Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:48, 2 May 2009

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jon & Kate Plus 8. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jon & Kate Plus 8 at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Pennsylvania This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

This article was nominated for deletion on April 17, 2007. The result of the discussion was Nomination withdrawn.

Work subpages /Biography - organizational workpage for biographic information

Archives

Archive 0 Archive 1 Archive 2

Controversy removed

Information possibly casting the Gosselins in a negative light does not need to be released by TLC, or the Gosselins themselves, as some say. We did not rely on the Bush Administration to release information regarding wiretapping and waterboarding, the same with Martha Stewart, Isaiah Thomas, Enron, Worldcom, or any other public entity that trades on a positive reputation. So knock it off. It's an absurd proposition that information can only come from one source, and that pictures, for the love of God, pictures, of Jon at dance clubs with other women, alongside written quotes of people who know him personally, printed in a major magazine, that, as far as I know, is not being sued for libel, are somehow unacceptable because they have not been blessed by the production staff of a cable television show.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The Paul Petersen item was removed. http://www.minorcon.org/ Out of all the sources of controversy, I think this was the only reliable one. His child advocacy organization is legit. C3pjo (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)c3pjo

I don't have a problem leaving the Paul Peterson paragraph in. It is the paragraph about statements on the official family website http://www.sixgosselins.com that reads like a violation of WP:OR to me, and therefore should have no place in the article. --Tinhor (talk) 00:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added a source for the Petersen item but I don't know how to remove "citation needed". Please forgive me, I'm new at this. C3pjo (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC).

Is a minor consideration really a reliable source? I don't really think so. WP:RS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vjydanz (talk • contribs) 00:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If AMC is not reliable, then the only other source is CNN, but I don't think there's a way to cite that. There appears to be a youtube post of the CNN clip, but I don't know if that's kosher either. 64.217.218.200 (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Jon and Kate's middle names.

Jon's middle name is Keith. Kate (actually Katie)'s middle name is Irene. This came from their marriage license via the Berks Co PA register of wills.

Citation http://www.co.berks.pa.us/rwills/s/volpage.aspx?volume=379&page=309 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.87.150 (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Added Jon's middle name, inconsistant as it stands before. He was the only one without. Red Summer Rain (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The book

The book's out already. I have it look on Chapters.ca 74.127.240.216 (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Live with Regis and Kelly

Jon & Kate Plus 8 appeared as guests on the show Live with Regis and Kelly on 3 October 2008. I would add it myself but the page seems to be protected. Bovineboy2008 (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Jon's ethnicity & Jon's mother

Why doesn't this article mention Jon's mother and the fact that she's a Korean-American from Hawaii? It's relevant because the subject is addressed on numerous occasions and Jon and Kate have addressed several times that they want the kids to know about their Asian heritage. Also, newcomers who don't know about the family might be curious at first glance about the children's ethnicity. Can someone who has editing rights to this article add a quick note about Jon's mother or his heritage? I don't feel that it's irrelevant. --Mezaco (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Kate's caucasian heritage should be mentioned as well.

I had speculated, at first glance, that Jon must be some type of East Asian. But where exactly did you get the Korean from? I could not find a reference anywhere. Please provide sources. ★Dasani★ 23:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It is said several times throughout the show's history that Jon's family is Korean. --13 17:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Jon Is half white (caucasian) and half korean (his mom is korean) he grew up im hawaii. Kate is white (caucasian). Which, makes the kids 25% korean and 75% white. The article cites jons ethnicity. Pwojdacz (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC) http://www.koreamjournal.com/Magazine/index.php/kj/2008/may/cover_story/just_the_10_of_us

right after I posted this I saw the episode prior to the Hawaii wedding. Jon says that his grandparents moved to Hawaii from Korea.

I feel that the ethnicity of Jon/Kate/kids is irrelevant. They are all Americans with different heritage just like everyone else in this country :). Maybe just mentioning where Jon and Kate’s parents are from in the article might help? Pwojdacz (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

the kids (as said on the show) are 25% korean, 25% hawaiian, and 50% caucasian --RCNARANJA 19:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

You know, I'm watching CNN just now, and on comes this section about the criticism this show is receiving, and I've seen people like PZ Myers criticize the show (or in Myer's case, the fans) Now, I realize that Myer's blog isn't a reliable source, for example, but when I came to this article, I was quite shocked that it doesn't even have a single criticism section. I mean, what the hell is going on? Are you telling me that everyone appearently loves this show so much that no one has voiced a single bit of criticism/controversy? Further more, I was a little bit perturbed to find that the this section in question had be removed mere days ago, with little to no discussion of it on this talk page? What's going on?

Then I recall what the blogs Myer's cited in his post said, about how the fans seems rather rabid and fantical, and I can't help but wonder if this article hasn't been white-washed by these said fans.

