name. Its pronounced "Shoka". If their gonna say its spelled Shooka and pronounce it like "Shoka" they would always have it as Shooka in the sub. Thats its name. This isn't subjective like "aldergator". Frankly this is pointless to have a debate about it. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't want me to reply, you shouldn't have posted the message. This is a public discussion page where anyone can discuss anything you say. Your point that it is "pointless" is subjective. I don't think it is. It is an interesting observation, but the reason we can't use the subtitles as a source is because the subtitles are often misspelled (whether or not this particular word was misspelled), thus making it unreliable. Other users who may come here need to know that, which was why I replied. --13² 02:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I said you don't have to, not didn't. My post was a note. Once again your deconstructing a simple post. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversy removed

The Paul Petersen item was removed. http://www.minorcon.org/ Out of all the sources of controversy, I think this was the only reliable one. His child advocacy organization is legit. C3pjo (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)c3pjo

I don't have a problem leaving the Paul Peterson paragraph in. It is the paragraph about statements on the official family website http://www.sixgosselins.com that reads like a violation of WP:OR to me, and therefore should have no place in the article. --Tinhor (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added a source for the Petersen item but I don't know how to remove "citation needed". Please forgive me, I'm new at this. C3pjo (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC).

Is a minor consideration really a reliable source? I don't really think so. WP:RS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vjydanz (talk • contribs) 00:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If AMC is not reliable, then the only other source is CNN, but I don't think there's a way to cite that. There appears to be a youtube post of the CNN clip, but I don't know if that's kosher either. 64.217.218.200 (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Information possibly casting the Gosselins in a negative light does not need to be released by TLC, or the Gosselins themselves, as some say. We did not rely on the Bush Administration to release information regarding wiretapping and waterboarding, the same with Martha Stewart, Isaiah Thomas, Enron, Worldcom, or any other public entity that trades on a positive reputation. So knock it off. It's an absurd proposition that information can only come from one source, and that pictures, for the love of God, pictures, of Jon at dance clubs with other women, alongside written quotes of people who know him personally, printed in a major magazine, that, as far as I know, is not being sued for libel, are somehow unacceptable because they have not been blessed by the production staff of a cable television show.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

To include any information about this family that could be viewed in a negative light, it MUST be included with a cited reliable source that can be verified. All information about living people must pass WP:BIO and currently, that information does not. That's how Wikipedia works. If you don't like it, edit elsewhere. Sorry. Until then, it would do you well to assume good faith and follow the general principle of making an edit and, if it gets reverted, bring it up on the talk page to gain consensus before adding it back. Thanks. --13² 21:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, this is the first sentence for the article on Us Weekly: "Us Weekly is a celebrity gossip magazine" which means it cannot be considered reliable, no matter what it says, as it bases all of its information on "gossip" rather than information that can be verified. Just because they haven't been sued for libel, doesn't mean they won't be. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Information that is potentially damaging to the family cannot be included without an extremely good source. Sorry, Us Weekly doesn't cut it. --13² 21:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me once again remind everyone that this article is only for the TV show. It is not for "gossip" about the subjects of the show. That sort of stuff is for blogs and forums, not Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree (though that's probably been made pretty obvious by my previous statements on this talk page). Also, I posted about this issue with the Us Weekly controversy over on the BLP noticeboard. So far, there has been one response. It was by an admin who also agreed. --13² 00:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see how whitewashed this page is. In any case, here's some reliable sources that are perfectly acceptable to cite to: [4], and [5]. Now, as for if this controversy should be mentioned on the page, I think a minor sentence on it is due, but probably not much more than that. People will be coming to this page to read about that, as I did, and will leave disappointed if there is no further information. I think this story may very well have an effect on the show, so it is relevant to include on the page. Also, why no information on the Aunt Jodi fiasco? Need I hunt down sources for that as well? Here's an article on the recent controversy that briefly mentions the Aunt Jodi situation. VegaDark (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finding some sources that aren't using "Us Weekly" as their only source. Personally, I'm not touching this with a ten foot pole, but if someone else wants to add something, go ahead, but the source absolutely must pass WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BLP, otherwise it'll just need to be removed again. --13² 02:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone actually reading what I am saying in my comments? You can give me FIFTY reliable sources that say Jon Gosselin has been shafting Miss California if you want, but that STILL would have nothing to do with the SHOW - which is what this article is about. Jeez. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Which is partly why I said I wasn't touching it with a ten foot pole. ;) 13² 04:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It does have something to do with the show, the show is about their family situation and marital bliss, as it stands, this is like an article about pro-wrestling that makes no mention of the fact that it may be fake. Also, MSNBC and CNN have picked it up as well, so whitewashers can kick and scream all they want, but the cat is out of the bag.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Putting unreferenced, controversial biographical information into an article is just about one of the most serious violations you can make on Wikipedia. If this continues, expect to be blocked from editing Wikipedia in a hurry. Edit-warring is also totally unacceptable. -- Scjessey (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You're being willfully ignorant. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0905/01/sbt.01.html is yet another source, it's sourced, I cited the references, and it's backed up with pictures, I'm sorry if you do not like the content of the information, but it is accurate, and it is appropriate for this article, because it fits in the style of articles regarding other reality television family shows, such as "Hogan Knows Best." And spare me the threats, in the United States truth is an absolute defense to libel. Many people have complained about the whitewashing of this article, which flies in the face of the purpose of wikipedia, which is to be a neutral source of accurate information. You need to stop deleting my edits for spurious reasons like, "OR," when it is clear to everyone and their mother that I am quoting sources.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me make this plain. You must not put unreferenced controversial information about living persons into any Wikipedia article, ever. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies, whether the information is true or not. Furthermore, edit-warring is also a violation of Wikipedia policies. Finally, this article is specifically about the show. It is not about the subjects of the show. -- Scjessey (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me state something plainly. Saying that I didn't source or reference is not good enough, when I reference the source in the plain text of the edit, because it is plain to see that you are not editing in good faith. The information relates to the show in the same way that kayfabe relates to pro-wrestling. You're trying to play a word game, and you are not very good at it. The show is about the Gosselins, the page is about the show, and there is controversy about the show. That is the thrust of the multiple articles that other people have also cited, that you for some reason insist upon ignoring.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, this is clearly not 'unreferenced' information, and if this article really isn't about the Gosselins, as you say, then arguably citing biography policies is irrelevant. So clearly then you admit by citing those policies that this article is, in part, about the Gosselins, and such information should be included, if sourced.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 11:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are completely wrong. This diff shows Pink-thunderbolt's edit, and it contains no references of any kind. Furthermore, BLP applies to all of Wikipedia. The very first sentence of the policy states:

