Talk:19 Kids and Counting/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Bias

It seems to me that someone edited out the controversy over the fact that this family repealed a pro-gay anti-discrimination law. That was a large controversy and is therefore notable, so leaving it out is an indication of bias. If something notable happens, you don't edit it out because you don't like the fact that it's notable. 207.224.79.12 (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you give link/diff of old version that had that information? Or can you provide the appropriate sources? Or you can add the info to the article yourself. Kirin13 (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Alleged birth dates and BLP vios

It is disgraceful that an article that falls under Biographies of Living Persons, with its stringent verification requirements, has had a non-RS personal, unofficial blog tagged since June 2014. It's a blatant vio of BLP and of WP:VERIFY. Two fans of the show cannot be counted on to have done encyclopedia-level research on birth dates. If the dates they claimed are real, then they should appear in reliable sources that can be cited. If no one can find them in reliable sources (which, under Wikipedia guidelines, IMDb is not), then that should be a red flag. I'm removing the uncited birth dates as per BLP. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this an official site or a fan site?

There doesn't seem to be anything at http://www.duggarfamily.com/ to indicate whether it is a fan site or an official site. While the operators make it look like an official site, there is no copyright information and no statement of ownership or disclaimer, and it carries ads for gay-oriented content like the Broadway musical Hedwig and the Angry Inch, which is completely out of character for the Duggar family. Until this can be confirmed as definitively official, it is a non-WP:RS site. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the Duggar Family's official Facebook page as well as their Twitter account, they have http://www.duggarfamily.com/ listed as their website. They have also referred to it as "our website" in multiple posts on their official Facebook page (for example: https://www.facebook.com/duggarfamilyofficial/posts/633076590159327). Ravenclaw27 (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. That works. I would suggest adding a clarifying note to this affect somewhere in the article, since the site itself is unclear. That would help prevent this coming up again a year or two years from now. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Table formatting (again)

So, someone (or maybe multiple someones) went through and dropped all of the last names from the name tables. I was under the impression that they were added after Jill and Jessa married since their last names aren't Duggar anymore,in order to keep track of the new family names. Also, the changes involved taking out the rowspans for each set of twins, etc. as well as additions of refs that only contain birth dates. How do people feel about reverting these changes? They seem to have happened a long way back in the list of changes that happened today following Israel's birth with more attention to the page from people who don't generally contribute to this page (from what I can tell). Metheglyn (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The general consensus has been (here and similar articles) not to list the surnames. The section is Duggar family. They are all Duggar children. The fact that some have married doesn't change that. Their married names are mentioned in the notes and elsewhere. 2) It looks like the rowspans have been added back. 3) I didn't notice those "refs". They definitely need to be removed or better yet actually give sources for the birthdates. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I do like the table better without the surnames myself, I mostly noticed because it temporarily broke the link to Jill's own wikipage (?!). It looks like the birthdate refs have indeed finally been linked to something that people might accept as reasonably authoritative (the Duggars' own website rather than the semi-official Duggar Fan website). Overall, it looks a lot better now. Metheglyn (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2015

Under "During the Series" This line is written: Josh and Anna announced that they expect their fourth child on December 2, 2014.[33] On March 2, 2015, they reported that this baby is a girl, due in early July 2015.[34]

This implies they are due on Dec 2.

Rewrite as: On December 2, 2014 Josh and Anna announced that they are expecting their fourth child.[33] On March 2, 2015, they reported that this baby is a girl, due in early July 2015.[34] 72.220.48.49 (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

no links to Josh, Jill and Jessa.

Right now, Josh, Jill and Jessa have pages of their own, but they are linked nowhere in the article other than the template at the bottom. Should we link them in A) "During the series", B) "Duggar Family" or C) not needed since in the template?Naraht (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It can be all three -- because A is prose and B is a table. I have added links to the table. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Molestation Allegations Controversy Section?

Should a Controversy Section (discussed above several years ago) be re-evaluated in light of recent news stories about molestation, incest, etc. involving oldest Duggar son Josh? The controversy is no longer confined to blogs and other non reliable sources. See:

Or, should Josh Duggar have his own article to concentrate on all of this? 184.190.215.159 (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

And considering many major news sources have now picked up the story, surely it is wp:relevant, has wp:weight, and satifies wp:notability. More examples include:
It would be fine to put in, but yesterday there was a lot of unreferenced stuff going in. If we've got solid sources, and good text to write, that'd be fine. But the article was getting bombarded with lots of BLP-related edits which had spotty or no referencing, and that can't happen. --Jayron32 11:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
You're between Scylla and Carybdis here. On the one hand, I don't think it's right to just copy the most outrageous headline, because there is an abuse of terms going on here: there is simply no way under the psychiatric definition that a 15-year-old can be a "child molester"! Nor do I see in these stories the kind of detail about the "inappropriate touching" that would be needed to conclude that he did anything more than some routine juvenile tomfoolery - when you're talking little boys, not every pinch on the ass is actually a sexual advance. (I don't know that's what he did) On the other hand, this article shows signs of severe whitewashing - for example where is this story from 2012? Also, wasn't there actually some kind of violent attack on the network a few years ago that was motivated by hatred of the show? There is a lot left uncovered here. Wnt (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a horse in the race, I just want to see that WP:BLP is followed with regard to sourcing, whatever is said or not said. --Jayron32 12:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Wnt, what psychiatric definition are you going by? "Child sexual abuse" is the term used regardless of the age of the perpetrator; if the perp is also a minor, it's called "child-on-child" sexual abuse. According to the police report he was charged with a felony for fondling genitals of underage girls. He is absolutely the definition of a child molester, his age at the time of the incident is irrelevant. He was 15, and his sisters were the alleged victims, who were prepubescent. So no, it's pretty disgusting that you can say a 15 year old (not a "little boy") molesting his 5 year old sister is merely "juvenile tomfoolery" - the report on Daily Mail specifies that he touched her vaginal area.
You should cite that source to help things along, but I read that he was accused of fourth degree sexual assault, which (OR, probably wrong state, do not cite!) can encompass things like touching "intimate areas" through clothing. [1] That means that a boy who gives a girl a swat on the ass might be guilty of it. What's more, is this police report the one taken down by the guy who shortly afterward ended up in prison for something like 56 years under some kind of child porn charge, and then not pursued by the police until the statute of limitations expired? Maybe they had doubts about its validity. So I'd like to see some caution here. Wnt (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The 33 page police report uncovered by INTOUCH is not the one taken down but never filed by the officer later jailed for child pornography, it is the police report made after Oprahs people notified the Arkansas CPS about an anonymous email it received in 2006. It is the investigation begun after the statute of limitations had run out for the offenses in 2002-2003. 184.190.215.159 (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2015

The two instances of "fondle" in this page should be replaced with "sexually molested" or "sexually assaulted". Fondle is a sugarcoating word that connotes a sense of gentleness or beneficence. The action this word refers to is a crime, and should be referred to with accuracy instead of weasel words. Jcd0710 (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Molestation can encompass various inappropriate behaviors, of which fondling is one. Per BLP, it is better to clearly state the specific form of molestation that occurred so readers get an accurate impression of what he was accused of and later admitted to.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with both Jcd0710 and BoboMeowCat. It's important to be as specific as possible about the acts to which Duggar confessed, but we should also avoid sugarcoated weasel words, like the vague term "fondling." I have edited the text slightly to clarify what is meant by "fondling" in this case and what exactly Duggar admitted to. --Crunch (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Josh Duggar section should be retitled Controversies