At the very least this article needs a review by a non-bias eye, and it probably needs a great deal of revision to remove fan-cuff from this article (like, do we really need a list of appearances?)--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 08:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been covered before please read above. Tinhor (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was, and yet I come here and the section has still be removed, it shouldn't be that hard to keep this one section in the article. This article needs to be looked at hard for POV violations.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 09:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The "Controversy" section has NOT been removed. I only removed the paragraph that is blatantly WP:OR (also see weasel word). Tinhor (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about that.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 10:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source you are welcome to contribute. As far as I know, however, we have looked and were unable to find anything reliable. Vjydanz (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing related to "PennMommy" or "Possummomma" is remotely reliable. As far as I can tell from reading the accounts, the woman was a weird hoax who fixated on that family and lied about a relative dying. If you want reliable sources with some criticism, the KoreAm Journal article and Virginia Heffernan's piece in The New York Times are at least a start; they were outlined earlier when we pulled the entire section because some housewives with nothing better to do were citing their blogs and stuff. Mike H. Fierce! 13:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, if you had read my post, you would see that I'm not suggesting the Possummomma/Penn-Mommy discussion be put into the article, however, the point I was trying to make is that their appears to be some rather rabid fans of this show, which, had you read the link I posted, you would realize exactly what I was talking about.

Why was this section removed? Because 'housewives with nothing better to do were citing their blogs'? That's not really a good enough reason to remove the whole section, and it's especially not warranted if you're not going to make any attempts to rewrite the section--which you and none of the other users have done, as far as I can tell. Don't get me wrong, we all have RL problems and issues we need to deal with, but it's been 4 or so months since you removed the section; if you can't find anything other then the Herrernan piece, or the KoreAm Journal, add them, build a section around those two items, it doesn't have to be wrong; further more, a bunch of the stuff you objected to in the original section, to me, seems that it would fine, had the section been about criticisms of the show, rather then supposed controversies, because I agree, things like accepting charity money isn't really controversial, but that doesn't mean people don't like it and do critique people on it.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing Kate hit Jon and berate him, despite his protests, all covered in a weekly television series, isn't a valid reference? Misplaced Pages has some severe issues it needs to address. Primary sources are still sources. You don't need a NYTimes journalist to quote someone for it to be reality. Really idiotic. All this serves to do is censor topics that haven't found their way to mainstream news media yet. 05:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what reliable sources and original research are:

Have Jon or Kate said that Kate was abusive? Have the children said she is abusive? Have the producers or directors said she is abusive? Have the neighbors or family said she is abusive? Have the cameramen said she is abusive? All of these people I have mentioned are primary sources and, if they said that Kate was abusive, it could be included.

Here's the problem: none of them have. Since none of the primary sources have said it, you can't use it and you especially can't wave around the "But a primary source is still a source!" flag because, clearly, the primary sources have said nothing of the sort.

Since the primary sources haven't said it, why should we believe that she is abusive? Because you say so? What are your credentials to say that she's abusive? Do you have a PhD in psychology with a specialization in abusive relationships? Do you have the backing by the BBC that says that what you say is worthwhile? No? Then that's called drawing conclusions and making assumptions (IE: original research). It can't be sourced and it certainly can't be cited. If, by chance, you do have that PhD with that specialization, do you have any of your claims published in peer-reviewed journals? No? Then it can't be sourced and it certainly can't be cited.

See what I'm getting at here? Just because you say something is like that, doesn't necessarily make it so (surely you know of the "Queen of England" comment). Misplaced Pages doesn't care about truth (because all sorts of different people hold all sorts of different truths), but it does care a great deal about verifiability.

Here are the guidelines for inclusion, in a nutshell: If the primary source says it, it can be used. If the primary source hasn't said it, you must look elsewhere for proof. If that proof can only be found in blogs, forums, and comment threads, it is not substantial and it can't be included. If, however, that proof can be found in major newspapers, peer reviewed journals, and the like, it can be included (along with all proper citations, of course). These guidelines are in place so that Misplaced Pages doesn't turn into a giant rumor mill and, instead, contains only that which can be proven. --13 17:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem isn't that there isn't any controversy, it's that people appearently don't want to include anything about it in this article. This segment from CNN's Headline news http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q370dVhn2bc is what I'm talking about, although this wasn't the segment I was referencing in my original statement, but I can't find the original video on CNN to reference it-- and I'm not surprised, I don't think CNN uploads all it's segments to it's website. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 18:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you when I replied (at least, I don't believe I was; no one signed that message). I was addressing someone who was clearly misunderstanding policy. Ignoring that point, I wasn't talking about the issues with the children growing up in the environment where they are constantly being filmed and being put on tv (which is what both sources you're talking about were addressing). My reply was specifically talking about the concerns about Kate's "abuse" to Jon, which is what the user I replied to was addressing. Regarding the specifics of your reply though, if it has a reliable source, it can be included. However, it still shouldn't be included in a separate "Controversy" section. Guidelines strongly encourage controversy and criticism to be placed throughout the article where appropriate instead of lumping it all into a single, separate section. --13 00:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more interested in having some information about how the show is received. It seems like there's a few different issues here - whether or not the show is popular or effective; whether or not the show portrays subject matter that is controversial; and whether or not the show is good or bad for the people on it. Don't most entries for TV shows at least have something about critical reception? C3pjo (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC) c3pjo

