Talk:Josh Duggar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Removal of sourced content

Reliably sourced content has twice been removed. I have replaced it and am starting discussion here per WP:BRD. The content was reworded to state that reports say he is in rehab even though the family states it is a treatment facility. I'm not sure what the issue is as three four sources have been provided to support that he is in rehab, not just a treatment facility. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring has now ensued with refusal to adhere to WP:BRD. Edit summary states: "Do not inject tabloidish sources into a BLP. Per sources, the family statement doesn't use "rehab". http://www.duggarfamily.com/michelles-blog?ID=fd82bcb8-6dec-49b5-bdaa-5bed13fa3f7e"

• The Duggar Family website blog by Josh Duggar's wife is a primary, and unreliable source and not acceptable for use.
• USA Today, InTouchWeekly, and CNN are not "tabloidish sources".

Please explain why you have decided to edit war over this and avoid adherence to WP:BRD, Lootbrewed, choosing instead to behave disruptively. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

What is the issue here? All sources mention rehab. Restored. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that, and thank you for doing so. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Lootbrewed, you are edit warring needlessly. Your edit summary said Do not reinsert a tabloid story into this BLP. Why do you consider the reporting of CNN, Washington Post, USA Today and many others to be "tabloids"? - Cwobeel (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, why do you consider the word "rehab" to be a bad word that needs removal on the basis of WP:BLP? Puzzling. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Posted request at WP:BLP/N#Josh Duggar - Cwobeel (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This tag-team disruption of articles by Winkelvi and Cwobeel will eventually end in yet another block for each of them, and perhaps their indefinite bans. In fact, Winkelvi, you are currently under final warnings from two adminstrators.[1][2] You both have also been reprimanded by numerous editors on a continuous basis. Unless you accept the fact that you do not own the articles you edit, this will not end well for you. As you both know perfectly well, the family's official statement never used the word "rehab"; only "long-term treatment". Winkelvi added a clearly tabloidish story solely to give him a reason to inject the word "rehab" into the article, even though there were already three high-quality, mainstream sources (The Washington Post, CNN, and USA Today). Do not insert tabloidish or similar stories into a BLP again. The two of you are now infamous on Wikipedia for your disruptive editing, bullying behavior, and continuous intransigence with many editors. I suggest you stop now. Lootbrewed (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe you need to cool it, engage in a constructive conversation and follow WP:DR. The BLP/N posting is a first step, and hopefully we will be assisted by uninvolved editors. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I have re-added the word "rehab" since the sources are using the word, but do not reinsert any tabloidish sources like the In Touch one. High quality sources only for BLPs. The three current sources are solid. In Touch Weekly certainly was not. Lootbrewed (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

One of the long-time, experienced editors commenting at BLP/N was fine with In Touch as a source [3]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It's of course no surprise, Winkelvi, that you would return to post a needless comment after the matter had already been resolved. And yet again, you have taken what someone else said and presented it out of context. His full comment was, "I'm OK with citing In Touch, if needed, for their initial report that has been cited by others, but its best to avoid it." (emphasis added). It's perplexing, yet not surprising, that you felt the need to add an inferior source like the In Touch story to this BLP when there were already three high-quality sources to verify that one simple sentence. Lootbrewed (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You know you're at seven reverts in 24 hours for this article, right, Lootbrewed? That's four more than the bright-line rule allows. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