In the interest of NPOV, the section should be relabelled and put after Guests probably. I wouldve done it myself, but being protected, some discussion might be worth it.--Metallurgist (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not a violation of NPOV to state what the accusation against Josh Duggar were and what he and his parents admitted that he did. This section is completely factual. It is not a controversy. --Crunch (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Whitewashing

In the lede it writes "confirmed reports that he had fondled five underage girls, when he was fourteen". This is kinda of whitewashing, it may lead an unfamiliar reader to believe that he was just a 14 years old kid playing around with a 13 years old. In fact he is being accused of sexually abusing 4 of his younger sisters. And 'fondling' is very vague. According to this [2] he assaulted one victim in the laundry room when she was awake: "Also 'some time during this time frame, [redacted] had been standing in the laundry room and [redacted, Josh] had put [redacted] hand under [redacted, victim’s] dress." [3] 2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:5679:C32C (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see the edits I just made that add specificity about the exact acts of sexual abuse committed by Joshua Duggar. --Crunch (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The header above "Whitewashing" shows the ignorance of some of the hyperpartisan and irresponsible editors and editing going on. This is an encyclopaedia not a tabloid or a Democratic Party PR training seminar. You have issues -- create your own blog and write what you like and deal with the consequences. Don't piggyback your agenda here. Quis separabit? 00:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is how CNN reported it:

"The channel's move came one day after Josh Duggar, who is now 27, apologized in the wake of an In Touch Magazine report that he had molested the girls when he was 15. Some of the girls were family members."[4]2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:5679:C32C (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

What did the abuse consist of?

The lede reads "The abuse consisted of fondling the breasts and genitals while the victim was asleep". But according to several sources it consisted of other acts too, including sexually assaulting the girls when they were awake.

This source reads: [5]

Here's an excerpt from page 11:

"The alleged victims are (redacted), who live with their parents Michelle and Jim Bob (redacted). ... The parents said that 3 1/2 years ago when (redacted) was (redacted) admitted to fondling (redacted). They said that (redacted) said that (redacted) had been fondling (redacted) breast and vaginas when they were sleeping, from the time (redacted) was (redacted). They said that (redacted) also admitted to fondling (redacted) outside the home on her breasts."

"In an incident in March 2003, a Duggar child said they were sitting in the assailant's lap reading a book when the person fondled them."

"Another reported the person put their hands under her dress in the laundry room."

This source reads:[6]

"According to the police report 'there was another incident….[redacted, Josh] was reading to [redacted, alleged victim] and [redacted] was sitting on [redacted] lap, [redacted] had touched [redacted] breasts and vaginal area…[redacted] then ran out of the room and called [redacted] and told [redacted] what [redacted, Josh] had done.'"

Again, let's not whitewash.2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:5679:C32C (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Role of adults in the sexual abuse issue

The current revision focuses entirely on what Josh Duggar did as a 14-year-old or less child. My feeling is that the statements about what the parents did, about members of the church knowing and so forth, are of equal or even greater relevance to the article. (I suspect the show wouldn't be cancelled based on the actions of just one kid by himself; my gut feeling is that if one of your children does something like that to another, the first time it's on him, second time it's on you) Wnt (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You have a point. That, however, is a matter for Arkansas' social services, which may soon be overwhelmed by this tragedy given the number of young children involved in various Duggar households. But this is an encyclopaedia, not Dateline. Quis separabit? 12:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Last edits to lede

BoboMeowCat left the summary "tweaks - sources are stressing asleep and awake as exception". What sources are saying that the abuse that happened while the victims were awake is "the exception"? And in his previous edit, BoboMeowCat completly removed any mention to abuse happening while the victims were awake.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AA7A (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AA7A, the sources have been stressing he fondled his sleeping sisters, see: http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/boys-are-curious-meet-the-duggar-defenders-using-religion-to-excuse-fondling-your-sleeping-sisters/. There are more sources provided on similar discussion on Josh Duggar talk page: [7]. My edit mentioned sometimes awake. [8]. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Contradictions between this article and the "Josh Duggar" article

This section of this article 19_Kids_and_Counting#Josh.27s_molestation_admission_following_In_Touch_Weekly_report presents the events diffrently than this section of the Josh Duggar article Josh_Duggar#Molestation_revelations.

This article reads:

The reports state that in 2002, Duggar, then 14-years-old, admitted to his parents that he had fondled five girls, including his sisters, by touching their breasts and genitals while they were asleep.[51][52]


The Josh Duggar article reads:

The first victim told Jim Bob about the abuse in March 2002. He had fondled her breasts and genitals while she was sleeping. Josh admitted to his father that this allegation was true in July 2002. In March 2003, Jim Bob found out about additional incidents and other victims. Jim Bob told police that he had enrolled Josh in a program consisting of physical labor and counseling after consulting with his church's leadership. Michelle later revealed that Josh had been sent to stay away from home to work for a family friend in the home remodeling business. Upon Josh's return home, Jim Bob brought Josh to Arkansas State Trooper Jim Hutchens, an acquaintance. Hutchens did not take any official action but reportedly gave Josh a "stern talk". With Hutchens' later arrest and convictions on child pornography charges, the case went inactive.[29][30]

There is a problem with the timeframe, and with how Jim Bob first found out.

2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AA7A (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

is the show actually canceled?

The source linked in the article's lead says that the show just doesn't appear on the current lineup, but TLC has not made any official statement. I think, until that statement has been made, the show hasn't officially been canceled. It likely will get canceled, but let's not jump the gun here. 149.149.2.110 (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

You are correct. The article doesn't say (and doesn't mean to imply) that it's been canceled. It's hard to speculate about it. Duck Dynasty wasn't canceled, but Honey Boo Boo was. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed canceled. https://www.facebook.com/TLC/posts/10155626312840173 Dmarquard (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
"Effective immediately, TLC has pulled all episodes of 19 Kids and Counting currently from the air. " is not the same as cancelled...Naraht (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Please fix the "Josh's molestation admission following In Touch Weekly report" section

The text does not reflect what the source says; here is the source: [9] and it reads:


"Some of the alleged offenses investigated were felonies. Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar were interview by the Springdale Police department on Dec. 12, 2006. The report says that James told police he was alerted in March, 2002 by a female minor that Josh — who turned 14-years-old that month — had been touching her breasts and genitals while she slept. This allegedly happened on multiple occasions. In 2006, Jim Bob told police that in July, 2002 Josh admitted to fondling a minor’s breasts while she slept. “James said that they disciplined (redacted, Josh) after this incident.” The family did not alert authorities. Jim Bob told police that about nine months later in March, 2003 “there was another incident.” Josh was again accused by a female minor of touching her breasts and genitals. Josh was accused by several minors of touching their genitals, often when they slept, but at times when they were awake."