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page.

It then goes on to say that all such material must be verified by reliable sources, which was most certainly not the case. And even if proper references were provided, this would not be the correct article for the information anyway. This is an article about the show, not the show's subjects. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does, granted, it isn't in proper wiki formate, but it is still a citation. On this talk page he's pointed out a CNN transcript. I can point to another CNN video discussing this as well. It is merely a matter of rewriting the inserted statement and formatting it's citation, and adding others.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 19:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not as simple as that. Like I said above, it is still not the right place to put this stuff even if it is cited correctly. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Every other show about a famous family has a section for criticism or controversy. Housewives of Orange County, Hogan Knows Best, Keeping Up with the Kardashians, etc. And by the way, I referenced specific pages in a national magazine. Do you not think that you might be wrong about this, considering the fact you are having the same discussion in multiple sections of this talk page with about five different other editors? This information is relevant to an article about the show the same way the section on Coy and Vance in the Dukes of Hazzard article is relevant. Not everything important that happens with a television show is included on the show itself. Oh, here's another good example, when a work has production difficulties, like Apocalypse Now, it's mentioned in the article about the movie, even though no one from the studio is shown flying out to the Phillipines to yell at Francis Ford Coppola in the movie itself. This show has made it into the news for a number of reasons, and that should be reflected in the article.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what other articles do. We follow Wikipedia rules here, and if other articles suffer from the same problems then they need to be fixed as well. And just because lots of other people who don't understand the rules keep wanting to shove this BLP-violating stuff in here, it doesn't make it right. Please stop this tendentious argument. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. We're discussing THIS article, NOT those, so stop using them as support for your argument. Also, please stop pushing this so much. Ok, so Jon may or may not have done something. That is irrelevant. What IS relevant is how it affects the show. Jon and Kate have BOTH denied this. So, at this point, it is NOT affecting the show in any way whatsoever. If the day comes when Jon and Kate choose to stop making the show because of it, then it can be included. At this point though, it's not affecting the show in any way whatsoever. This article is about the show, not Jon, not Kate. Until this incident affects THE SHOW, it can't be included. Period. --13² 16:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Using the established practices of Wikipedia editors generally as support for the appropriate course of action in this instance is legitimate. Furthermore, your claims that the behavior documented in the referenced photographs is "irrelevant" or "not affecting the show in any way whatsoever" are unsupported. They appear to stem from your illogical assumption that "behind-the-scenes" facts about a television program are irrelevant to an article about that television program. While I can understand that you want the page to remain free of any whiff of unpleasantness, I cannot sympathize. If the TV program itself satisfies WP:NOTABILITY then any relevant information can and should be included in the article, subject to the various Wikipedia content policies, found at Category:Wikipedia_content_policy. You asserted initially that WP:VERIFIABILITY controls here, but certainly documented photographic evidence in the national press satisfies that requirement. The classification in Wikipedia of US Weekly as a "gossip magazine" does not affect, or reflect, US Weekly's credibility. You perhaps conflate two similar definitions of "gossip." One is "unsubstantiated rumor," the other, more relevant to the role of "gossip magazines" is "scandalous information about celebrities or other public figures." If the story about Jon were unsubstantiated, as you suggest that it is, it would have appeared as a "blind item" and not as a regular item with photographs. WP:NOT also provides some guidance: In section 2.10, it states that "Wikipedia is not censored." Insofar as your objection is grounded in your feeling that Jon Gosselin's personal conduct might be damaging to the reputation of the program or the feelings of people who may read about it, that objection is prohibited by WP:NOT. KASchmidt (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, WP:BLP trumps all other policies. In this particular case, we have contentious material about one of the subjects of a TV show. The lack of proper referencing is a major concern, but also the notion that this will have some effect on the TV show is gazing into the crystal ball. You say that the TV show satisfies WP:N, and that is true, but notability is not necessarily conferred upon the people in the show. While Kate Gosselin, as a published author, is notable enough for her own BLP this is not the case for Jon Gosselin. Under these circumstances, we must be particularly careful to make sure that only sources of the highest possible standard are used to verify any contentious information. The mantra if in doubt, leave it out should be observed when BLP issues are a concern. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The point of WP:N's stating that "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people," is that a fact about a notable program does not have to be somehow independently notable to be included. Your solution is apparently to require that Jon Gosselin be independently notable enough to merit his own article before facts about him that relate to the show be includable in the show's article. That solution imposes notability requirements inside of the article that WP:N explicitly disfavors. As for WP:BLP, in light of the fact that the "contentious material" is sourced, and does not "lack . . . proper referencing" as you claim, I cannot find any directive there in favor of removing the information. Your objection again appears to relate to your claim that US Weekly is somehow not "reliable", but reference to WP:BLP's "Reliable sources" section lists "self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets" as sources that are presumptively unreliable. National magazines does not appear on that list. WP:V refers to "questionable sources," to wit "those with a poor reputation for fact-checking . . . includ[ing] websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." In this case, merely labeling US Weekly a "gossip magazine" does not establish that it is a questionable source, and it is certain that it is not "extremist" or "promotional". Nor does it "rely heavily on rumors" - US Weekly relies on substantiated, albeit occasionally unflattering, fact about its subjects. That is true generally, and it is particularly true here when its claims are substantiated with photographs. In summary, the facts about Jon Gosselin's misbehavior are relevant to the article, sourced in a manner that satisfies WP:BLP and WP:V, and not barred by WP:N. This information is only "contentious" because its ramifications might make some uncomfortable. Its status as fact, given that there are photographs, moves it beyond the scope of your mantra. There is no doubt; there are photographs.KASchmidt (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

