Talk:Jon & Kate Plus 8/Archive 1

← Archive 0

Archive 1

Archive 2 →

Middle Names

I have been unable to find the middle names of Jon and Kate. If you find it and would like to add it, please include a citation. If not, it will continue to be removed. Vjydanz (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Kate's Middle name is Irene

That makes me wonder how they (or any other non-traditional celeb) avoid identity theft; not sure I'd give that out if I were them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.0.28 (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Picture

This article is in sore need of a picture. Any ideas? Vjydanz (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What about asking permission to use the one from the family's website? MaxyDawg (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

How much did the Sextuplets weigh when they were born?

Weight in Birth Order

Alexis: 2 lb. 11.5 oz. 15 inches

Hannah: 2 lb. 11 oz. 13.8 inches

Aaden: 2 lb. 7.5 oz. 13 inches

Collin: 3 lb.0.5 oz. 15 inches

Leah: 2 lb. 14.8 oz. 15.4 inches

Joel: 2 lb. 9.7 oz. 15.4 inches

By jwyman99 14:59 pm 2008

I reformatted your comment to display properly. Stardust8212 20:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Article focus

I have some concerns about the current focus of this article. While the article is theoretically about the television series it currently focuses much more on the personal lives of the Gosselins and their activities outside the show. While it is reasonable to expect a certain amount of information no this subject to be presented to give the article context I am concerned that the article has become somewhat unbalanced. This article about a TV show currently has little to no information on how the show is produced or received by audiences and critics, the controversy section focuses on the controversy of having sextuplets not controversy about the show itself. Does anyone else see this as an issue? Would it be reasonable to split the biographical information into a seperate article about the family and have this article focus on the show itself? I don't have a problem specifically with the information I just think it's in the wrong place. Stardust8212 18:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point that the Controversy section is not controversy about the show itself. A seperate article for the family, including the current controversy section, sounds reasonable. --Geniac (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A separate article seems reasonable.Vjydanz (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Any title suggestions for the split article? Gosselin family, Gosselin sextuplets, Jon and Kate Gosselin...? I'm leaning towards the first or second but I'm not sure what the naming convention is for a group article like this. Stardust8212 11:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Gosselin family seems appropriate Vjydanz (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This article needs info on how the show is produced and the impact it has on the family. KoreAm Journal featured them a month agao and there is a lot of good information I could add. I can even add a picture of the cover of the magazine which featured the family. This article needs pictures bad!! Pwojdacz (talk)

Geniac? If you knew how much IRE this show stirs in the States, you wouldnt take issue. The fact is, the show IS about THEM, its a REALITY show. Their life IS the focus. They arent acting. Its THEM. So THEY are controversial, the show is about them... Simple! Preesi (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm.. huh? Ire with whom and in which States? Yes, the show is about the family. However, this article is about the show. --Geniac (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I live in the United States and this show does not stir ire any more so than any other reality television series before it. They're a family with eight children; some people are going to think one way about that or the other. By the way, I've read the entire controversy section...the sourcing as it seems right now is not very satisfactory. Facts are sourced, like that they received this, and that they've had this done, but not anything about actual "controversy." Remember, reliable sources such as news outlets are acceptable here; message boards and fan blogs are not. As it stands, the controversy section sources facts that occurred or are occurring, but unnaturally jump to conclusions that are not supported by those sources. Mike H. Fierce! 21:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for making it better. Change or remove items that do not have sufficient or proper sources. Vjydanz (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll be doing that in the next few hours, and removing a lot of the "story" section that doesn't have anything specifically to do with how Jon and Kate had those children. Mike H. Fierce! 13:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I, too, live in the U.S. and I just heard about this show two days ago. The people I heard about it from were not spewing hate about the family, they were simply discussing it. This article is about the show. The show reveals part of their lives. This article should discuss what is revealed in the show and in reliable sources and nothing more. The article should also, as Mike H pointed out, not jump to conclusions. LaraLove|Talk 19:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section removed

I have removed the controversy section, because as it looks right now, there are very few sources which actually discuss controversy with the couple and their children. I am pasting the old controversy section over here, and I will discuss each source and why it does or does not belong in a new controversy section. As it stands right now, I don't see many sources which are pertinent or even relevant.

Old "Controversy" section

In 2005, Kate Gosselin appealed a Medicaid decision to no longer continue to provide a full time nurse for the sextuplets after the age of one year. Kate is quoted as saying, "I am urging them to see us as a rare situation, which we are," she said. "And I am begging them to make a special exception. They are six individuals. One mom cannot take care of them. "I might be able to meet their physical needs, but not the emotional needs. It is very difficult. I'm talking about time to talk about feelings, read books and the absolute bare necessities to get done. I cannot do it five days a week."