Criticism should not be in an encyclopedia article. Google them if you're curious. --RCNARANJA 19:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That's entirely false. Almost every Misplaced Pages article about film or television includes a section on critical reception. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 21:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Critical reception does not equal criticism. The former focuses on how well the show is doing, while the latter is what people think is wrong, ethically/morally/whatever with the family and the show. That's not to say neither should be included. They should, but, either way, both would need to be extremely well sourced with reliable sources that can be verified to be included. Sorry. --13 18:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the article about the show, so moral/ethical issues with the family could only be in this article if they were directly related to the show, as well as supported by high-quality sources. People need to be mindful of the strict rules of WP:BLP, under which this article now falls (by its association with Kate Gosselin). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I was mostly trying to point out the inconsistency of going from "criticism shouldn't be allowed" to "yes it should, critical reception is in every film/tv article." They aren't the same thing, not by any stretch. --13 18:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Glaring Omissions

I rarely find an article that demonstrates the "truthiness" that[REDACTED] is mocked for so clearly. I don't watch the show, still haven't. But, I know the one thing the show is famous for is Kates inability to function. I try to use[REDACTED] as a go-to source, but a thirty second search online results in 2,000 hits describing this lack of control, with no mention of it on wikipedia. I'm trying to make a legitimate critique and not use this as a general forum, but when the only thing this ridiculous show is going to be remembered for (if anything) is Kate's tendency to lose her temper; I can't help but feel that leaving that out to placate the show's viewers only adds to the bad "pop encyclopedia" rep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.98.157 (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

While it may be true, Misplaced Pages does not care about truthiness. What Misplaced Pages does care about is verfiability. All facts, especially facts that could vilify the persons in question, have to have a reliable source. If you can find a reliable source, it can be included. If you can't find a reliable source, then it can't. Simple as that. As it stands though, there have been many attempts at including this in the article, but no reliable sources have ever been found to verify the information. --13 16:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Are these reliable:

http://www.brandweek.com/bw/content_display/news-and-features/packaged-goods/e3i686368ba4cd6a88ccf66cfc8bf2dd217?imw=Y

http://www.examiner.com/x-1684-Philadelphia-Parenting-Examiner~y2008m11d24-Pennsylvania--parents-Jon-and-Kate-Gosselin-stir-controversy

I honestly don't know if they are or not so I'm throwing them out there. C3pjo (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The first source is an opinion piece so it is not reliable and the second does not address the issue brought up in this discussion at all (IE: Kate's anger issues) and only makes vague reference to other criticisms. So no, neither of these can be used. --13 20:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the fact that there is controversy surrounding this show be better noted in this article? Criticism in itself is about opinion, so why aren't opinion pieces acceptable? It seems that this reality show is held under a different standard than almost every other reality show. Cactusjump (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism is more than allowed. However, it has to be accompanied by cited reliable sources. The problem with J&K+8 is that the vast majority of "criticism" comes from blogs, forums, gossip sites, and various other unreliable sources. Since this article is about real people, the criticism is set to a higher standard of verifiability and, thus, extraordinary claims must be backed up with extraordinary sources. --13 20:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you seemed to have brought this up, I figure I'll address it as well. We can't just say "There is controversy surrounding the series." because "controversy" can't be quantified and doesn't meet relevancy issues. In an attempt to quantify the controversy and make the statement relevant, you have to talk about the types of controversy, which falls into the issue of original research and finding reliable sources. We're interested in verifiability, not truth. Opinion pieces are pure original research and absolutely cannot be used. --13 20:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I know this is probably beating a dead horse, but now I'm confused. C3pjo listed two sources above (Brandweek and The Philadephia Parenting Examiner) with articles highlighting the controversy, including thoughts from Paul Peterson, who is not a blogger, but a child advocate. The article cites comments he made on CNN. Can't those be added to the article?

