Jump to content

Talk:Nadya Suleman/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Header Templates

I don't think that it needs the wikified template, I have issues with people over-linking to internal pages that are not relevant to the document. It appears all relevant links exist for the internal pages for the current content, and the content seems sufficiently sectioned and organized. Thus I think this header isn't necessary at this point in the articles development.

I don't think the 'improve this article' template is necessary at this point either. Theres plenty of content on the page already, and since it's an "ongoing event" theres plenty of new content that will have to be worked into the article as more becomes public knowledge. I don't think that it is necessary to explicitly ask for improvements in the articles current form unless you dictate what exact sections need expanded here on the talk page, as the template suggests.

Also the 'underconstruction' template I think isn't really necessary because at this point in the article there isn't huge changes expected in short succession (which the template is designed to convey). It's pretty much at the point where changes would be limited to the edition/edit of small parts of the article based on new information.

These are my reasonings for removing of those templates, why do you think they still need to remain? — raeky (talk | edits) 01:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E delete discussion

At which point does a person become notable enough, well known people according to the policy is one where MANY references exist about them, according to Google news there is over 17,000 news articles directly referencing "Nadya Suleman" published within the past month. Someone who is notable for a single event, would they generate that many news articles in a month? Even though she is notable from the birth of the octuplets‎, all the controversy surrounding this, and the medical issues, laws being passed because of, means that she is referenced in far more then JUST the birth of 8 babies. I think at some point she crossed over being known just for the babies and is now notable enough from the controversy and laws being passed to justify a separate article. — raeky (talk | edits) 03:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If the octuplets hadn't happened, her name would be nowhere. Media circus does not justify an article. If she does in fact become a "television childcare expert", however inconsequential, then she can have her own article. There could be a case made for WP:IAR, but I don't believe it has been made yet. Terry Schiavo doesn't even have her own article, and she got a lot more publicity than Ms. Suleman. SDY (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes but Michael Schiavo does. — raeky (talk | edits) 03:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
She is obviously only known because of the octuplets. If there are two articles about this woman and the octuplets they will always overlap information, what usefulness is there to have separate articles? LonelyMarble (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The octuplets article would just deal with the octuplets and the medical issues surrounding, an article for Nadya would include all the controversy surrounding her and the ethical issues of the doctor that did her treatments, and the new laws being passed to prevent it from happening again. If she was only known for birthing 8 kids at once and that was the limit to the news coverage then I would agree she wouldn't be very notable. But since this issue is going to touch on so many different issues from the likelihood she won't be allowed to keep the octuplets, to the legal system changing laws to prevent this kind of thing from happening again, etc. The "one event" clause I don't think applys anymore since shes in the center of several different "events" that I described now that go beyond just the birth of octuplets. — raeky (talk | edits) —Preceding undated comment added 03:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC).

The WP:PROD tag was removed, which I'm assuming means it's contested, so I'm starting the AFD process as the routine next step. SDY (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

More recent headlines

Octuplets Mom Said To Nix Free Care Offer

(CBS) The mother of the octuplets born a month ago has rejected a group's offer to care for all 14 of her children round-the-clock, for free, and in one home, according to the attorney representing the group.

"She did not accept our offer," Gloria Allred told co-anchor Harry Smith on The Early Show Friday. " ... There would have been no burden on the taxpayers. Instead now, it may be that the taxpayers are going to have to foot the bill for all of this."

Angels in Waiting was estimating that such care would cost $130,000 a month...

Octuplets mother fears infants will be kept from her

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - California's octuplets mom has told television therapist Dr. Phil McGraw that she fears not being allowed to take her newborns home from the hospital until she proves that she has the means to care for them...

Suleman says hospital wants proof she can care for octuplets (with video)

Nadya Suleman told TV host "Dr. Phil" McGraw on Tuesday that she fears Kaiser Permanente Medical Center may not release her octuplets to her until she proves she can care for them...

Theres plenty more but these are pretty shocking, not sure where they best would be added, to her article or this one. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Jolie "material" denial

Can we remove this as non notable trivia? --Tom 23:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Theres like 6 references for it and probably hundreds more if you searched... It's obvious she had plastic surgery and theres references to her getting her lips pumped up before her big interviews... The similarities are striking if you view her before and after plastic surgery photos. It's more evidence about her mental stability, and if she does have to fight in court for those kids I'll probably come out with even more credible sources on this matter. Since there is so many sources (two of those are from MSNBC) it probably should stay, and maybe be expanded. Thats my vote. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree, six sources for one sentence is about as solid as sourcing gets. I would like some clarification of why she is so fixated on her and what (crazy) connection she feels she has with Jolie. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
There are 6 references to what? That she denies trying to contact Jolie? What is the "material" trying to convey? This seems like OR and commentary and should probably be rewritten to reflect this. --Tom 00:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Some of those sources are actually pretty crappy now that you mention it, but others are pretty solid, such as MSNBC. Sources are allowed to engage in original research, Wikipedia editors are not. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
What are the citations for? That she denies trying to contact Jolie? --Tom 00:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Several of them have been removed now, I'm not sure what they said, but the two remaining analyze the perceived relationship between the two, and [1] shows that Life and Style magazine went as far as featuring themside-by-side on a recent cover. That Suleman denies this is not supported by the two remaining sources, but there has clearly been some media attention on the similarities, real or imagined, between the two of them. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Then this "material" needs to be rewritten to jive with the citations or whatever is trying to be conveyed. Any takers? --Tom 15:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite looks much better. Thank you taker :) --Tom 17:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Bio-dad info

Some headlines about it: Possible octuplet dad demands paternity test Nadya Suleman & Dennis Beaudoin Battle Over Octuplets, Sperm Donor Wants DNA Test

These are just two I quickly grabbed, he wants a DNA test to prove it, she denies hes the father. Not sure if this should be added to the article(s) yet.. but there is a fair amount of references already. — raeky (talk | edits) 07:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"Official" donation website

According to this video interview of her [2] she denies she had anything to do with that website and doesn't want donations. So I don't think we should relink it on any of these pages, based on that. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It was created by her PR firm.Tstrobaugh (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Even so she says she doesn't want it didn't want it and didn't authorize it. — raeky (talk | edits) 14:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
There are reliable sources, including [3], that say the PR firm was her representative, and was responsible for the website. I find it highly unlikely the firm created the website without her authorization. Superm401 - Talk 22:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I do too, but she denied it on television, the interviewer obviously did a double take too her comments. — raeky (talk | edits) 23:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Project banners

There's already been some back-and-forth on this issue, but today's my day to empty Category:Unassessed medicine articles, so -- speaking as the person that does more than 90% of article assessment work for the project -- WP:MED hereby refuses to support this article. The mere fact that somebody gets pregnant, even through medical intervention, does not place the person within the project's actual scope, which is focused on medical conditions and their treatments.

If you wish to appeal my decision, then please first read the entire assessment page, paying particular attention to WP:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment#Is_WPMED_the_correct_WikiProject_to_support_this_article.3F and leave a note on that page's talk page. You may also wish to familiarize yourselves with WP:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article_tagging, and to read the article Overmedicalization for a better understanding of why we define most people as outside of our scope.

I will leave a note at WT:PHARM to see what they chose to do, but based on my past experience, you should expect them to similarly refuse. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this article from WikiProject Pharmacology. Our wikiproject only deals with articles pertaining to drug articles, and drug-related topics (such as Drug design). We do not cover drug users. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why there is an article on this person and why Wikipedia has so many articles on people of quetionable importance. --Fasterthanaspeedingbullet (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Religion?

which religion does she follow? her name sounds muslim or middle eastern but what is she really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.45.219 (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Find a reliable reference where she says so and we can add it, theres over 17,000 news articles indexed by Google News alone... — raeky (talk | edits) 18:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • According to the article on the octuplets, her father was from Iraq, so it is a fairly safe assumption she comes from a Muslim background, but somehow I have a feeling she's not very faithful. I can't imagine any religion except maybe Satanism approving of this. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, once again I have tried and failed to convey WP:SARCASM with my words. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Suleman's mother has a Christian name and Suleman has stated that she will get by with the help of her church, which suggests she's part of a Christian community. She's probably not Catholic, though, as Catholicism does not approve of IVF. As for her acts, they are not 'Satanic', but simply irresponsible.

