Talk:Kate Gosselin

Notable enough for own bio?

Before I start an AFD what do others think? TIA Tom (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A published author, notable TV personality and well-publicized mother of twins and sextuplets. Plenty of media coverage with reliable sources. This article was created in order to bring details about her and her family under the more stringent auspices of WP:BLP, instead of the silly rumor factory of the Jon & Kate Plus 8 article (which will rightly be converted into just an article about the show). Any AfD process would likely be snowball kept due to the verifiable notoriety. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Snowball is a stretch. Anyways, I was looking for feedback before I went dowm that road to avoid it if necessary. I do agree that "rumors" and BLP violations should be kept off the TV show article, sorry to hear if that has been a problem, but not sure if that is a reason to create a seperate article. I don't know if this is aplicable since this person now wears a couple different hats, as you have noted above, but it was recently pointed out to me, I didn't know it, that being a rock muscian in a famous band doesn't warrant an article, the person must be notable in their own right. Anyways, hopefully others will show me the errors of my ways as they usually do. Nice job with the article anyways, --Tom (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

She's a "celebrity expert" in multiple births, and does the talk show rounds because of it, so there's some notability. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

WPMED

WikiProject Medicine does not consider bios like this one to be within its scope. The scope of this WikiProject is diseases and their treatments, not individuals that happen to have been licensed healthcare professionals at some point or another. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

collin gosselin

i changed spelling of collin's name bc it is supposed to have two L's --RCNARANJA 19:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Jon?

Shouldn't Jon have an article too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.203.61 (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Jon is not notable by himself and would not meet the requirements on the following page: click. --13² 21:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit! Why does Amy Roloff get her own entry if Matt's the breadwinner? Does that mean Kate's the breadwinner? BOTH Roloffs get one. It's *not* the Kate show! It's a whitewash from the obsessive Jon & Kate "sheeple" from writing about his exploits bar hopping w/ college co-eds. Matt Roloff has his own entry and fairly includes the bad side of his life, his DUI arrest and trial. Jon would also have to have his own entry include the bad. But the fanaticals have their heads buried in the sand and *won't* acknowledge one single negative. This (((ISN'T))) a balanced article. It's a commercial! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.64.69.204 (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If Jon were notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia he would have his own neutral entry including good/bad whatever. There is noone with an agenda here, we're just trying to build an encyclopedia according to policies and guidelines. Please read WP:Assume good faith. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 21:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Kate is an author and, quite frankly, the focus of the show. She does a lot more public appearances than Jon. The main thing included in this article other than the show is the published works of Kate, which Jon wouldn't have. Once the drama with Jon's scandal blows up more, there will be reason to have an article for him. Until there are more reliable sources, however, the article would just be about the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.209.4 (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Jon is a co - author of "Multiple Blessings: Surviving to Thriving with Twins and Sextuplets.". Kate is not the focus of the show. The children are. Who does more public appearences is irrelevent, as they are both on the show, and both should have their own wiki posting. However, it seems for Kate Freaks what's good for the goose is MOST DEFINIATELY not good for the gander. Put me down in favor of a jon wiki post, and tell me again why one parent on a reality show deserves a wiki while the other doesn't?

99.199.140.88 (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Kate on 'Today' about Jon's alleged cheating

After that interview airs this morning on the east coast, it's on like Donkey Kong. You CAN'T NOT include their marriage troubles in her entry if *she* *herself* addresses them as an issue. Even if her bio states there was tabloid rumors of marriage problems but Kate has said everything's fine, it SHOULD be included in her bio. Nothing critical regarding the Gosselins has made it into the Wiki entries(even the possible child exploitation of them doing the show). Let's keep it fair and *not* an infomercial, shall we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.64.69.204 (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Rumors and tabloid crap count for nothing on Wikipedia. Biographies of living persons live and die with cast-iron reliable sources. We cover what reliable sources say, not what people think should be said. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a notable incident in her life, as she is a public person who trades on the public perception of her family life. The sources are reliable, the information is verifiable, and it is relevant. This is not gossip, these are facts. There are pictures, there is video, there have been interviews and commentary on multiple television networks. I will be adding this information shortly, if no one else steps forward to do so, because I agree with the previous poster, to wit, WP:DONKEYKONG, which I would argue is what happens when a previously suppressed or excluded fact gains such widespread attention and is ascribed such importance by the population at large that the floodgates on the proposed edit should be opened temporarily, so that more information can flow in, and that the best sources and edits on the subject might be kept as the section is then pared down.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted an edit made to the info about this. It changed it from Kate saying it would be addressed to not being addressed "citing" the Today Show. I went to the Today's Show website and dug around a little bit and found an article about this interview here. It says that Kate and Jon are trying to handle this issue privately, but this does not say that the issue will not be addressed. My revert stands. Unless we can find something that actually says that Kate said it would not be addressed, we can't include it, due to previous information given by Kate. Sorry. --13² 17:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Kids conceived through IUI?