Whether it's called "Reviews" or "Reception", many movies and television shows have viewer response. Some of them are negative, some are positive. Negative response would constitute a reliable amount of criticism. So I still don't understand why reviews (both negative and positive) cannot be reflected in this article, especially since this Discussion page alone demonstrates that there is a need to get information regarding the the various views of the show. Cactusjump (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is beating a dead horse. Paul Peterson is a former child star, playing at being a professional child advocate. In reality, he is a former child star with deep-rooted issues of being a former child star, yet has no professional training in this arena and we really can't take his word at anything. For something of the magnitude he speaks about, we really need to have a child psychologist or something from someone equally experienced in child psychology to use as a source. Paul Peterson just doesn't cut it.

We never use viewer response as a reliable source (or shouldn't at any rate). What we do use are reviews from people who are notable for their reviews. Most movie pages have reviews from places like Rotten Tomatoes or Roger Ebert who are highly respected for their reviews. Reviews from any old person are not notable, nor are they reliable. Negative responses from viewers would NOT be a reliable source of criticism and it certainly wouldn't portray a reliable amount of criticism (people who are angry are far more likely to be vocal about their complaints than people are are happy).

There is no "need" to get information regarding the various views of the show on the article if all it does is devolve into a bunch of inflammatory statements without reliable sources. What we need is statements that can be verified by using reliable sources. Blogs, forums, viewer reviews, opinion pieces, and other unreliable sources cannot be used. Sorry. Please review the page for reliable sources to see what can be used. Thank you. --13 21:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your response and the clarification. Cactusjump (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's...confusing...to say the least. After a while, it gets easier to understand the difference between verifiability and truth and it gets easier and easier to look at a source and figure out whether or not it's reliable. Thanks for wanting to contribute productively and wanting to learn. We need more editors like you. :-) --13 01:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

INABILITY TO FUNCTION?? maybe that is what you think, how bout you have 8 kids (six at once) and you let me know how youre doing. this has no place in an encyclopedia article. she functions JUST FINE- watch the show. --RCNARANJA 19:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"Story" section needs to be more encyclopedic

The "Story" section really needs to be completely re-written. As it is, it is entirely unsuited in an encyclopedia article. It reads, quite literally, like a story. It should be the bare-bones, most important facts, without fluff and unnecessary details. It should include a sentence or two, max, about how they met with a little blurb about the twins; a paragraph on how they got pregnant with the sextuplets; and maybe a paragraph about the pregnancy and afterward. That's it. Anything else is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. Besides that issue, it almost feels like it was completely lifted from the family website (which, ironically (or not?), is also titled as their story), with only minor changes to avoid violating copyrights. For these reasons, the section needs to be entirely re-written. --13 00:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up. It is far more encyclopedic now, where it was completely inappropriate before. It could still use a little trimming, but, overall, it is much better. Also, I renamed the section to avoid the "story" feel of the section and I'm debating about whether to keep their current location in the "family history" section. I feel it's sufficient in the intro, but I can't decide if the flushed out explanation should also be included and if it should be included in that specific section. --13 22:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have also cleaned up the story section, some words are unecessary, such as "very" and "strongly" which are descriptive words that add to a "story feel".Red Summer Rain (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

family

Shouldn't the family section include that Jon's family is from Hawaii, and that he's Korean? They keep going over that in the show. Or the meaning of the middle names of the children? 76.66.196.229 (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the family should be a separate article, to provide better coverage without making this into a biography article. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No, because it would just be a regurgitation of the same material. The family just isn't notable outside of the television show. This is why Duggar family was merged with 17 Kids and Counting. --13 21:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Unlike the Duggar family, which is just a family with a large number of sequentially produced offspring, and where many antecedants exist in history of similarly large families, the Gosselins are a set of sextuplets, and we have articles on sextuplets, just because they are sextuplets. Giannini sextuplets; Dilley sextuplets; Rosenkowitz sextuplets; Walton sextuplets; So the situations are not entirely analogous. Yes, they both have TV shows, but this family is a family with a set of sextuplets in it. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually think the fact that they have a show makes them more like the Duggar family than the other sextuplets. The reason these sextuplets are notable at this time is because of the show, not simply because they were born. Further, each of those sets of sextuplets you linked to were unique in some way. The Waltons were the first surviving all-female sextuplets. The Giannini sextuplets were the first surviving in Europe. The Dilley sextuplets were the first surviving in America. The Rosenkowitz sextuplets are the first surviving ever. The Gosslins aren't the first...anything. What makes them unique is the show. That said, though highly unlikely, if an article can be written that would be substantially different than this article, it can stay. However, if an article is created and it is essentially the same as this one, it would just be redirected to this page anyway. --13 14:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Categories

Shouldn't this belong to Category:Biography and/or Category:Diaries ? It is a form of video diary by a third party... or biographical TV series... 76.66.196.229 (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Another show?