C'mon people, I was not seriously suggesting she was a satanist. It was an (apparently failed) attempt at humor. let it go. Since no one has produced any actual references firmly establishing a specific religion, we have no basis for mentioning her religion in the article. Getting help from a church does not make you a Christian, I know plenty of people who go to the local church food bank every Monday but are never there for services on Sunday. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

An edit needs to be made

Nadya Suleman's page currently has a gramatical error under the "Extended Family" section, It reads as follows:

The octuplets' maternal grandfather, 67-year-old Edward Doud Suleman,[20] and identifying himself as a former Iraqi military man, says he is returning to his native Iraq as a translator and driver, in order to financially support his daughter and her children.[21]

It should read something more along the lines of "The octuplets' maternal grandfather, 67-year-old Edward Doud Suleman[20] who identifies himself as a former Iraqi (soldier?) military man, says he is returning.." etc

I cleaned that up, not exactly as you specified, but I think it works. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD #2

I've requested an admin look at and hopefully end the AfD decision as soon as possible. I think it's gone on long enough, nothing new is being contributed that hasn't already been said. The original nominator is now just slinging insults at the editors. I hope the decision is KEEP, but I'm just tired of the AfD and want to get onto doing other things with my time. — raeky (talk | edits) 17:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

  • It's five days will be up tomorrow, and it does seem to be leaning towards keep or no consensus which has the same result. In response to the concerns raised at the AfD, I have listed this article on the BLP noticeboard and asked that a previously uninvolved party check the sources and the article for any possible neutrality and synthesis issues. Hopefully someone will come along and do that, and the article is still semi-protected, so we have a window of opportunity here to improve the article and establish a good neutral version of it that can be reverted to in the event of any future vandalism or BLP problems slipping in. But, yeah, I'm totally over that AfD, it's gotten rather ugly and ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Definitely ugly, I think much if it has to do with the very unfavorable opinion most have about her. I *HOPE* it doesn't go as no consensus, cause it could be nominated for another 5 day run, or definitely leave the door open for another AfD soon. — raeky (talk | edits) 20:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It appears some previously uninvolved editors have looked the article over, and found no serious problems with the sources. I think now would be a good time to just generally edit the article, the language is a little "clunky" in places, and maybe we could find a free image somewhere, biographies are always better with a photo. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Yea a free image would be great, but I suspect we'll have to find an individual that took one on flickr or a fellow wikipedian that lives in her area that could snap one maybe. — raeky (talk | edits) 08:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

References

I have added a couple of citation maintenance templates to the article. I have done this to prompt the proper referencing of the article. WP:BLP instucts us to get the references right. Some citataions appear a long way from the information they should support; some information doesn't seem to be referenced at all. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank You! We'll make it a priority to sort out the references, I know thats an area that has gotten pretty bad as the article grew. Thanks again for taking the time! — raeky (talk | edits) 19:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention in lead

We don't need to list all the different "variables" of her name or her past married name in the lead. MAYBE, big maybe, if you want to go into further detail about this "issue", then provide RS that discuss this, not yearbooks or court papers ect. I have left one of the aliasis for now.--Tom 14:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

ps, can a wiki "name in lead" lawyer please chime in, TIA, --Tom 14:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Those are reliable sources for her past names. It shows something about her if shes used 15 different names in the past, which is NOT normal. As for the primary source, the court document, the rules state it can be used:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.

The primary source [4] the secondary source backing it up [5], ExtraTV I think is a reliable source for this purpose.
Either way I think you need stronger argument against listing all her known names then "we don't need to." That's my opinion. Also you shouldn't of deleted out the section BEFORE it was discussed, I think. — raeky (talk | edits) 14:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
This seems/strikes me as original research/synthesis. If you want to make a point that she uses lots of names or whatever, provide reliable sources which discuss that "issue" and start a seperate section for it. Lets look at WP:NCP and WP:UCN and hopefully some "lawyers" will also comment :) --Tom 15:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I looked at all those pages and more and through the talk page archives back a year or more and didn't see anything particularly relevant to this case. I think it's fairly rare for someone to have like 8 different names. — raeky (talk | edits) 15:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Original research would be if we made a statement about having lots of names without a reference, just listing them isn't original research. I created a talk topic about this here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Odd_problem_with_multiple_legal_names which hopefully some people with more experience about this can weigh in there. — raeky (talk | edits) 15:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe take it to the WP:BLPN board, more eyes there? --Tom 15:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Yep it's at: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Odd_problem_with_multiple_legal_names now. — raeky (talk | edits) 15:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Man you have quick fingers :) Thanks, --Tom 15:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure that's something I want to be known for.. lol. — raeky (talk | edits) 15:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Why not just redirect the article to Suleman octuplets and be done with it? (but not before protecting the redirect) the page is one big BLP violation, not just the naming issue. Physchim62 (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Because of the clear consensus that she needs her own page, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nadya_Suleman — raeky (talk | edits) 15:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say at a bare minimum the following should be listed: 'Nadya Dodd' (yearbook and court document reference), 'Natalie Denise Suleman' as the full name (referenced by court document). And whatever the most common married name reference was. Not sure if it would of been Nadya or Natalie though. — raeky (talk | edits) 15:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

My mistake the yearbook says Natalie Dodd whereas the court document says Nadya Dodd. Maybe both? — raeky (talk | edits) 15:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't it make as much sense to just redirect all her alternate names to this article? The name she got famous as is the one people will search for, what other names she might have gone by is not really that important. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Probably the ones that are actually cited in news articles, and the most prevalent ones should probably be in the article. — raeky (talk | edits) 23:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to readdress this, the above outside opinion I asked for yielded the suggestion "Nadya (or Natalie) Dodd (or Doud) Gutierrez Suleman. Or at the very list only list ones where solid references exist for. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

911 "Suicide" Call Sources

Someone may wish to incorporate this source:

  • "911 tape: Octuplet mom frantic in search for son". The Associated Press. 4 March 2009. Retrieved 5 March 2009.

Bongomatic 02:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ohh my, looking into it, btw your link is wrong, heres a correct one: "911 tape: Octuplet mom frantic in search for son". The Associated Press. 4 March 2009. Retrieved 5 March 2009. — raeky (talk | edits) 02:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Usually that would be a good idea, although AP is a wire service and google is just publishing what was sent over the wire for archive purpose. AP doesn't archive them on their site, a link from there will go dead fairly quickly I noticed while maintaining links on these articles. For websites like AP that invalidate links after a few weeks a more permanent source should be obtained, Google's archive is probably one of the best I think. — raeky (talk | edits) 03:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Bongomatic 03:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
That article is quite frightening, since she was pregnant with the octuplets when she was talking about killing herself, in front of the other children. If custody does become an issue with CPS, I'm sure this won't do her any good. I donno how to add it to the article at the moment. With the AfD I think we should attempt to limit the number of highly negative info we add, even though I don't think there is any positive to be found. It's a sad sad case. :( — raeky (talk | edits) 02:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Google's archive is not permanent. Superm401 - Talk 00:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm.. I've noticed articles on AP's site though don't last long just maintaining the links on this page. Any better solution? — raeky (talk | edits) 00:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
You'll need a series of seriously reliable secondary sources for this to be considered to be added. — raeky (talk | edits) 02:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Here is another source on the "going to kill myself" 911 call, namely MSNBC -- Octuplet mom says hormones drove her to make frantic 911 call. -- cat yronwode (not logged in, sorry) 64.142.90.33 (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's a third source on the 911 suicide threat call, from USA Today -- Octuplet mom defends 911 rant. -- cat yronwode (still not logged in, sorry) 64.142.90.33 (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was Speedy Close— raeky (talk | edits) 16:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It has been repeatedly suggested at the AfD that the article on the octuplets be merged here, as the mother is actually the notable person, and the octuplets haven't "done" anything aside from being born, and aren't likely to do anything else anytime soon since they are newborn infants. Opinions? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's all one topic, and the mother is the principal.   Will Beback  talk  18:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I still favor separate articles, but if there is a merger the octuplets should redirect here, she is the most notable of the two events, by far. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Concur with the above, if a merger is desirable, the octuplets article should become a section here. Xasodfuih (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm, it's been repeatedly suggested at the AfD debate that the merger should be the other way! This merger "debate" is ridiculous and I shall change the templates accordingly. Physchim62 (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Both things have been suggested, I tagged it the way I did because that's what I am suggesting, so it has been suggested, and seconded, and thirded, at the AfD. We are having a discussion to determine what to do, change the templates if you insist, it makes no difference. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • No merge. See my arguments (and those of others) at the AfD. Bongomatic 20:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy close this discussion in favor of no merge. See the AfD to satisfy yourself this is the consensus view. Bongomatic 07:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge'. Right now Suleman is only famous for giving birth to the kiddos. She is not famous of her own accord & as we cannot see into the future, we do not know if she will ever become famous outside of the controversy. I'm proposing that the two articles be merged & renamed Suleman Octoplet Controversey because that fits it best. Any & everything in the news relating to Suleman herself is because of the octoplet controversey. Neither she nor the children deserve their own article because neither of them will likely be relevant after the controversey finally dies down. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Tokyogirl79
This logic is not correct. The fact that media attention on her stems from only one event doesn't mean that her notability is for one event. If you take time to read coverage of her, you will see that many aspects of her life are covered as topics of stories, not simply as background for stories about the octuplets. You might not like it (I certainly don't), but it's there in black and white. Bongomatic 07:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Not really. Consensus was the this article be kept, but a lot of voters suggested merging one way or another, so we should discuss the possibility. The more I think about it, the less I care, frankly. If a merger was to occur, however, I do think the octuplets article should be merged here, for the reasons I stated above. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

merge- no need for an article on the octoplets as they haven't personally done anything. The article should be renamed in accordance with how we usually name things now for BLP reasons, to something like "Suleman (or whatever more impersonal name) octoplets controversy" and merged. Sticky Parkin 15:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge She became notable because of the octoplets so no need to have duplicate articles about the same subject. This family has been subject of public hate and death threats so we should have one article that can be closely monitor to meet the standards of WP:BLP. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