(Un-indent)Please answer the following question: How does this incident affect the show right now? Thanks. --13² 20:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What guideline that you can point to would make my answer to that question matter? Even if "this incident" were totally swept under the rug and Jon & Kate lasted for another ten seasons, the fact that it happened is enough. I point again to WP:N - every fact related inside of an article does not have to be independently notable in itself. Furthermore, how can any event or incident affect facts which existed before it happened? Your phrasing is somewhat unfair. The fact of the incident, occurring as it did within the context of a "reality television" program, is relevant to the public's perception of the program, and of reality television in general. It is relevant to understanding how the manufactured "reality" of the program relates to the reality of the participants and the ways in which their personae on the show differ from the ways in which they act off the show. KASchmidt (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The answer to this question is of utmost importance, whether you see it right now or not. So, let's try again. Please answer the following question: How does this incident affect the show right now? I'll also throw in that reliable sources would be appreciated. Thanks. --13² 21:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed both of these issues. The incident affects the show right now through its impact on the perceived "reality" of the life presented on the program. US Weekly (and CNN) are both "reliable sources" under the meaning of WP:V and WP:BLP. I believe that you are implying that only information that is intrinsic to the narrative of the show is relevant. Why would only such information be relevant? KASchmidt (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the show, not the family. I'm being vague on purpose and you haven't answered my question yet. Let's try again. How does this incident affect the show right now? Reliable sources would be appreciated. Thanks. --13² 21:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The show is about the family. If you're being vague on purpose, maybe you should expect that I haven't gleaned your exact meaning. Are you suggesting now that WP:RS requires that assertions of notability and relevance be reliably sourced? That is not the case. KASchmidt (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The show and the family are separate entities. They are intricately entwined, but they are not the same. That distinction is extremely important in this discussion. No, I am not. I am asking how this incident is affecting the show right now. You have not answered that question yet. You've posed future possibilities and what-ifs, but nothing that affects the show right now. And that's my point. You're not looking at right now, which is what my question was asking, which is why you aren't understanding it. Let's try again now that I've clarified a little. How is this incident affecting the show right now? Reliable source please. Thanks. --13² 21:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) - The perception that this "incident" has some impact on the show ("the perceived 'reality' of the life presented," as you put it) is not supported by reliable sources. That would be a complete synthesis. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not proposed any future possibilities or what-ifs. I am looking at now. You are both now claiming, as I read you, that a person must present reliable sources as to the admissibility of information for inclusion. That is not true. One must only present reliable sources as to the information included. You are misconstruing the guidelines. You are asking that, for every piece of relevant, reliably-sourced information, editors must present relevant, reliably-sourced evidence that that information is relevant and reliably-sourced. Would you then ask that every piece of evidence so presented itself be supported by other evidence as to its relevance and reliability? Your reading of the criteria for inclusion crawls too far up the rabbit hole of proof. KASchmidt (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you have posed future possibilities and what-ifs. All of this ("The fact of the incident, occurring as it did within the context of a "reality television" program, is relevant to the public's perception of the program, and of reality television in general. It is relevant to understanding how the manufactured "reality" of the program relates to the reality of the participants and the ways in which their personae on the show differ from the ways in which they act off the show.") is original research and speculation, which is not reported in any of the sources. Everything you're using to answer talks about the family, but not about the show and they certainly aren't talking about how it is affecting the show right now. You're blurring the lines on two things: the family/show and right now/the future. The info you wish to include would be a blatant violation of the policies for WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. You still have not answer my question, either. So, let's try, once again. How is this incident affecting the show (not the family) at this point in time (not tomorrow or the day after). Reliable sources please. Thanks. --13² 22:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR prohibit the inclusion in articles of material that is speculative, or original research. The facts at issue here are "the incident". WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR do not prohibit the inclusion in articles of factual material that is not speculation, or not original research, just because on some level there might be a dispute about the potential future ramifications of that factual material. "The incident" is not speculation or original research. As such, it does not run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL or WP:OR. Again I protest that your question is unfair, because it is categorically not possible for an after-occurring event (the incident) to "affect" a before-occurring event (the production and broadcast of the completed episodes of the show). KASchmidt (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The incident does not affect the show at this point in time and, at this time, there are no reliable sources saying it does. Including it would be a violation of WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS, and WP:CRYSTAL. This article is about the show and not the family. Any information about how it affects the family cannot be included here. Any information how how the effect on the family relates to how it affects the show can be. Currently, this incident is not affecting the show. Period. Let's try again, how is this incident affecting the show (not the family) at this point in time (not later) without using original research, speculation, or synthesis? Reliable sources please. Thanks. --13² 22:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS, and WP:CRYSTAL govern the nature of the statements made on Wikipedia. They do not govern the rationale for including or disincluding statements. The present importance of any factual statement made on Wikipedia is a matter of conjecture. As such, your repeated, somewhat uncivil demand for reliable sources as to these meta-facts is inapposite. All that is required is that the statements themselves satisfy the foregoing guidelines, not that statements about those statements satisfy the guidelines. KASchmidt (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually those policies are specifically in place to keep material that does not belong in an article out, which means that they are the rationale for including and "disincluding" statements. Material about how this affecting their relationship would go on a page for the family. How the affect on the relationship affects the show can go on this one. I suggest you re-read those policy pages. Since you're still not getting it, I'll spell out how it affects the family and the show differently.