Their previous website includes many appeals to the public for things they wanted to be given. It started mostly with prayer requests and for financial contributions, but as the community began to generously meet their wants and needs, the requests became larger. They wanted someone to pay for their previously free baby nurse, Angie, financial help with the twins' preschool, and a 15-passenger van. In 2005, they purchased a 2004 Dodge Sprinter 2500 12-passenger van. They also requested (through prayer) a bigger house. The couple came under public scrutiny through the years, and questions regarding the graciousness and motivations of the young family were made public by the referenced columnist in the Reading Eagle.

Despite their current website claiming there are no college funds, the Lt. Governor of Pennsylvania did set up TAP funds for all eight children, as announced during the sextuplet's first birthday party. Due to privacy issues, the amounts donated to these accounts is not known, and may or may not be substantial.

The Gosselins are currently in the third season of Jon and Kate Plus 8. In 2005, Jon worked in I.T. for the Governor's Office in Harrisburg. On the June 13, 2008 episode of The Morning Show With Mike and Juliet, Jon commented that he is currently employed from home. Both Gosselins are currently doing public speaking about their experiences as the parents of twins and sextuplets. Some of these churches do cash love offerings for the couple, and Jon and Kate also sell autographed photos. They currently charge $10 for individual pictures of the children and $20 for a larger picture with everyone.

The Gosselins have also been scrutinized for product endorsement on their show and those products are also posted under "Our favorite businesses" on their website. Recently, Jon received a free hair transplant from "The New Hair Institute" in Los Angeles. Jon blames his "stressful" family for his receding hairline, although his brother, Thomas, appears to be balding as well. Also included is the plastic surgeon, Lawrence S. Glassman, who provided Kate with free liposuction and a tummy tuck.

Thoughts on each paragraph

Paragraph #1: This can be mentioned somewhere in the article, perhaps, but not in a controversy section...it's not all that controversial these days to stop working when you have a child, especially six, and I don't think Wikipedia, as a neutral source, should be making the sole judgment on whether a woman can "handle it on her own." It's just not relevant in a controversy aspect. Perhaps under "story," if the paragraph relates to a normal day and child-rearing.

Paragraph #2: This paragraph has a tone in which one is to conclude that asking for charity is a bad thing, which, again, is not set in neutrality. It comes off as people being scandalized that charity is even being asked, or received, which is not Wikipedia's place to decide. This sentence fragment in particular, but as the community began to generously meet their wants and needs, the requests became larger, is potentially harmful to the subjects as it implies that once they received charity from the community, they became opportunists, became greedy and asked for more, which is again, not acceptable under Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. Sourcing from reliable outlets are absolutely necessary, like for example, there is a paragraph on legitimate controversy in the KoreAm Journal, which is inexplicably relegated to a tertiary position as an article source (over-reliance on the Gosselins' website should be frowned upon under reliable sourcing as well, as it is not a third-party information outlet). Blogs from the Reading Eagle's Mother section and fan websites are not reliable sources.

Paragraph #3: This paragraph could be acceptable if 1) the speech from the Lieutenant Governor is online (it isn't any longer), and 2) was not worded as to assume bad faith, as if the Gosselins are lying. For example, "The Lieutenant Governor announced college funds for the children, however, as of June 2008, the Gosselins' website says there are no funds available for them." That would be true and get across a valid point without getting into murky "well, they're just lying" ground, because as editors, we're here to not only put forth information but to be unbiased about it. It is not our place to point fingers at the Gosselins and say they're liars.

Paragraph #4: I fail to see any controversy regarding Jon working from home as opposed to working in an office. It reads like a non-sequitur, especially since there's nothing which states any vague controversy, or any sources calling it one. Also, while some may consider it distasteful, there is no sufficient media controversy involving the parents selling autographed pictures of themselves and the babies. Facebook groups, again, are not reliable sources for much of anything, least of all controversy. It is also not a crime to become motivational speakers.

Paragraph #5: This paragraph alleges "scrutiny," but there are no sources which actually say "this is odd" or "people find it funny." Again, media outlets and the like need to pick it up, not fans or blogs, and here's why: Everyone has an opinion about everything. For as many people who may not like Jon and Kate Gosselin, there are people who either like them, or don't care about them one way or the other. Since we have a dedication to reliability, neither blog's viewpoint can be used, as they're simply viewpoints from television viewers, which anyone can write. For whatever reason Jon Gosselin decided to get hair plugs, it's not horribly relevant in a controversy aspect, especially since, again, the only media source in this entire section that mentions controversy is the KoreAm Journal, and they don't mention hair loss by name. Also, bringing in a picture of his balding brother is borderline tacky and isn't a passable source by any means (while balding is genetic, some family members can be immune from it). Virginia Heffernan's review from The New York Times is an opinion piece, and should be weighed as much vis a vis an actual news piece. Even then, Heffernan just remarks that Kate's plastic surgery happened and that she lists them under "her favorite businesses." (Heffernan has more sarcasm reserved for the hair plugs Jon got).