Please fix that section.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AA7A (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Please be neutral and don't minimize what happened

Some editors are attempting to sanitize the whole incident and make it as it was not a big deal, just a child fooling around with other children. This is not what happened (per sources). Sources say that he has persistently assaulted his younger sisters, including assaulting them in the laundry room, outside the home, and when they were sitting in his lap. There was a police report on this. Police does not do reports on children "playing doctor". Please don't attempt to distort the facts.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AA7A (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AA7A, there are WP:BLP concerns here, not only for Josh Duggar, but also for the victims, who are easily identifiable at this point. To just say he "molested" them or to just say he "persistently sexually assaulted" them and leave it at that, instead of saying what he specifically did, seems potentially misleading, and it seems to be a BLP concern for both Joshua and for the victims. I haven't seen any editors try to add that they were just "playing doctor" or similarly whitewash the issue, but unfortunately, I have seen multiple editors attempt to add text that makes the abuse seem worse than the sources are reporting it was. Seems we should make clear that the sources are reporting he fondled their breast and genital regions while they were asleep and sometimes while awake, instead of just saying "molested", "persistently assaulted", "sexually abused" because these terms can sometimes bring to mind and include behaviors which the sources are not reporting happened in this case. It's not whitewashing to just say what he did. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The sources we are referencing in the lead describe it specifically as “molesting” and “molested”, therefore we should reflect that wording, or reference different sources. Brimba (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I admit, the increasing weight of sources makes it ever more difficult to oppose that position. Still, there's something that really seems wrong to me about calling a child a child molester! I mean for God's sake, it's humiliating enough to be under investigation for fourth-degree sexual assault on your sister - no need to gild the lily there. Wnt (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Having read the police report, I am comfortable calling what occurred molestation. It exceeded fondling, and yet did not rise to the level of sexual assault, attempted rape, or rape. I would say he was a teen and not a child. What occurred was not an indiscretion, and had it been brought before the DA when it happened, I am sure felony charges would have been filed and he would now be a registered sex offender. As general rule males are not sexually attracted to their sisters, and obviously he was, so I would assume there were some deeper psychological issues involved. That is just speculation on my part, it does however leave me quite comfortable using the same terminology as the sources, and disinclined to go stronger or weaker in describing the events. Brimba (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree that what he did clearly falls under the category of molestation, but I don't think it's okay, from a BLP standpoint, to just say something like Josh Duggar molested his sisters in the lead, and then leave it at that. A lot of people only read the lead. I know the lead isn't suppose to be overly detailed, but the word molestation brings to mind conduct beyond the conduct which occurred. Seems better to specifically say he touched their breast and genital region while they were asleep and at times awake, considering these are the specific allegations reported and he confirmed. The victims are identifiable and they're his own sisters. It doesn't seem okay to have vague wording in this article which could easily be read and interpreted as this guy raped his own sisters, or forced the to perform sex acts on him, etc etc. There are BLP concerns here for the victims as well as for Josh Duggar, and they were all minors. It's really unusual for the media to identify minors who were sexually assaulted, but it's happening in this case, due to the leaked decade old police report. I think we should be using more care in this article.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Another important issue here is the age difference between him (15 years old at the time) and his youngest victim who was very young (about 5 years old). She is still a minor today, she was extremely young when this happened. Here is what this source says:[10]

"One of the alleged victims, who is only referred to as “Jane Doe” in the court order, was worried that the police report with her name on it would eventually be revealed to the public. And because she’s still a minor, she filed the petition to have the police destroy the document. Luckily for her, the judge agreed and signed off on the order on May 21"

A 15 years old performing a sex act on a 5 years old would certainly be seen as a serious crime. I'm saying this in order to reinforce the point that this incident should not be minimized.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AA7A (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AA7A, I read the source you linked and it does not say he performed a sex act on a 5 year old. The source you linked doesn't identify the victim by either name or age at time of abuse. Please remember that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as article space.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The source says that the victim is today still a minor. I used it to stress the age difference between the victim and him at the time of abuse. I agree that we should be careful with BLP, though by now it's too late because all has been made public... 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AA7A (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I realize our personal ruminations are pretty irrelevant, but I feel like I should clarify what rubs me the wrong way about having child "child molesters". Consider a case where an adult makes two kids have sex with each other for the camera, whatever their relative ages: would you tell the kids that they did something wrong, or would you say they were victims of an adult's manipulation? For that matter, if a pedophile defends himself simply by saying "he came on to me!", will you take that seriously, blaming a little boy for cooperating? The psychiatric definition of pedophilia (which is written more like a legal definition than any serious attempt to understand the behavior) only applies to adults, not children. What the kid is thinking is hard to say. To me this seems like the kind of thing that happens when you censor porn and a kid doesn't have any easier way to learn about the human body. Wnt (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@Wnt: To your point: [11] - Cwobeel (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's all please keep in mind that this article is about a TV show, not about Josh. It would be different if he didn't have his own bio article. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The fate of 19 kids and counting

Many people are saying that the show is cancelled which is not true. TLC has not made of up their mind so the ending date needs to be change back to nothing right now. --M42380 (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Use of "main" section link

User:StAnselm removed the hatnote:

Main article: Josh Duggar § Molestation revelations

from the section of this article that discusses the molestation. Personally, I think the main header is useful. Even though Josh Duggar is linked in that section, a causal reader wouldn't necessarily know that Wikipedia's main discussion of the molestation is in the second half of his article. Though less common than linking to a full article, there are many cases where a main link is directed to a subsection of a targeted article. See headings in British Raj (2 examples), Wikipedia community (1 example), Latter Day Saint movement (1 example), The Boat Race (2 examples), Syracuse University (1 example), and Circumcision (1 example) just to pull out some random examples.

I could be happy with a different template/phrasing, e.g. "Further" or "See also", though I think "Main" conveys the intent well. Do other people agree that the use of a hatnote is appropriate in the molestation section of this article? Dragons flight (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Added {{seealso}}. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Reception

We need a "Reception" section that describe viewpoints about the show itself. There are many reviews of the show that have been published, and none is presented in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Here are some:

- Cwobeel (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There is also an academic Journal article: TLC and the Fundamentalist Family: A Televised Quiverfull of Babies [12] - Cwobeel (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Also published in: Media Depictions of Brides, Wives, and Mothers, ISBN 0739177095 [13] I will use that a a source. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Logo description in the lede

I removed a description of the logo: rendered graphically as 19 kids &Counting in its onscreen logo for the simple reason that it is not mentioned in the article body (per WP:LEDE), has no encyclopedic value given that there is a logo image, and it is inconsequential. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I would respectfully say that it's a matter of opinion whether it's inconsequential. My feeling is that the way a title is given onscreen is in fact integral to the show. As for WP:LEDE, it says, "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body...." Usually, e.g., it's not a requirement. Indeed, full names and birth dates are often given in leads of biographical articles and not in the article body. I would look to examples at Sunset Boulevard (film) and Iron Man 3 regarding the significance of including how a title is rendered onscreen. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I read the ledes of both these articles, and unless I am blind, I don't see any mentions of any logos. And in any case, these are movies and what is depicted is the theatrical poster (not a logo), some of which are quite artful in their own right. - Cwobeel (talk)
"Sunset Boulevard—stylized onscreen as SUNSET BLVD.—" ; "Iron Man 3 (stylized onscreen as Iron Man Three)". Likewise, the logo that appears on this article's page appears onscreen. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I am indeed blind... What is puzzling is that the poster art does not say neither SUNSET BLVD nor Iron Man Three. So, should we add {{cn}} to these? Where that is coming from? - Cwobeel (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
They appear onscreen, and in the case of Sunset Boulevard there's a screengrab in the "Background" section of the article. Like a film's plot and credits, its title is one of the few allowable uses of a primary source. As WP:FILMPLOT puts it (and there certainly would be an analog for TV plots, credits and titles): "Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source. As Wikipedia's policy on primary sources says, '...a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge... Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.' " --Tenebrae (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