• The family - they're going through a rough time right now in which both partners may be questioning their marriage because of what may/may not have happened (they deny it) and what these sources are saying about them.
• The show - this might affect the future of the show. If Jon and Kate divorce, will the show go on or will they continue taping the struggles of the divorce? Will this incident affect the popularity and sales of the show? How will the public opinion change?

Do you really not see the difference there? This article is about the show, not the family, period. Information that has not been produced by reliable sources cannot be included, period. The reason I keep asking the question is because you keep answering a different one, which is, "How might this incident affect the show?" The answer to the question is of utmost importance about whether or not the material should be included. I'm not being "uncivil" in any way. You just don't like that I keep asking the same question, yet, the reason I keep asking it is because you aren't answering it. You have, not even once, said how this incident is affecting the show, right now. You've answered over and over how it is affecting the family or how it might affect the show, but not how it IS affecting the show right now. So, let's try again, how is this incident affecting the show at this point in time? Reliable sources please. Thanks. --13² 22:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is what you are doing: In reaction to presently-existing, verified fact ("the incident"), you are demanding that someone justify "why" we include it. Because "why we include the fact" is a different, and necessarily more novel issue, from "the fact", the answer to your question "why" will always include speculation, original research, and so forth. A person could conceivably ask "why should we include" any fact, and the answer to that question, as to any fact, will always include some speculation or original research. That is why you cannot use OR, CRYSTAL, and SYNTHESIS to keep out information, like the information about "the incident" that is in itself neither OR, SYNTHESIS, or fortunetelling. It is not necessary for the incident to have some concrete impact on the fiscal or logistical realities of the show for it to be relevant to the show. It provides, if nothing else, highly-necessary context. Wikipedia does not require that some fact extrinsic to the plotline of a TV show have some measurable effect on the plotline or mere existence of that TV show in order to be includable. I will concede that no reliable sources on precisely that point exist. It is my contention that the existence of such sources is irrelevant. Also, "Reliable sources please. Thanks." is pretty uncivil when you keep doing it. KASchmidt (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The only reason you're saying it is uncivil is because you don't like that you don't have a response for it. Those are two separate statements, not one, and they are both immensely polite. Once again, you're blurring lines. The first is asking "Reliable sources please." which is actually quite polite in that I'm asking you to please find reliable sources for your statements. The second is "Thanks." which is what I usually sign my posts with both as being thankful you read my message and preemptively saying thanks for doing anything I may have requested (in which the person would get another thanks later if they did it). You're just trying to find something uncivil in my statements because you, personally, don't like it, when, in fact, there is nothing uncivil there in the least. I'm just trying to help you learn here. In any case, you're still trying to link something that is affecting the family to something that may or may not affect the show. Please see the response below titled "Why does Jon Gosselin redirect here?" That person gets exactly what I'm trying to say. Hopefully you can too. Thanks. --13² 23:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it is doubtful that Jon Gosselin, the individual or the reality TV star, would individually be able to satisfy WP:NOTABILITY, merely fobbing off the incident to a page that is probably doomed from its inception as non-notable is not a solution. And I don't mind not having the reliable sources you ask for, because second-order sources of the kind that you ask for are not required. Your comments below make it clear that your interest is solely in keeping unpleasant facts off of the Jon & Kate Plus 8 page. Wikipedia is not here to promote the program, and attempts to sanitize the article violate WP:NPOV. I think we should confront the assumption that you make, that a fact must be relevant to the show as distinct from the family, to qualify for inclusion; this is the assumption that leads you to demand the second-order sources that are unnecessary