What are you, 10 years old? Have you not listened to a single word all these administrators and other editors have been telling you over the past couple days about starting conflict with so many people? Every day, you are in wars with various editors. Are you actually looking to get permanently banned? And for the record, your constant attempts at hiding your enormous number of reverts isn't fooling anyone. You have been told repeatedly by multiple editors that just because you don't use the "undo" button, it doesn't mean it's not a revert. I would venture to guess that you are among Wikipedia's most notorious violators of WP:OWN. Not only should you take a good look at your own editing and personal behavior, but you should really take seriously what admin Jehochman told you just today. If you don't, your editing days may come to and end. Lootbrewed (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Lootbrewed, there is no need for that kind of rhetoric. Now that this is resolved, let's move on, shall we? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your lectures to so many editors about what you believe needs or doesn't need to be said is of course irrelevant. As both you and your wikipartner Winkevli have been told repeatedly by too many editors to count, you are heading for indefinite bans unless you change your ways. Lootbrewed (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Lootbrewed, do you realize that with more ugly comments like the ones you've made in this discussion section you've pretty much become you are becoming the definition of a Wikipedia troll? For someone as new to Wikipedia as you are, it's pretty unusual to see 20.4% of your edits being on talk pages. 29 edits to this talk page and 27 to the Jared Fogle talk page by you alone. And with less than 300 edits. What that says is that you are spending an awful lot of time "talking" - and if one were to go back through each one of those talk page edits, my bet is the majority of them would be you fighting with another editor or being rude to them. I also note you have not once used the "thank" feature since you started editing. To me, all of that says, so far, something not too complimentary about you as a new editor. Only you can turn it around. It would be really nice if you would (and I'm sure others would agree with me). This is, after all, supposed to be a "community" where civility and content creation should be the focus, not continually battling with other editors and tearing them new you-know-whats. The only person I seen continuing to beat the dead horse and refuse to drop the stick is you. Time to get to the task of building an encyclopedia, not spending so much time and energy tearing the content creators down, don't you think? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: It's notable that (1) your time to move on is just after WV gets in a last word, and (2) I have yet to see you say anything like that to WV. Your relationship is a little too cozy, you're consistently criticizing certain people's behavior while ignoring bad behavior in those you see as allies. I'd suggest a change. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Lootbrewed is a new editor and they require some guidance. All these comments about indefinite bans and other nonsense needs to stop. As for my supposed "cozy" relationship with WV, nothing can be further from the truth. I had my battles with him before in many occasions, and we don't see eye to eye in most issues. Now, if you forgive me, I will leave this discussion and focus on doing some good work elsewhere. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about length of service since it does not correlate to any significant degree with good judgment or competence. There are plenty of four-year editors who lack a clue about how to be a constructive Wikipedia editor, and you know that as well as anyone. Again, get the last word, and then move on to something more important. If it's not important to you, then skip the last word part and just move on. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It's no surprise that the wiki tag-team of Winkelvi and Cwobeel have refused to take Mandruss' sensible advice over the past couple days, and instead have chosen to argue with him. And although they've both been counseled about the importance of the quality of one's edit over the quantity of edits, they still feel the need to continually brag about their number of edits. Perhaps they have never read WP:EC, which was written precisely for editors like them. Further, Cwobeel, if any "new" editors are in need of guidance, they certainly should not get it from editors like you and Winkelvi who have disrupted this project and annoyed countless editors on a daily basis. Sadly, instead of avoiding conflict, you both seek it and thrive on it. An administrator even pointed it out to one of you just yesterday. Hopefully, you'll change your ways before the powers-that-be are forced to take long-term action. Lootbrewed (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"...if any "new" editors are in need of guidance, they certainly should not get it from editors like you and Winkelvi who have disrupted this project and annoyed countless editors on a daily basis." Your personal attacks at Cwobeel and myself have been happening pretty much on a daily basis for about 6 days now. Your insistence on talking about editors rather than edits and using article talk pages in such a manner is disruptive as well as annoying to anyone venturing by here. Pot, meet kettle. Guess what? You're both black. Now -- it's time for you to contribute content and stop personally attacking editors, don't you think? Wikipedia isn't meant to function in this manner. Please stop, okay? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how many more blocks, warnings, and reprimands it will take for you to finally get the message. You have been urged by others to take a wikibreak. Hopefully, you'll heed their advice. Otherwise, the break might end up being non-voluntary. Lootbrewed (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And right now, at this moment back to yesterday afternoon, precisely what would I be blocked for? I've done nothing wrong, have been contributing to the encyclopedia, and have done nothing block-worthy. do you realize that blocks are to prevent disruption and are not meant to be punitive? That's policy, by the way. So, please, tell me what I am doing that is so disruptive to Wikipedia that I should be blocked? Then, after you answer that question, ask yourself if you have been doing anything for the last 30 hours or so that could be considered disruptive. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yet more evidence that what the administrator told you yesterday is precisely on point. Anyone can take a look at the last five threads on Cwobeel's talk page to see a great example of your desire for conflict. All the threads were started by you. At least Cwobeel had the good sense to remove them all today. Your endless drama will likely be your downfall. Lootbrewed (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

(this is me shaking my head) "There's none so blind as those who will not see." We're done here unless you have something else you'd like to add in regard to what the section header indicates should be the topic discussed. I don't know about you, but I'm going back to content creation, contributing to the encyclopedia, and editing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi that is an excellent idea if you and Cwobeel go back to "content creation, contributing to the encyclopedia, and editing" and will be welcomed by all of us. BlueSalix (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring over wording

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A fairly new, inexperienced editor insists on inserting wording into the article that is (1) POV ("only"), and (2) awkward ("unspecified"). I bring up his newbie status only because when edit warring over the wording previously, he stated, "'unspecified' is the word used by BoboMeowCat, who initially added it, and it refers to the TYPE of facility, which is unknown. Therefore, it goes without saying that the name is also unknown." (diff is here). It seems that because he is so new, the editor has a misconception about editing the work of others. In other words, because another editor wrote it intially, it should never be altered. To me, "unspecified" seems awkward where "unnamed" seems more to the point. Further, using the word "only" seems POV and extraneous.