I'm changing the phrasing to "fertility treatment" because I highly doubt IUI was used. For one, IUI does not increase the chances of having twins. Two, married couples rarely need IUI because this procedure is really just a fancy way of delivering sperm to the uterus. In other words, it's a way to get pregnant without sex, but it doesn't really cure infertility. I'm guessing they used some sort of medication that stimulates ovulation or they used IVF. Johnny^California 05:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The IUI is attested to by Kate saying it herself on her TV show J&K+8, and is referenced. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Kate Gosselin

How tall is she compared to Jon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.234.22 (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

She is like 7 feet tall; I think he is 4 inches tall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.159.10 (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I came to this page with a sense of outrage - but you, sir, just made my day. Thanks for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.190.96 (talk) 00:51, 23 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) 19:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Get the citations you need and make a section on the page for the show, or make a page specifically for the controversy or difference in legal status and protections regarding child actors and reality show stars. But I think you are on to something.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Thunderbolt - I am afraid I don't understand all the lingo for the wikipedia site, so don't know what you are trying to instruct me to do....about being on to something, this has happened in history already - their name was the Dionne Quintuplets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.152.223 (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I am saying go for it. Find a couple of reliable sources and add it to the article.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There's an adequately sourced section (if I do say so myself) in the Jon and Kate Plus 8 article; if no one objects we can just copy it and add it to this article, especially since it includes Kate's reaction. Cactusjump (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are not onto something. Seriously, I am always amazed to see that people are so easily swayed by the BS of the media. Since the children are on TV, get paid they are employed and are under child welfare/labor laws. I agree about citing sources proving that children of reality shows are exploited and they are getting around these labor laws. TLC has stated in a press release that they film a total of 2-3 days a week 2 hours a day, and not in the children's bedrooms, and when a child does not wish to be filmed, they aren't. I saw that myself when Mady stated she wanted to be left alone in a show and she was left alone.

Stop the insanity already!

You can bet Kate may end the show after their contract expires. She certainly didnt expect this and began with the intent to educate people on multiples, and the ways to overcome some things, the joys, the realities of this kind of life and to also make sure her children have a financial future. I can't fault someone elses lifestyle when I do not live it myself. I suggest those of you critcizing should think about that as well. Brattysoul (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so it's obvious where you stand on the subject... There's no reason to say "stop the insanity" and make assumptions of what Kate will do in the future.

I believe the existence of controversy is valid to add to the article, as it is a fact that there are questions of Kate's intention to continue with the show. As long as it is a balanced approach of well-cited facts, there should be no issue in adding it to the article. Cactusjump (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't "Media BS" and they are not celebrities , no matter how famous they get. I was the first to report Jon's supposed "Rumors" and guess what, it was true. Yes, he may or may not have been cheating, but it was still true. Its not like we can't pick apart ourselves what's true and what's not. This family isn't hard to figure out, nor are they the subject of "thats complete BS" allegations. Everything thats reported if from an actual event then modified by magazines with their opinion. We take what the media reports and come to our own conclusions based on common sense. Its not like this is the end of the rumors and there's is no chance this family will ever be the same, so be ready for more "BS" from the Media my friend. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

NBC Home Delivery. Changed house location from Wernersville to Wyomissing, cited article clearly states Wyomissing.

Current house is located in Lower Heidelberg Township, as stated in the cited article and carries a wernersville zip code

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.48.208 (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

American Chopper

The entire family was featured in the 2009 season episode of American Chopper "Jon & Kate Plus 8 Bike", when Jon got a bike built, and Kate received a pink scooter. 70.29.210.174 (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Pointless

This is like saying anyone who's reality show is popular enough can have their own page. She's not a TV personality. She acts like one. Why not add the kids pages if your gonna do one person? Its a documentary show. Even if the try and make it more than it is. She wrote 2 books. Thats not enough to grant a page. After all Jon co-wrote that first book along with a friend. Where's his page? What hasn't he done that Kate does? Go on tour for 2 books? That grants a page? Anyone else think this is pointless. If your gonna make one person's page, make the rest. Otherwise completely a waste. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