Isn't there another show sort of like this on TV currently? Except none of the kids are multiple births, and the family SUPER religious. Also, the parents got into some legal trouble recently. It doesn't sound like Jon & Kate, so what show was that? --98.232.180.37 (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You might mean 17 Kids and Counting, the show about the Duggars of Arkansas. They have a couple of multiples (two sets of twins if memory serves), are SUPER religious, but I don't know about the legal thing. I haven't heard anything about them being in trouble. Now the Suleman family, yes, they have some legal issues, but they don't have a show (yet). Nonpoint74 (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

JON AND KATE PLUS 8 PUPPIES!

Well as you all know Jon And Kate got 2 puppies German Shepard's To Be Exact Will Be Shown On The NEXT EPISODE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.84.239 (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please use this talk page to comment on the article, not to comment about the family. This is not a forum or a chat room. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

New $1.1 million dollar home in Wernersville, PA

Where can it be mentioned in the article that Jon and Kate just moved into a $1.1 million dollar home at 298 Heffner Road in Wernersville, PA? This seems to contradict a theme in the show of them always needing coupons and scraping by to support their children. The property is listed in the Berks County public records under the CWN Rev Trust Agreement. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone look up CWN Rev Trust? CWN is the Christian World News, which i believe is an affiliate of CBN and the 700 Club. I find this particularly interesting because i have seen Kate Gosselin on the 700 Club several times. The house could have been donated by the Christian organization in lieu of speaking arrangements, etc. since it has been mentioned in interviews that Kate and the family frequently appear at churches for motivational talks. --162.80.36.13 (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so a property at that address is listed with a "VALUTOTAL" of 482900. Where do you get $1.2m and where do you see the Gosselin name listed there? --Geniac (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Easy, the deed amount is $1,120,000. You are looking at the accessed amount. Those are two different things. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Geniac. Besides that issue though, unless you can find a reliable source that connects them spending a large amount of money on a house being ironic to them coupon clipping, it's all considered original research and can't be included. --13 23:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying we need a news story that mentions that they moved into an expensive home? It's no secret. It's on the show and in public records. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you need a reliable source that shows the fact that it is "expensive" is notable because, honestly, I don't see how it is. --13 03:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Must be nice. You don't think spending a million dollars on a home is a bit more than the average family pays for their home? Jon and Kate's show is built around how "hard" they have it and how much skimping and saving they have to do to make ends meet. Moving into a home which cost over a million dollars indicates that is no longer the case. If anything, they have become "Jon and Kate, Inc." and are making a great deal of money allowing the lives of their children to be filmed. It doesn't fit with their story. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please confine your comments to the article. This is not a forum for discussing the program or its subjects. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Would it be okay to include the median home value in Wernersville at the time? It gives perspective without being original research. The median home price is currently ~$180,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.106.34 (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No. To be honest, the value of the house has nothing to do with this article, which is about a TV show. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

298 Heffner Road, Wernersville PA 19565 Map Sold for $1,120,000 on Oct 23rd, 2008 5 br 6 ba 6,055 sqft Farm/Ranch Description provided by Trulia. Description provided by Realty Trac. This Farm/Ranch located at 298 Heffner Road, Wernersville PA 19565 sold for $1,120,000 on Oct 23, 2008. 298 Heffner Rd has 5 beds, 6 baths, and approximately 6,055 square feet. The property has a lot size of 1,040,212 square feet and was built in 1997. 298 Heffner Rd previously sold for $1,120,000 on Oct 23, 2008. 298 Heffner Rd is in the 19565 ZIP code in Wernersville, PA. The average price per square foot for homes for sale in 19565 is $98. and it has a pool http://www.trulia.com/homes/Pennsylvania/Wernersville/sold/20515867-298-Heffner-Rd-Wernersville-PA-19565 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthprotector (talk • contribs) 04:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

i think it should be included. this show started out as a struggling family with all these kids and now theyre rich and its not about them struggling its about their nannies and how they travel all the time and get whatever they want. this is ABOUT the tv show, which is what this article is about. --RCNARANJA 19:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Rumors about Jon

http://www.parentdish.com/2009/03/06/jon-gosselin-caught-in-the-rumor-mill/?icid=200100397x1220251172x1201360299

Anyone think this should be added. Just bringing it into the light. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 05:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The title contains "Caught in the Rumor Mill"...what do you think? --13 05:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, its out in the open, so we'll find out soon. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll clarify my statement. The source is not reliable in any way whatsoever. Every source they used to report was from some gossip site or to another article on their own site that was reporting from a gossip site. Completely unreliable. If it's true, the producers or J&K themselves will probably release something eventually. If it's not true, I wouldn't be shocked if it wasn't brought up at all. The only sources we can use for something this inflammatory must come from either the producers/TLC or J&K themselves. No one else. --13 21:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