in the first place. Why, in the context of a reality program about an otherwise non-notable family, must we sequester relevant facts about that family, paying special attention to the fact that a "reality" program purports to show the family as they are, not as characters? KASchmidt (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Because those facts are about the family. Those facts are not about the show. Facts about the person would be entirely inappropriate to put in an article for a show they starred in unless that affected the show they starred in. That's really all there is to it and I don't know how I can make it any easier for you to understand than that. If you look above, you can see many, many times in the past that I have been fine if there was a controversy section in the article, so your assumption that I want to keep "unpleasant facts" out of this article is a baseless accusation based on nothing more than you just don't like my messages because I'm not agreeing with you, nor is it assuming good faith. As long as the information is properly sourced, does not violate original research issues, and is placed on the correct article, I have zero problem adding it in. As it is, this information is about the family, not about the show, and it belongs on an article for either the family or Jon. If a day comes when this issue actually affects the show (which is not today), then it can be included here so long as it is properly sourced. Sorry. --13² 01:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the stories about the incident are properly sourced, do not violate original research or speculation issues, and are about the show. They are about the show because they are about a member of the family that the show, which is or purports to be at least quasi-documentary, depicts. While this article is formalistically about "the show" and not "the family," the show is about the family. As such, this information about the family becomes information about the show. It is a relevant going-on behind-the-scenes. I also find this exchange on your talk page somewhat illuminating as it speaks to your awareness the consensus is in favor of including the information about the incident here. KASchmidt (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

←There is no consensus in favor of violating WP:BLP by adding contentious, poorly-sourced gossip about a non-notable individual into a tangentially-related article. If Jon Gosselin was notable enough to have his own BLP, you could probably consider putting something there; however, this is not the proper article for that sort of material. Continued attempts to synthesize a reason by claiming this gossip might have some impact on the show are becoming disruptive, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(un-indent)The facts are about the family, not the show. That's the key difference that you don't seem to be grasping and, instead, seem to be ignoring. What does my talk page "illuminate"? Yeah, maybe my frustration, but certainly not any sort of "awareness" to some made-up consensus. Despite what you seem to think, KA, the only consensus that has been made is that the sources are reliable, NOT that the info should be on this page, as opposed to a family page or a page on Jon. Sorry. --13² 02:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Why does Jon Gosselin redirect here?

I was reading a blog today that noted the inadequacy of Wikipedia's coverage of the "Jon Gosselin situation", criticizing how this page sounded like it was written by TLC's PR people, and so went to check it out it. I was first surprise that the the redirect Jon Gosselin currently points here. I see in the discussion above a lot of loud repeating about how this article is about the show and how none of this controversy stuff is relevant. Well I agree but this stuff should still still be covered in Wikipedia with its own separate well referenced BLP article about Jon Gosselin. That would solve all the problems on THIS page and Wikipedia wouldn't be slacking in its coverage. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem there is that while Kate Gosselin is a published author and therefore satisfies WP:NOTABILITY as to herself, Jon Gosselin probably wouldn't, on his own. KASchmidt (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think as a "Reality TV star" he passes WP:N in the same capacity as Chip Arndt, Brittney Rogers, Maggie Ausburn, Dick Donato, Will Kirby, Jun Song, Brian Mandelbaum, Stefanie Schaeffer, Kelly Perdew etc. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh and don't forgot Duane Chapman or Dog the Bounty Hunter, another BLP on a "Reality TV Star" that seems to get into trouble. There is a lot of precedence for splitting the article up and separating the subject from the show. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

