19 Kids And Counting

Per WP:BLPPRIVACY, we shouldn't include full names and dates of birth unless they've been widely published in reliable sources. That type of content serves no real encyclopedic purpose, and is more appropriate for a site like Fandom. Woodroar (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

they have been published in reliable sources, they were on a tv show. all of their spouses and children’s names are public knowledge as well (public on instagram) Hbailey311 (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

they actually put it up on their website: birthdates included Hbailey311 (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Full names and dates of birth must be widely published in reliable sources, or from an account known to be run by that individual. If they post it on a verified social media account, we can discuss including it. But until then, it's policy not to include it, especially because many of the people involved are minors. Woodroar (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Even if they are minors, they are public figures owing to the reality show. And birthdates are public information. This makes no sense to me. 108.6.80.65 (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source that summarizes what reliable, secondary sources say is important. By and large, reliable sources don't consider full names and birth dates of most people important—especially when it comes to minors. Maybe if they're a historical figure, but we're not talking about historical figures here. We are intentionally sensitive to private information about living persons, which, like it or not, includes birth dates. Woodroar (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

With such attitude you would have to remove birth dates of MOST living people (actors, activists, sports people...). Is this really the way we want to go? Slamazzar (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

If they're not widely covered in reliable sources as WP:BLPPRIVACY requires, then yes. Woodroar (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Casting the list in a table

WP:BLPPRIVACY does not require the removal of the entire table. We can have the table and just put the birth month and year, suppressing the exact date of birth. Banana Republic (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
And for the children who have Wikipedia articles, there is no WP:BLPPRIVACY for suppressing the exact date of birth. Banana Republic (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I've reverted it. This has been discussed multiple times at BLPN and the consensus has always been that this level of detail is a BLPVIO. BLPPRIVACY says that even for notable people, we default to a year—and that's only when cited to reliable, secondary sources or their own personal self-published sources, which these aren't. (The Inquisitr is considered generally unreliable and the family's website isn't controlled by the individual family members. We'd need to cite personal verified social media accounts instead.) MOS:TABLES suggests using tables only for large amounts of complex information and prose for basic lists. I'd even argue that the amount of space taken up by a table is WP:UNDUE. Reliable sources simply don't go into this level of detail about the family members. It's unencyclopedic and violates a number of our policies and guidelines. Woodroar (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
With 19 entries, we certainly have a large amounts of complex information. For understanding the ages of the children during the run of the show, it is important to put the date of birth. I was about to add a column for the ages of the children during the run of the show (as opposed to their ages today).
And calling the amount of space that the table takes WP:UNDUE is to tell Jim and Michelle that they had an unduly big family. Who are we to say that? Banana Republic (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
And the reference is none other than the show's website. Banana Republic (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Then take it to a noticeboard and see what other editors think. Woodroar (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
So far, the only Wikipedia policy you cited that had some merit was WP:BLPPRIVACY, and that was addressed with the removal of the exact date of birth. When there are no other Wikipedia policies violations, and the material is pertinent to the article, there is no reason to remove it. Banana Republic (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
If there were a way to make tables compliant, multiple editors wouldn't have removed the tables from this and other reality TV docuseries, protected the articles, brought the issues to noticeboards, etc. etc. etc. Woodroar (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
In the article's history, all I can is you being the sole editor to keep removing the table:
• March 17, 2021
• April 28, 2021
• March 31, 2022
• July 24, 2022
That basically puts you in a long drawn out edit war.
Many TV shows list the cast members in a summary table, so there is no reason not to have a table for the cast members of this show. Banana Republic (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes there is, and it's the BLP. Woodroar is correct. You may find that Wikia is more to your liking. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

How exactly does listing the children in a table, rather than in a sentence, violate WP:BLP? A list of 19 names in a single sentence is unreadable. Banana Republic (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The level of detail that you're trying to include is what violates BLP: middle names and dates of birth (or year of birth). Reliable sources simply don't consider that worthy of coverage. The table itself is simply...unnecessary. Unlike cast tables in most film and television articles, there's no need for an actor column and a role column. A table based on the credits would be a single column of first names—a vertical list. I suppose you could add a second column with spouse names, but we're still not talking complex data here. It's just as easy to incorporate that into prose as the MOS suggests.
As for the prose list being unreadable, I disagree. Sure, it's not thrilling prose, but it lists the names of the cast/kids and that's it. This isn't some complex saga series where readers might need to consult the cast table every 5 or 10 minutes. It's also not like their names don't appear on screen in the show itself! There's simply no encyclopedic purpose to calling out so much detail when reliable sources don't. Woodroar (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
What are you talking about? All the dates in the table are referenced to show, and that's a secondary source for dates of birth, as the primary source is the birth certificate.
This is a show about parents raising children, so the ages of the children it certainly pertinent to the show. Banana Republic (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Neither the show nor birth certificates are reliable sources for dates of birth—or for full names, for that matter. Please read WP:BLP and start a new discussion at WP:BLPN if you have any questions. Woodroar (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Personally I don't care if you put the names in a table or in a sentence. From an encyclopedic point of view, it's irrelevant either way. Please just STOP talking about birth certificates and shit like that. First of all, it's primary. Second, it's still a BLP violation. That they drag their kids into this TV show in order to make some money doesn't mean we have to participate in it. You need to get over this: we are an encyclopedia and we have a set of rules on what to do with minors who are not notable in their own right. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I think you just made it real clear your true intentions behind removing it. Saying they drag their kids into this. Grow up.This is a place for information. Not your opinion. 146.12.224.60 (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove the description of "blanket time" including controversy or physical discipline as neither are stated in the citation. 107.217.231.52 (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the claim. The archived FAQ does mention "blanket time" but there's nothing about the corporal punishment aspect mentioned in our article. The FAQ was also taken down sometime after this archived version in September 2005. I did find coverage of a blanket training controversy in gossip and celeb media but nothing in independent, reliable sources. I don't think that a mention on a primary source from 16 years ago meets our strict guidelines for BLPs, let alone a mention in the lead. Woodroar (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Against consensus, a table of children was readded to this article here [1]. Can someone remove this blp violation? 107.115.147.71 (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: Please point out the clear consensus to remove this information, as I do not see it. Given the discussions further up the page, this is clearly not an uncontroversial change, so such a consensus is needed in order to implement this request. Edit requests are not a form of dispute resolution. If you believe that a BLP violation has occurred, please open a discussion at WP:BLPN or seek other avenues of WP:DR as appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that there wasn't a consensus against the table. The consensus was against the dates of birth, and the table no longer has dates of birth.
Claiming that listing the children in a table is a WP:BLP violation is beyond stupid. Banana Republic (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)