She was treated as a celebrity expert in extreme multiple births as well, and in that, she has more that the usual celeb experience, being an obstetrics RN, and having experienced a very large multiple birth, so there is additional notariety. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Announcement comming

I removed the material about some big news comming. Maybe wait until it develops more? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I looked at your talk page. I agree with you (threeafterthree). The "announcement" may be suited for the article about the show, at best and even that's shaky, but definitely not this one. Further, I noticed cactusjump mentioned the announcement was about an impending divorce. Everything I've read is speculation, so how is this known exactly? Or is this original research? --13² 17:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with deleting it and holding off until the news is solid. No worries. Cactusjump (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and no problem :)--Tom (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Jon and Kate Plus 8 - episode Monday 22 June 2009 - (source type: Primary source)

On monday June 22, 2009, legal proceedings were initiated in Pennsylvania to dissolve the ten-year marriage of Jon and Kate Gosselin

Also confirmed in CNN Anderson Cooper 360 for Monday 22 June 2009 - (source type: Secondary source)

70.29.212.226 (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Gossip

Wikipedia, as is outlined in policy on bios of living persons does not deal in tabloid gossip. While agree that some of the details in the Family section may be relevant and valid, but only if they are either undisputed fact, or notable enough to have a number of reliable cites. A salacious allegation by a single tabloid that is unproven, and actively denied by the subject, does not belong on Wikipedia. Apart from that, the cites do not even back up what this article says. The People one says nothing of a bodyguard, and the "Us" one (**not** a reliable source) does not mention an "affair". Even it reports only piecemeal gossip from unnamed sources with vague, weaselly "the talk of many locals". And Gosselin's supposed response to the allegation (which is argued as justification for including the details) aren't in either cite. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with you. I think a lot of this could be said for Jon & Kate Plus 8 as well. --13² 20:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the show that made her notable is about her family, there are some issues about the family that should be relevant to the article. However, I also agree that Us Weekly is not a reliable source, and any mention of "the talk of many locals" should be withdrawn. Cactusjump (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you're going to remove allegations of Kate's affair, shouldn't you equally remove allegations of Jon's? Cactusjump (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

US Weekly is in fact a reliable source. They have pictures and video, and source all their comments. Simply because the publication covers the entertainment world does not make it unreliable. "Talk of Locals," is a different matter, but this issue was hashed out last month, as the pictures and admissions began to come out. It's relevant to the article because the show is about marital and familial bliss, and because the stars of the show need to get along with each other in order to continue making the show.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I still believe it's completely lopsided to have Jon's accusations of cheating, but not Kate's. If you're going to have one, you should have the other, including that both Jon and Kate have denied any extra-marital affairs. Cactusjump (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Divorce

Jon and Kate and the producers are making their divorce up. Until there is proven prove that they are divorcing. Don't say they are divorcing.--M42380 (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Er, they aired it on the episode last night. That's more than enough proof to get it in the article. In this instance, the burden of proof is on you...where is the reliable source that can be verified and says it's being made up? --13² 14:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, there has not yet been mention of divorce, it was stated they are separating and there is a difference between the two. Separation can be properly sourced at the moment, divorce can't be properly sourced, and conspiracy by the show's producers can absolutely not be sourced at all; that is personal opinion only. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Separated/divorce doesn't matter. Once there is something finalized, then add that to the info box. Right now it is in paperwork stage I believe, correct? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Nothing's been finalized yet, things like "1999-2009" or "divorced" do not belong in the infobox, although I'm still holding off on making a call on "separated" pending proper sourcing. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I would wait until they are "officially"/legally seperated to add to info box. --Tom (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

Jon Gosselin redirects to Jon and Kate plus 8. His notability and Kates are entirely due to the TV show, so would it note make more sense to have both redirect? There is plenty of space there for the info we have here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the biggest reason Kate has her own article and Jon doesn't is because of the books and the fact that she has gone on national tours to promote the books and talk about her life, where Jon hasn't. Honestly, I really don't think an article for Kate is all that warranted, but I don't care either way. On the same note, I do think an article on Jon could be written, the problem is whenever someone tries to write one, they all say the same things (dad of eight, got caught cheating, is getting divorced) and none of it makes the article meet notability requirements. --13² 20:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I also don't see a point in having a Kate article. It is pretty much a repeat of the show article, except for a little of her background and the books, which can easily be merged in to Jon and Kate plus 8. Cactusjump (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This page is equally as pointless as Jon's. She made 3 books and shes on the show Jon and Kate Plus 8. Oh and shes a nurse. That meets WP:BIO standards? Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)