THANK YOU SOMEONE GETS IT! HOORAY! Now, on to the topic. The reason Jon Gosselin redirects here is because he does not have enough individual coverage to satisfy the requirements at WP:BIO, at this time. However, the family may (this affects more than just Jon). It was proposed at one point on this page to create a separate article for the family. I said no because, at that time, the only reason the family was notable was because of the show (similar to 18 Kids and Counting). However, now that they've gotten so much media attention about the family, we may be able to create an article about them. Remember though that, even if this is done, we have to be very, very, very careful to comply with WP:BLP. Also, if it can't be properly sourced or if the info violates WP:BLP it would run the risk of being speedily deleted. --13² 23:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the coverage focused on Jon right now would merit an article that would be BLP compliant and would survive an AfD. Again, I think it would solve alot of headaches and allow this page to exist in peace and focus just on show. Meanwhile the readers who are coming to Wikipedia looking for information about Jon still have a source of information. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. I'm still hesitant though that his article would be almost entirely about this incident and that it would create undue weight. Despite how vocal I am on the talk page, I really don't care if this information gets inserted. What I do care about is that it is placed in the correct article, the information can be verified, and it is properly sourced with relevant reliable sources. --13² 00:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it can be done, but admittedly I'm knee deep (and glass full ;P )in research on Chianti to do draft an article myself so I'll have to leave that to another ambitious soul. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm knee deep in my own project as well (I'm trying to create a decent article on my old high school that passes WP:N), otherwise I'd do it as well. Hopefully someone else can pitch in. --13² 02:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is RIDICULOUS! Scjessey and to a lesser extent, thirteen squared, you are both preventing legitimate changes from being made to this article. There have been far more people arguing FOR the inclusion of this material in the article than against it. What appears to be happening is that whoever screams the loudest or longest gets their way. I've read accusations of edit warring, but you are the one's warring! Let me address some of your concerns.

This is an article about the show, not the people- TRUE! However, as you have said yourself, Scjessey, the show and the people are intertwined! It is a FACT that people DO associate the reality television stars' offscreen behavior with their show. Hence all the traffic of people coming to THIS ARTICLE for this specific purpose (including myself). You claim that this doesn't affect the show? That's FALSE! Jon and Kate have discussed ON THE SHOW how Jon is not taking well to "living in a fishbowl." Also, this DOES affect the ratings of the show. Fans want to see how it will affect their on-screen lives. Non-fans become curious. There is a direct coorelation between between this incident and the show. As another editor mentioned, this article and discussion board do seem to be written/controlled by TLC or extremely-biased fans of the show.

Unreliable references- This was Scjessey's first and most outspoken complaint at first, but once this complaint was shown to be uneccessary and unsubstantiated the focus shifted to the content of the article, which i've already addressed. There are PLENTY of RELIABLE sources. MSNBC, People, CNN, and yes... US Weekly.

Other reality shows wrong?- It would seem that any other show where there is a controversy that can have a significant impact on the reality show or its fanbase, it is included in the article. You can claim that everyone else is wrong and you are right all day long, but it would appear that consensus is that this IS an acceptable portion of a Wikipedia article on a reality television show. As it stands, this article is not neutral. It is EXTREMELY biased in the direction of hiding the controversy. Whether this is a result of the show's producers or extreme fans is honestly not substantiated, but at the very least, the article is being biased editors in an over-zealous attempt to distort the tone of this article.

Please feel free to respond to me here or on my talk page, but I will be honest with you, I seldom log in to WP these days. Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If you were to add something now, it would essentially read like this: "It was reported that Jon Gosselin cheated on Kate. Jon and his wife, Kate, have denied this accusation and have said the women he was seen with were friends." What does that have to do with the show? It has everything to do with Jon and Kate, yet, but Jon and Kate are not the show. Yes, the show is about them, but this hasn't yet leaked into the show. By the way, the "fishbowl" thing would be original research. There's speculation that was taped around the time the tabloids leaked, but nothing confirmed. For all you know, Jon just didn't like going to eat dinner at a fancy restaurant and be stared at the whole time. Yes, this will very likely affect the ratings and the fans' opinion of the show, but adding that in now would be violating crystal because we don't yet know how it will affect it.

Your claim that there are a lot more people that want it in this article doesn't really matter as Wikipedia is not a democracy; consensus is built on discussion, not votes. So far, those who want it in have not made arguments that ease our worries. In fact, to me, I feel they've made them worse because it seems people are defaulting in putting personal info about Jon and Kate into the article about the show, even if it hasn't affected the show yet, instead of even considering their individual articles. I'm still just not convinced it should go here. That doesn't mean I'm against it, I just haven't seen any arguments to ease my worries or make me feel gung ho in adding it. --13² 17:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

PS, I've started playing around with wording something that would go in here so it addresses the issue briefly (one, two sentences max), but doesn't turn the page into a tell-all about the family and still keeps up with the idea that this page is about the show and not the family. If anybody has any ideas on how to do this or wants to help, just let me know. Also, I have no issue with this going on Jon/Kate's pages (if someone makes a page for Jon), but we need to make sure it doesn't violate WP:UNDUE and not turn into a tell-all. Thanks for any help or ideas! --13² 17:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the reason I'm asking for help is because I'm having trouble getting anything that either doesn't consist solely of information about the family or includes speculation about the show. --13² 17:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What makes your concerns need more convincing than anyone elses? The discussion has tended to agree with more editors (no "vote" took place, but plenty of discussion did) agreeing that this should be included. Like I said, you and Scjessey are the main proponents for it not being included, but then again, why should we have to "ease [your] worries." Why don't you have to ease our worries that the article is no longer neutral and that relevant information to the show is being left out? Consensus, not vote, dictates that it should be included. That having been said...