While I don't think it's critical, I support having the logo description in the lede. It seems like factual relevant information and I don't really understand the objection to it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I concede. But I still think it is useless information. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Article lead

I don't think any of us approve of what Josh Duggar has admitted to, obviously. However, this being an article about the show and not about Josh himself, I think the lead contains way overdetail. The specifics are important for the article body, but in terms of the show being pulled or perhaps eventually canceled — milestones that need to be in the lead — the graphic details are tangential and of undue weight for the WP:LEAD. Compare this lead to that of Bill Cosby. It needs to be pulled back a couple notches. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Not really. A show of this nature, requires that related aspects to Josh Duggar allegations be on the lead. I don't think this is going away. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Bill Cosby is a comedian and his abuse was unrelated to comedy. This is a show about very specific family values, which were blatantly discarded in the incidents and how the family dealt with them. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
My considerations are, if he'd just touched strangers' children this would be a matter of only tertiary relation to the show. But the circumstances of this specific situation draw in more members of this clan. Firstly at least some of the children fondled are the other daughter-stars of the show. And we don't know which so speculation will encompass all who fit within the date range for predation. Secondly the parents were involved at least to the degree of their discovery of and efforts at addressing the situation without letting it get out to the authorities. And thirdly the fate of the show has been inextricably connected to the fondling in the popular press, so much so that this may ultimately be what the show is remembered for. Pandeist (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not arguing against any of that. I'm saying it's sufficient to say:

On May 22, 2015, TLC suspended airing the show after the Duggars' eldest son, Josh, confirmed reports that when he was between the ages of 14 to 15 years old, he molested five girls, including some of his sisters.

and that we don't need: "by fondling their breast and genital region on multiple occasions while they slept, and in a few cases while they were awake."
The specific places he allegedly touched them have nothing to do with the show's fate — only the molestation does. If "molestation of five girls including some of his sisters" isn't enough and it's critical we say, "by fondling their breast and genital region on multiple occasions while they slept, and in a few cases while they were awake," I'm curious as to why that latter part is not WP:UNDUE in the lead.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It would seem to be a BLP violation to just say in the lead Josh Duggar molested his sisters and then leave it at that. Many people only read the lead and molestation brings to mind behaviors beyond the behaviors that were reported. Without the brief specification, it could easily be read and interpreted as this guy raped his little sisters, or forced them to perform sexual acts on him. This BLP concern is more with respect to the victims (who are identifiable public figures and were minors at the time of the abuse) but applies for him as well. Typically minors are not identified as sexual abuse victims, but these minors have been due to the gossip magazine publishing that police report.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Add, to shorten it, if there are wp:undue concerns, it might be reasonable to just write "by fondling them while they slept, and in a few cases while awake." I think most people are aware of where molesters typically fondle victims (and it's specified in body of article) and we could link to the fondle wikipage in lead for more info.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I see your point, but OTOH, facts are facts. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
My guess is that this is suffering from a bit of WP:CURRENT. If the show is ultimately canceled, then yes, we should note the recent for the cancellation in the lead. However, if the show continues (with or without Josh), then I'm not sure the molestation belongs in the lead at all. The show itself was never about these events, and thus far has never discussed them, so it seems strange to put it in the lead. On the other hand, if we were talking about the article on Josh as an individual, then I would absolutely agree that it belongs in the lead regardless of what happens to the show.
That said, there seems to be a strong view that we need to include something right now, so let me suggest the following shortened text:

On May 22, 2015, TLC suspended airing the show after the Duggars' eldest son, Josh, confirmed reports that as a teenager and prior to the beginning of the show he fondled five girls, including some of his sisters, without their permission.

Dragons flight (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Dragons flight, that's a really good suggestion. "without their permission" seems important with respect to BLP concerns for these identified victims. They weren't "playing doctor" with him they were being violated and the article text should make that clear.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@BoboMeowCat: "Fondling without permission"? As if there is a case of "fondling with permission"? Nonsense. This is WP:SYNTH and in poor taste, I must say. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
While we are discussing the lead, I would also note that I think it is strange that the lead makes essentially no mention of the family's beliefs and practices, e.g. modesty, purity, avoidance of birth control, courtship, home schooling, avoidance of TV / music, etc. If one is writing a concise overview of the show, surely there is more to say than the family has 19 kids and one of them is a child molester. Dragons flight (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dragons flight: excellent point. I'll take a stab at it later today, or if you want, get started on it. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dragons flight: Concur. Good wording, DF. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Although looking at Josh Duggar's quote, he doesn't "confirm" any of the specifics. He says:

Twelve years ago, as a young teenager, I acted inexcusably for which I am extremely sorry and deeply regre. I hurt others, including my family and close friends I confessed this to my parents who took several steps to help me address the situation. We spoke with the authorities where I confessed my wrongdoing and my parents arranged for me and those affected by my actions to receive counseling.

I think it might inadvertently be misleading to say that he confirmed any specifics. It might be more accurate to say:

On May 22, 2015, TLC suspended airing the show after the Duggars' eldest son, Josh, publicly apologized for having "acted inexcusably" following reports that as a teenager, prior to the beginning of the show, he had fondled five girls, including some of his sisters, without their permission.

--Tenebrae (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
If I the sole editor we would end “with he molested five girls.” and nothing beyond that in the lead. The lead would never mentions sisters, or the specifics of what occurred. That way the weight of the actions fall upon the perpetrator, and not at all upon the victims, and BLP is satisfied in my view.
If you don’t go that route, and you mention the victims, then you have to be fair to the victims and give enough details to show that they were in fact victims of Josh, and that Josh was a perpetrator, not just a confused teen.
If you cut back too much, no matter how noble the intentions, it is easy to leave the impression that the press has made a mountain out of a mole-hill, and leave a sympathetic impression of Josh “Yes, he crossed the line somewhat, but he himself has become a victim. The press is using his youthful indiscretions to as a means to attack the Duggar family” etc.
I feel that reducing what occurred down to the single word “fondling” is sugarcoating the events. Certainly what occurred was, from the victim’s standpoint, life-altering, and I do not feel that “fondling” conveys that, so I have NPV and BLP concerns. However, I am not pressing that point; but if we are going to reduce everything in the lead down to fondling, let’s not have fondling redirect back to groping as it does now. He was investigated for “forcibly fondling” which is a felony even at 14-15, and groping just does not cut it in my opinion. Brimba (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Per Tenebrae's suggestion:

On May 22, 2015, TLC suspended airing the show after the Duggars' eldest son, Josh, publicly apologized for having "acted inexcusably" following reports that as a teenager, prior to the beginning of the show, he had molested five girls.