  • This is *only* discussing merging the octuplets page INTO this one, not the other way around, refer to the AfD discussions if you think this violates BLP or any other notability policies. I firmly don't think the octuplets should merge here, it should remain separate to be in-line with all the other multi-birth pages. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment: No offense, but this sort of comment, without any reference to policy, guideline, or even thought process is totally useless in assisting in the determination of a course of action. This is not a vote. Bongomatic 05:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Again, that's not what this merge is about, it's the other way around. The mother is far more notable then the children, but due to wikipedia customs (having a page about notable multiple-births the octuplet page should remain (They're notable on two accounts, second set in the united states, and worlds longest surviving set of octuplets). — raeky (talk | edits) 05:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Note For some info on how the ONEEVENT policy is actually used (or not used more likely): Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#One_event:_actually_policy.3F — raeky (talk | edits) 05:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Closed because the topic of a merge was only contemplated because of the chance the AfD would come back as a merge/delete. Now that the AfD is keep, there is no need for a merger, both pages stand on their own merit. — raeky (talk | edits) 16:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

InfoBox

Resolved
 – Infobox added, names can be listed until that issue is resolved. -- Banjeboi 12:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This edit where a user is adding a big infobox I think is unnecessary for this page. It's not providing anything useful that can't be gained by a quick read and just clutters up the page. Any opinions on this? — raeky (talk | edits) 22:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I would re-add it. Infoboxes help sort out specific dry data that in many cases is spread throughout an article and helps standardize related articles, like all BLPs. Infoboxes are also used by bots to pull data and extrapolate some work flows. The infobox doesn't have to be there but it usually helps clean up and article. -- Banjeboi 22:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe.. but for such a small article as it is now it just seems like clutter. Maybe we could agree on what info should go in it, listing all her kids I think isn't necessary. — raeky (talk | edits) 22:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Even the shortest bios have them, I do agree leave off the names though, maybe list simply fourteen children or __ daughters, __ sons. Their names likely should not be listed unless they are individually notable as they are minors. -- Banjeboi 23:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
They're listed in the pages because they're "widely disseminated" and meet that criteria of WP:BLP (we had this discussion already, see octuplet's talk page). I don't think the moniker should be in the infobox and shes notable for more then octupets. (commenting on whats there now), same editor keeps readding it and doesn't seem to want to discuss it here first... *sigh* — raeky (talk | edits) 06:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The Names

Until policy changes (admin addressing it now here) which would be a pretty broad sweeping policy affecting likely thousands of pages then the names should remain since they're not in violation of Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy of names. — raeky (talk | edits) 19:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't changing policy as much as ensuring we're following the letter and or spirit of it. I'm not terribly bothered either way as long as we get it right and do no harm. -- Banjeboi 12:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Should the fertility doctor be discussed?

Someone deleted references to the fertility doctor, and stated that it has no references to a biographical article. I am in support of his name and credential be discussed. Why? To alleviate the blame of the public on the moral dilemma on Nadya alone. The physician is equally if not more at fault for the strings of ethical issues often blamed on Nadya. Therefore, the discussion should be left, and not deleted. Please share your opinion on whether it should be deleted. --Northerncedar (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Sounds like you should read WP:SOAP. "To alleviate blame" is not a reason to edit an article. The doctor is being investigated, but until some results are produced, there's not much to say. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This article is about the person that is the mother, not just the octuplets or the "controversy" about them. The doctor does not deserve his own section in a biographical article about the mother -- he in and of himself is not a major part of her life; he's only relevant by way of the octuplets and is already adequately discussed on the octuplets article (which is where the material in question appears to have been copied from and which this article already links to). --Cybercobra (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Possibley a mention, but not a section, that is for sure. Tom 22:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

POV "Controversies" section

Resolved
 – Boldly merged. -- Banjeboi 03:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversies sections are inherently POV and on BLPs especially problematic. All the useful information should instead be moved into appropriate sections. and the header deleted. The articles and our readers will thank you! -- Banjeboi 12:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The controversies is the meat of this story and the focus of the public's interest, if we filter them into the body of the page then it would be more of a POV problem wouldn't it? By putting them under a header you at least know they're controversial. Plus everything is (or should be) very well sourced, so it's not a BLP violation. — raeky (talk | edits) 19:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's the meat of the Octuplets' story but certainly should be summarized here. I suggest moving all the remaining stuff to the octuplet section. Then, per wp:lede, summarize the whole controversy in the lede. Perhaps, like most octuplet births this received widespread news media coverage. Public opinion began to sway negatively as reports about Suleman's previous children and financial status was linked with the financial crisis of California and that taxpayers would be subsidizing the children's care. -- Banjeboi 12:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a lot that needs mentioned... I don't think the lead section is the place to put it all? The controversy surrounds the mother not the kids, for the most part. — raeky (talk | edits) 17:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I reworked the lede so it's ok for now but everything in the "controversies" section is directly tied to the octuplets. -- Banjeboi 03:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Unresolved
 – — raeky (talk | edits) 11:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't just be marking things as "Resolved" when there isn't any consensus to do what your doing. There is so much contraversy in this case it can't all be summerized and minimized in a paragraph in the lead! Let's address the ones that need added that haven't yet. — raeky (talk | edits) 11:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The only content that was there was kept intact and simply moved under the Octuplets section. Nothing was deleted except the heading which itself is problematic. I know the exist on other articles but "controversy sections" (like "trivia" sections) are discouraged and are a sign of a poorly written article. better to adress it now before it become a BLP hitlist of shame. -- Banjeboi 02:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Phil & Angels in Waiting

At around the 20th of February(don't have exact date yet) Dr. Phil taped his interview with her. During the interview a group called Angels in Waiting made an offer "round-the-clock care and a place to stay with her 14 children." She didn't commit to this offer during the show and when she didn't the group became concerned and hired attorney Gloria Allred and went public with the offer and expressing their concern for the children's welfare.[6][7][8] Arround the 2nd of March "Angels in Waiting" and Gloria Allred announced that she officially declined "because the group declined her request to include a reality tv show with the deal." Angels expressed their concern that a reality-TV show could endanger the welfare of the children with increased risk of infection with all the additional people arround and only wanted to do what was best for the children. She declined their help because she hopes to get a TV deal.[9][10]

Of course this is all my prose, and not written to be encyclopedic but the references speak for themselves. This wouldn't belong on the children's page but on hers, and it's a pretty big controversy. — raeky (talk | edits) 11:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If notable for this article, add into the octuplet section. -- Banjeboi 02:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Half million dollar home

Sources [11][12][13] report that she's just purchaced a over half million dollar four bedroom home with the help of her parents. Yet she is still unemployed. — raeky (talk | edits) 11:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to b a controversy at all. This should amend the current lede to show Suleman utilized the media frenzy to secure financing for a larger home. -- Banjeboi 02:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Birth Tape For Sale

Plenty of sources [14][15][16][17] out there now that she's shopping around for bids a video tape of the birth. Giving private showings to prospective bidders even. — raeky (talk | edits) 11:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If notable for this article, add into the octuplet section. -- Banjeboi 02:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

www.nadyasuleman.biz

This page was recently added as a ref. Compare the page with the wikipedia article as it stood at the end of 1 March. One is copying the other—which way round is it? Mr Stephen (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

We're not copying that, I've watched this article evolve since it was first made, I assure you. Also that website is a big copyright law-suit waiting to happen, TONS of copyright violations in the pictures used. We won't be linking to that page here. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Not a reliable source, then. Mr Stephen (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
You can tell that before you even go to the page, just the url is a dead give away. — raeky (talk | edits) 13:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I wish I could remember what article this happened at so I could link it, but anyway: About a year and a half ago, there was information in a bio article that was sourced to the New York Times. Other sources later proved this information to be false, and the Times, in it's defense, said that the information was also in the Wikipedia article, apparently not noticing that they themselves were Wikipedia's source for that information, which had since been removed since it was known to be false. When you freely license all content for anyone to quote and re-use, it can get very confusing sometimes, and the web has many different sites that mirror Wikipedia, try checking out Google Knol sometime, it's mostly copy/pasted from here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes, it happens, and keeping on top of it is a big problem at an 'current' articles like this. There was a dispute at Sacha Baron Cohen re his Persian heritage, with clear signs of information going from unverified WP stuff via a nominally reliable source back into WP. I think some of Gordon Brown's medical history made the same trip. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Nadya Suleman Mentally Ill?

