Talk:Jon Gosselin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 2009[edit]

Hello. Notability. With all the worthy info that's been chased out of Wikipedia, this page really needs to be gone.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.227.195 (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is a high-profile television personality, hence he is notable enough for an article. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redir for lack of notability[edit]

At this time, Jon Gosselin has done nothing aside from Jon & Kate plus 8. I have redirected the article to that until someone can come up with information on him that is not from a tabloid, and not related to the show. This is not a judgment about Mr. Gosselin, however there is almost nothing out there that supports his notability separate from the show. If you are recreating this page, please be sure to include citations of things he has done that are not related to the reality series. --Thespian (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • What's the difference between Gosselin and Richard Hatch? I'm "unredirecting" this, as the subject of this article doesn't fall under the WP:ONEEVENT criteria, as Thespian seems to allude to above. Unitanode 18:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use use the argument that other stuff exists to support inclusion of this article. Richard Hatch actually passes WP:BIO with flying colors while Jon does not easily pass it. I'm not saying an article can't be created, but simply saying he's the dad of these kids and he's getting divorced do not establish notability. Sorry. --132 20:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His actions have had wide coverage, in a wide variety of media. I simply used Hatch as an example of someone notable mainly for what they did on one reality show. Unitanode 20:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how "dad of eight, got caught cheating, getting divorced" pass WP:BIO? Also, if an edit you make is reverted, it is best to come DISCUSS and gain consensus, otherwise you appear to be edit warring. I will not reinstate the redirect until tomorrow and will only refrain from reinstating it if the article has been substantially changed. As it is, it does not pass WP:BIO, not even by a long shot. --132 20:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting is a major step, especially when an editor has stated their intent to work on the article. Also, your reasoning doesn't hold up, as he's not just a "dad of eight", he's a reality television personality. Please take no rash actions, as there's no compelling reasons to redirect this page right now. There are no WP:BLP concerns, and the subject has been widely covered by a number of reliable sources. Unitanode 20:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confusing WP:BLP with WP:BIO. The article may pass BLP, but it does not pass BIO. You need to show how the article passes BIO. Being a "reality television personality" isn't a requirement. --132 21:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Unitanode on this point, for the reasons stated in Unitanode's post under the notability section.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTE[edit]

I believe this article goes above and beyond what our standards require. (BTW, you should know that WP:BIO is just a redirect to the notability standards.) From the first few lines of the page:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[1] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[2] and independent of the subject.[3]
  • If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[4]
  • Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

The article, even as it stands right now passes these tests. After further expansion, it won't even be close. Unitanode 21:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.
  2. ^ Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject.  ::"Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.
  3. ^ Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability.
  4. ^ Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion.

Expand article[edit]

He was also on the show American Chopper. But thats pretty much all I can think of. Both Jon and Kate's articles have nothing other than their crap lives and that they both published a book(s) and are stars of their own reality show. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Crap lives"? That seems more than a bit POV to me. Unitanode 04:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol I don't mean because they suck they shouldn't have an article, but they haven't done much besides the show. Anyone can go on a book tour. That doesn't deserve a page. Those are the only things they have to credit them. 3 books and a realiy show. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not ex-wife[edit]

Just to be completely clear to everybody, Kate is not Jon's ex-wife until a divorce is final. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The state of Pennsylvania does not recognize a legal documentation of separation. Therefore, Jon and Kate Gosselin did indeed divorce. There are many references that confirmed this such as [1] [2]. --Alchaenist 20:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Filing for divorce isn't the same as being divorced. Until the divorce is finalized, they are not "ex" anything. Unitanode 20:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information regarding his new relationship[edit]

Why has information regarding his new public relationship been removed from his page? The article it cited was from the website of People Magazine, which is also cited for other information in the article that remains. This information is from a credible source, at least as credible as other information in the article, yet it is being removed. It pertains to his life and his impending divorce. ColgateRaider (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • My problem is inclusion of the name of his non-notable, 22-year-old girlfriend. She is notable for no other reason that possibly being Gosselin's girlfriend. Unitanode 23:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So if it had simply stated that he has gone public with a new girlfriend, it would not have been erased? ColgateRaider (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

half-Asian[edit]