Brimba (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
In the past, every time sisters has been removed, someone rushes to re-add it, and I'm pretty sure it's not just one editor. There's a discussion on Josh Duggar BLP regarding removing mention of his sisters (which I do not oppose), but consensus seems to be that the secondary sources are reporting it's his sisters and the fact that it's his sisters is relevant because of their reality program, which would seem to apply even more to this article than his BLP. I have no objections to returning to prior language of something like: "he touched their breast and genital region on multiple occasions while they slept and in a few cases while awake without permission", if simply saying he fondled them doesn't seem to strongly enough convey the creepiness and violation of the reported offense. However, without specifying the offense here, it's a BLP violation for both the victims and for him because molestation brings to mind offenses beyond what was reported. What happened is bad enough, we shouldn't word it in such a way that it could be read as rape of forcing them to perform sex acts on him, which would be the case if we just wrote "molested" and didn't bother to add in a few words to specify. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem really has as much to do with us as it does with the subject. Currently we have no page dedicated to fondling, instead fondling redirects to groping, while at the same time the first sentence of sexual assault ends with “any non-consensual sexual touching of a person.”. So currently the choice is groping, or sexual assault, with no middle ground. I think I will remove the redirect later tonight from fondling, and then stub fondling. Brimba (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Tenebrae , I like your suggestion, because you're right, he didn't technically confirm so using his quote seems better. I might suggest tweaking it to put "without their permission" closer to fondling such as: "On May 22, 2015, TLC suspended airing the show after the Duggars' eldest son, Josh, publicly apologized for having "acted inexcusably" following reports that as a teenager, prior to the beginning of the show, he had fondled five girls without their permission, including some of his sisters."--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that works. Either "molested" or "fondled"; I prefer the former, but I'll certainly go with the consensus. User:Brimba and others: What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
As I stated above, I have BLP concerns regarding "molested" used without any clarification, so maybe something like this: "On May 22, 2015, TLC suspended airing the show after the Duggars' eldest son, Josh, publicly apologized for having "acted inexcusably" following reports that as a teenager, he molested five girls by fondling them without their permission, including some of his sisters. These events occurred prior to the beginning of the show" I prefer the slightly shorter version above but either work for me.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
BoboMeowCat beat me to the punchline. I was going to say:
"I think to be fair, we say molested. The sources say that and it accurately describes what took place per the sources. While I admit that molested is ambiguous, so is fondled, so I would say molested. After that we can in some way describe the nature of the molestation as fondling. "
BoboMeowCat's version is a good compromise. Brimba (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I forcefully disagree. On May 22, 2015, TLC suspended airing the show after the Duggars' eldest son, Josh, publicly apologized for having "acted inexcusably" following reports that at age 14-15[2], he molested five girls by fondling them without their permission, including some of his sisters.
TLC did not suspend the show after Josh apologized, or because of the apology which is what that sentence portrays. They pulled the show after the incident was revealed to the public. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Have you heard of WP:BRD? The lead is now completely wrong and portraying a different reality. Tagged as POV - Cwobeel (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Please reread. The edit doesn't say it was pulled because he apologized, it said was pulled "after" he apologized for "acting inexcusably" in reference to the revelation that he molested five girls, which is an accurate timeline and description of events. Read above and you'll see this was simply added to avoid saying he confirmed it, when he technically didn't confirm, but the actions detailed do basically confirm it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
That is the way it reads, and it is completely misleading. The apology can be added but wityout connecting it to TLC pulling the show. Posting a comment at WP:BLP/N. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLP/N#19 Kids and Counting - Cwobeel (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It would be misleading (and inaccurate and technically a BLP violation) to say he confirmed when he didn't actually confirm. Seems better to detail what he did do which is basically a confirmation, but not in so many words. And why do you keep removing the reasonable seeming info regarding the logo being rendered graphically in onscreen logo with comment to please not remove added by Tenebrae? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
If you want to discuss the logo description, open a new thread. As for the lede, it is misleading to say the least. We don;t have to say that he confirmed or that he did not confirm, we should follow the sources and avoid WP:SYNTH. The facts are super clear, why to beat around the bush and editorialize what is a simple case? - Cwobeel (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
You restored confirmed. I don't even understand what your objection is really. The current version doesn't say the show was cancelled because he apologized and doesn't seem to imply that. The text reads that the show was pulled "after" he apologized for "acting inexcusably" in reference to the revelation that he molested five girls, which seems to be an accurate timeline and description of events per sources. I see no SYNTH. Do you have an alternate suggestion that conveys that molestation was revealed, that he basically admitted to it but not technically and then the show was pulled from lineup?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed summary of controversy

Disputed version

On May 22, 2015, TLC suspended airing the show after the Duggars' eldest son, Josh, publicly apologized for having "acted inexcusably" following reports that at age 14-15, he molested five girls by fondling them, including some of his sisters

Proposed version

On May 21, 2015, a police report from 2006 was revealed to the public, describing sexual molestation allegations against Josh Duggar, the eldest son, of having fondled five girls including four of his sisters, when he was 14-15 years old. As a consequence, Josh publicly apologized for having "acted inexcusably", TLC suspended airing the show, and he resigned his position at the Family Research Council.

The above proposal states the facts, without bias and without SYNTH, and properly summarizes the controversy per WP:LEDE - Cwobeel (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems like you are suggesting a lead for Josh Duggar instead of 19 Kids and Counting. I prefer the shorter version. I don't think Family Research Council needs to be mentioned in the lead here. It seems to have little to nothing to do with the reality show. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I see three problems with your version, relating to the sources we have. But my main problem is I cannot understand what your objection is to the first version. I have read what you wrote, but you don’t spell out a complaint so how are we suppose to fix it? Brimba (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Brimba: Let me try and explain. The way I read the current version is that TLC suspended the show after Josh issued a public apology. That may be the case from a chronological perspective, but it reads as if as a consequence of his apology, the show was cancelled. The facts are different: the reason TLC pulled the show, and the reason advertisers are pulling out is because of the allegations that surfaced by means of a report in a magazine. He apologized alright, but that is not what the controversy is about. The controversy is about the allegations of sexual abuse and the reported coverup by his family; these are the reasons for TLC pulling the show off the air. More worrisome from an NPOV perspective, is the false balance presented: not only the wording was toned down to exclude mentions of the abuse, but we are placing his apology as a main aspect, which is clearly not. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it's relevant encyclopedic information that he basically confirmed, and the apology just replaced the word "confirmed" for accuracy per sources. If you read the section above the details of the abuse were removed to shorten it due to undue weight concerns with respect to the lead for a tv show, but personally, I don't see a big problem with adding back into the lead "by fondling their breast and genital region on multiple occasions while they slept and in a few cases while awake." for clarity. I get that you dispute the current text as not an ideal version but I don't get your rationale for POV tag you placed.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
He confirmed and apologized after the report was published, right? So why is that the first thing we mention is his apology? That is what concerns me most and why the POV tag. His apology is a byproduct of the magazine report, and the report is based on the sexual abuse. Get it? - Cwobeel (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, personally I don't read it the way you apparently do. But let me have a go at a version that might work for both of us:

On May 22, 2015, TLC suspended airing the show after allegations surfaced that the Duggars' eldest son, Josh, while at the age 14-15, had molested five girls by fondling them, including some of his sisters.

No more apology, is that better? Dragons flight (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I would be OK, with a small tweak to your proposed:

On May 22, 2015, TLC suspended airing the show after allegations surfaced that the Duggars' eldest son, Josh, while at the age 14-15, had sexually molested five girls by fondling them, including some of his sisters.

