Talk:Counting On

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 February 2020 and 5 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Saraenglish2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding grandchildren

Can we have clarification as to why the grandchildren (who do regularly appear on the show) have been removed? On the related page "Bringing Up Bates" the grandchildren are still listed so I'm just interested to know what the difference is. Gigismommy (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

This is an issue that is currently being brought up. I do agree that the grandchildren should be removed if it goes against BLP violations. Therefore, the grandchildren should only be added if there are liable sources to confirm their birth and to prove that it is widely discussed. I will try and find these sources to ensure that the grandchildren table can stay up and make sure that it goes along the Wikipedia guidelines. Duhaaacx (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

this article is about a TV show, it isn't about the cast themselves. If you want to create a biography of a living person, create an article about that person. No need to hijack an article about a TV show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:12B0:3000:8DD5:9126:A988:2CC1 (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Add the rest of the family back please!

Why does the rest of the family keep being removed? They need to be added back and left. It hasn’t been a problem before, so why now? Please put them back up. Jeanniefan78 (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add the children, the children’s spouses, and all the grandchildren back, please. Jeanniefan78 (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Jeanniefan78, we can consider including that content when it's widely covered in reliable sources. Until then, it violates WP:BLPPRIVACY. Woodroar (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Woodroar How are the birthdates and marriages of this family which are covered in a lot of major US magazines, not covered in reliable sources??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eck1125 (talk • contribs)

Many major US magazines are gossipy tabloids, not reliable sources. For the most part, reputable news outlets don't cover marriages and births, so Wikipedia shouldn't, either. Woodroar (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

This family became famous simply for being large and the programmes focus on marriage and childbirth. Its their USP, and therefore the information is relevant to their wikipedia entry. They personally update social media with details and dates of their marriages and births and therefore a reliable source of data is available. 90.201.52.253 (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call People Magazine a gossip site since celebs will go there to confirm these things and sell the info to them. But I do agree with adding the info back at some point even more so since their whole brand is based off a reality show that confirms the dates of weddings and births.Nina878787 (talk) 4:57 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean, that's the definition of a gossip site. In any case, our policy says not to include it, especially in the case of minors. Woodroar (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

no — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.127.0.15 (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

What counts as a mention

I found an article that discusses the organization that the duggars are part of. It includes a photo of the cast, mentions the show, and discusses their relationship with the iblp. This has been removed repeatedly for not mentioning the show. It does reference their tlc reality show. Does additional criteria should be met? 107.202.75.102 (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

https://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/July-2016/Institute-in-Basic-Life-Principles-Hinsdale/ - the article in question 107.202.75.102 (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The source does not mention "Counting On" or any of its cast members that I could find. Woodroar (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

If you scroll to the section titled 'big supporters of the iblp', the first content is a photo of the cast of the show, and a reference to "their tlc reality show". That seems pretty direct to me. It also calls them out by name and says they've been involved for a quarter of a century in another part of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.202.75.102 (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources need to directly support any claims being made. That photo is from 2002. It led to the creation of 19 Kids and Counting, the only show that Chicago Mag mentions. The source was published in 2016 and says "former TLC reality show stars", so it's clearly talking about 19 Kids and Counting (which ended in 2015) and not Counting On (which was currently running at the time). Chicago Mag doesn't mention Jim Bob or Michelle or any of the minors in that photo besides Josh, so we can't use it to make claims about those people. (Especially the then-minors-now-adults, because it's not like they could choose who their family supported.) Chicago Mag doesn't mention Counting On, either. And Josh, the only Duggar who is mentioned, isn't in Counting On, so him getting mentioned is irrelevant. Woodroar (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

how about this similar article that explicitly says cult and counting on? https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/07/30/duggars-canceled-tlc/ similar content, less specific about the hardcore sexual submission fetish (not that I brought that aspect into the article) 2600:1700:12B0:3000:8DD5:9126:A988:2CC1 (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That source mentions Advanced Training Institute in a section about X Kids and Counting and doesn't claim that any cast members of Counting On support it. WaPo also doesn't call Advanced Training Institute a "cult" in its own editorial voice but links to a tabloid that we consider generally unreliable. Woodroar (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

What Woodroar said. Plus, using phrasing like "the hardcore sexual submission fetish" doesn't exactly send the message that you're interested in creating a neutral, dispassionate article on the topic. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Should the logo be changed?

I have no idea what the source is of the "Jill and Jessa" logo, nor do I understand enough about WP policies regarding show logos, so I will leave this to better minds than mine. However I believe this was the logo until the show's cancellation: https://images.sr.roku.com/idType/roku/context/global/id/42437032fba25df0bc836d75f19feb8e/images/gracenote/assets/p13124832_b_v12_at.jpg

FranMichael (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)