Jump to content

Talk:Suleman octuplets: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(35 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}}
{{Talk header}}
⚫
{{ITN talk|28 January|2009}}
{{WPBiography|living = yes|class=Start}}
{{WikiProject Southern California}}
{{Image requested|medical subjects|human behavior|people of California}}
{{oldmergefull
{{WikiProject California|class=start|importance=}}
⚫
| otherpage = Nadya Suleman
⚫
{{ITNtalk|28 January|2009}}
| date = March 2009
{{reqphoto|medical subjects|human behavior|in=California}}
| result = Speedy Close
| talk = Talk:Nadya_Suleman/Archive_1#Merger
}}
{{oldmergefull
| otherpage = Nadya Suleman
| date = September 2009
| result = No consensus
| talk = Talk:Nadya_Suleman#Proposed_merge
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 1
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 1
|minthreadsleft = 3
|algo = old(60d)
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Suleman octuplets/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Suleman octuplets/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{AutoArchivingNotice
|small=no
|age=60
|index=./Archive index
|bot=MiszaBot}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Suleman octuplets/Archive index|mask=Talk:Suleman octuplets/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Suleman octuplets/Archive index|mask=Talk:Suleman octuplets/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2022-01-26|oldid1=1067677939}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=Start|listas=Suleman Octuplets|
{{WikiProject Biography}}
{{WikiProject California|importance=low|southerncalifornia=yes|southerncalifornia-importance=low}}
}}


== The names ==
== Octomom? ==

Of course it should be in the article, but not in the lead. Shouldn't it have a section? --[[User:Anna Frodesiak|Anna Frodesiak]] ([[User talk:Anna Frodesiak|talk]]) 14:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

*The inclusion of the names in the article doesn't have any encyclopedic value. These children didn't ask to be famous and their privacy should be respected per [[WP:BLP]]. This is a new low for Wikipedia, publishing the name of children for the sake of trivia. --[[User:Jmundo|J.Mundo]] ([[User talk:Jmundo|talk]]) 14:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
**Agree, done. [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] [[User talk:Physchim62|(talk)]] 14:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the removal of the names. Why have their older siblings names stated but not the ones that the article is actually about? They are FACTS, not just trivia. I believe the names should be included; just like with the Dionne quintuplets, Chukwu octuplets, Hanselman sextuplets, Dilley sextuplets, Walton sextuplets, and McCaughey septuplets. But I guess that could just be me. [[User:Angelicerin17|Angelicerin17]] ([[User talk:Angelicerin17|talk]]) 15:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

* Physchim, just because you lost the AfD, doesn't mean you can come here and start ripping these articles apart and stripping them down. For your reference, listing names of multiple births is done on these pages: [[Chukwu octuplets]], [[McCaughey septuplets]], [[Dionne quintuplets]], [[Kienast quintuplets]], [[Rosenkowitz sextuplets]], [[Walton sextuplets]], [[Dilley sextuplets]], [[Hanselman sextuplets]], [[Brino quadruplets]]. Before you go advocating the great BLP violations, do some research first! These changes have been, and will continue to be reverted. Thanks! —&nbsp;<b><i><font color="#6600FF">[[User:Raeky|raeky]]</font></i></b>&nbsp;<sup>(<font color="#0033FF">[[User talk:Raeky|talk]]</font>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<font color="#00CC00">[[Special:Contributions/Raeky|edits]]</font>)</sup> 15:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
* I don't know what is the underlying melodrama here, but I will like to discuss the encyclopedic value of having names of children publish in an article. This family has been subject to public hate and death threats I don't understand the importance of the names. Why we want to subject these children to the torture of Wikipedia BLP issues is beyond me. --[[User:Jmundo|J.Mundo]] ([[User talk:Jmundo|talk]]) 17:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
* Regardless if your '''personal''' feelings if this violates BLP rules or not, because it clearly doesn't, at best this should be left alone until it's discussed here, reverting it with just two people saying it should be this way within a few minutes of each other without presenting any ''valid'' evidence or policy quote that it shouldn't list children's names. If this is in violation then theres about 10,000 other pages in Wikipedia that violate it by listing children's names. Leave personal feelings out of this. —&nbsp;<b><i><font color="#6600FF">[[User:Raeky|raeky]]</font></i></b>&nbsp;<sup>(<font color="#0033FF">[[User talk:Raeky|talk]]</font>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<font color="#00CC00">[[Special:Contributions/Raeky|edits]]</font>)</sup> 18:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
::[[WP:BLP]]:"Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases or occupations), '''it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context'''." --[[User:Jmundo|J.Mundo]] ([[User talk:Jmundo|talk]]) 18:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
:::WP:BLP:"Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. '''When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated''' or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases or occupations), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." Can you make a case that they're not widely disseminated otherwise your reasoning is invalid? —&nbsp;<b><i><font color="#6600FF">[[User:Raeky|raeky]]</font></i></b>&nbsp;<sup>(<font color="#0033FF">[[User talk:Raeky|talk]]</font>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<font color="#00CC00">[[Special:Contributions/Raeky|edits]]</font>)</sup> 18:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