While i'm not sure if this counts, in last night's season finale, Jon & Kate talk about the future of the show and the fact that Jon has not been able to accept living in a fishbowl or being able to accept that he is a pubic persona. He stated that when he goes out, he's "not just Jon," rather, "Jon & Kate plus 8" and that when he does something there is someone there to take a picture of it or publicize it and that is not something he is used to. While they did not go into the details, they both made it sounds like perhaps this was either the last season of the show or a change might be taking place. All of this was happening while he WAS staying with his mother, who was recovering from a broken foot and her hunsband who was out of town. VERY interesting. --162.80.36.13 (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiQuote

there's a wikiquote page now... so you can enter your favorite quotes from the Gosselins. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

ilike to come to your houes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.220.54 (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

vidcap

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in the following regions may be able to help: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania Berks County, Pennsylvania The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

A vidcap of the whole family would be good. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Focus of article all wrong

In its current form, this article contains way too much personal information about the Gosselin family. This is supposed to be an article about a television show, rather than a biography of a living person (or persons), so the personal stuff (such as birthdates) should really be removed per Misplaced Pages guidelines. It would be better to have this sort of information in a separate BLP article, where it can be properly policed. At the moment, this article is a magnet for trivia and rumors that aren't directly associated with the show. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree there should be a separate article for the family. -Sesu Prime (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

As they are "TV stars", does it pass muster for a separate article? 76.66.201.179 (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I am leaning toward the creation of Kate Gosselin, since she has attracted reporting from reliable sources and is a published author - more than sufficient notability for an independent article. I am not sure if there is sufficient independent notability for Jon Gosselin (and certainly not for the children), but it would not be unreasonable to create a daughter article along the lines of Family of Kate Gosselin. The advantage of this approach is that it brings all the personal information of these individuals under the protective umbrella of Misplaced Pages's rules for biographies of living persons. This particular article should revolve solely around the television show, with details about production, shooting schedule, locations, etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I checked out a similar article, TLC's 18 Kids and Counting. For that article it was decided that a list of family members, with birthdates, would be appropriate. I think this article should be about the show. I'm not in favor of separate article for "the family" or just "kate". I think the best article here would be one solely about the TV show, but since there is such a high amount of vandalism, I don't know how to keep such an article clean. Red Summer Rain (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

My main concern is that there is personal information about the family appearing on this article that is avoiding the stricter guidelines imposed by the BLP rules. I'd like to bring this information under the auspices of those rules, ostensibly for their protection. As I said above, the fact that Kate Gosselin is a published author with plenty of reliably-sourced biographical information it makes it easy to create an article on her. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with any of this. However, if there was a "kate" article and "family" article, with the family article incorporating the show, what would happen to the show article. Would there be a redirect from the show's title, and would there be no issue with people creating an article for the show. I'm in favor of your proposal. I'm just not clear how it would pan out. Red Summer Rain (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The show article should remain, but with most of the personal stuff about the family moved to the proposed BLP articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see. So the main article would be about kate--focusing on her publishing etc. with a section on the family included as part of her article. (I don't think Jon or the kids are notable enough to merit their own articles.) It would have all of the biographical information about the people. The article on the show would then be cleaner without the "personal" info. Is this correct? If so, that makes sense. I agree.Red Summer Rain (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That is essentially correct. The article on Kate Gosselin would basically be her complete biography, subject to the availability of reliable sources. A section within that article would cover her family, and another section would cover the TV show (acting as a summary for this article). Another section would cover her published works, etc. I will begin putting the bare bones of an article together in my user space. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I just started it here (now in mainspace). -- Scjessey (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be a subpage of this page or Kate Gosselin? Like Talk:Jon & Kate Plus 8/Kate workpage or Talk:Kate Gosselin/workpage ? 76.66.193.69 (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. It is fine where it is. There is no hard and fast rule about this sort of thing, and I would rather keep a firm grip on it until it is ready from primetime. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with Kate having her own page, but I think the family as a whole should have their own page, too. Maybe it could be called "Gosselin family" or something similar (I don't like the proposed title "Family of Kate Gosselin" though. It's too centered on Kate). There's probably more information about all 10 Gosselins than there is about just Kate. -Sesu Prime (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Any daughter articles would have to make sense with respect to the main article. We have to be mindful about matters such as inherited notability, but also we need to avoid a situation where there is unnecessary duplication. If we had "Gosselin Family" instead of "Family of Kate Gosselin", we would end up with Kate-related stuff appearing in both "Gosselin Family" and "Kate Gosselin". More thought needs to go into this, which is why I am not doing anything in the main article space just yet. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I still think the proposed family article should be called "Gosselin family". Under Kate's section in that article could be nothing more than a link to her main "Kate Gosselin" page. That would avoid the redundancy. -Sesu Prime (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, it depends a little bit on inherited notability questions. Whatever happens, we must put a stop to all this original research and trivia that keeps on getting shoved in, and try to get a little more discipline. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a family article takes precedence over one about just Kate. So if only one additional article gets made, I think it should be the family one. -Sesu Prime (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong about this. The key to this whole discussion is the need to protect the family by bringing them under the auspices of WP:BLP, and since Kate Gosselin is a notable TV personality and author (as well as being the center of the Gosselin universe, pretty much) it makes sense to make an article about her, and then have other articles (including this one) being associated with that. A family-specific article is certainly necessary, but not through conferred notability. It makes more sense, from a Misplaced Pages standpoint, for the family article to be tied to the Kate Gosselin article. We do not want to create an article that just becomes a dumping ground for every piece of retarded trivia and other original research. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