The pattern so far has been that after the wording is changed to what I believe is the improved, non-POV wording, it then is changed to the other editor's preferred version. This has happened at least three times. I'm tired of the back-and-forth as well as the edit warring, so I'm going to ask if we can get a consensus (without an official RfC) on this once and for all. If consensus doesn't occur in a day or two, I will open an RfC. If an uninvolved editor feels strongly about opening an RfC, please do so.

The wording in question is here and here. The changes by the other editor are here and here.

Thoughts, suggestions, discussion? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I prefer "unspecified" or "unspecified type" to "unnamed" because we do not know what type of rehab center he is in and "unnamed" does not express that. I can deal with "only" added as a qualifier to "long term treatment center", if it ends this dispute, because I think the current sentence does a pretty good job expressing the relevant information, and although I wouldn't add "only" it doesn't seem like that big of a deal. At least we now seem to have consensus for "rehab" in the description, which was an important point. Seems sometimes best to let minor things go. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Minor to you, not minor to me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Is changing it to "unnamed" and removing "only" as important as including "rehabilitation"? We've gotten Lootbrewed to concede that point. Maybe we should just move on.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It is to me. I don't know why you are challenging me to explain further. I gave my reasons for why I think it should say 'unnamed' and why 'only' should be left out above. If that's not clear enough, I don't know how to help you understand further. There's nothing wrong with waiting to see what other editors involved at this article have to say about this. StAnselm and Cwobeel have a vested interest in this article, they should be allowed to add their comments (if they choose to do so). Like I said above, let's see how this goes for a day or two. There's no rush. There's no deadline. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Let's please restrict comments to the content question, not the editor, the editor's experience level, or any perceived misconception on the part of the editor.
• I don't see why we need to characterize the facility in wiki voice at all. Is there anything wrong with the following? "On August 26, 2015, Duggar checked himself into what his family described as a 'long-term treatment center.'" I don't see a need for the word "only"; the reader should assume that, if the family had been more specific, we would have been more specific. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as how the facility is described: this was discussed at length at BLP/N several days ago, the majority of reliable sources reporting on the matter said it was a rehabilitation facility. Consensus was reached on using "rehabilitation". And, frankly, I see nothing wrong with noting a new editor seems to have misconceptions about editing content and changing what's been written (as it has been one of his reasons for reverting and edit warring over it). Nor do I see anything wrong with mentioning he is edit warring over the content. Repeatedly. Every time it is changed. If it weren't happening, we wouldn't be here discussing it. Discussion and reaching consensus based on knowledge as to what issue(s) we are discussion is part of making an informed decision, after all. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

"On August 26, 2015, Duggar checked himself into a rehabilitation facility that his family described as a 'long-term treatment center.'" ―Mandruss ☎ 06:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Anything in addition to the wording above is a violation of WP:OR. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, once again you have unilaterally changed content which is currently under discussion without consensus. I don't know why you fail to understand that you are not the final authority on disputed issues. You even disregarded what your own ally, Winkelvi, said above ("let's see how this goes for a day or two. There's no rush. There's no deadline"). Having said that, I am fine with Mandruss' sensible alternative wording, so I will not object. However, your claim that the prior wording was a violation of OR is complete rubbish. Hundreds of reliable sources have indicated that the type of facility Duggar checked into has not been specified, and that the family has described it only as a "long-term treatment facility". That's what's the sources clearly tell us, so it therefore is not original research. So please, stop injecting endless links to policies, guidelines, essays, and other pages into discussions when they do not apply. It increasingly diminishes your credibility each time you do that. And with regard to Winkelvi, he yet again has chosen to create drama by starting this thread with the words "A fairly new, inexperienced editor..." and then following that up with "It seems that because he is so new...". Winkelvi, knock it off because you know where that behavior left you previously and could well lead you again. Your constant arrogance and condescension towards editors you believe to be new is an example of why you have been sanctioned and counseled repeatedly about seeking conflict with other editors. Although you've been advised several times previously to do so, you have apprarently failed to educate yourself on WP:EC. Lootbrewed (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You can't add your own synthesis of material. There are no sources that use the language you added. Please read WP:V and WP:NOR. A good idea may be that you learn the ropes ... otherwise your time in WP will likely be frustrating. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