Cwobeel (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Half the actors in Hollywood have had some type of charges made against them, and not a small number of those the police have looked into, and have resulted in police reports. What separates this case from those is how damning the report was, and the way we, or the way most people understand it was damming is that he was forced into a publicly apologizing. He never confirmed the details of the report, but in the eyes of most people the apology confirms the report, even if it technically or legally doesn’t confirm it. What I am getting at is that the apology is more significant than the report. Very few reports ever lead to an apology, because most reports can be explained away. An apology, even an indirect one, means the report cannot be explained away, at least not easily. So the apology carries weight, in my opinion, significant weight.
I would say that the apology at the very least sped up the process. Yes, the report is damning, but it was the apology that confirmed the report in the eyes of the public, and therefore it was the apology that hastened the shows removal. You are free to disagree with me, but that is my take on it. I don’t see it as toning things down, nor do I see it as a legitimate POV dispute. Brimba (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I see your point, but my view is that what you are arguing is for a novel interpretation of the sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Not to say that it would have been quite difficult to "explain away" that report. If you want my opinion, he apologized because he did not have a choice. Here is an interesting take on that apology: [14] - Cwobeel (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Cwobeel, how about this tweak to remove apology but keep that he basically confirmed it: "On May 22, 2015, TLC suspended airing the show after the Duggars' eldest son, Josh, sated he had "acted inexcusably" following reports that at age 14-15, he molested five girls by fondling them, including some of his sisters". --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the apology is critical to include since anyone can make allegations about anything, and generally, even for public figures, we look for some kind of corroboration — an arrest or, in this case, Duggar's public acknowledgment that acts related to the allegations did take place.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
To be honest the SYNTH argument looses me, I don’t get the point you are trying to make, or how it would be SYNTH. And I completely agree with Tenebrae. Brimba (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I also agree with and second that reasoning. 184.190.204.162 (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The synth is your assertions that the apology is what triggered the pulling of the show off the air. Can you show me one single source that makes that connection? That is what WP:SYNTH warns us about. Now, if you want to include the apology, I am not opposed to it, see my proposal at the beginning of this thread.
Here is a possible compromise, based on Dragons flight and your comments:

On May 22, 2015, TLC suspended airing the show after allegations surfaced that the Duggars' eldest son, Josh, while at the age 14-15, had sexually molested five girls by fondling them, including some of his sisters. Josh apologized for having "acted inexcusably " as a young teenager.

- Cwobeel (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
That suggestion isn't horrible but the current version seems to convey the same information and the following sentence of "these events occurred prior to the beginning of the show" flows better with the current version. You've still lost me with the notion that the current wording in any way suggests him being sorry is what triggered the show to be pulled off air. No one is suggesting that and it doesn't even seem to make sense to me that him being sorry could possibly be seen to be the problem here.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Before continuing, I'd just like to smoothen the syntax without changing the wording (except for two redundancies):

On May 22, 2015, TLC suspended airing the show after allegations surfaced that the Duggars' eldest son, Josh, while aged 14 or 15, had molested five girls, including some of his sisters, by fondling them. He apologized for having "acted inexcusably".

Regarding the redundancies: If we're saying "fondled," then it's redundant to say "sexually molested"; just say "molested." Second, we already say he was 14 or 15, so there's no need to say redundantly "as a young teenager." (I'm a professional editor; this is kinda what I do!) --Tenebrae (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I can live with that, and move on to other tasks. Thanks for your patience. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
According to the source currently in the article the pulling of the show "comes following star Josh Duggar's admission that he molested several underage girls 12 years ago, including his sisters.".[15] Following the admission. All the sources I've seen on this mention that his statements that appear to be admissions preceded and seem to be significant to the pulling of the program. Do you have a source regarding the pulling of the show that doesn't say he seems to have admitted it? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, if we can keep you for a minute more. I belatedly realized that since the lead doesn't say how old Josh is now, we need to say when he was 14 or 15 — that this wasn't a year or five or eight ago. So how about

On May 22, 2015, TLC suspended airing the show after allegations surfaced that 12 years earlier the Duggars' eldest son, Josh, at age 14 or 15, had molested five girls, including some of his sisters, by fondling them. He apologized on [insert date here] for having "acted inexcusably".

--Tenebrae (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
OK with me, although it may be better to state the year, instead of 12 years earlier. But you are the pro... - Cwobeel (talk)
I agree, except that I think Cwobeel is right, year instead of age. Also 14-15 instead of 14 or 15, and I would drop "on [insert date here]" from the last sentence. Brimba (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
It's been stated as 12 years earlier in sources and also as occurring in 2002-2003. 12 years earlier probably flows better but 2002-3003 would technically be more accurate. I don't have a strong preference, but see above source which references the connection between admission and pulling of the program, there doesn't seem to be a SYNTH concern to justify changing it, but the changes don't seem particularly problematic, so whatever brings some peace.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, if we know the year, sure. I didn't know that we did. I only knew he said "12 years ago," and wasn't sure if he meant exactly or approximately, since I gather it happened over the course of some time. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Let me rephrase that, the current version is less clunky. But either works. The years would be 2002 and 2003. Brimba (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
So ... we don't know the year exactly. In that case, the most accurate thing is to use the quote Duggar acknowledging that events occurred "12 years ago", no? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
It started in 2002, then reoccurred in 2003. Brimba (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Having given it more thought, the word “allegations” seems at best weak, and at worst weaselly, and I think it should be avoided. Police report is better, but I would assume that someone will eventually slap the word “controversial” in front of it, or some other word that would imply the report should not be taken at face value, or that it treated Josh unfairly. If someone wants to game the system, all they have to do is add the word controversial because of how it was released, or how it was destroyed, or because it does not represent a full and proper investigation, whatever –I am sure a source can be found for one of those if you look hard enough. Once you have an adjective attached to it, it is then left to the reader’s imagination to decide why it was a controversial police report.

I don’t think you will find a source stating that he apologized under duress, so “publicly apologized” is pretty unambiguous. We had a consensus on the wording, but more importantly I think we had it right. I have yet to think of a better, or more correct wording. My two cents. Brimba (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree on both issues: use "publicly apologized" and mention the police report. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Brimba, especially considering the SYNTH objection was shown to be not accurate per source in article so there seems no compelling reason to change it. If you add police report, someone will soon edit it to be "expunged police report", so I prefer the current version with just "reports". Do a Google news search on "expunged police report". First 20 or so hits I got were articles on Josh Duggar. Then we'd have to add why it was expunged (to protect privacy of unidentified victim) to the lead. The current version is not only less clunky than the suggested alternatives, but it also seems to have staying power to stay less clunky. It conveys the info neutrally and it seems to convey it in a manner that those with a POV in either direction cannot easily distort the facts of the case to make it look more of less severe than what was reported. I agree with Brimba that I think we probably got it right. I'm having trouble thinking of alternate wording which is as concise, true to the reported facts and neutral.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Despite the good efforts, we are still stuck with a version that emphasizes the apology instead of emphasizing the controversy. The POV tag shall remain until this is fully addressed. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This is what we have on the Josh Duggar article:

On May 21, 2015, Duggar resigned his position at the Family Research Council, after it became public that when he was 14–15 years old, he molested five girls, including some of his sisters. The abuse consisted of fondling their breast and genital regions while they were asleep and sometimes while awake without permission, according to a police report obtained by In Touch Weekly magazine.