New article at Kate Gosselin after some work by user:Scjessey and myself. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

marriage trouble reports

Say it ain't so! Star Magazine is reporting that Jon Gosselin, star of the hit TLC reality show, "Jon & Kate Plus 8" may be cheating on his wife.

According to the Magazine, Jon--who along with Kate and the rest of his brood recently moved into a $1.3 million dollar mansion in Pennsylvania--recently crashed a party at Juniata College in nearby Huntington, PA and played beer pong with members of the women's volleyball team.

The following night he apparently went to a nearby sports bar, again with members of the women's volleyball team and allegedly made out with a number of them.

The Magazine quotes a witness at the bar as saying:

"He was dirty dancing with several of them, making out, kissing them on their necks and mouths. I thought it was rather surprising for a father with his wife and so many kids at home to be acting like this. He was all over one girl, a long-haired blonde who's nearly 6 feet tall. He left with several of the girls, including her."

Jon is also said to be frequenting other bars close to his home, even spending Valentine's Day away from Kate. Supposedly, he's even tried to pick up women while out with his mother.

Star Magazine also features a screenshot of this Live Journal entry and photo of a very drunk-looking Jon at a bar with two girls.

I must say, this all really breaks my heart. I recently interviewed Kate Gosselin and although she may come across as irritable on the show at times--her response to my asking her for a reason for this was, "Walk a day in my shoes and you'd be irritable too" which I completely respect -- she was a very kind throughout our phone conversation. I know some will speculate that the stresses of raising such a big family may be causing a strain on Jon and Kate's marriage, but I hope that the couple's strong Christian faith gets them through all of this--whether it's true or all just nasty rumors. (http://blog.beliefnet.com/idolchatter/2009/03/jon-gosselin-of-jon-kate-plus.html) Later in the week this report came out, "It is certainly hurtful for people to spread rumors and lies about us. It certainly makes me reluctant to live my life like the average person would," said Jon in a statement issued by his rep and obtained by Zap2it.com.

"This has made it very clear that the simplest innocent gesture -- such as taking a picture with a fan, can be taken out of context. As you can see on the show, I am not perfect, but I am a part of a loving family and couple."

The incident in question reportedly occurred February 6 when Jon was allegedly at Mimi's martini bar in Huntington, PA, which is located three hours away from the new $1.3 million home he shares with his wife Kate and their eight children.

While at the bar, Gosselin reportedly met some girls from Juniata College -- who subsequently invited him to a house party, where he proceeded to play beer pong.

The evening out reportedly continued at Memories Sports Bar & Grill, where Gosselin allegedly continued to drink and flirt with girls from the college.

"He was dirty dancing with several of them, making out, kissing them on their necks and mouths," an eyewitness previously told Star magazine. "I thought it was rather surprising for a father with his wife and so many kids at home to be acting like this. He was all over one girl, a long-haired blonde who's nearly 6 feet tall. He left with several of the girls, including her." (http://blog.beliefnet.com/idolchatter/2009/03/jon-gosselin-of-jon-kate-plus.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.185.229 (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

All of this is completely irrelevant unless you can find a reliable source to back it up. Besides, this article is about a television show, not a person. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The picture is definitly him. And he himself hasn't denied being there. The kissing may or may not have happened, but as you can see in the picture he is blitzed. I don't see how its irrelevent because they don't have their own personal pages. It should be noted under a "Controvery" section. Because the show and them have gained widespread attention. Mwarriorjsj7 (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is the article about the show. It is not a rumor mill. Please confine your comments to the article, and how to improve it, and leave idle speculation and chatter to the forums and blogs. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

other recurring characters

There should be a list of other people who recurrently appear on various seasons of the show... like the crewmembers who show up occasionally, and the paid helpers, and sitters, the helpful neighbour and "Aunt Jodi". 76.66.193.69 (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

i dont even know the names of most of the helpers but Aunt Jodi and Benny, OH YEAH --RCNARANJA 19:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

DVDs

Apparently I'm the one who receives news on the DVDs and puts them up, which now I can't thanks to a certain somebody.