...I applaud you for seeking a way to include it into the article. Wikiwikikid (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

By worries, I mean things based on WP:BLP, WP:CRYSTAL, and relevance issues. So far, no one has shown how putting the info here would comply with those issues instead of violating them. I'm still working on something to put in here and I'd still appreciate any help. Thanks! --13² 18:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

For starters, this isn't a WP:BLP article. However, let's assume it should be afforded the same level of protection as a BLP article. That requirement has been fulfilled by carefully providing (MULTIPLE) independent, verifiable, reliable sources. As for WP:CRYSTAL, that is completely irrelevant! This has NOTHING to do with speculative future events, rather a past and on-going event! Also, please note that it says UNVERIFIED speculative future events. Clearly, all claims are verified. You are misunderstanding the intent of this policy. A correct application for this policy is something like saying that "the Jackson 5 are making a comeback tour and will be touring the US this summer! In fact, in a recent interview with Jacko, he did not deny these rumors!" Speculative, unverified, future event. On the other side of the fence... A character from a reality television show about his and his wife's wedded bliss and their challenges (and joys) raising an 8 child family is caught in a questionable social scene that affects not only the plot of the show, but also the fanbase (clearly exhibited by the influx of visitors coming here for information). Oh, and by the way, MANY reputable news and magazine pubs have released articles concerning the issue. Definitely not a WP:CRYSTAL issue. Wikiwikikid (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

All claims are verified...for the family. Any claims about the show have not been verified. To include information in this article, it needs to be in conjunction with how it affects the show. This questionable social scene has NOT YET AFFECTED the plot of the show and there is nothing that can be verified to show that it has affected the fanbase. That is the problem. Any information that is included about how this issue WILL affect the plot of the show and how it WILL affect the fanbase is preemptive, crystal-y because it has not been reported anywhere that it HAS affected either of those things. It's also why I'm having a tough time figuring out what to have in the article here. I'm having issues connecting the information to the show without using crystal-y info. --13² 22:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

A person appearing on this program portraying or purporting to portray himself engaged in the conduct. There's your connection. No "crystal-y info". KASchmidt (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with KASchmidt. Also, this article is part of the WP:WikiProject_Biography (Wikipedia Biography Project) so it seems that, yes, even biographical information could be included in this article. That brings us back to the needing reliable sources, but we've already agreed those exist. Wikiwikikid (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

According to TVGuide, Kate says the controversial media attention will be addressed on the showC3pjo (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC) http://www.tvguide.com/News/Jon-Kate-Plus-1005820.aspx

That'll work! I've added it in. Feel free to clean it up if necessary (I did this in a bit of a rush). Thanks for finding the link! --13² 19:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for writing it in. I would delete "female" in front of woman because it's redundant. Also, the sources say Jon and Kate claimed the one woman was a long-time friend, but I'm not sure about the others, so I don't know if it should be plural. Not saying I could have done better, though. ThanksC3pjo (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I've re-worded it using them. Let me know what you think! --13² 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

13, great job, and thanks for your help taking the bias out of this article! Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

just a BUNCH OF LAME EXCUSES TO NOT PUT ANYTHING ON THE PAGE THAT MAY TARNISH THE IMAGE OF THE FAMILY IN THE HEADS OF THE FANS. I see people magazine listed as a source on the page, well how about you list the cover stories from Us weekly and People Magazine for this week. Leave out non show related stuff, but its clear the show itself ain't gonna be about a happy family, and will cover divorce proceedings. But nope, we won't see it because people in control of the page believe they can alter reality by not reporting the facts. Gods this page is a joke. i am going to copy the whole thing and email it all over the place to the associated press, this is true comedy the frail BS being thrown about as a pitiful excuse to censore this page lmao. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.82.181 (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems to me that since it is now clearly affecting the show, and there appear to be numerous sources that meet the guidelines; that this controversy should be on the regular page. I cite for my sources: the commercials advertising the show's premier, Kate herself speaking about it in an ad that they will be covering this subject over the course of the next season, the O-Reilly factor (May 26th edition), and numerous news agencies including CNN. Clearly you can't say it is not affecting the show, considering they are devoting an entire season to it. Not to mention, Jon doesn't seem to be living with the family anymore (pure speculation - maybe he's in a different wing of that also irrelevant $1.2 mil home), I didn't see him at the children's birthday party in the season premiere, or any shots with Jon and Kate together, but I only saw bits of the show, as I'm not a Reality Show Fanboy. Don't even watch the show, but it's hard to ignore it when I hear it all the time anymore. I came here figuring I'd be able to sort the urban legends from the gossip from the possibly reliable information and all I got was a little blurb and this lame archived battle to keep it off. I guess, I came to the wrong place. Funny, I thought I was at wikipedia. Oh well. Wanders off wondering how a TV show about the living biography of persons is about only a show and not the people in it. Seems to me the show is about the life of the people in it, and is inextricably linked with said people and is therefore a biography of their life for the past five years. This is not a fictional show, but a living biography and as such these tidbits and rumors are pretty much as relevant as the person on the "grassy knoll". Go ahead and ban me for life, if that's your pleasure. --Celtic hackr (talk) 03:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You said it yourself...you didn't watch the show. Had you actually watched the show before blindly commenting here, you would have seen that they did, indeed, do an interview together and that Jon did, indeed, attend the birthday party. You also said it yourself...the show has been taped for five years. This incident has happened over the last six months or so. That's only around 10% of the show. Currently, that "blurb" is taking up more than 10% of the family history. If we expand it much more, it will give the incident undue weight and, thus, violate WP:BIO. And we aren't going to ban you for life or whatever it is you incorrectly think people do when they disagree with you. --13² 03:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

three minute? really?