Now, that is neutral, unbiased, and accurate. if we change "Duggar resigned his position at the Family Research Council" with the show cancellation text, we shall be done.- Cwobeel (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I don’t see how “after it became public” is an acceptable solution. It says nothing, it’s like we are afraid of hurting someone feelings. And last time I checked Duggar’s feelings are not our responsibility. Brimba (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with that it is not our responsibility. But how is "after it became public" an issue? That is what happened: it became public and everything unfolded from that point. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
You have all of the detail about the victims in the lead, but not his admission. That is not even in the ballpark of being neutral. “after it became public” is legalese, it’s the language politicians speak in, it’s not encyclopedic. But that’s not really my issue. My issue is that in its current form you are softballing his involvement, while highlighting the details of what the victims went through. Brimba (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with Brimba. We really don't need to go into graphic, salacious detail about "breast and genital regions" (or in less wordy form, "breasts and genitals") in the lead. Also, is it really important for the lead whether they were awake or not, or isn't the critical point "without permission." Without permission is without permission.
And while I don't have the energy to fight this over at Josh Duggar, and while I'm personally convinced of his guilt, I'm not sure that without a conviction we can say "molested" — police doing reports write down what people say, and as many a homeowner knows, disgruntled neighbors will tell the police a story spun a certain way. That's why we have trials, to sort out the facts. In this case, "allegedly" would be required under journalism, and an encyclopedia should not have lower standards than journalism.
I'd also say that for an article on the show, as opposed to on Duggar itself, the FRC is tangential as it's not involved with the show. And more prosaically, we don't give the source in both prose and footnote, so just cite the police report via In Touch in a footnote. Finally, as a punctuation note, I would think "14 to 15" is more acceptable in prose than "14–15." --Tenebrae (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I am fine with using the word molestation in this case, due to the number of newspaper and other editors outside of WP that have used it. That and the flip side is if we don’t use that word, then if we follow the same reasoning, then whatever we replace it with is also be an allegation. In a civil trail the standard is a “preponderance of the evidence” which in this case, imo is not even in question. Brimba (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that we may have exhausted this conversation, and as I am the only one with a different viewpoint, I concede that the current version has consensus. Hope it can be improved upon, though. I have removed the POV-lede tag. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

- Cwobeel (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Without their permission

Is there some policy based reason why we cannot specify that Josh had no permission to touch these girls? I know there has been objection to adding without their permission, but I do not really understand the objection. It reportedly was not a situation where he talked a child into allowing incestuous sexual conduct to occur, he reportedly had no permission at all to touch them. These are publicly identified victims and I think this distinction is important. With the current tweaks for flow which put the fondling allegation right after mention of his sisters as victims, I think it would be helpful and true to the reported facts to re-add "without their permission"

The lead currently reads:

On May 22, 2015, TLC suspended airing the show after the Duggars' eldest son, Josh, publicly apologized for having "acted inexcusably" following reports that at age 14-15 he molested five girls, including some of his sisters, by fondling them. These events occurred prior to the beginning of the show.

I would like to tweak it to read:

On May 22, 2015, TLC suspended airing the show after the Duggars' eldest son, Josh, publicly apologized for having "acted inexcusably" following reports that at age 14-15 he molested five girls, including some of his sisters, by fondling them without their permission. These events occurred prior to the beginning of the show.

--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

We have discussed this elsewhere. The more accurate presentation without getting into the weeds is: he molested five girls by touching their breasts and genitals - permission or not permission does not play a role here as the victims were very young when it happened. This is not about the victims!!! - Cwobeel (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
There are definitely BLP issues for identified childhood victims of incestuous sexual abuse. I think it's relevant and true to the reported facts to make clear that he didn't talk his sisters into engaging in incestuous sexual behavior with him. It was beyond a case of them being too young to consent and an older child taking advantage. They did not consent. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree, but by saying that he molested them, and by not including any names, we are avoiding the issues you raised. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The issues are not avoided just because we don't specifically name them. It's known who his sisters are. He has sisters relatively close in age. There's an incest taboo issue here. From a BLP standpoint, I think it's important to make clear that according to the reported information provided in the sources we are citing, only Josh violated that incest taboo and not his sisters who were fondled with out their consent, often in their sleep.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it is ok as is. There is part of me that certainly agrees with you, but then when I step back, I think it’s entirely understood as is. I kind of go back and forth, and that may be just because I have stared at this page for 3 or 4 days now. I don’t think anyone is harmed by not including that in the lead. BLP use to mean, make certain EVERYTHING was sourced to a reliable source; it was V on steroids. Over time it seems to have morphed, and maybe I am wrong and we are not BLP compliant, but I think we are. Brimba (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I guess it depends on how you read it, but I don't see the harm in clarifying, and I can see potential harm in not clarifying. Cwobeel was the one who originally objected to without their permission, yet they have suggested above we switch to the statement from the Josh Duggar lead that includes without permission. I still don't understand the objection to clarifying. Does anyone have a policy based reason why this shouldn't be added, because I feel it's better safe than sorry here, and it's only three words, so it's not like it would make the lead unreasonably long and clunky.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
As I said in another thread, I will not object to current version anymore. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Missing section

>"On December 8, 2011, Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar announced that she had miscarried.[36] Six days later, they held a memorial service for the stillborn baby girl that they named Jubilee Shalom (which means celebration and peace).[37][38]

>"A few months after the birth of their daughter, Mackynzie, Josh and Anna learned that she was pregnant with their second child, but the pregnancy ended in a miscarriage."

These two paragraphs follow each other in the article but there is material missing here. We go from Michelle and Jim Bob's stillborn daughter straight to Josh and Anna's second pregnancy. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Sued the Department of Human Services in Arkansas after their investigation of his case

InTouch has a new story, according to them, after the investigation in 2006, Josh Duggar sued the State of Arkansas in 2007 in civil court, with the outcome being sealed. links --->[16][17] Brimba (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The factual statement is that Josh sued the Arkansas Department of Health Services in 2007, resulting in a trial whose outcome is sealed. The linked article then speculates that there may have been an administrative ruling by the Department of Health Services against Josh and that he could have sued to challenge it (a not uncommon response if you disagree with an administrative ruling). For example, DHS may have wanted to impose restrictions on Josh aimed at protecting children in the Duggar home. However, there is no direct evidence of such a ruling, or what the trial addressed, or its outcome. Frankly, I'm not sure if there is anything we can do with this since most of the discussion is speculative. Dragons flight (talk) 06:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, there is nothing there that is reliable at this point. I assume that if it’s true, reliable information will eventually be forth coming. Brimba (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. but we can add just the facts: "In 2007, Josh sued the Arkansas Department of Health Services , resulting in a trial whose outcome is sealed." - Cwobeel (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Once reduced to that, with no clarifying extra context about the trial, I don't think it belongs here. I'm even skeptical that it belongs in the Josh Duggar page because I'm not sure how it is helpful to the reader. In addition, I haven't seen much reference to this outside of the tabloid reporting (i.e. the mainstream newspapers don't seem to mention it). Dragons flight (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
There are several articles covering this subject, but right now they all source InTouch, nothing independent. InTouch broke the molestation story, but the police report was also released to a newspaper, so there was a source independent of InTouch that helped establish the validity of that report. As long as everyone is simply reporting that “InTouch said….”, I think we wait. I would assume there are several news organizations trying to verify this even as we speak. Brimba (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

NPOV & Reception section

There seem to be NPOV concerns for this section. It seems hard to believe that the show hasn’t been positively received at all, in any way, considering it’s been highly rated and on the air for 10 seasons. You’d think it would at least be getting some praise from the Religious Right. Also, I think maybe we should try to paraphrase some of the POV quotes such as “sugar coated rat poison”.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Quiverfull movement

