Talk:Jim Bob Duggar/Archive 1

message: Since the father is really only semi-notable for his past political career in state government, yet the family is extremely notable in popular culture, I've moved the content of this page over to Duggar family, cleaned it up, and hopefully will engender more participation. --Kickstart70-T-C 03:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved to [[Duggar family]]

message: This article is poorly written.  Excessive use of parenthesis are throughout.  Also many of the claims in the article are unsourced.  We need to pay heed to WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS.  I will work on this when I get some time. Feel free to be bold and get to work on improving it! Vivaldi (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I just did a semi-major overhaul to remove the paretheses and useless wording. Feel free to revert, but I tried my best.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.108.15 (talk • contribs) 03:24, November 28 2006 (UTC)
:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no move. —Mets501 (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: November 27 Overhaul

message: :Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
* Support - I've seen how this has gone back and forth by looking at the histories of both articles and this looks good.  (I was going to say that starting with the third paragraph (The Duggars are highly....), the article was only about the family.  Then I saw the Survey.) Please keep the redirect from Jim Bob Duggar.  --EarthPerson 22:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew of both articles but have not looked back over them and the related AfD.  I'm neutral on one or two articles.  I'd just like a re-direct from one to the other should there be only one.--EarthPerson 18:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, please.  This is not an "attempt to bypass" anything. I wasn't even aware that any of that had happened.  If you look, I hadn't made any edits or comments during that time and I wasn't aware that this had already been discussed and decided.  If you can manage to keep your hat on I will take care of this next year.  Happy Holidays!  Joie de Vivre 22:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Jim Bob Duggar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://epaper.ardemgaz.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib%3AArticleToMail&Type=text%2Fhtml&Path=ArDemocrat%2F2001%2F09%2F09&ID=Ar00235
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112042504/http://www.mjbstar.com/celebrities/2011/12/13/memorial-ceremony-held-by-jim-bob-michelle-duggar-for-jubilee-shalom/ to http://www.mjbstar.com/celebrities/2011/12/13/memorial-ceremony-held-by-jim-bob-michelle-duggar-for-jubilee-shalom/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/data/districts/repmap.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926235013/http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2006/03/29/News/335335.html to http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2006/03/29/News/335335.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120124094820/http://duggarfamily.com/content/family to http://www.duggarfamily.com/content/family
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150524234344/http://gawker.com/the-duggar-homeschool-programs-terrifying-advice-on-sex-1706406324 to http://gawker.com/the-duggar-homeschool-programs-terrifying-advice-on-sex-1706406324
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161019153507/http://defamer.gawker.com/the-web-has-known-about-josh-duggar-for-years-when-did-1706258269 to http://defamer.gawker.com/the-web-has-known-about-josh-duggar-for-years-when-did-1706258269
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160909072215/http://gawker.com/josh-duggar-confirms-teen-molestation-reports-1706150395 to http://gawker.com/josh-duggar-confirms-teen-molestation-reports-1706150395
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jim Bob Duggar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100830015013/http://blogs.discovery.com/duggars/2009/02/prayers-for-grand-pa-jim-duggar.html to http://blogs.discovery.com/duggars/2009/02/prayers-for-grand-pa-jim-duggar.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120103103726/http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/02/9899530-santorum-wins-support-of-tlcs-duggar-clan to http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/02/9899530-santorum-wins-support-of-tlcs-duggar-clan
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Apologies: I removed a comma from the first sentence of the section, but incorrectly stated in the explanation that it was in the Biography. In any case, I removed it because two items in a list do not call for a comma. Gottfriede Brunito (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edit self-correction 

message: Jim Bob played a significant role in Josh's sex abuse scandal. I began editing this article last night and have been, of course, aiming for neutrality. If Jim Bob's role in 19 Kids and Counting merits inclusion in the article's introduction, so too does the sex scandal that ended it, which he was directly involved in. Dmarquard (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Involvement in Josh's sex abuse scandal 