A thought: "Unspecified" is actually inaccurate since the family did specify it is a "long-term treatment facility". That in mind, unless we do go back to "unnamed" (which, in reality, it still is), "unspecified" really doesn't work at all and it shouldn't be part of an either/or choice between the two words. Further, as a response to Lootbrewed's careless continuation of personal attacks: I no longer think you are a new user. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, keep your obnoxious condescension to yourself regarding an editor's experience. You have absolutely no idea how long I've been editing. Apparently, you don't understand that one could have edited for many years before deciding to finally create an account. And Winkelvi, stop with your intransigent nonsense. The family saying that it's a long-term treatment facility does not tell us what type of facility it is (e.g. drugs, alcohol, sex, stress, etc.), does it? Obviously, if the type of facility he entered was unspecified, then it goes without saying that it was also unnamed. But if that was turned around and the facility had been named, then obviously it would not be unspecified. Therefore, the word unspecified tells the reader that not only do we not know the name of the facility, we don't even know what type of facility it is. It's not only sourced, but it's basic common sense. One other point Winkelvi. You said, "It seems that because he is so new, the editor has a misconception about editing the work of others. In other words, because another editor wrote it intially, it should never be altered." It's amazing that you can actually continue typing such condescending babble about other editors with a straight face. It's another example of the conflict-seeking rhetoric you have repeatedly been warned about. The point of my alluding to BoboMeowCat being the one who initially inserted the content was simply to indicate that I was not the only editor who agreed with the word "unspecified" over "unnamed". Your continued tag-team bullying with Cwobeel will not only result in yet more blocks for the two of you, but could likely lead to your permanent bans from editing. Everything the administrator told you a few days ago is being reinforced by your continued inappropriate behavior. Lootbrewed (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

My only response to your TLDR: I'm trying to figure out (1) Why you are so strangely obsessed with believing Cwobeel and I will eventually be indefinitely "banned" (which is a whole different concept than being indef blocked, by the way) and (2) why you think you know whether or not I have a straight face when I comment on talk pages. Strange. Very strange, indeed (amusing, though - something else that's amusing: a user with a little more than 300 edits arguing with an administrator with 10s-of-1000s-of edits who's been a Wikipedian for 13 years over BLP policy and whether certain content is inclusion-worthy - that really tickles my funny bone and keeps me from having a "straight face"). Now, can we get back to the topic rather than continue to venture off into the weeds with these personal comments? That would be great! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Yet another addition to your portfolio of whiny, arrogant ramblings. Apparently, BlueSalix was correct above when he questioned your ability to live up to your own promise ("I'm going back to content creation, contributing to the encyclopedia, and editing"). Here we are again, in another drama-filled thread that you created. It sounds like Jehocman summarized your motis operandi perfectly. It's perplexing that he and all the other administrators who have issued you blocks, warnings, and counseling haven't gotten through to you yet. Lootbrewed (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Lol! You funny, Lootbrewed! Back to editing, contributing, and building an encyclopedia for me.  :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how this discussion is useful. Please re-read WP:TALKNO, if you have not done it already. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Daniel Keller request for Duggar's wife to leave him

I'm adding the RS widely reported news that Duggar's brother-in-law called for a separation, as this is pertinent to the biographical story of Duggar. Feel free to discuss this in the Talk page instead of in edit history. BlueSalix (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, let's discuss the recent additions here. I have reverted them pending talk page consensus. Firstly, please do not add reports from People or ET. We need the highest quality sources for BLPs, and we should stick to reporting facts as much as possible. StAnselm (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

And where on earth do you get the idea that a Slate blog is a reliable source for BLPs? StAnselm (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with StAnselm's deletion of the content. It seemed tabloidish. It's unencyclopedic to add that his brother-in-law called Duggar a "pig" and is advocating for separation. If they actually separate or divorce, that should be neutrally and briefly added, but commentary from others regarding this doesn't belong in the bio.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. Please no trivia. Thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I second the agreement as well as Cwobeel's addition of stated policy on such content. What was added not only was tabloid fodder but was sourced from tabloid fodder. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Slate and WGN-TV are RS, St. Anselm. Those are the references you unilaterally reverted. Content that is supported by RS is permitted on Wikipedia whether or not you find it personally scandalous or not. BlueSalix (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That content is not excluded because the source is reliable doesn't mean we should include it. There's a million little details one could glean from those articles. Why on earth should the article on subject X include that subject X's brother-in-law said there should be a separation? Unless that article is in a tabloid, of course. Sorry BlueSalix but you're really pushing it here. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Drmies is right on the money. Just because something is reliably sourced doesn't at all mean it qualifies for inclusion in an enyclopedia. There are endless numbers of facts in reliable sources that have no business being in an encylopedia. Otherwise, every word from a reliable source would be allowed in a Wikipedia article. So it's not about the sources; it's about the content. We have to always ask ourselves one question: Is it encylopedic? From an editor's perspective, what Duggar's brother-in-law said is, quite frankly, meaningless. Lootbrewed (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Danica Dillon