Nadya admitted in one of her TV interviews to have OCD (Obcessive Compulsion Disorder) and many ppl, including her mother have quentioned Nadya's sanity. Like to see something about this in the article. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless theres MULTIPLE RELIABLE media sources for that, it won't be included. We have to be very careful about blp violations and libel. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The article is up at WP:AFD again already partially because of BLP concerns, so I strongly agree with Raeky, we have to be very careful here. Also, I know this sounds kind of weird, but I don't think Ms. Suleman is a reliable source, even about her own life. She clearly has a somewhat skewed perspective, and may be self-diagnosing the OCD. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
She has discussed suicide with an emergency dispatcher, according to [18]. Superm401 - Talk 23:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Plenty of people have contemplated or even attempted suicide without ever being diagnosed as mentally ill. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but how many of them decided to go ahead with fertility treatments after already having six kids, no parental figure, and no steady source of income? PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Extended Family

Changed "The octuplets' maternal grandfather" to "Suleman's father." Reasons: 1) Old phrasing was confusing; new phrasing is clear, 2) Neutrality. Previous phrasing made it easy to misread such that it could seem as if the octuplets had support from a grandfather unrelated to Suleman.Schwin47 (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was likely a holdover where it was copy & pasted from the octuplet's page. — raeky (talk | edits) 08:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Nadya Suleman's Religion

1. Her first and last name are Islamic. 2. Religion is an important part of anyone's biography. 3. Can anyone verify her religion? Or her parents' religion?

Not sure why these questions ^^^ are unsigned (I didn't post this question) but I've been wondering this too. If her father is Islamic, then the religion considers all children to be Muslim until they convert. I posed this question HERE but after almost 3000 views, no one has posted an answer. (If U Google, "Nadya Suleman" + Religion, my question pops up #3.) Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

External references?

Is it appropriate to add a link to the official website for the family? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.105.160 (talk) 06:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

We discussed it here Talk:Nadya_Suleman/Archive_1#.22Official.22_donation_website, if that's the website your referring to she apparently doesn't want it or want donations, according to provided references. I still think that website isn't relevant to this article. — raeky (talk | edits) 11:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Octo-mom

It should be mentioned that she is widely known as the Octo-mom in the media, whether she likes it or not, whether it is a 'media moniker' or not.Troyster87 (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree it should be mentioned somewhere in the article, not necessarily in the lead, if there is a good source for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Theres quite a few articles on foxnews's website that use the term, [19], since they're one of the media leaders I'd say it would make a good source for it's use. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I also agree it should be mentioned somewhere, it's used by virtually every media outlet now, even the major ones. Probably also is a good idea to make a redirect page for octomom and octo-mom. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. It should be mentioned in the article. However, after her name in the 1st sentence is highly disrespectful and sensationalistic. Nohars (talk) 05:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The situation has changed, shes apparently using this name herself even attempting to get it trademarked. So I definitely disagree with your opinion that its "highly disrespectful and sensationalistic" — raeky (talk | edits) 14:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Edit: apparently redirects already exist, good. :P — raeky (talk | edits) 00:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with adding the term "octomom". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octomomfail (talk • contribs) 01:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting username, remember we're neutral here with our articles. — raeky (talk | edits) 01:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried adding it to the lead but it kept being removed.Troyster87 (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We haven't decided how to add it yet, or to even add it. Might be best to wait until after the AfD decision. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Lets revisit this, if we're going to use this nickname, then should it's current placement be appropriate, it should probably come after her proper name(s) in the led sentence. See the section about all her known proper names below and put your opinion there as well! — raeky (talk | edits) 06:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Has Suleman expressed an opinion? Can she trademark the term? I see someone applied for a trademark on March 12th for the term's use in computer games, on toys, and in wireless communication services. The term was coined (I believe) by the New York Post. — Doppo145 (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I've come round to the view that since so many of the press accounts refer to her by this name, it is appropriate to mention it in the lead. The way it is introduced now is not very good. "Octomom" is not a neologism, it is a nickname given by the media, as evidenced by the article itself, stating that this term "came into usage specifically referring to her." Calling it a neologism would be like saying Son of Sam meant any serial killer, when it only refers to Berkowitz. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, and I can't wait to see what kind of toys and video games "Super Happy Fun Fun, Inc." has in mind, but even if they do get the trademark, we can still use it in the article, like any other trademarked term. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

With this recent edit, I didn't revert it. I think we should readdress putting it in the lead sentence. It really is highly referenced and all major news outlets use it. Any objections to leaving this (and probably putting a couple solid references for it's use)? — raeky (talk | edits) 07:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

She was dubbed octomom first by reporter Terri-Rae Elmer of KFI AM Radio (640) in Los Angeles. While others have claimed credit, she can be documented as the first to use the term by contacting the station. She used it within minutes of reporting the news first. She says she always wanted to be remembered for contributing something to humanity, but isn't all that happy that the term "octomom" is that contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.63.102 (talk) 06:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This would need verifiable reliable sources, either way, it's fairly unimportant who came up with the moniker in context of this article. — raeky (talk | edits) 19:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that she has moved to register Octomom as her trademark [20], it is now her self-declared brand name, and not a media moniker. Change our text? --70.31.219.9 (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats not really a reliable source for a BLP, if we can find the actual trademark applications on the government's website then that would work, maybe, or a more reliable news outlet reporting on it not a rumor from another site. — raeky (talk | edits) 19:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Birth date for Nadya

Her birth certificate was obtained and the date is 11 July 1975. www.astro.com/astro-databank/Suleman%2C_Nadya —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.43.105 (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source which we need to include in the article. — raeky (talk | edits) 02:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed today the birth date is back, did we ever get a reliable source for her birthday? I'm removing it because I don't think we do? — raeky (talk | edits) 00:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Nadya's Date of Birth

Nadya's date of birth on ALL 14 birth certificates is listed as 7/11/1975. These are actual copies of the birth certificates. [21] If this is not a recognized verifiable source, then could you please confirm where date of birth 10/12/75 originated from as it is obviously incorrect. - jadedkisses —Preceding unsigned comment added by jadedkisses (talk • contribs)

We've been looking for a reliable source for her birthday, and people keep adding things. I just noticed it was back again, so I removed it again. I don't think you're PDF will work for a reliable source for this article. BLP articles have to have rock solid sources. Can you provide where you got that link to the PDF, possibly the site linking to it is a RS. Otherwise I'm afraid we can't add her birth date based on that PDF alone (could be fake). — raeky (talk | edits) 00:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It is TMZ. http://www.tmz.com/2009/02/19/octuplets-octomom-birth-certificates/ All the children's birth certificates are listed.

Where did the birth date of 10/12/75 come from? I have been unable to find anything that confirms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadedkisses (talk • contribs) 01:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, sometimes edits get in and no one catches it for a few days. If you go back through the history you can find who added it. I'm not sure TMZ qualifies as a reliable source for a BLP though. Best we find this in a better source before we add it though. — raeky (talk | edits) 02:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
If you Zabasearch Nadya Suleman of CA you see they have a record from 2004 saying she was born in 1975 and is 33. However Intelius search Nadya Doud of CA, which she supposedly used in high school and it says she is 31. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satanico (talk • contribs) 17:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Which is why until a highly reliable source quotes it we're not adding it to the article per WP:BLP sourcing rules. — raeky (talk | edits) 03:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Nadya Suleman began IVF treatments in 2001 from Doctor Michael Kamrava. In each of her six pregnancies she was implanted with six embryos.[12]

Beyond Nadya's claim, no proof has been provided that she was implanted with six embryos for each of her IVF treatments. It seems she made this claim to help justify her and her doctor's decision to implant the six embryos that resulted in the octuplets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.123.25 (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Who is listed as the father on the birth certificates of Nadya's 1st 6 children? If she was still legally married to her first husband, is he legally the father? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PoloQT (talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A made-up name as far as I can tell from the sources I remember. Definitely NOT her ex-husband, both admit that. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Christian

How come there are no mentions of this woman being Christian? Somehow her father's nationality is relevant but her Christian faith is not even mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.57.238.170 (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  • There is a discussion about this in the archives. There didn't seem to be any mention of her religion in any reliable sources. If that has changed, feel free to add the information to the article, as I do think it is relevant, although as I said at the time, I can't imagine any religion endorsing what she has done. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Children privacy- BLP issue