I've never heard any mention of the Quiverfull movement on the show 19 Kids and Counting. I googled it and found this "Michelle and Jim Bob have said they do not formally consider themselves "Quiverfull" Christians." [18].--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I know they Duggars don't embrace the Quiverfull label. Some of the Christians raising very large families do, hence Quiverfull.com, The Quiverfull Digest, etc., but many others do not. Numerous third parties have associated the Quiverfull label with the Duggars, even if they do not embrace it themselves. After all, the parallels are rather obvious. That said, I think we should avoid labeling the Duggars as Quiverfull themselves, but I do think it would be fair to note that their beliefs and practices are "similar to", "share ideas with", "have parallels to" the Quiverfull movement, or some other similar language. There are plenty of third party accounts making those comparisons, so I don't think referencing the Quiverfull movement in this article ought to be a problem. Dragons flight (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
They actually say that they are not Quiverfull (read it on the Duggars website), but many sources including scholarly ones say that they follow their principles. I guess that for NPOV, we should include that they don't consider themselves such. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@BoboMeowCat: Added a short mention, per your source. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I have seen them listed as being Quiverfull, and had assumed that was the case, but have I have no idea where I saw it. I do wonder if they once considered themselves to be in that category, and then things changed. Brimba (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
This might be a good place to start[19], not that its a reliable source, but it seems to have enough clues to get things started (of course it could be crap). Googling "quiverfull duggars" gets a large number of hits saying in no uncertain terms that the are quiverfull, and a large number saying they are not, and several blaming the confusion on WP. I am assuming there is a story here, but don't have time to follow up on it tonight, maybe this weekend if no one has unraveled it before then, I will give it a try. Brimba (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Look forward to it. BTW, that article describes their relationship with Bill Gothard. We ought to include a short mention of it, there are many good sources about it. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Duggar family blog FAQ [20]: Q: Are the Duggars part of the QuiverFull movement? A: The Duggars write in their second book, A Love That Multiplies: "Even though Wikipedia and some Internet blogs report that we are part of a QuiverFull movement, we are not. We are simply Bible-believing Christians who desire to follow God's Word and apply it to our lives" (page 92)." So they don't self identify, but many sources including scholarly ones do. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Presumably you don't mean Wikipedia and the blogs! As far as I can tell, there is only one scholarly source (the Journal of Religion and Popular Culture article, reprinted in a book), and that seems to me to be written like an opinion piece. StAnselm (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
:) - I meant many press sources and scholarly sources; I posted a list of these in one of the other related articles. I'll fetch it - Cwobeel (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
the Journal article is opinionated, but that does not diminish its value as a source. Other sources:
  • Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement [21]
  • Media Depictions of Brides, Wives, and Mothers [22]
Media sources can easily be found - Cwobeel (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
You realise, don't you, that the Media Depictions source is a reprint of the journal article mentioned above? And Joyce is not a scholarly source. I read the book a few years ago - I've been interested in these things for quite some time. It is investigative journalism, and, perhaps bizarrely, the book is published by the Unitarian Universalist Association. So again, there is only one scholarly source. StAnselm (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, we have multiple media sources, Joyce's article and book, and Mesaros-Winkles. More than enough, IMO. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
And BTW, the article was published by the Journal of Religion and Popular Culture which is a peer-reviewed academic journal, and therefore the best possible sources for WP. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Patriarchy

Do the Duggars self-identify with the Patriarchy movement? Even more so than "Quiverfull", which is a label that some Christians do embrace, my impression is that "Christian patriarchy" / "Biblical patriarchy" is usually a description that people give to others, rather than a label that groups of people apply to themselves. In terms of Google counts, "Quiverfull" is more than an order magnitude more common than "Christian patriarchy" (consistent with patriarchy being more of an outsider label than a self-label). The term "patriarchy" appears nowhere on the Duggar family website and only in third party comments on their blog. Trying to Google this, I found statements like "... though [the Duggars] identify as Independent Baptists, they are reportedly also part of a fringe conservative movement called Biblical or Christian Patriarchy" [23], but nothing to clearly show that they ever embraced the Patriarchy label for themselves. All of that said, I don't object to mentioning the label, but we should be careful about the way it is mentioned to avoid suggesting it is a self-label if that is not the case. Dragons flight (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Good call. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Self-identification

do not self-identify as part of the Christian Patriarchy movement

I don't see anything in the sources saying that they don't self-identify with Christian Patriarchy. We can't include a list of all religious movements that they do not self-identify with, that would be ridiculous. The wording I used, now reverted, is that they have written in their book that they are not Quiverfull. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

According to the Vox source: "The Duggars are strict Baptists. They adhere to many of the principles of the "Christian patriarchy" movement, though they claim not to be members themselves in their second book, A Love That Multiplies." [24]--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
They got it wrong. The book is searchable in Google books. [25] You can find "Quiverfull", but nothing about patriarchy. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I suppose it wouldn't be the first time a secondary source got it wrong, but I think we'd need another secondary source saying they got it wrong to avoid WP:OR. Also, not having read the book, it's kind of hard to say this claim isn't in there under different phrasing such as male hierarchy or female submission etc.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
We don't need to look for a source that says the VOX got it wrong.... If we know that it is wrong, why to cite them? - Cwobeel (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
If sources are rubbish then we don't use them at all - BLP claims need the best possible sources. I see that the vox article equates quiverfull and patriarchy, which is silly. I have removed the claim. StAnselm (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Looking closer at the sources it appears the sources we are using use "Christian Patriarchy movement" and "Quiverfull" interchangeably. That may be "rubbish" to some, but that's what these sources are doing. The Huffington Post source talks about "Kathryn Joyce, author of Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement" [26]. Vox says: "Christian patriarchy, also often known as the "quiverfull""[27]. I see that StAnselm [28] removed that they don't identify as part of the Christian Patriarchy movement, but it's well sourced they don't identify as Quiverfull and if the sources are using these interchangeably, that seems confusing. I changed the prior text that says the show promotes values of the Christians Patriarchy movement and the Quiverfull movements to the show promotes the values of the Christian Patriarchy/Quiverfull movement which seems like it should make things clearer at least with respect to the sources we're using. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Joyce's subtitle doesn't quite match the title - the book looks at three strands of patriarchy, one of which is quiverfull. So it's not true to say that she uses the terms interchangeably. Vox does, but they are not a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

molestation section

I noticed this section had same problem the lead use to have. It said the family "confirmed the report" when they didn't technically confirm. I changed the text "confirmed the report" to "responded to the revelation". This text is followed by the responses which include apologizing, talking about coming closer to God etc, so it still seems clear they basically confirmed it. I also tweaked the section title from "Josh's molestation incidents" to "Josh's molestation revelation" because this section doesn't really deal with the individual incidents but rather the impact of these revelations on the show (pulled off the air, might be cancelled etc).--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Good call. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Josh's molestation revelation vs Josh's molestation controversy

Changed "revelation" to "controversy". It is more accurate and leaves no doubts. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I prefer revelation. I guess because I don't think anyone is going to miss the fact that molestation is controversial (to say the least) and the word "controversy" seems overused on WP. Additionally, these are long ago incidents/allegations just now being revealed to the public.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:19_Kids_and_Counting/Archive_3&oldid=1083935745"