Talk:McCaughey septuplets

message: There is mention of a Time magazine appearance but no mention of their annual appearance (Dec) on the Ladies' Home Journal cover... [This content had no section-head and was unsigned when found on 9/30/17] 75.101.104.17 (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Time and Ladies' Home Journal

message: *Alexis: Her cerebral palsy has damaged her speech ability and cognitive skills. She needs to use a walker to get around. She had difficulty swallowing and suffered from severe acid reflux for many years.  She no longer uses a feeding tube.  
*Natalie: Because of severe acid reflux, she was fed through a tube for the first four years of her life.
*Nathan: Nathan also has speech and cognitive complications due to his cerebral palsy. He used a walker but had spinal surgery in November, 2005, in order to improve his walking abilities."Eight is great for the McCaughey septuplets", MSNBC, January 15, 2006
</blockquote>
:75.101.104.17 (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Health issues

message: Are they fraternal siblings, or are there any pairs etc of identical twins etc?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.13.140 (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What sort of multiplicity are they? 

message: Erm... I don't want to appear mean spirited, heart-warming as this story is, but this article doesn't come up to scratch by a long shot.  The first section is ok, generally gets to the point, and  focuses on the facts (such as they are - no sources).  However, the Personal Characteristics section leaves me at a complete loss! Pardon me for being rude, but was this section written by the children's mother?  It certainly comes across as being a personal account of sorts.  Unfortunately,  it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards for the following reasons:
1. It is extremely POV.  For example, in reference to Brandon, "He feels he is the strongest kid in his family" as a statement is hugely subjective, regardless of its truth.  If you have a problem with this please read the NPOV page for an explanation of official Wikipedia policy.
2. If, as it sounds, these are the words of somebody with first hand experience of the septuplets, then it conflicts with the Wikipedia policy of No Original Research.  However, if I am wrong in my assumption, and this is the reproduction/paraphrasing of other material then it suffers from a complete lack of citation. And even if there is a source for this stuff, then I refer the author(s) to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.
3 It is very poorly written.  At best the tone is chatty or conversational ("Kelsey is the tomboy and is right up there with her brothers").  Although there is no absolute rule over style, you'll find that most of the serious contributions lean towards the 'news style' or the 'summary style' depending on content.
I don't really want to gripe, but contributors should consider what the Wikipedia project is trying to achieve when adding to or creating articles.  This reads like someone's tribute page - a  formless collection of personal observations.  There are plenty of companies offering free web-hosting if you feel the urge to do this.  As such I'm making the following changes:
-Removal of Personal Characteristics section.  I know this is rather destructive measure, but I truly feel that this section is of no merit whatsoever.
-Cleaning up links.  One, if not two of the three links are broken.  I will also try to find a decent archived news-source to reference.
Beerathon 14:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you did the right thing, Beerathon. But I would really not mind the inclusion of some personal characteristics as long as it is clearly quoting some newspaper article -- or several so we can be sure it's a notable POV shared by at least a few people not just one! These kids are kind of like celebrities. Personal characteristics of celebrities acknowledged by several reputable sources are still notable. — Донама 06:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely Subjective 

message: Is it possible to use this image? http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19971201,00.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alon (talk • contribs) 07:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: The article currently reads "To the surprise of many, the obstetricians primarily responsible for the medical care of the babies were Dr. Karen Drake and Dr. Paula Mahone, both African-American women. Once news of Drs. Drake and Mahone's race became known, many people advised the family to seek another obstetrical team..."  Why is the "race" of the obstetricians surprising?  And why would anyone advise the family to "seek another obstetrical team" based on race?  More to the point, why is this even mentioned?  I suppose it nice to know that the parents were not swayed by what was apparently irrational racial prejudice, but the way it is written, it sounds like it is validating such prejudice.
Uranographer (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. I've taken the statement out mainly because it's unsubstantiated. If someone can provide a citation I'm open to debate about whether it merits inclusion but as it is I don't think it's the sort of thing that should be in this article. CecilPL (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is surprising about African American Doctors? 

message: Anybody else notice how nasty the media coverage of the Suleman-Guiterrez octuplets has been in comparison to the polite coverage of the McCaughey family? Check out Mother of octuplets 'worked in an IVF clinic' in the Daily Mail (London). Discpad (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison to Suleman-Guiterrez octuplets 

message: I am providing notice that a question regarding the use of the names of minor children in this article is currently open at the biographies of living persons noticeboard, here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of names

message: Exuse me , But why did these people get a house a car and many other stuff / services but not the Black Chukwu OCTUPLETS?!! Racism perhaps?!!
Gosh darn it Iowa!
-A concerned Azn
--Wikiuser92612 (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Chukwu Octuplets and Nadya Suleman are NOT favorites here.... 

message: The surviving Dionne quintuplets wrote a letter warning the parents to keep the septuplets out of the public eye and not allow them to fall into the same pitfalls as their parents did, but wish television station KCCI television and Ladies' Home Journal magazine"  Something seems to have fallen out around the words "but wish television station"--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  sentence missing something 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on McCaughey septuplets. 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/20160817171416/https://www.pinterest.com/pin/266345765435048185/ to https://www.pinterest.com/pin/266345765435048185/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "In 2017, the septuplets became aunts and uncles when Mikayla gave birth to a son after getting married in 2015. Natalie was the first of the septuplets to get married, in May 2019. Brandon also got married in August 2019.[21]"
There seems to be an inconsistency here as it is not possible for Natalie to be the first to get married if she married in 2019 while Mikayla married in 2015.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C02:3102:7E00:E448:AD82:8435:FBAC (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no inconsistency. As stated earlier in the article, Mikayla is the older sister of the septuplets, not one of them. Linguistical (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency about marriages 

message: as stated in the edit summaries, the addition of a statement concerning the house being sold is unnecessary and superfluous; see WP:NOTEVERYTHING,  WP:PROPORTION and WP:UNDUE. QuestFour (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your subjective interpretation. You are just as much involved in an edit war as I am. Adding a brief parenthetical is not disproportionate or giving undue weight. And it's certainly not an attempt to insert every possible piece of information. Pillowcrow (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

text: I will also add that you have a history of edit warring. Pillowcrow (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:AVOIDYOU. How exactly is the selling of the house significant, and how does it pass the above policies? The burden is on you to demonstrate this. QuestFour (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't a personal attack; it was a factual statement. Not every piece of data has to be of the utmost significance. Most of Wikipedia is not "significant" information. But yes, it's relevant, as relevant as the fact that they received a house in the first place, or a van, or diapers. It's as relevant as their pro-life stance. It's as relevant as their first child getting married. It's relevant because it's a reflection of their character. Pillowcrow (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As per the PA policy, "comment on content, not on the contributor." The house, the van, etc. are part of the public response to the birth, what happens to those items is inessential and irrelevant. I do not see how the mentioning of the selling of the house passes the criteria stated in the above policies and guidelines. Seeing that you believe otherwise, you could resort to either WP:3O or WP:RFC. QuestFour (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of the house being sold