message: Dmarquard, when content is removed per BLP, it's not supposed to be restored absent clear consensus that it's not a BLP violation. Stating Jim Bob was complicit in criminal misconduct based on tabloid and Gawker sourcing does not seem BLP compliant. The article text discusses that he went to the police. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, don't see a problem with Dmarquard's addition. It accurately represents what InTouch is reporting.  And as the InTouch articles are at the  center of the story, it is not at all irrelevant or inappropriate to include them. Just my opinion.  hopefully a consensus can be achieved.  Giving things time to settle down, in any case, probably isn't the worst idea. Wickedjacob (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In touch is a tabloid type gossip magazine.  It doesn't seem as if the opinion of a gossip magazine that Jim Bob engaged in criminal misconduct should go in the lead. As far as I can tell, no one from law enforcement has suggested Jim Bob was complicit in criminal misconduct and he hasn't been charged with this. The attempted addition to lead that he was "complicit in covering up incestuous molestations by his son" and following this with "according to the police report" seems very problematic.  That's a gossip magazine's opinion regarding a police report. I've read the actual police report and didn't see where it said of implied that Jim Bob was complicit in criminal coverup.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but the police reports are primary sources, shouldn't we be using the WP:SECONDARY journalistic sources per policy for interpretations? 184.190.204.162 (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not suggesting we add my interpretation of the police report to the article (although no where in the police report is any allegation of cover-up mentioned). My point is it seems in order to add what basically amounts to criminal allegations against Jim Bob Duggar, we'd need better sourcing than tabloid/gossip magazine per BLP.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not restore content removed per WP:BLP  

message: Does anyone think this subject should be included? See his cached Senate bid website here where he states If a woman is raped, the rapist should be executed instead of the innocent unborn baby. Adoption is an option. Many couples would love to adopt and are waiting for a baby. Abortion has been and always will be the destruction of an innocent child. Rape and incest represent heinous crimes and as such should be treated as capital crimes. 
* here
* here
* here
* and here at Salon
Mostly on the tabloidy side of the news so far and of course the blogs, but so was this entire story when it first began, it will probably be touched on by the respectable ones eventually. 184.190.215.159 (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And when they do, we can think about including it. StAnselm (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

text: We could include his position or rape and incest as candidate, but we should avoid connecting the two aspects unless covered in reliable sources. -  Cwobeel (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Is a Huffington Post article a mainstream enough source? 184.190.215.159 (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

text: NBC News and TODAY have addressed the comments. 184.190.204.162 (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jim Bob and capital punishment for incest 

message: I'm copying the following paragraph from what I posted on the discussion page for the Quiverfull article:
So, the rule on Wikipedia regarding things like gender is that whatever a person self-identifies as, that's what they are no matter what anyone else says. Contrarily, that then equates to whatever a person denies being, that's what they aren't no matter what anyone else says. The Duggars have unequivocally denied being a part of the Quiverfull, therefore, it cannot be stated on Wikipedia that they are a part of the group no matter what someone here or there claims in an article or on a website. The material in this article stating that they are must be removed and not simply and very, very weakly countered with a "They don't self-identify" line at the very end of a large paragraph. That sort of tactic would never, ever be accepted on a Wikipedia article about a transgender person -- e.g. a whole paragraph describing the person as male with a teeny, tiny afterthought of a blurb that the person "doesn't self-identify as a male." 71.55.137.219 (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quiverfull claim 

message: I have removed the recent mention of Josh Duggar in the lead as undue weight and inappropriate for a BLP. Please discuss it here before restoring it. StAnselm (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Josh Duggar in lead 

message: In the section where Josh's sex crimes are mentioned, it hasn't been updated to mention the current charges or trial against Josh at which Jim Bob has testified. 
As it stands now, that section reads like the family's discussion of struggles and the lack of formal charges over the earlier controversy was a definitive end. Roac-8942 (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2021 

message: Josh Duggar their eldest son was found guilty for 2 counts of CSAM on December 9th 2021 in Fayetteville Arkansas. 74.59.46.183 (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2021 (2) 

message: Please include it in this article.2601:447:4080:10:CC32:DEF1:B21:BD7E (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jim Bob Duggar has lost his Arkansas state Senate bid 

message: Place in Other political activities: Duggar fails to make runoff in Arkansas state Senate primary:
https://apnews.com/article/elections-arkansas-senate-elections-primary-elections-springdale-eaf7a3586e28a2f4453a2771196af788 2604:3D08:4A7C:5430:1FF:BDF3:9E04:1078 (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done This has already been added by  per the above section under . I do not see a reason to duplicate this information under . —Sirdog (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2021