Who cares about the names of the children (these are not the Octuplets) This is not TMZ.com, and we should have a little respect for the privacy of the innocents. If a reality shows comes up, end of story and their privacy. But these names doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Can we have some type of decency, can we write encyclopedic material without harming children? --Jmundo (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Their mother has already done the alleged "harm" by deliberately courting media attention. The names are a matter of public record and have been reported in the media. How exactly is it indecent and harmful to reprint them here? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Fine, can you find reliable sources where the names of the other children (not the octuplets) are mention in the media in a significant way? Remember that WP:BLP is clear about the privacy of non-notable individuals. --Jmundo (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't realized you meant only the non-octuplets, (I guess I must have just "skimmed" your original post) that might have made a difference in the past. Unfortunately however, the reality tv show that the entire family will star in begins filming in about three weeks, so the point seems rather moot now since they will be plastered all over a sleazy tv station near you this fall. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The inclusion of the names of minors was discussed IN DETAIL here, as for meeting the 'widely disseminated there may be a case for the older children's names not being widely disseminated, but here is a reference where she is quoted herself revealing their names and ages [22], likewise with the upcoming promotional material and tv show it's self the case for widely disseminated would be pretty strong. Anyway I added the names back until theres a stronger consensus that they don't meet the criteria as of yet. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Implant" should be transfer instead

All the references to doctors "implanting" X number of embryos into Ms. Suleman are erroneous. Physicians transfer embryos during the IVF process; they do not implant. Only nature (or God) decides whether an embryo will implant into the uterine lining or not. Sometimes the embryos "take" (i.e. implant), sometimes they do not. Sometimes embryos will split before implantation, as was the case with Ms. Suleman.

Would someone please fix this article by changing all the "implant"s to "transfer"s? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJLouise (talk • contribs) 01:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"Octo-Mom: The Incredible Unseen Footage"

This video is going to be problematic. Yes it's direct source information for quotes, but we're going to have to be CAREFUL the quotes is accurate and backed up with proper start & end times for when they're in the video. 3rd party reliable sources are going to be needed to back up ANY opinion on her actions or statements. This article is under close scrutiny for WP:BLP violations and we need to be extra careful. This isn't a news website, we have the luxury of taking our time, let the news outlets digest the video and produce some reliable commentary on it that we can use to pull as sources. I'll actively revert and warn for any addition that isn't properly sourced and in compliance with BLP rules. — raeky (talk | edits) 13:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

As for watching the video if you haven't already it can be viewed here for the time being: http://www.hulu.com/watch/90763/octomom-the-incredible-unseen-footage — raeky (talk | edits) 13:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Litigation

Should the litigation regarding the children's guardianship and TV contract(s) be referenced in the article?

Sources for this information can easily be verified. For example, a reference to this court decision should perhaps be included. [1] 173.51.174.39 (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)CLiz

(a) that's considered a primary source and should not be used in BLP articles, specificly court documents can cause problems. We'd need reliable secondary sources to back up the addition of the material. (b) This is probably most relevent in the Suleman Octuplets page instead of her page if the court battle is arround custody of the children. — raeky (talk | edits) 00:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Surname

Isn't it somewhat odd that the mother is surnamed Suleman, while the children seem to be surnamed Solomon? Dagtho (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. She's a Suleman and they're Solomon; similar surnames. Anyway, apparently that's the sperm donor's actual last name, so it stays. It doesn't have much to do with the article itself. ★Dasani★ 20:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Nadya's date of birth

Again, Wikipedia has Nadya's birth date listed as Oct 12 1975. It should be removed.

I realize in the summary it shows both dates but in the box it clearly states her date of birth as Oct 12 1975.

ALL 14 of the children's birth certificates show her date of birth as July 11, 1975.

Until her date of birth can be confirmed to be different than on the birth certificates (IMO) the date Oct 12 1975 should not be posted as fact. This just causes bloggers and everyone else to spread all over the Internet that her date of birth is Oct 12 1975. The date, at the very least, should be left blank or just have the year 1975.

Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.145.138.245 (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Not really relevant to the article, but I've got to say why anyone gives a crap what her birthday is and why they would "spread it around" the internet is beyond me. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree, and Beeblebrox, it has nothing to do about giving a crap about this horrible waste of a woman's birthday. It's the simple fact of stating unverifiable information on Wiki which is a rampant problem.

I am going to remove the Oct 15 birthday from the infobox. Without a proper citation and the fact that the article itself is unsure... it is against Wiki policy to post unverifiable info. Someone can re-add a proper date if they have a verifiable citation.24.190.34.219 (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

According to California birth records available on Ancestry.com, Natalie D Suleman was born on 11 July 1975 in Orange County to a mother with the maiden name Stanaitis. Marriage records from Nevada on the Ancestry.com show Edward D Suleman married Angela V Stanaitis on 10 November 1974 in Clark County. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.142.27 (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Link? And are you 100% sure the "Natalie D Suleman" listed on that page is the "Nadya Suleman" the page refers too? Shes gone under so many different names... Also not sure Ancestry.com counts as a reliable source? — raeky (talk | edits) 17:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
[Ancestry.com] records may not be viewable to those without a subscription, but the information in their database is sourced directly from the "State of California Department of Health Services, Center for Health Statistics, Sacramento, CA". The unique surnames involved, especially in the mother's maiden name given and the matching date with those known on her children's birth certificates should be considered as indicating the same person. Theoretically, every person born in California between 1905-1995 is contained in the database. [Citation #2] on her page also shows that in her high school yearbook she had gone by Natalie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.234.135.34 (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was no consensus. -- — raeky (talk | edits) 16:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Suleman octuplets article contains very little information which is not already in this one. I propose that the two articles be merged: essentially, they are the same topic. Until they grow older, there is nothing to say about the octuplets which is not about Nadya Suleman. (It's arguable that Suleman octuplets should be the primary article, with Nadya Suleman as the redirect - but etiher way, I don't see why we need two articles here.) Robofish (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I suggested this some time ago, but the conversation was closed without any real conclusion. It's in the archive. I essentially don't care if the two articles are merged, but if they are I do think the octuplets article should be merged here, as the mother is the one who has by far been in the public eye the most. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I still think they should be seperate, maybe some of the repeated details about the twins should be removed from this article... — raeky (talk | edits) 22:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Children's Names?

Shouldn't the article include the children's names? 24.107.137.117 (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

They was deleted because we've apparently lost the original source that had them deleted and an admin deleted them. Didn't want to fight it, but one of the sources we had at one point had them all listed. — raeky (talk | edits) 17:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The children's names can be found here: http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_11674892 Alanasings (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Nadya Denise Doud-Suleman Gutierrez (born Natalie Denise Suleman)

any source that that is her current name?--209.181.16.93 (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you not allowing edits?

Multiple things need to be added to this page. Why are edits prohibited? Page is very biased as is.Jr1966 (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)jr1966

Users keep constantly adding POV (biased) edits, adding information only tangentially related to Nadya, and making additions that add undue weight. With regard to living people, we are hyper-protective of the articles both to protect the person and to protect the project. Given how high profile this person is and how opinions about her can be rather extreme, it's easier to just protect the article in advance than hoping to catch it later.
If you have any proposed changes to the article, make suggestions here and, if they are edits for like spelling or grammar and/or don't violate WP:BLP policy, they will be added. For instance, what about the page do you feel is "very biased"? Remember we err on the side of not adding material to articles about living persons, especially criticism or praise, than we do of adding it, especially if the sources are not exceptionally reliable. --132 03:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Work/Professional

When did she work as a psychiatric technician? Was she awarded compensation benefits for her back injury & does she still receive them? (She seems to have a full range-of-motion life for someone with a back injury, evidently serious enough to preclude working.) 138.162.128.53 (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

link number 10 no longer works--

^ Powers, Lindsay (TUESDAY MARCH 3, 2009). "Octuplet Mom's Ex: We Split Because We Couldn't Have Kids" (HTML). usmagazine.com. Us Weekly. http://www.usmagazine.com/news/octo-moms-ex-we-split-because-we-couldnt-have-kids-200933. Retrieved 2009-03-04.