Conclusion

As it stands right now, the entire controversy section not only needs to stay out of this article for the time being, it needs a complete rewrite on the talk page before any reinsertion to the article proper can occur (the only acceptable sources I can even find for "controversy" are the KoreAm Journal and Virginia Heffernan's piece in The New York Times, and even then it's a TV review and should be weighted as such). Please keep in mind to not place undue weight and write five paragraphs where there should only be one, keep to reliable sources only (no blogs or fan websites), source carefully and not add potentially libelous or untrue information (when in doubt, source well, or don't add), and make sure the reliable sources you're using are actually tangentially related to the show "Jon & Kate Plus 8", Jon Gosselin, Kate Gosselin, or their eight children. Sources about family members are not that relevant. Also, over-reliance on the Gosselins' website is discouraged, as neutral, third-party sources are what is top-priority (only use their website or things they've written to quote what they have said, or as secondary sources). Happy editing, everybody! Mike H. Fierce! 16:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

AgreedVjydanz (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good points, Mike. I agree with what you've stated here and am willing to assist in rewriting this section, and the article as a whole. I've not seen this show and don't really have strong opinions on any aspect, so I can help keep the neutrality in check. Considering this is a BLP... or BLPs? :) it's extremely important that we remain neutral and keep all claims sourced with reliable third-party sources. I've trimmed a lot of irrelevant information from the article and I'm about to go back through it again. LaraLove|Talk 17:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well-written analysis of the controversy section. Agree with entire removal until it can be rewritten with decent sources and without a conspiratorial tone. --Geniac (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As the others said I think this is a very good analysis of the current controversy section and it's removal also deals with my concerns about article focus above. I do think there should be a section on how the show (and thus in some way the Gosselins themselves) have been received but this was not it and I would be happy to assist where possible in writing a new section. Stardust8212 21:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul Petersen, who runs the child actor advocacy group A Minor Consideration, has issued a statement regarding the show here: http://www.minorcon.org/jon_kate1.html It seems this would relate more to the show's controversy than the other issues discussed here. 67.64.118.3 (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)c3pjo

Page semi-protected

Just in case any of the SPA's come back under new accounts. SirFozzie (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Relevant for an encyclopedia?

I think there is a lot of stuff in this article that would not be in a encyclopedia, Such as where the children get there names and that hope is not part of the bible verse. it just seems out of place. please tell me if i am wrong after all i am brand new. Adoramydear (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right, in my opinion. The information about the parents birthdays and ages should be moved up into the bio section along with the details of all eight of the children's births where their names are already included. Then that whole section and its subsections can go. LaraLove|Talk 16:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

i made the changes if there is a problem please feel free to tell me i did something wrongAdoramydear (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone replaced a lot of the irrelevant information, so I've removed it again. The names of the nieces and nephews, for example, is unnecessary. Really, the names of any family members that do not appear on the show is unnecessary. They aren't notable and there's no reason to name them. LaraLove|Talk 15:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

But the nieces and nephews have, and do, occasionally appear on the show. So it is slightly necessary. MaxyDawg (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The need for sources

This picture of an article could be a possible source. http://i37.tinypic.com/2le53f4.jpg If someone wants to use it, great, but I’m tired of the wiki-nazis being mean to new people.Marvelousdaze06 (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The National Enquirer is not a reliable source. LaraLove|Talk 20:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