Season 4 Volume 2 "The Big Move" will be released July 21, 2009. http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Jon-and-Kate-Plus-8-Season-4-Volume-2/11615

Now that I've given the information, will you guys put it up under the section I created called "Multimedia". 76.68.223.103 (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

summaries

Can someone restore the episode summary table, so that something besides an empty section exists? 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would, but another editor removed it with this edit summary: "I noticed this table is listed twice and it doesn't need to be. Also the next page, with two tables, both link to individual seasons." I am hesitant to replace it because of this. I would appreciate it if the editor could comment about it here before I do anything further. --13 21:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said, the table for list of episodes, is listed twice, when you follow the link to the episodes. Why would you call it "an empty section"? Click on the link listed and it'll take you to the episodes. It it were put back, then you'd have it listed three times and I don't know why. Duplicate tables for episodes? If you want to find information on the episodes, there's a section dedicated to just that. Any and all information for everyone to see. R7604 (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The section is empty because it contains nothing except for a {{main}}. And if you read WP:SUMMARY, you'll see that people frequently copy material from the intro paragraphs from another article to serve as the summary to go with the {{main}}. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I do have to agree with the Anon user. You, personally, may feel the section isn't empty, but it technically is. All it has is an internal link to the separate article. You need to have something within the section that briefly describes the section, with the internal link going to a full article. It doesn't necessarily need to be the table, but it needs to have something. --13 01:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Like? R7604 (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the box would be all right. However, something preferable might be more along the lines of the following: There have been X-number seasons filmed. The series premiered on X-date. Filming is currently taking place for season X-number and will begin airing on X-date. Or somesuch with maybe some slight expanding. --13 07:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Can someone attach the {{Summarize}} template to the empty sections that are currently on this article? 70.29.213.241 (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

--13 

That's a good idea and I'll do just that. A short summary, since no one likes the "empty" section. R7604 (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Except for "the series premiered on..." because that's already there. R7604 (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I know this comment is a bit late, but I've been watching the summaries section through its changes; I personally liked how the table looked. It was a quick overview of the seasons (on the series page), and if further information was desired, a viewer could go to the episodes main page. Is this not a good idea? The way the section looks now, seems uninteresting to me, and a sentence is slower (and more boring) to view/read than a table with numbers. Make sense? Red Summer Rain (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Um no? The epsidoes are already listed on another page. I put a very short sentence, so it wouldn't be boring and a person could quickly skim over it without much effort. R7604 (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what I am saying is that an episode summary table is much more visually appealing. And a summary table is in no way a complete repeat of the whole episode list. Tt is, rather, a visually appealling overview. It was fine the way it was before. Red Summer Rain (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well as I've said before, there are two other tables and I wasn't going to put anythhing but the Anon user didn't like it that and Thirteen Squared suggested a summary which I've put.

I'm trying to avoid having the main page from looking busy or repetative. Besides, most people who watch this show are adults, they'll take the time to read the summary. R7604 (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Several editors considered the episode table a good summary, as evidenced from the edit history of the article. But as long as some sort of summary appears in the section, it satisfies WP:SUMMARY... so whatever is chosen, is ok. In any case, several articles use duplicate text with the "main" article as summaries (usually the intro paragraphs) so duplication isn't an issue, as long as they remain synchronized. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I did put a summary, just as 13 Squared suggested, and to keep everyone satisfied. R7604 (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Have it your way. I don't want to argue. And if it meets the guidelines for WP:SUMMARY... Red Summer Rain (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to argue either and if I had my way, there wouldn't be a summary. :o) R7604 (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Puppy Name

The dog's name is Shoka, not ShoOka —Preceding unsigned comment added by RocketKid97 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's Shooka, not Shoka. Please see the official TLC site. --13 19:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Since it's not on the main page anymore, here's a link to a description for a video with the correct spelling: click. As you can see, it is Shooka, not Shoka. --13 19:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Seven embryos but six babies

Sorry if the answer is obvious, but in the article, it states that Kate had six sacs with seven embryos in them, but gave birth to six babies. So does that means one of the embryos didn't make it cos it's not that clear to me from that paragraph.londonsista 11:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

US Weekly

Where should we put this story? OddibeKerfeld (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Until a proper reliable source can be found, I cannot think of anywhere. This article is about the show, not the subjects. Jon Gosselin is, by himself, not notable enough for his own biography. That means that there is nowhere for this sort of "gossip" stuff to go. Leave it for the gossip magazines and blogs. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

does it get better at being a mom.

i wacth you guys all the time i have a one year old. i really love being a mom. i just wanted to know when the new shows start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.212.251 (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not the subject. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class television articles
• Low-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles
• Unassessed Pennsylvania articles
• Unknown-importance Pennsylvania articles
• Unassessed biography articles
• Unassessed biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of artists and entertainers
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images of television programs
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Berks County, Pennsylvania
• Articles which may no longer need images