172.190.2.196 (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(and link 11 works fine. haven't looked at the others.) 172.190.2.196 (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

last name

The beginning of the article states that she was born with the last name Suleman but also states that her parents' last names are Doud. Then later in the article her parents are referred to as Suleman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eolandra (talk • contribs) 14:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

court testimony gives new information

This article needs to be updated per new testimony give at trial for Suleman's doctor, Michael Kamrava on 10-18-10. Per testimony, by State of California's medical witness, 12 embryos were implanted. Suleman has 29 frozen embryos currently in storage despite her claims that she wanted to use up her embryos. Suleman never used frozen embryos; she insisted on fresh embryos everytime. There were several harvests of egg for which there was no implantation. What is the reason for banking of frozen eggs? Was Suleman selling her eggs? Suleman requested "twins" in 2002 when her youngest child was 4 months old. State's witness says that should have resulted in a mental health evaluation. Suleman had 13 IVF's at an average cost of $18,000 each for a total of $234,000.00. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.156.241 (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Either provide a source for this information or I will completely remove this message as a violation of WP:BLP. --132 04:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
How's this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39755603 http://www.freep.com/article/20101019/ENT07/101019025 74.160.195.183 (talk)

Information about the doctor is irrelevant on her article. Only information specifically about Suleman is acceptable here. Neither of these sources supports any of your claims above. The only one that touches close is her use of frozen embryos and that information is already in the article. --132 18:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't bother to navigate to those websites. (Let's not make the mistake of thinking everything on internet appears as the same thing to all users.) In any case, why not explain what information you found at those websites, and why you would certify them as true (or perhaps false), and then explain how they appear to relate to the Nadya Suleman article here at Wikipedia? Yes, that may seem tedious, but if you will do this, it makes the information easier to usher into the main page of this article. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Unless something is explicitly stated in a source, it can't be used. Period. I'm honestly not sure what the previous poster was trying to get included in the article, but any info still has to be reliably sourced to be included. Adding it before then will lead to a revert and, subsequent additions could lead to a block. --132 14:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Citing URLs and websites is a lot like citing IP addesses, they don't mean much to people who don't bother to use 'em to go places. Same thing with any of many internets that pass different data to different carriers, often avoiding the DNS in preference of their own private relays. At worst, put the URL's at the bottom of the page in the form of a footnote. You won't get as much arguing about footnotes pretending to be authoritative, even when they aren't. Look at the main page of this article. Footnotes all over the place. Like here. But did you ever check them? Now tell me how you checked them. For goodness sake, you weren't just clicking your mouse on them, and assuming that was good enough to check them? Appearances may be deceiving. That brings up, in turn, the issue of your browser's source code which some companies are curiously opposed to release. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Does Nadya Suleman smoke?

The main page of this article would be improved if it discussed whether Nadya Suleman has ever been seen smoking, and when she first started smoking, if ever. When she worked at that bar in early October, did anyone see her smoke? Naturally, including references with a citation would be a good point. Otherwise, be bold and make a guess. Having a little bit of information to go on, is better than none. If the information is clearly erroneous, someone will help by coming along and correcting it. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Being bold and guessing will lead to a swift removal. We don't include original research. Either find a source or stop pushing this. This is an article about a living person and we don't take unsourced comments lightly. --132 14:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Smoking is a significant (and highly volatile) healthcare issue. You (or someone using your account) keeps deleting this inquiry. Stop playing like telephonic harassment is an innocent matter. In 1997 and 1998, Federal Judge Royce Lamberth was an extremely heavy smoker. At least in the state of Oregon, telephonic harassment is a matter that is actionable in court. Even if it isn't actionable in a civil proceeding (because of the potential or possible disclosure of state secrets), it's still a serious matter. The issue of Nadya Suleman's smoking is worth inquiring into, at least in the "discussion" page of this article. Trying to push it over to a User Page associated with my account (instead of dealing with it here where it belongs) may strike you as something fun and diverting, and even amusing or hilarious, it is nevertheless also telephonic harassment, calculated to cause me annoyance and distress, and at that there is also a probable Federal dimension. Do you really want to push the envelope, and see where it takes you? You aren't anonymous. You can be identified. I want to know if anyone has seen Nadya Suleman smoke. Answering these questions here will help people use the answers to improve the main page of this article. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 96.254.174.97, 23 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Dr. Kamrava has admitted now at a hearing that he transferred 12 fresh embryos to Ms. Suleman in the IVF that resulted in octuplets, not 6 frozen embryos as she previously claimed. Dr. Kamrava transferred 12 fresh embryos at her insistence he says, and only after she agreed to selective reduction of anything more than triplets. After the transfer Ms. Suleman 'disappeared' and would not return his calls. He heard of the octuplets birth on the news only after they were born. He testified he tried to convince her to use her frozen embryos during her repeated IVFs, (and at a fraction of the cost of fresh cycles), but she always insisted on fresh cycles and in fact has 29 frozen embryos left over. It has been revealed at the hearing Ms. Suleman had 12 cycles of IVF at a cost of approximately $18,000 each, while receiving Medical, food stamps, SSI, and other public aid. 96.254.174.97 (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -Atmoz (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 96.254.174.97, 23 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} 2 references for previous edit request - http://dailyme.com/story/2010102100005071/octomom-nadya-suleman-advice-doctor-testifies.html http://www.ocregister.com/news/suleman-272110-kamrava-embryos.html 96.254.174.97 (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Even with the sources, this feels like something that I'd be cautious adding to a BLP. Please read over our policy on biographies of living persons and seek consensus on this page before relisting the edit. elektrikSHOOS 08:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Porn Choice

Though Ms. Suleman told Oprah that she did not intend to star in porn, a video has recently been released showing the woman wearing a dominatrix outfit and whipping a grown man dressed as an infant. Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdok (talk • contribs) 07:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That man seems to be no other than Ron Jeremy. Or, it's a good lookalike. 82.141.119.79 (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Number of Children

Ms. Suleman has 14 children. However the article mentions her first two children (2001 and 2002) but then jumps to her octuplets in 2009. There is no mention of the other four children she had before the octuplets. Does anyone have any information on those children? Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Aidan: Father - David Solomon Born in CA 4/25/1973 Joshua: Father - David Solomon Born in CA 6/25/1975 Amerah: Father - David Solomon Born in ISRAEL 5/25/1975 Caleb: (No father listed but Mother is listed as Natalie instead of Nadya) Elijah: Father - David Solomon Born in CA 5/25/1973 Calyssa: (No father listed but Mother is listed as Natalie instead of Nadya) Isaiah: (No father listed) Octuplets: (No father listed) Birth Certificates of all 14 linked in footnote: [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Table4One (talk • contribs) 12:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Nadya or Natalie?

Is it ever explained how Suleman's name transformed from Natalie to Nadya? The article states she was born Natalie but somehow wound up changing her given name to Nadya. I noticed a similar effect in Dina Lohan, who was born Donata. Are these women allowed to change their names upon marriage, or was it just something that took place not relevant to their marriages (ex. simplicity for pronunciation and/or writing)? Thanks in advance. Estheroliver (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't a person allowed to change her/his name whenever wants? As long the name is not a swear word etc. 82.141.119.79 (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

National Origin?

It is reported that Suleman's Iraqi father was of Jewish decent. Can anyone verify this? If true, I think it's worth mentioning as part of her bio. 71.132.140.178 (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Octomom Claims she's never been on public assistance

I think it's worth mentioning that at 1:25 in the video embedded in this article, she claims that she's "never been on public assistance, and never will be". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.78.187 (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This Article is a clear violation of NPOV

It even used the word "infamy" in referring to the actions of the Octomom. It doesn't address the POV that once embryos were created they were human beings whose lives needed to be preserved. The article made unsubstantiated claims about public outrage. Surely the vast majority of the public observes this case & says, "My my, how interesting." It has not been documented that there is any serious number of persons who really care about the Octomom more than a serious yawn. Perhaps the article can confine itself to objectively reporting the facts. (EnochBethany (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC))

I'm going to remove the NPOV tag, these are not very good arguments. First it's well documented about the public outrage over her actions, new legislation was proposed to prevent it from happening, public protests, MASSIVE media coverage. The main-stream media doesn't spend days and produce tens of thousands of articles over something that doesn't capture wide public attention, it's a business after-all. Secondly a single-cell can hardly be considered "human beings whos lives need to be preserved" and this isn't the forum for discussing those issues. As for the use of infamy which means "extremely bad reputation, public reproach, or strong condemnation as the result of a shameful, criminal, or outrageous act" I firmly believe this word is an accurate description of the consensus of public opinion for her actions, plus it's not even currently used in the article. — raekyt 15:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This page has been semi-protected for six months

Shortcut

This page has been semi-protected for six months. Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view). Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has ten or more edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to a semi-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. They may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions. If you require further clarification, please contact me directly on my talk page. Thanks. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in the Wikipedia entry about Ms. Suleman regarding number of transferred embryos