My original edit including this widely reported accusation was reverted due to the changing of a heading w/o consensus (I now have added a subheading, leaving the heading intact), and the fact that only one source was provided. There are 5 sources provided now- Christian Post, International Business Times, New York Daily News, London Daily Mirror, and Philly.com. Keithramone33 (talk)Keithramone33

The IBT story is taken from In Touch Weekly (considered an unreliable source). The Christian Times article and the Philly article are also taken from In Touch. NY Daily News and Daily Mail are not reliable sources. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree about the Daily News or Daily Mail being "unreliable"; if the subject were a scientific breakthrough, sure, but the affairs of reality show performers like Duggar? This is the media that covers them, libel at their own bottom line's peril. With regard to In Touch, I am aware that that was the source of the interview. But if the story is then reported in (for argument's sake) a reliable source, isn't it up to them to fact check it, and thus it's fair game for referencing? Suppose the NY Times picked up In Touch's report... is it up to Wiki editors to decide that we disapprove of their journalism?Keithramone33 (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Keithramone33

You really think the DM is reliable when the news article includes images of her in lingerie?

Daily Mail and NY Daily News are not considered reliable sources for inclusion in Wikipedia. As far as I know, In Touch is in the same category. A reliable source taking stories directly from unreliable sources does not suddenly make the unreliable source reliable. So far, there is no independent story on this from a reliable source (that I have found). At this time, it's tabloid gossip, nothing more. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

If her porn career were over and she no longer needed to make a name for herself in order to advance her career then the claim would, in my opinion, have a lower bar for inclusion. -- Callinus (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Also look at google trends and tell me there's no self interest. Go on. -- Callinus (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Writing in the bio that a porn star claims Duggar paid her for sex, and that it was horrible sexual experience obviously raises all sorts of BLP red flags. First, this is not encyclopedic. This is a tabloidish claim and it has tabloid sourcing. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll drop it for now.Keithramone33 (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Keithramone33

Agree that this is not needed for now. If this story unfolds and it is covered by mainstream sources, we can revisit it then. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Controversies

@StAnselm: I am to understand from these two reverts [4], and [5] that the Ashely Madison issue is not a controversy? If it is not that, what is it? If you are looking for consensus, the solution is not to revert two different editors, BTW.- Cwobeel (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, Ashley Madison was a controversy. While we can't include it in the article (as it would be WP:SYNTH, I think it's obvious that the breach revealed more controversial details about Duggar's life and that's why the FRC turned against him (read Perkins' comments following Ashley Madison) and woke the family up, resulting in him going into rehab. Definitely controversial in nature, all of it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion here. But don't forget that we avoid "controversy" sections as much as possible. We would need a reliable source describing it as such. What is the controversy, anyway? Was he criticized for his actions? Maybe, but that's not mentioned in the article. StAnselm (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Splitting hairs? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is a source [6] - Cwobeel (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that not too long ago this article had a quote from Tony Perkins of FRC where he threw Duggar under the bus and condemned him right after the Ashley Madison scandal broke. Anyone else remember it? To me, that spelled controversy. When the molestation revelation came out, Perkins made a statement about praying for the family, with Ashley Madison, he switched gears completely. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Should In Touch be considered "Limited and Qualifiable" RS?

Should In Touch be considered "Limited and Qualifiable RS" (that is, can it be sourced with the cautionary prefix "according to In Touch Weekly, XYZ" purely for this article)? (Note that the original Duggar molestation story was broken by InTouch and all subsequent sources refer back to the original InTouch story - a "no" consensus may require a careful rewrite, and possible elimination of mention, of the molestation case.) BlueSalix (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes While I would oppose straight RS that would allow In Touch to be generally cited as fact, I think allowing qualified citing just for this article is fine. While In Touch is probably not a good source for news about breakthroughs in medical science, U.S. foreign policy, etc., the subject of this article (an entertainment personality) is perfectly within the scope-of-competence of an entertainment news magazine. In Touch is not an anonymous blog, it has a real-world legal persona, and with it potential liability, that would restrain it from publishing complete fabrications. Finally, its editorial history demonstrates it is not in the same disreputable category as publications such as National Enquirer, but is rather a peer publication to something like People. The fact that it reports on celebrity/reality TV news should not disqualify it insofar as those specific topics are concerned. BlueSalix (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Title for Josh Duggar Extramarital Affairs Section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We've gone through three different iterations of titles for the section on Duggar's extamarital affairs:

• Fallout from Ashley Madison breach
• Extramarital affair
• Exposure of infidelity

Which should be used? BlueSalix (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Admission Exposure of infidelity ... "Fallout from Ashley Madison breach" makes this sound (a) like a public relations exercise, (b) like coverage of the larger Ashley Madison data breach (which has its own article). The substance and focus of this section of the bio was Duggar's exposure, and subsequent admission of, infidelity: "I became unfaithful to my wife." BlueSalix (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Blue. I would respectfully urge you to recondisder singling out the "infidelity" portion for the title. After all, it's not the only admission he made; it's just one of three admissions outlined and sourced in the section. He also admitted his porn addiction and of being a hypocrite. Further, all the admissions stemmed from the infamous Ashley Madision breach. So, perhaps you could reconsider and support the title "Admission following Ashley Madison breach" instead. Thanks. Lootbrewed (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Fallout from Ashley Madison breach Changing !vote to Admissions following Ashley Madison breach. It is concise and gives a full picture of the situation and controversy as it involved (and still involves) Duggar. Infidelity was only a portion of what went on and more is being uncovered. Besides, this was all hashed out last week and the general working consensus was for the "Fallout..." heading. "Admissions" gives the full scope. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Fallout from Ashley Madison breach Admissions following Ashley Madison breach is a neutral description of the controversy. It was not just about infidelity. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• None of the above - out of the choices offered, the first is better than the other two, but "Fallout" doesn't seem like a good encyclopedic term.

I think the title should be: Inclusion in Ashley Madison data breach --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, the section as written does not really include "fallout" in accordance with the way the term is usually used. Duggar had already lost his job after previous scandal and reports are his wife hasn't left him. It has to be humiliating to be publicly outed as a such major hypocrite, but he was outed as a hypocrite because his name was included in the Ashley Madison data breach. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat: please see my explanation below to Peregrine Fisher that outlines why "Fallout" is applicable. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Changing my vote to Admissions following Ashley Madison breach which has been suggested below.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Admission of infidelity - Most of the articles I've seen are about his admission, not the AM breech, or it's exposing of him. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news outlet, so I'm confused as to what are trying to say regarding articles you have seen. More to the point, tThe AM breach showed Duggar to have an account there, not that he committed adultery because of the account. The admission by Duggar then started a fallout of confession from Duggar that he had not only been unfaithful to his wife but that he also had viewed and was addicted to pornography. There is more to the story (hence the use of the term "fallout") than just the infidelity. The Ashley Madison breach is what caused the "domino effect". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're confused about what Peregrine said. It was not only very clear, but also very accurate. Read the sources. Read the section. It's focus is on Duggar's admissions, not the Ashley Madison breach. And this article is about Duggar, not AM. So although Peregrin's heading suggestion is off-base a bit, their comment was not. But, most importantly, it raised a valuable point; Duggar's "admissions" are at the heart of the section's contents. Lootbrewed (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if it wasn't clear. I meant reliable source news articles, not WP articles. The way they seem devote their articles is 1) Celeb made adultery admission 2) Celeb was Christian, and had other sex scandal 3) The word pornography was removed 4) Discussion of Ashley Madison. Obviously not a scientific survey, but it's my impression. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and clarification, Peregrine. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Fallout from Ashley Madison breachAdmissions following Ashley Madison breach seems the best one as proposed - it is the most neutral, and does not WP:SYNTH from the sources - as has been said before, being unfaithful could be to do with the porn he admitted watching, the actual act of creating the account, or anything else. Without us knowing the full context, I think sticking to this is safest for now at least. Mdann52 (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC) (edited to change proposed title 19:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC))

