Talk:Jessa Seewald

Semi-Protection request on 28 June 2014

I request to have this page semi-protected to prevent any kinds of vandalism Imaginator88 (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done requests for page protection must be made at WP:Requests for page protection - Arjayay (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

A few problems here

I believe that the user who created Jill, Jessa and Josh Duggar's pages only created them to write about the information of the molestation scandal. These pages were not here on Wikipedia before this all came out, and the section which talks about Jessa's encounter with the issue seems inappropriate and uncivil. This needs to be either left out, or written in a different way so it is not so direct and blatant (a link that leads directly to the heading of this scandal on the 19 Kids and Counting's page is acceptable). This is not a page to spread current issues to the public. It is a page that gives information about this person, and any content that is not professional or civil will be removed.

Any questions please reply to me on here. Thank you.

Monkeys 9711 (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This is simply not true. The box at the top of this page clearly indicates that the article survived an AfD back in February. StAnselm (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely erroneous reasoning. The page was created in February, long before the news broke and with no mention of the event. Dave Dial (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Imaginator 08:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

As the creator of this article I never intended to create this article because of the molestation scandal

"Molestation controversy" section

Per WP:CRITS: "Sections or article titles should generally not include the word 'controversies'. Instead, titles should simply name the event." We currently have a section in this article titled "Molestation controversy." I think we should think of a different sub-title. I suggest "Molestation revelations." It's neutral and impartial. As the subject of this article is a victim of molestation, it seems a bit odd to call it a "controversy" here. It's a controversy for sure--Josh Duggar's controversy. But per the aforementioned WP:CRITS policy and for general WP:NPOV, I see no value in labeling it as such on this page. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

If this [1] is so, then our sources should verify it. However, of the three sources listed in that section, none of them appear to include the word "controversy." Including that word appears to be a personal opinion or WP:OR, or else better sourcing is needed to match up the article's content with the current sub-heading. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is a sampling: [2]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

And another: [3]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

We need to make sure our sourcing here is particularly reflective of Jessa Duggar's experience/involvement, as this is her article. I don't disagree with use of the term "Josh Duggar molestation controversy," but that's for his page. This is Jessa Duggar's page. She is a victim, and her involvement as a such is not controversial (if a claim is being made that her involvement, such as her reaction to the incident, is controversial, then that would also require particular sourcing). Safehaven86 (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The policy states, "The word "controversy" should not appear in the title except in the rare situations when it has become part of the commonly accepted name for the event". Source after source has referred to the issue and allegations as "the Josh Duggar controversy". The girls' and their parents' responses to the molestation then and now are also controversial. Personally, I think this is one of those rare situations where "controversy" fits. "Revelations" really isn't adequate to describe what happened and what is continuing to happen because of the sexual abuse Duggar subjected his siblings (and others) as well as what's happened since the Ashley Madison controversy. People aren't forced to resign from their jobs and go into rehab because of "Revelations". If someone can come up with a better term than "controversies", great. But at this time, I can't think of one that would fit better and more concisely. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, if "Source after source has referred to the issue and allegations as "the Josh Duggar controversy" then some of those sources should be in our article. The problem is, as I said above, they aren't currently in the article. So use of the term "controversies" looks unsubstantiated and like personal opinion. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Josh Duggar is obviously controversial and this is his controversy, not Jessa's. We need to avoid sub section headings that read as if being the victim of molestation makes the person victimized "controversial". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

No, BoboMeowCat, "Molestation controversy" does not read "as if being molested makes you controversial". The molestation as well as everything that happened afterward -- including what's happening in regard to it now -- is controversial. How the parents handled it was controversial. How the state trooper who didn't deal with it as he should have dealt with it was controversial. How the family covered it up was controversial. The reasons for the cancellation of the Oprah appearance and the producers knowing what happened but saying nothing was controversial. The follow-up interviews by the parents and the sisters and how they all pretty much blew it off as "something a teenager does" and wasn't a big deal were controversial. The whole thing is controversy from beginning to now. But the header leading a reader to believe the victims are controversial -- I don't see that at all. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The reason I made the original change is because I, too, read it as if Jessa Duggar being the victim of molestation somehow made her "controversial." That didn't sit right with me so I changed it. All of the controversial elements you mention above seem valid but like WP:COATRACK here. This isn't an article on the "Duggar family molestation controversy." It's simply a paragraph noting Jessa Duggar was a victim of molestation. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

None of those controversial details are even in this bio. It's just Jessa's statement that this happened her and her distress regarding the police reports detailing her abuse being made public. I agree "controversy" belongs in Josh Duggar's bio, but not Jessa's.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Then the section definitely needs to be expanded. Although, to be honest, aside from the molestation controversy and everything that's happened since it was leaked, I don't really see how Jessa Duggar is notable beyond WP:1E (being on the now cancelled show). Josh Duggar yes. The dad, yes. The mom doesn't have an article (nor should she). The sisters? Why do they have articles? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

She's written a book and apparently has quite the fan-base. This BLP pre-dates the scandal. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

One book written with two of her sisters doesn't equate notability. Her mother wrote a book with their father (and, if truth be told, both books were likely written by ghost-writers) -- mom doesn't have an article. Having a fan base isn't reason for an article nor does it establish notability. If anything, this article and the article on her sister should be merged with a (yet to be created) article about the book. These individuals are WP:1E. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Her mother seems to meet WP:GNG as well with all her political work, robocals etc, in addition to book and show, but I'm not personally inclined to create it. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Mom doesn't have a life other than having babies and raising children. Her political "work" was what, exactly? She didn't run a campaign, she didn't work for a campaign (other than to smile while standing beside her husband when he ran for office), she recorded some robocalls and that's "political work"? Women in families like the Duggars (those affiliated with the Quiverfull Movement and the Bill Gothard ministries) are backgrounds to their husband's and brother's foregrounds. Women are there to smile and cook and clean and make babies in religious groups like the one they belong to -- and that's it. Look at the articles on the sisters: is there truly anything there notable? No. Which is sad and a pity and really, really wrong, but it's the truth. They don't have notability because they aren't allowed to. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)