I believe it should be noted that in the recent trial of Nadya Suleman's IVF doctor, Dr. Kamrava, the Medical Board of California publicly released some of Suleman's medical records. They are no longer completely confidential. The reason this is important is that the medical record clearly established that Nadya Suleman had twelve embryos transferred. Per the medical records, Nadya Suleman demanded of the doctor that all twelve embryos be transferred. These facts override false statements by Ms. Suleman that she only had transferred six embryos. Please correct the inaccuracies in the Wikipedia entry. The references for this information are easily obtained for use in this article. It is understandable that Wikipedia treads carefully in biographies of living persons, but in this case accuracy has clearly been established in a court of law, and it is time to discard inaccuracies perpetuated by the subject of the biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.41.53.84 (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


Agreed and done. Just remember, it's possible nobody has worked on this article since this information comes to light. We are a humble squad of volunteers so please be kind :o) D unreal1 (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I notice that under section Children it still reads, "Suleman stated that in 2008 she had eight embryos left over from her previous IVF treatments." The footnote leads to a 404. So, is there evidence to support that she lied about the number repeatedly? Or, maybe we should correct this.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.155.11 (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Usage of IVF Terms

In the first paragraph of the "Octuplets" section it is repeatedly stated that the embryos were "implanted." This is not the correct word. Embryos are never implanted via IVF, the correct word is "transferred." 98.154.212.243 (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Is she considered an Arab-American? Just wondering. The term "Assyrian Iraqi American" in reference to her Father seems a tad uncommon. Thanks.
--Atikokan (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's based on sources, if thats what a reliable source says thats what we say. — raekyt 22:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

There is an error with her birth name. According to the source cited, her birth name was Natalie Doud, not Suleman. Perhaps someone could correct this oversite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmlachlan (talk • contribs) 00:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If you go back to previous versions there is A LOT of different last names listed in reliable sources for her, the article used to list quite a few of them and I think that's been narrowed down some. Birth name is different then current name, article will use her current name, and only mention birth name. — raekyt 22:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What's annoying me is that the author states that she had eight remaining embryos and then in the next breath says there were only six and that two of them must have split in to (two sets of twins that is). So what was it, 8 or 6? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.186.69 (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Which source? My recollection is that she had 8 remaining and all 8 was transplanted... — raekyt 22:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Two sets of identical twins, totalling four children. Four sibs from who knows what parentage? It's not that hard to add those up and recieve a total of eight. I'm not sure there are any good studies on the frequency of embryo-splittage twinning among IVF vs. natural mothers, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were increased frequencies there. Nevard (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Twinning in IVF I would suspect would probably be no more or less rare than in natural fertilization, and the only real way she would know is a genetic test which to my knowledge wasn't done. There are sources quoting her saying there was twins in the octuplets but I find that dubious without genetic tests to back it up, simply due to the odds, Doctor implanted 8 she got 8 fetuses, it would be rather VERY low chance that an egg didn't implant and she got twinning and still only managed to have 8 after 8 embryos was implanted... Probably more like an attempt to make her sound less insane to have 8 embryos implanted to say twinning occurred, implying that less than 8 was implanted... — raekyt 22:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Idol Gives Back?

Someone in the know should check the "Public Profile" section. In the discussion on her Oprah appearance someone put in that she was also on Idol Gives Back. Given the nature of that show, it's unlikely. If it is correct, the section makes no reference as to the context in which she appeared on the program. 70.72.223.215 (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Variations and enhansements to existing sexwork categorisations

These categorisations of course apply from her contracting to perform paid fetish and porn video sex work (the latter starting with solo masturbation, the first of which already has been shot and two more to come, being her overwhelmingly principal source of income. She started with the fetish porn in January and the harder porn stuff from just this last week. For sources google "Octomom first porn scene"{{subst:Unsigned|

When and if a reputable source picks up the story about Suleman being in a pornographic video, then we can report it and the categories can be added. Thus far, only blogs and gossip sites like D-Listed and TMZ are reporting on this. Neither of those are considered reliable sources. Further, I would be resistant to label someone who appeared fully clothed or even topless in a fetish video as a pornographic actor. Others might disagree, but that needs to be discussed on this talk page before the content is added. Pinkadelica♣ 18:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
On the misguidance of denying somebody's qualification as an actor because their second film hadn't been shot yet, we have no choice but to keep consistency with the example of Haing S. Ngor who has been acknowledged & awarded as an actor since his very first film. Not only was he never professionally an actor, his profession was that of a physician hence his academy award in the name of Dr Haing S Ngor — Preceding unsigned comment added by SajeArbeiter (talk • contribs) 18:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Uh, yeah we most certainly do have a choice. There are zero reliable sources to support the categories you and your buddies are attempting to shove in the article about a living person. In case you haven't read WP:BLP, go have a look. Unless you can find reliable sources to support the categories you want to add, stop adding them. There's no hurry to categorize Suleman as a pornographic actor so I have no idea what the problem is. Pinkadelica♣ 18:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Here's one from Yahoo news which explicitly confirms her status as a new "porn star"!
Yes it certainly does.SajeArbeiter (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps I am mistaken but aren't "adult models" ones that typically pose nude, etc.? I don't believe a person who appeared in a fetish video "whipping" a friend while seemingly fully clothed a falls into that category. This is why there's a problem with the category being added - it is a wee bit too broad and I do not think it defines the subject. It certainly isn't why she is notable. I suggest you guys hold up on this crusade and let the community weigh in on this matter. Pinkadelica♣ 18:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
No, no, nonsense. She's a fetish model and now also a porn model. We know that from her appearance in fetish gear which, sure, is clothing
For a WP:BLP to add controversial material like this we need ROCK SOLID 3RD PARTY RELIABLE SOURCES. TMZ and blog/opinion pieces are NOT what's necessary to include this information. None of these sources are anywhere NEAR good enough. I've requested temp full protection because these WP:SPA's are getting out of hand... — raekyt 19:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Reputable news agencies are taking a very conservative approach, for example ABC news is only stating that rumor on some websites state the porn thing, nothing confirmed. If you want to put info about the bankruptcy or house auction, then sure there's plenty of reliable sources for that, but the porn thing, it's not being reported on by mainstream media yet as anything but rumor. — raekyt 19:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Scratch 'rumor'. The only "rumor" is your suggesting or hinting at what's reliably shown to be and reported from reliable, publicly acclaimed web journaliss, to a wide audience completely without denial/correction/controversion from her herself is not what has been all along.SajeArbeiter (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
And buddy, we all know about [[Killian_documents_controversy#September_8_segment_and_initial_reactions|Dan Rather's lies on the President's military record]. Reliability ain't never going to conflate to lamestream. Go ahead and impute the fourth largest circulation newspaper in the US unreliable but they've reconfirmed out girl's porning, just as TMZ photo-documented from her herself in direct interview.SajeArbeiter (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Good call on requesting protection. I too think we should wait until mainstream media reports on this. As for categorizing her as a nude/adult model, I think the subject needs to actually appear nude in order for that categorization to be acceptable. Pinkadelica♣ 20:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
SajeArbeiter, please read WP:TALK because you're not formatting the talk page correctly. New comments go at the bottom of a conversation, not stuck in anywhere you please. I don't really know what you're rambling about but I already told you, the YouTube source is not reliable for the content you're attempting to add the article. When and if reliable sources report on Suleman actually performing in an adult video, we can report about it. Gossip sites, blogs, random YouTube videos and the like reporting on offers is not sufficent. I don't know how many times people have to tell you this. I'm not going to edit war with you about this because you're seemingly obsessed with the subject's "porning" and frankly, it's a bit unsettling that you've taken this up as a cause. Pinkadelica♣ 01:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


The Express, a publication of the Washigton Post, in their People Lookout section, on June 7, 2012, reported that Nadya "Octomom" Suleman canceled her strip club employment because of a radio interview with a bartender at the strip club. Also, the story was reported by TMZ.com. So, that is two sources; one of which is sponsered by a major newspaper. Both sources were cited in the edit summary. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)geraldshields11

TMZ is not a reliable source, and without seeing (links?) the other sources I can't say if they're just repeating TMZ's rumor or not... links? — raekyt 19:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Nude posing and softcore masturbation video, inclusion discussion

Proposed wording thus far:

In May of 2012 she filmed an X-rated video as a means of obtaining money to support her 14 children.[3][4]

I revered this since I think we should work on the wording some, this is a BLP and this is controversial material and is brand new info, per WP:NOTNEWS since we're not a news agency we can give things time for good sources to appear and everything to be clear and not speculation. Previous sources was all just that, speculation, these may be a little less speculation but the sources quoted in the article are less than reputable sources, so it's probably not 100% compliant with WP:BLP since it says look at the sources in the news articles, they're quoting porn stars, and people with one word names like "Bubbles" so it's probably not as good as actual movie press releases or other material thats beyond repute. Might be prudent to wait for inclusion until we get more information? — raekyt 20:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