Is he half Asian? If so, that should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.131.75 (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by referring us to that page. Do you mean to imply that Jon isn't Asian? Please use your own words to explain this rule. --Yaofan15 (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what that meant, either. But this seems relevant. I think the point is that whether he's "half Asian" doesn't seem specifically related to what makes him notable. Orthografer (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only point that page makes is that you should use, for example, "Category:Asian American actors" instead of "Category:Asian American people". It's something I've seen and come to expect on every Wikipedia article, so I'm listing him under the former. The prose can come later, organically, as part of a section on his birth and upbringing. The Homosexualist (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted you per WP:BLPCAT. UnitAnode 02:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? BLPCAT is about religious beliefs and sexual orientation; nothing about ethnic background. The Homosexualist (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to specify why you're reverting per BLPCAT. Just saying "Per BLPCAT" gives us no indication of why you're reverting it. If it's breaking a specific policy, you need to point out, specifically, which one because, as it stands, your argument fails because you haven't actually shown us why the inclusion violates BLPCAT. As of right now, I strongly agree with the others who are advocating inclusion as I see no reason within BLPCAT that it would be considered a violation of it. --132 18:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked it over again, and come to the conclusion that I've been reading BLPCAT too broadly. I was overextending the "central to their notability" portion of it, and applying it to Gosselin's ethnic heritage. I was mistaken, and I've readded it, with some reservations about calling Gosselin an "actor." UnitAnode 19:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, he's a "television personality". The Homosexualist (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks good. Thanks for your patience with my misinterpretation of BLPCAT. UnitAnode 21:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't he also be under the French american and welsh american actors sections, if they exist? It isn't morally right to strip him of half his ancestry. Also he seems to have green eyes, so maybe he isn't really half-asian but quarter asian? --Anonymous Poster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.235.162 (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is is the four appropriate cats re his ancestry, but not actor cats, due to the fact he is not an actor. Ref 4 Father of eight discusses reality states he gave a 'speech hosted by the Asian Pacific American Caucus, focused on the show and his experience as an Asian American' and 'Gosselin was asked pre-collected questions by the caucus, many of which focused on his Asian heritage'. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jon or Gosselin?[edit]

It is normal that article subjects are referred to by their last name thoughout articles. However given that much of the article is likely to reference other people called Gosselin (nine of them!) can I suggest we make an exception and refer to him as "Jon" throughout. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd prefer to use Gosselin for him, Kate for his wife, and the children's first names when they are mentioned, as it looks more encyclopedic. I can't imagine a scenario where one would refer to Mady as "Gosselin", so the only real concern is with Kate, which is handled fine by referring to her by her first name. I don't know if there's any MOS guideline that handles this, but that's my preference if there's not. UnitAnode 18:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since in previous postings you have referenced(albeit sometimes unrelated) pages of Wikipedia to 'back up' your position, I would suggest that you provide reference for this as well. There MUST be a proper format for going about this. Bill Heller (talk) 05:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"now ex-wife"[edit]

The lead to this article states (in the last sentence) that Kate is his "now ex-wife" yet the divorce section states that the divorce is pending and that Jon has recently filed papers to delay the divorce proceedings. This would mean that Kate is not his "ex-wife" yet and that should be changed in the lead.
The battle between Jon and Kate Gosselin has gotten even weirder.

A report by Radar Online, later confirmed by People, claims Jon Gosselin cleaned out the couple's joint checking account, removing "hundreds of thousands" of dollars and leaving his estranged wife with just $1,000.

Radar said the withdrawls were sometime over the last week, and that they violated an arbitrator's orders. People said Kate is pursuing legal action.

This latest ugly turn comes after TLC, the cable network that airs the show, immediately suspended "direct filming" of the couple's eight kids -- "pending further conversations between both parents." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.192.218 (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that! I've fixed it. --132 13:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation?[edit]

Where is the citation for this information? "On November 24, 2009, Jon admitted to Star Magazine that he cheated on Kate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.31.113.20 (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization[edit]

According to the following Wikipedia guidelines (i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality) the following is allowed:

Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality

General

General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality is permitted, with the following considerations: ...4. Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity, but is not required to be an exclusive interest.

I fail to see how "Korean-American", "Welsh" or "Irish" ancestry have anything "specifically relevant" to Jon Gosselin's "notable activities" and it is incomprehensible how his Korean ethnicity played an "essential part of that activity." It is completely irrelevant in this article and most other biographic articles in Wikipedia. The article also has no reason to Categorize Jon Gosselin in these Categories.

Although the importance of this article is fairly low, this type of ethnic and religious categorization is rife within Wikipedia. Regarding this article, there could be reasons that Jon Gosselin's partial Korean heritage would be "specifically relevant" to Gosselin's notable activities. Hypothetically, we could have a situation where Jon Gosselin's mother was raised in Korea and was used by the occupying Imperial Army of Japan as a so-called "pleasure women" and was raped numerous times. Growing up with a mother with this in her past may have caused Jon to have difficulty in normal relationships with women. If this hypothetical was true and was footnoted then perhaps the fact that Jon Gosselin's mother was Korean would be "specifically relevant" to his "notable activities."

Again, my point in this correction is not primarily aimed at the "Jon Gosselin" article. It is directed toward most biographical articles in Wikipedia that state a person's ethnicity, race and/or religion for no substantial reason. Wikipedia seems to have somewhat adequate guidelines for stating these descriptors in an article, but they are in no way properly applied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njg123 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Siblings and parents[edit]

I believe his father was Thomas (died 2005); his mother is Pamela. Older brother Thomas, younger brother Mark. Can anyone find a reliable source to back this up, rather than blogs and gossip sites? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question nobody is asking...[edit]

What does the guy do for a living? If we are going to do an article on Gosselin, maybe we should actually write a complete article. Just a thought. - 207.181.235.214 (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi jon[edit]

Me like show so THERE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.3.227 (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jon Gosselin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jon Gosselin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jon_Gosselin&oldid=1207350665"