KoreAm Journal featured the family and talked about this topic of being "scripted" and I have a good image of the Magazine cover. It's a great picture of the family Pwojdacz (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, here is the link to the KoreAm archive of the article. I haven't read it yet but it sounds like it could be helpful for those who would like to expand the article. I believe KoreAm Journal should meet the WP:RS guidelines. Stardust8212 11:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I checked the website, and it appears to definitely meet WP:RS. As for using the cover image, we really do need an image, but I'm not sure that will meet fair use. (formerly LaraLove) ~Jennavecia ^(Talk) 15:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I am still new at this but if we mention the journal article (say something like)"In a featured article of Koream journal Kate admits the production crew has become part of the family". Does that meet fair use in order to use the journal cover? Pwojdacz (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No. For magazine covers, the cover itself has to be discussed in detail. As it is, that would not be appropriate for the article, as it's on the show and it would be odd to have a paragraph on this one magazine cover. We want an image simply to use to depict the family, so it's going to be difficult to find a picture considering the strict standards of fair use on living people. Our best chance is to contact them through their website and ask them for an image to be released for this article. I am going to do that now. I'll update here once I get a reply. ~Jennavecia ^(Talk) 12:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually tried this a week or two ago and I have not received a response yet, perhaps you'll have better luck. From what I gather though they are somewhat busy...something about having eight children... :-) Stardust8212 12:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Since we are still waiting on a picture I added the shows logo to help identify the show. If I did it incorrectly please someone help me out and explain why. Like I said I’m new at this :). If you all haven’t seen the Little People, Big World article they were some how able to get a picture of the family (maybe this can be helpful to someone?) Pwojdacz (talk) 05:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible sources I've found-

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20219203,00.html

http://www.shelbystar.com/news/jessica_33004___article.html/jon_kate.html

http://www.gosselin-family.com/photos/

http://www.oprah.com/slideshow/oprahshow/slideshow1_ss_rel_20080222/1

http://www.newsobserver.com/105/story/1003892.html

http://www.orato.com/arts-entertainment/2008/02/05/naptime-musings-jon-amp-kate-plus-8?page=1

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/08/jon-kate-plus-8-head-corolla-nc-beach-getaway

http://www.shelbystar.com/news/jessica_33004___article.html/jon_kate.html

http://www.mechlocal.com/index.php/news/article/jon_kate_plus_eight_look_at_hanover_house/

http://www.orato.com/arts-entertainment/2008/02/05/naptime-musings-jon-amp-kate-plus-8?page=1

Do any of these help? Marvelousdaze06 (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Kate's parents

My edit was not poorly sourced. There are several credible sources that ID Kate's parents as well as the fact she is estranged from them. For the fact that her parents have been cited for violating zoning and environmental laws I even sourced the actual legal documents. I'm restoring the edit. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiAnswers is not a reliable source and it's not clear what her parents having been cited has to do with an article about the TV program. --Onorem♠Dil 19:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Need source for Kate's parents

Please help. Anyone that has watched this show knows one of the back stories is that none of the grandparents get to see their 8 grand kids. This has even been addressed on the show. Additionally, Kate's parents have had some controversial legal troubles of their own. Here's what I posted, but had taken out. We need a better source linking her to her parents, but the legal documents are about as good as you can get. I guess some folks don't like pointing out controversies. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed section below;

Kate is estranged from her parents, Kenton and Charlene Kreider, for reasons that are not given on the program. It has been reported that her father and mother run a camping ground that has been cited for zoning and environmental violations. [1] [2]

"I guess some folks don't like pointing out controversies." - Not when they're BLP violations or given too much prominence. I guess that some people's goal is to make Wikipedia into a tabloid. If you find a reliable source that discusses the aspect of the kids not being able to see their grandparents, fine. It shouldn't be included until then. And again, what does Kate's estranged parent's legal troubles have to do with this TV show? --Onorem♠Dil 14:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Kate is estranged from her parents, Kenton and Charlene Kreider, for reasons that are not given on the program. It has been reported that her father and mother run a camping ground that has been cited for zoning and environmental violations."

The reasons have not been given on the program, and this article is about the program. "Reported" is a word to avoid. (I previously stated it was a weasel word, but I recalled the wrong page.) That aside, it's completely irrelevant information. Has absolutely nothing to do with the program. And if she's estranged from her parents, what does anything regarding them have to do with her? Nothing. LaraLove|Talk 15:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I respectfully disagree. A large portion of this show consists of how they must rely on various friends to assist them with the children. They even did an entire segment on their show where they addressed the fact that the grandparents are not part of their lives. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

They even did an entire segment on their show where they addressed the fact that the grandparents are not part of their lives. That in and of itself is a reason that issues with the parents are irrelevant to the show. If they're having legal or financial issues, that has no relevance whatsoever to the TV program. LaraLove|Talk 17:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy?