Mdann, I see you changed your vote after reading my alternate suggestion. I appreciate the support. I guess the only difference between us now is whether to use the word "following" or "from". Haha. To me, "Fallout from" fits because a fallout stems from something, but "Admissions from" seems odd. Admissions follow acts. Do you see what I'm saying? In any case, thanks for considering my alternate heading. Lootbrewed (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Lootbrewed: Sorry, this was me seeing it, thinking "oh, that's a better start", and not reading it all properly. Mdann52 (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mdann! Lootbrewed (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Admissions following Ashley Madison breach - I think Pergrine Fisher's point is excellent. If you read that entire section, it's all about one thing: Duggar's admissions. And there are three of them: that he has a pornography addiction, that he was unfaithful to his wife, and that he's a hypocrite. So I feel the word "admissions" is vital to the section heading. Therefore, I would suggest an alternative heading of "Admissions following Ashley Madison breach", which precisely summarizes the section's contents. Lootbrewed (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC) 19:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to add one point. While I feel "Fallout from Ashley Madison breach" is unquestionably the best of the three options presented, my preferred alternative simply adds specificity to that suggestion, which I think is necessary. The word "Fallout" is ok, but it gives the reader no idea what that means because it's vague. That's why I feel the word "Admissions" should replace it. Clear is always better than vague in a section heading, right? Lootbrewed (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Admissions following Ashley Madison breach. Much better than categorizing what it was he admitted. StAnselm (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Admissions following Ashley Madison breach I think an argument over "Fallout vs Admission" could be made, if consensus is with "Admission" I suggest using that. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Admissions following Ashley Madison breach per Lootbrewed - summoned by bot. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Changed per WP:SNOW to "Admissions following Ashley Madison breach". Let's move on. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. And yes, let's. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

There can't be a snow close less than 24 hours after a RfC is opened. BlueSalix (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Why not? StAnselm (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Blue, I don't see anything about the 24 hours at WP:RFC. However, it does say that there are four ways that an RfC can end: (1) The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly), (2) It may be moved to another dispute resolution forum, such as mediation, (3) The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time, or (4) It can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor. So I believe that option 3 applies since the participants are agreeing to close it, including me. But you can also of course follow option 1 and withdraw the question. Thanks. Lootbrewed (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record Blue, I do agree that Cwobeel closed the matter prematurely, in violation of the RfC rules. But that ship has sailed and 7 of 9 editors agree to the change, so why don't we just move on. Thanks. Lootbrewed (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Any edit, including mine, can be undone. So, if there is a need to follow process for process' sake and continue waiting for 30 days for this meager change on a sub heading, for Pete's sake, go ahead. I'd argue that a better use of our time would be to go edit and improve articles instead. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the 30-day reference in WP:RFC. The 30 days is simply the default length before a bot automatically removes the RfC from the list. As long as one of the 4 ways I listed above are followed, it can be closed. Had you not voted in the survey, you could've closed it per WP:SNOW. So the only problem was that you closed it without waiting for some other participants to agree. Now they do, so it's fine. Lootbrewed (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I assure you, Cwobeel is quite aware of what the 30-reference in WP:RfC is about. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, if he understood the 30-day reference he would not have said, "if there is a need to follow process for process' sake and continue waiting for 30 days for this meager change on a sub heading, for Pete's sake, go ahead". So your assurance is illogical. Lootbrewed (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

First, the discussion hasn't been closed, it is still active and open. Cwobeel simply prematurely changed the title in the article space. Given the Cwobeel/Winkelvi propensity to edit war, I'm not going to bother changing it back. The RfC will simply continue as though they hadn't made any comment at all and the ultimate consensus will dictate the final version of the title. Second, the participants did not "agree to close it." Third, we almost never SNOW close a RfC after less than 24 hours as, more often than not, the first !votes lodged represent the majoritarian opinion that is the impetus for the RfC - as the reason in fact a broader opinion is being sought. It is extremely common for !votes within the first few days to represent the majoritarian viewpoint of involved editors. The RfC hadn't even been listed yet at the time the Cwobeel/Winklevi "declared" it closed which is the entire purpose of the RfC - to reach a broader segment of the community for comment. The Cwobeel/Winklevi attempt at close is exceptionally disruptive and not GF. However, that question is for scrutiny in a different forum. BlueSalix (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

BlueSalix, I fully empathize with your frustration. But can you provide a link to a policy or guideline that says an RfC cannot be SNOW-closed within 24 hours. I can't find that anywhere. It seems that the four close provisions in WP:RFC are pretty clear; one of them even refers to situations where the response can become "obvious very quickly". It also says that an uninvolved editor can close it if they think it's appropriate. So although this is a situation where the SNOW rationale clearly fits, the change should've been made by someone completely neutral. If I believed that there was any chance for the result to change, I would say no way to the close. But because a section title change is relatively minor, and the survey discussion developed into overwhelming agreement among 7 of 9 editors, I don't think it's a battle worth pursuing. Lootbrewed (talk) 05:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