'''Note''' I requested some outside opinion on the BLP policy regarding this, [[Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Multiple-Birth_.28in_this_example_Suleman_octuplets.29_BLP_concerns_about_naming_children.27s_names|here]]. —&nbsp;<b><i><font color="#6600FF">[[User:Raeky|raeky]]</font></i></b>&nbsp;<sup>(<font color="#0033FF">[[User talk:Raeky|talk]]</font>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<font color="#00CC00">[[Special:Contributions/Raeky|edits]]</font>)</sup> 18:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
::Fine, if this is so important to you have it your way. BLP articles have an impact on very real people and children. The potential for damage is there. Maybe we can't understand that because we have our usernames to hide our real identity and info. Well, I did my part to defend the privacy of these kids. Happy editing, --[[User:Jmundo|J.Mundo]] ([[User talk:Jmundo|talk]]) 18:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
:::I would share your concern if the names wasn't already plastered over thousands of news articles, papers, magazines, tv shows, etc... At this point, hiding them here accomplishes nothing but lowers the value of the article. —&nbsp;<b><i><font color="#6600FF">[[User:Raeky|raeky]]</font></i></b>&nbsp;<sup>(<font color="#0033FF">[[User talk:Raeky|talk]]</font>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<font color="#00CC00">[[Special:Contributions/Raeky|edits]]</font>)</sup> 19:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As per the suggestion on the BLP page the names was unbolded and moved to their own section. The BLP concerns about the names is a moot point now since the children's names are so widely published, which was the consensus at the BLP page about this issue. —&nbsp;<b><i><font color="#6600FF">[[User:Raeky|raeky]]</font></i></b>&nbsp;<sup>(<font color="#0033FF">[[User talk:Raeky|talk]]</font>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<font color="#00CC00">[[Special:Contributions/Raeky|edits]]</font>)</sup> 04:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

:Hi. Just providing notice here that the issue is now at the BLP noticeboard, [[Wikipedia:BLPN#Minor_children.3B_personal_names_in_articles_related_to_multiple_births|here]]. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 17:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

== Total Weight of the Babies, How Premature & Likelyhood of all 6 Embryos Maturing ==