Kate's rather unorthodox and, let's face it, sometimes downright abusive ways of treating her children (with her obsession with cleanliness) and especially her husband Jon, whom she slaps and then BLAMES Jon for it, have garnered negative criticism and controversy from the show's viewers. What I find to be most shameful is that such things are not at ALL mentioned in this article, which to me seems tantamount to whitewashing. Now, I know it's under a sort of "under construction" phase at the moment from what I read above, and hopefully that will be a very brief period. In the meantime, perhaps this source might help a renewed controversy section's inclusion along.

http://www.parentdish.com/2008/07/25/jon-and-kate-are-they-good-enough-parents-for-tv/?icid=200100397x1206770681x1200352618

I do hope this can be worked in somehow, and I'm positive numerous other articles exist on this subject. At least one is mentioned in this one here. I would do it myself, but am fearful they would just be removed like the entire section was a month ago, and in addition, I'm not sure of the article's reliability. Frankly, it's embarrassing to have such criticism excluded. I do hope Kate herself isn't a big editor of this article. - Sestet (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion for the Controversy section is open to discussion. As it stands now, a few of us decided that it should be moved due to its bias and lack of credible citations. If you would like to edit it through the talk page, please do so.Vjydanz (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The linked article is an opinion piece written by no one of note. The link within it is to AssociatedContent, which is open-content... sort of like Wikipedia. I don't watch the show, don't have that channel, but whether what he says is accurate or not, it's not a reliable source. That's the problem. There's plenty of criticism and opinion, but it's just not coming from reliable sources. If we can gather some of those, then we'll be able to get this section back in the article. But, until then, there won't be such a section. LaraLove|Talk 03:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is about a show. not what people believe about the show. It should be kept simple and only about what happens on the show. I do not believe it was ever metioned on the show that kate is abusive. i never seen on the show that it is abusive to be overly clean. this show is about a family. if ever they go to a therpist and agree to have there findings published in a book or in a trade journal then that would be a good sourse. but to use a opinion piece written by someone whom never met these people and just watches the show probably for the purpose of picking out faults is not a good idea. encyclopedias to do not use such sources we should not either.Adoramydear (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You have blinders on. It doesn't have to be mentioned on the show to be relevant information about the show. Kate is so openly vicious to her husband on so many occasions that clips of this show have begun to appear on E!'s Talk Soup with Joel McHale. If Jon and Kate plus 8 continues to have clips aired on The Soup, I am going to move the material about Kate's abusive behavior back into the main article and cite The Soup.68.118.156.240 (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sections

—The “story section” reads more like the background/history information on the family. The “story section” should be changed to a background/history section on the family/cast of the show. Using “story” implies that this is the show. That the events in the “story section" are what happens in the series, exclusively. Yes, these topics are touched on in the series but they are not what the show itself is about, which is life with two sets of multiples. Marvelousdaze06 (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

—This article clearly lacks a format and structure section. The formats of the shows themselves could be important. Since they do not all follow a single show format for each episode.

My Examples: “Day in the life” episodes, following the Gosselin’s on trips episodes, holiday episodes, vacation episodes, shopping episodes, travel episodes were they fly or spend a lot of time on the road specifically, episodes on the Gosselin’s speaking engagements, history episodes, favorite and embarrassing moments, “special days” individual shows devoted to only one child, the episodes that were “girls day out” “boys day out,” and the hour specials. Marvelousdaze06 (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

—For a TV show: the other programs they go on to promote the show would not be listed. Listing them makes to article read more like it is about the family, exclusively, than about a show. If people really have to have that information then maybe, re-title the section as “special publicity appearances.” Instead of “Special guest appearances” which would be more appropriate for the people on the show; who are not in the family. Especially since, the family is the main cast. Marvelousdaze06 (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

—The main cast/ the family needs be listed in a grid/chart format; with a special section for the sextuplet’s weight and height. Just for easy reading purposes. Marvelousdaze06 (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC) —The “episodes section” could also list the shows seasons in a grid/chart format with the dates.Marvelousdaze06 (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In general, all reality shows receive at least some criticism in these two forms/areas:

→Questions of authenticity

→Questions of ethics

Perhaps if the “criticism section” is looked at in that format it could help in the editing of that section. Marvelousdaze06 (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

—The number of seasons, number of episodes, and language are not presently listed in the box at the top right hand corner of the article.Marvelousdaze06 (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

—In addition, what about the opening sequence? It has changed almost every season. The words and images used are different in each season and for the first two specials. What about listing the dialog for the opening, especially since they explain a lot about the show, along with who says each part. Marvelousdaze06 (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Kate and Jodi Falling Out?

I apologize in advance, I'm not a frequent wikipedia user. Can anyone add any information regarding the recent fallout between Kate and "Aunt Jodi"? I can't seem to find reliable information as to why Jodi won't be appearing on season 4. Jodi's Sister has a blog about it at http://truthbreedshatred.blogspot.com/. Any additional information would be very helpful (as well as sources).

Thanks in advance. 76.247.49.46 (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)