I'm not really familiar with this show, but it is the claim in the article really true that six babies were delivered in the space of only three minutes? And if so, well, how the hell did they do that? By C-section or what? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Kate said on either the show or a special that she had to have a C-Section. She waited as long as she could so they could develop as much as they could, but eventually they had to come out as they were crowding each other and causing all sorts of problems. Thanks for bringing this up. This should be in the article to explain that. --13² 23:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait WAIT WAIT!!!!! KATE saying that DOES NOT MAKE IT VERIFIABLE!!!!! THATS BS ORIGINAL RESEARCH!!! How do we know she wasnt just tellinga fairy tale? Can this be verified? If not It better get edited the hell off the page... C section my ass. [sic]

I don't understand why Jon is not important enough for his own article if he is the subject of a tv show.

Please see this page for requirements for an article about a person. Before, he didn't pass these requirements. However, if you'd look above, there has been discussion about possibly creating an article for him now that he's been in the press for something other than just the show. --13² 19:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.com/Multiple-Bles8ings-Surviving-Thriving-Sextuplets/dp/0310289025/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241905818&sr=1-1 According to amazon, Jon is listed as as an author of Multiple Blessings along with Kate. I don't know if this meets the requirements or not.C3pjo (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No. He is listed as an author as a courtesy more than anything else. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

UM SOURCE THIS FOR ME PLEASE SCJESSEY. Where do you verify this statement? Is this just your opinion? I am copying this entire edit page as evidence of bias in wiki editing. And the "more than anything else bit" more than what? the size of a guppy? Is that qualified as part of the "anything else"? Please elaborate, and give me your verifiable source.

And how would you know this? 75.46.106.222 (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Common sense matters too - it is far more likely for a mother to give birth to sextuplets via c-section. How else do you expect it to be done? Before the days of medical intervention, sextuplets did not survive long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.48.224 (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Proposed wording for information on Jon's affair

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)

Girl up for adoption

Why does it say in the family section that a biracial girl came up for adoption before the Kate found out she was pregnant. Personally, I find it irrelevant to even say that and especially irrelevant to say that she was biracial. Why does her race have anything to do with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.209.4 (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"Why does her race have anything to do with it?"

We'd all be one race if it weren't relevant. Pull your head out. -Franco —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.86.91 (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it has nothing to do with the article. The only thing stating her race does is imply that they didn't adopt the girl because of her race. And still, why is that trivial fact about Jon and Kate knowing that they could adopt her at all necessary? They didn't, so the girl really has no impact on their lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.209.4 (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

TRUTH****A teenage white girl had a baby with a black boy so her parents didn't want her to keep it. Kate wanted to adopt him to fill her desire for another baby, but they decided they should try for their own instead. They ended up with six. The little boy's name was Jeremiah and they planted a bush at their first house on Memorial Day which they called the "Jeremiah Bush".****TRUTH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.137.249.216 (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk page is part of content policies?

This talk page is listed here: [6] Surely that can't be correct? DP76764 (Talk) 21:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

How did you fix it because there's another article incorrectly listed there as well. Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is another article there that shouldn't be, somewhere in that article is a link to a category like this: [[Category:Whatever]]. To fix it, edit the link so that there is a colon before it, like this: [[:Category:Whatever]]. That prevents it from actually appearing in the category. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Jon and Kate are splitting up!!! No one knows for sure. There have been 4 or 5 seasons and are they now over? What will happen to the kids? Jon was seen at a college party dancing with the volleyball team and playing beer pong. Jon was kissing the girls on there neck and mouths. Where was Kate when this was happening? There is a new rumor that Kate cheated on Jon! If you think this is not true you are probably right. If you have any information just edit the paragraph. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.179.183 (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Dogs are gone?

I've been reading on a lot of sites that they got rid of the dogs like 2 or 3 weeks after that episode when they first purchased them aired. Any truth to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.210.166 (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Since one was shown (and the other one was mentioned) in tonight's episode, I will take a guess and say that would be incorrect. --74.137.224.4 (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The one dog's name is Shoka not Shooka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.179.87 (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. TLC lists it as Shooka, not Shoka. A link to a video with the correct name (Shooka, not Shoka) can be found above. Yes, it sounds like "Shoka", but it's spelled "Shooka". Unless we can find a more reliable source than TLC, it can't be changed. Sorry. --13² 04:50, 26 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.[7] —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)

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

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)

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)