Not sure how to edit this: Weight of the babies = 18.4375-pounds. (That's a lot of weight to carry around . . . I read somewhere that she she spent a month or more in a hospital bed holding the babies in her womb as long as possible.) Plus, I think it's significant to tell how many weeks these babies were premature. [[User:Raquel Baranow|Raquel Baranow]] ([[User talk:Raquel Baranow|talk]]) 22:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
:Also, Dr. Phil and Nadya repetedly say that the odds of ''all six'' embryos attaching to the uterus and growing are something like .00000001%, i.e., to Nadya's credit, she didn't expect to have eight babies. (I know, "reference required" but maybe someone else has a ready reference.) [[User:Raquel Baranow|Raquel Baranow]] ([[User talk:Raquel Baranow|talk]]) 15:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
::She knew the risk of having a [[multiple birth]] with the implantation of 6 embryos, and knew her current financial situation. —&nbsp;<b><i><font color="#6600FF">[[User:Raeky|raeky]]</font></i></b>&nbsp;<sup>(<font color="#0033FF">[[User talk:Raeky|talk]]</font>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<font color="#00CC00">[[Special:Contributions/Raeky|edits]]</font>)</sup> 18:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
:::She knew the risk and she also knew the ''likelyhood'' that all six embryos would attach (and two of them split). She expected that, as before, out of the six implanted, only one or two would embed in her uterus and mature. . . . I also thought it convienient to add up the total weight of the babies so readers wouldn't have to do the math. . . the average [[birth weight]] of a baby at birth is about 7-pounds. I agree it was economically irresponsible for her to contemplate haveing one or two more children but the ''likelyhood'' of all the embryos maturing (and two splitting) was, as Dr. Phil & Nadya repetedly said, less than .00000001% [[User:Raquel Baranow|Raquel Baranow]] ([[User talk:Raquel Baranow|talk]]) 18:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
::::I lucked out and found [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29129311/page/3/ this interview] that I remembered seeing before:
::::Ann Curry: How many embryos were you implanted with?
::::Nadya Suleman: ''The same as with the others''. Six. . . .
::::Ann Curry: - that there was a possibility of a high-multiple pregnancy. Although, you didn't think it was likely.
⚫
::::Nadya Suleman: No.
::::Nadya Suleman: The statistics on that? .00000001 percent.
:::: [[User:Raquel Baranow|Raquel Baranow]] ([[User talk:Raquel Baranow|talk]]) 19:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::You could only really give that as a reference if you're going to say 'Suleman stated....', rather than simply say that was the stat, since it does sound like Suleman may have just given that as a random figure to emphasise the small likelihood of it happening. To give it as a scientific fact, would need a reference with a medical/professional opinion. [[User:Sky83|Sky83]] ([[User talk:Sky83|talk]]) 19:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::Yes, and I'm certain that over time, this article will give more of the science behind how Nadya had eight babies. I looked for a reference to Dr. Phil saying ".00000001%" (as if he believes it's true) but it's in one of his dozen or so videos I've seen. Would a reference to Dr. Phil qualify? [[User:Raquel Baranow|Raquel Baranow]] ([[User talk:Raquel Baranow|talk]]) 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::It all depends what ''exactly'' is said. I could say 'wow, it must be like a million to one chance that Suleman had eight healthy babies' but you couldn't quote that as a scientific fact. If Dr. Phil was stating actual medical knowledge on it (as in if there is research and odds behind it) rather than just a random figure, then it would be fine. But it must be certain that he is not just giving a random figure to emphasise that it was unlikely. [[User:Sky83|Sky83]] ([[User talk:Sky83|talk]]) 20:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Found another one, [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0902/27/lkl.01.html here's a fertility doctor being interviewed by Dr. Phil] sitting in for Larry King (scroll down to nearly the end of the page):
::::::::DR. JAMIE GRIFO, DIRECTOR, NYU FERTILITY CENTER: . . . I was curious about that myself, and then I researched the pregnancy rate in this doctor's clinic. And in the year before he treated Nadya, 70 embryos were transferred in women under 35 that made three babies. So less than ten percent of his embryos were making babies.
::::::::So you just do the math, the chance that six embryos would make eight babies, with that math, is about one in a billion. You say, gosh, this doctor must be crazy. But with the pregnancy rates there, I understand why he would do it.
::::::::[[User:Raquel Baranow|Raquel Baranow]] ([[User talk:Raquel Baranow|talk]]) 21:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, that reference seems fine. But if you want to put it into the article, make sure it gets credited to the right person :). [[User:Sky83|Sky83]] ([[User talk:Sky83|talk]]) 21:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
::Pretty much any event has a likelihood of happening in the billions or more. There are guidelines in place for these doctors for how many embryos that they implant, and this doctor clearly implanted more then what those guidelines said. Just stating that the odds that all 6 implant and two of them twin (And this hasn't been proven yet, for all we know the doctor could of implanted 8 or more and is lieing, until DNA tests prove the twinning) doesn't help the article. Stating the odds of a multiple birth with 6 embryos for a women of her age would be relevant(and I think that is high likelihood) but the odds of the rare occurrence that did happen if put in the article shouldn't be worded like she expected to only have one child when she had six embryos implanted. —&nbsp;<b><i><font color="#6600FF">[[User:Raeky|raeky]]</font></i></b>&nbsp;<sup>(<font color="#0033FF">[[User talk:Raeky|talk]]</font>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<font color="#00CC00">[[Special:Contributions/Raeky|edits]]</font>)</sup> 21:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
:From what I've read/heard, there were no "guidelines" at the time (maybe now). (How do U figure, "pretty much any event has a likelyhood of happening in the billions or more"!?) I should add: Dr. Grifo said the gestational period was 30 weeks, so that's 10 weeks premature. Nadya did expect to have only one or two, 'cause, as she stated (above), she was implanted with six embryos in each of her other pregnacies. (Yes, this article-revision will hafta be carefully worded.) [[User:Raquel Baranow|Raquel Baranow]] ([[User talk:Raquel Baranow|talk]]) 21:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