So now that you've apparently conceded that the sources are acceptable, you're taking issue with the wording? In my opinion you're being stubborn and unreasonable. The story is being reported by virtually every legitimate media source on the continent. Why exclude it here? Freshfighter9talk 21:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
the term X-rated is loaded and might not be appropriate to describe the kind of adult video she produced, and again not released yet. Per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER we don't have to jump right into the fray and add newly happening things, we can sit back and wait until things calm down, until things are released until we have OFFICIAL information not just 3rd party rumors and gossip type articles. The CNN article is thin at best, doesn't give much information and all it really says is she will dance topless at a seedy strip club to drone up press attention to her to maybe boost sales of this to be released at some point video. The forbes article is clearly not written as a professional news piece, and is quoting people named "Bubbles" which is questionable at best for credibility. Again all you can really conclude is she recorded a video and is dancing topless. Again ALL IN THE FUTURE, and hasn't happened yet. So again I point to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Maybe there are better sources, but maybe we should wait until things actually happen before we include it here? — raekyt 21:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
If the issue is the use of the term "X-rated" then use different terminology. As it is, the term is outdated and no longer valid anyway, as there is no such thing as an X-rating anymore, and even the porn industry doesn't use it (preferring the meaningless XXX instead). If you're stuck for alternate wording, how about simply using the wording in the title of this thread? "Softcore" is correct in that the video does not depict her in a sexual act with another person, and "masturbation" accurately describes the content of the video as confirmed by reputable media and by the production company. The term "pornographic" may also be used as it has been described as such, although I agree that's as loaded a term as "X-rated" even though it's more accurate. To omit this information at this late stage makes this article appear incomplete and behind-the-times. Wikipedia may not be a "news source" but it still needs to be current and up to the minute as that is part of its mandate. I don't see why there's an issue - as long as it's correct and verifiable WP:BLP isn't a problem. 70.72.215.252 (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Wheres official information from the studio about the movie, press release, anything? At this point it's pretty much rumor, no reason why we can't wait until INCONTROVERTIBLY reliable information is available from the studio about the movie. Show me a source that isn't based on TMZ's article or some tweet? — raekyt 23:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is a link to a trailer for her masturbation video: [23] and here is the website for it [24]. Emptyviewers (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted the recent edits made by another editor because, again, TMZ, Egotastic, and the HuffPo celebrity gossip section are not considered reliable sources. People are seemingly so eager to add this as this as if it's earth shattering news. This article isn't going anywhere and people who read it are not going to be misinformed if we don't have content about her maturation video in here. Decent sources need to found so we don't run afoul of WP:BLP. Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to using the official site for the video (which I guess would be Wicked) as a source but there needs to be a consensus first. At least that site confirms that she actually went through with filming the video and supports its existence but again, community input is needed. Pinkadelica♣ 00:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not opposed, and I doubt anyone would be, of using the official site for the video as a source, care to link it? Provided it provides information that can be sourced for the addition of the content it's fine to use primary sources for this type of information, purely factual info about dates of filming that kind of stuff. Third party would be needed for any commentary or critique of the video, but just including it was filmed or release dates or name of video or name of producer, that kind of stuff primary source is fine. — raekyt 01:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Link, really dosn't give you much... release date and title. Addition of the following is proposed: — raekyt 01:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Nadya Suleman acted in an XXX film titled "Octomom Uncovered" produced by Wicked Pictures set to be released on June 20, 2012. [5]

That wording is fine with me. You may want to tweak it a bit....like, "In Summer 2012, Suleman appeared in the adult film Octomom Uncovered produced by Wicked Pictures. The film is set to be released on June 20, 2012." Something to that effect. Pinkadelica♣ 01:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree, and it should probably go in "Public profile" section, definitely not it's own section, not really that important to her bio at the current time, if she starts producing a slew of these things, then we can readdress that I think. Also definitely don't think we should add anything not on this "official" teaser page, since all that is apparently rumor from TMZ or tweets and nothing officially stated. — raekyt 01:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Glad you brought the section thing up as I totally agree. Pinkadelica♣ 01:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Added. — raekyt 01:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The actual video is entitled, "Octomom: Home Alone", which was released yesterday. The statement has been revised to address this, with the proper citation. WTF? (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The "source" isn't a reliable source, it's a gossip website and the article isn't attributed to a named author. I'd recommend switching back to the studio's page on the film, or finding a more reliable source. — raekyt 14:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 Done Original agreed upon content restored. I also didn't find that the title of the film changed. Pinkadelica♣ 18:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/G042399.PDF
  2. ^ http://photos.tmz.com/galleries/octo_birth_certificates#tab=most_recent
  3. ^ Octuplets mom Suleman books stripper gigs to save home http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/04/showbiz/octuplets-mom-stripping/index.html
  4. ^ What Stripping Says About Octomom's Earning Potential http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/06/05/nadya-suleman-stripping-octomoms-earning-potential/
  5. ^ http://www.wicked.com/octomom

Edit request on 26 June 2012

Octomom's movie should be changed to "Octomom: Home Alone" as per Wicked.com/Octomom

Lazer921 (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Welfare

Repeated mentions of welfare betray a non-neutral POV that there is something intrinsically wrong with being a welfare claimant, or at least that it is notable. The mention of being on disability is particularly disturbing. Millions of people are unemployed, and millions of people are disabled. This includes people with kids. Is there to be an article on every parent with more than N children who has been out of work at some point? That she gave birth to octuplets is notable. That she has starred in porn might be too. That she has received benefits is not. — JRYon (talk) 11:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Having herself implanted with so many embryos and having 8 kids at once when she already had 6, giving her 14 children, when she was unable to financially support her existing 6 and continues to be unable to financially support them makes public benefits VERY relevant to the article. MANY MANY MANY of the news articles discussing this very situation makes it relevant. WP:NPOV has nothing to do with what your concern is, if you read it. NPOV means we mention the public assistance because it's so very heavily featured in the news articles at the time. — raekyt 11:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
All you have done is revealed your own POV there. Many many many news articles have described various dictators as evil, but that doesn't mean that such text belongs in an encyclopaedia. Inability to financially support children is commonplace. The only reason to mention it is if you want to imply irresponsibility; that isn't neutral. The newspapers mention it exactly because they want to make that implication, because their readers enjoy judging others. But it's not actually pertinent. — JRYon (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Just to add, I'm not saying that there is definitely no way to include that fact in an NPOV way. But as it stands I can't see it. — JRYon (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

AVN nominations

As I sometimes find my anonymous posts removed automatically without explanation, in case it's reverted, I added the notable fact that her Home Alone received four nominations in the AVN Awards, as covered by the Huffington Post here. It's a notable award, referenced in a reputable source, so my addition should satisfy WP:BLP (plus it's not really a negative thing anyway). 70.72.211.35 (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yuck. Thanks for the addition. Pinkadelica♣ 17:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This article must be neutral

Parts of this article contain explicit or implicit criticism of Nadya Suleman. That is not the function of an encyclopedia article. Neutral point of view is especially important where there is public controversy about an individual. Dratman (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Care to share what "parts" of the article you find critical of Suleman? You just tagged the entire article instead of the "parts" you find offending. That's not terribly helpful to those of us who attempt to fix perceived problems in articles. Pinkadelica♣ 22:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
You are right, of course. I find it hard to put my finger on the source of what seems to me the critical tone of the article. By contrast, the article Suleman octuplets seems very neutral to me. But this article reads like a long list of (blunted) criticisms of Ms. Suleman. I did not provide any particulars because I just wanted to point out what seems to me to be an overall negative tone. I regret that my comment is not very helpful. Dratman (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I've gone through the article and nothing un-neutral really pops out at me. If you could point out some particulars, that would be helpful because your above comment still didn't clarify anything. You do need to keep in mind that most of what Suleman does is not perceived in the press as being terribly positive. They don't report if and when she's taking care of her children properly or not making an adult film. We're just re-reporting things and, in my opinion, that's what in the article. If you can't point out any particulars in the near future (like the next few weeks), I'm going to remove the tag. It's pointless to slap a tag on an article and then not point out the problem so it can be fixed. Pinkadelica♣ 17:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
My suggestion for improvement is to remove it all together and not to give her what she wants which is fame in american history. No let's just let her disappear into the fabric of time and forget she ever existed. Dj 72.240.151.139 (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
WP:N is clearly established, and thus we have an article. I think Pinkadelica doesn't fully understand WP:NPOV. Neutral doesn't mean we don't have negative information, neutral means we give weight to what reliable sources say. There is TOOONS of sources, and most of her publicity has been negative, therefore it's required we include that information. Per WP:BLP we need to make sure we stick strictly to the sources, and avoid WP:COATRACK. So if you don't think this article meets those criteria, then I'd suggest giving specific examples where? — raekyt 19:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nadya_Suleman/Archive_1&oldid=1248826417"