BlueSalix: Given the Cwobeel/Winkelvi propensity to edit war, I'm not going to bother changing it back. But you did. Maybe it is you the one with that propensity? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how many other people would have voted but I got a note on my talk page today, came to vote and found the discussion had closed in less than 24 hours. I would have liked some time to look over the material and form an opinion. I think discussions should be left open for about a week so that more people can have a say. This is not a hard and fast rule, as far as I know, but it was suggested here: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Closing discussions Louieoddie (talk) 07:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the one-week suggestion you linked to from WP:TALK is only a part of the sentence. It says, "A general rule of thumb is that discussions should be kept open at least a week before closing, although there are some exceptions to this." The exception it links to is WP:SNOW. I think the fact that 4 of the 9 editors actually changed their vote to form an agreement with the other 3 regarding the section title only reinforces the SNOW judgment. Lootbrewed (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm with BlueSalix on this point. If I'm in a minority of 1 and strongly feel I'm right, the whole point of my RfC is to solicit outside opinions. If the local majority is enough to snow-close my RfC, how can it serve that purpose? ―Mandruss ☎ 07:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, what do you mean "my RfC"?? BlueSalix is the one who started this RfC.[7] Are you and BlueSalix the same person? Lootbrewed (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I admit it, I'm Mandruss' sock. I throw myself on the mercy of the admins. Please go ahead and shut-down my "Mandruss" account. I commit to only using my "BlueSalix" account moving forward. BlueSalix (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

After further thought, I've changed my mind and I want to use "Mandruss" from here on out. It's shorter and it somehow seems to have a better rep than the BS name (go figure), so I get treated better when I'm logged in as "Mandruss". Please shut down BlueSalix. Thanks! ―Mandruss ☎ 20:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

As an appendix to what my Mandruss account just said - whatever you do, don't shut-down my Drmies account. It's exceptionally mildly difficult to sock your way into admin permissions and I don't want to have to start over from scratch. Thank you to the majestic leviathan of ArbCom. It is to you we owe all glory and obeisances. BlueSalix (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The above was not me. Obviously my BlueSalix account has been compromised. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

What a waste of editor's time this is. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you two feel that way, however, Wikipedia isn't a race. BlueSalix (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ashley Madison?

I realise that everyone editing Wikipedia in the second decade of the 21st century is likely to remember the Ashley Madison leak and associated scandals. In twenty years, though, what will people understand from the title "Admissions following Ashley Madison Breach"? Yes, they can read the text underneath the subtitle - but that removes the entire purpose of titles and subtitles.

While I understand that this subtitle has already been extensively discussed, I saw no indication in that discussion that editors considered the long life of Wikipedia entries.

To save today's children having to come back in ten or fifteen years and make sense of this subtitle, I suggest that it be changed to "Admissions of sexual impropriety following Ashley Madison breach". This proposed subtitle retains the reference to Ashley Madison, but makes clear what kind of 'admissions' are involved.

Having proposed the change, I will not make it myself - there are editors who are clearly invested in this article and this subtitle, and will want to have their say. 203.206.36.50 (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2019

• Change this: is a former [[United States|American]] [[television personality]], [[political activist]], and currently owns a used car lot<ref name="UsedCars"/>.
• To this: is a former American [[television personality]] and [[political activist]].
• Reasons:
  1. The cited source does not support the statement that he "currently owns a used car lot", it only states that he was running one before joining the Family Research Council.
  2. It also does not support the statement that he is a "former" TV star.
  3. Owning a car lot is just not notable enought to mention in the introductory paragraph.

--83.240.234.220 (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2021

Please put the original picture of him up and NOT his mugshot. He has not been found guilty of this crime. Innocent until proven guilty. 2603:9005:408:9800:D141:B5DE:5E72:67D8 (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It is still a newer and high quality picture, and does not imply that he has been found guilty. Tol | Talk | Contribs 04:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2021

In the section about the 2021 arrest, please add this sentence: "Prosecutors allege Duggar obtained the images in May 2019." Source: Reuters

It might be better if it were merged with the section above to form a "Legal issues" section. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I don't think merging the sections make much sense, looks like (according to that AP article) the Danica Dillon saga didn't really cause him much legal trouble, as she dropped the lawsuit pretty quickly once it came out that he wasn't even in Philadelphia at the time. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Volteer1: Wow, yeah, that makes sense in that case. Thanks for adding the May '19 bit. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

No worries. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2021

2600:1702:1D10:D830:C4D5:C39D:9B45:1AE9 (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Josh Duggar never appeared on Counting On. The show was created after 19 Kids and Counting was cancelled because of his molestation scandal and all sponsors withdrew their advertising.

 Done See edit summary. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)