== Merge away controversy section ==

{{resolved|Section repurposed. [[User_talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#CC0000">oi</font></u>]] 03:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)}}
"Controversy" sections, especially concerning living people are inherently POV and, frankly, end up being magnets for more problems. All useable content should be moved into other areas of the existing article by editors familiar with the content. In general, and per [[WP:Lede]], if a controversy is notable enough it should also be summarized in the lede. [[User_talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#CC0000">oi</font></u>]] 12:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

== Which babies are identical ==

Nadya stated on a Radaronline.com video that it was Makai and Jeremiah,and Jonah and Josiah that were identical.
There is also another online article stating that Jonah,the one with the cleft lip,was one of the identical ones,and due to this,Nadya stated that she had no trouble telling him apart from his twin brother.

(scroll to bottom):
http://insidesocal.com/octorazzi/2009/04/world-wide-breaking-news-last-octuplet-arrives-home-with-proof.html

[[User:Nc40lady|Nc40lady]] ([[User talk:Nc40lady|talk]]) 08:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

::Isn't a [[cleft lip]] thought to be genetic, and if so wouldn't both twins have it? I have the feeling shes making up the twinning or just is guessing. DNA tests are going to be necessary to prove this.. —&nbsp;<b><i><font color="#6600FF">[[User:Raeky|raeky]]</font></i></b>&nbsp;<sup>(<font color="#0033FF">[[User talk:Raeky|talk]]</font>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<font color="#00CC00">[[Special:Contributions/Raeky|edits]]</font>)</sup> 13:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


Is this the famous "octomom"? If so, why isn't that mentioned in the lead. [[Special:Contributions/124.168.221.239|124.168.221.239]] ([[User talk:124.168.221.239|talk]]) 13:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
It can be,although it can be caused by lack of nutrients,which I would presume is very possible in a pregnancy of eight babies,all competing for nutrition. [[User:Nc40lady|Nc40lady]] ([[User talk:Nc40lady|talk]]) 17:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


=="Later Years"==
::Not sure the article for it mentions that at all... we're going to need rock solid sources for this to add it to the page. —&nbsp;<b><i><font color="#6600FF">[[User:Raeky|raeky]]</font></i></b>&nbsp;<sup>(<font color="#0033FF">[[User talk:Raeky|talk]]</font>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<font color="#00CC00">[[Special:Contributions/Raeky|edits]]</font>)</sup> 04:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
This section- "In a March 2019 interview with the Australian current affairs program Sunday Night for the octoplets’ tenth birthday, the reporter, Angela Cox, noted that the Suleman household is run with “military precision”, and the children are fed a largely organic, plant-based diet. Cox described the children as “happy, healthy, and well-mannered” and Ms. Suleman as going “from Octomom to Supermom” "- seems to be going out of its way to vindicate the mother against the backlash she encountered at the time of the octuplets' birth. Just because one Australian reporter said these things doesn't seem to necessarily justify this being effectively the final word on the subject in the article. Interestingly, the article cited doesn't really give any insight into how she supports this family aside from welfare, which covers less than a third of their monthly expenses. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/78.144.67.24|78.144.67.24]] ([[User talk:78.144.67.24#top|talk]]) 01:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Latest revision as of 21:38, 15 July 2024

Octomom?

[edit]

Is this the famous "octomom"? If so, why isn't that mentioned in the lead. 124.168.221.239 (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Later Years"

[edit]

This section- "In a March 2019 interview with the Australian current affairs program Sunday Night for the octoplets’ tenth birthday, the reporter, Angela Cox, noted that the Suleman household is run with “military precision”, and the children are fed a largely organic, plant-based diet. Cox described the children as “happy, healthy, and well-mannered” and Ms. Suleman as going “from Octomom to Supermom” "- seems to be going out of its way to vindicate the mother against the backlash she encountered at the time of the octuplets' birth. Just because one Australian reporter said these things doesn't seem to necessarily justify this being effectively the final word on the subject in the article. Interestingly, the article cited doesn't really give any insight into how she supports this family aside from welfare, which covers less than a third of their monthly expenses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.67.24 (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suleman_octuplets&oldid=1234734404"