Talk:16 and Pregnant

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kimchi Hart. Peer reviewers: Coca-a-costa, Doriannv, Iya5678, UhannahlundU, Courtjayy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Highly detailed

Thank you to whoever\\ is providing the episode details. The level of clarity and detail is not often seen for episode-based television shows on Wikipedia. 68.2.137.33 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC).

Farrah's baby daddy

It says that her baby's dad was killed in a car accident? Can someone cite this? 69.112.221.166 (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

nobody know's if that is true or not, what i heard was that the father dosn't want to be around his daughter, and isn't ready to become a father. 207.229.130.96 (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed that uncited and information. As I stated on the Teen Mom talk page, I cannot find any reliable source that says the father of Farrah's baby died. I hope that is not just a rumor which originated here at Wikipedia. The two sources that were in the Teen Mom article for it did not note the guy as the father of Farrah's baby. If using those sources was based on the name because the name of the guy is somehow public, for all we know it could be a different guy with the same name who died. Flyer22 (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Farrah confirmed that the baby daddy Derek Underwood died during an interview with Life & Style magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by

Again, that is fine that she has made that statement to a magazine, but I see no reason to include that information in the article. A Google search can turn up that information just as well, and it is not Wikipedia's job to placate rubberneckers looking for gossip. 209.104.239.26 (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the article....and it's not gossip. It's a real tragedy. http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20230345&BRD=2703&PAG=461&dept_id=555109&rfi=6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.254.146 (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

All that article says is that a young man died. It has no connection to this article. Active Banana ( bananaphone 17:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Months ago, I wanted confirmation that the baby's father died (as seen above). Well, now we know from recent episodes in Season 2 of Teen Mom that Sophia's father did die; we still do not know the details, however, unless there is an interview where Farrah discusses that. Mention of the baby's father being dead is now okay, but putting anything else about him is not until Farrah speaks more on it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If you watch Season 2 of Team Mom Farrah says in a session with a counselor that the dad died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.88.211 (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

Does anybody want to upload pictures to this article or the Teen Mom article?

As I said on the Teen Mom talk page, I would guess that the reason there aren't already pictures is that there are none freely available. 209.104.239.26 (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

As I also stated on the Teen Mom talk page, "Screenshots would be okay, but I cannot see Wikipedia seeing them as too valid; they would simply be seen as decorative. Also, I see no where they would fit in that article as it currently is now." Or this one, as it currently is now. Flyer22 (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Last name vs first name

I don't see why someone felt the need to change everything over to the subjects' last names. Most reality TV show summaries on Wikipedia use the first names of the cast members throughout - see the Jersey Shore (TV series) article and the Biggest Loser individual season pages for just two of many examples. It is confusing and inaccessible to refer to the subjects by their last names in the summaries. If no one has a severe objection, I will return the article to its original and easier to understand state. 173.166.13.161 (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it is our manual of style to be professional and refer to people by their last names rather than the overfamiliarity implied by using first names. The fact that other articles are in crappy shape is not a valid arguement to allow this article to fall to lower standards. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 20:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The Amazing Race seasons also refer to subjects by first name. Again, I do not see why it is necessary to make this article extremely confusing for people to read and understand. I never said the other articles were in "crappy shape," indeed many of the Amazing Race season articles are at GA status. 173.166.13.161 (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

And more crap. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 20:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are you being so hostile? I am trying to have a discussion with you about why you feel this is a better, clearer way to phrase the names of the people involved with the series but you are coming back with profanity and rudeness. 173.166.13.161 (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, much has been removed from several summaries, including Chelsea from season 2. The summaries were fine as is, so I will restore the removed content. I will wait for others to weigh in before making any changes to the manner in which the subjects of the episodes are referred. 173.166.13.161 (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Contensious content about living people must not be based on Wikipedia users opinions ("so and so seems X"). Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 20:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Everything in the summaries is as stated and depicted in the episodes of 16 & Pregnant. Nothing is personal opinion. 173.166.13.161 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say we should definitely go with their first names on an article such as this. The general public does not know their last names and it is their first names we see in the show every time they pop up. I would say Active Banana is right about no OR, though, even with the summaries being accurate. We need to source that stuff to the episodes; this does not mean urls need to be provided. The show is the source. Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I've been making some of the summaries more neutral while still restoring the content; please feel free to contribute to this process as well. Complete removal of information seems a bit extreme to me if it is something that was stated or that concretely happened within the episode itself (i.e., Brian and Jen deciding not to adopt Lori's son - I see no reason why that was removed). 173.166.13.161 (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Last names, definitely, per the Wikipedia manual of style. I think it's at least borderline (if not outright) BLP violation to use first names, as it is generally considered disrespectful to refer to people that you don't know by their first name. We have to consider that people visiting this page will include, for example, someone seeking references for a monograph on Popular Television in Late Empire America and so forth. Wikipedia is, to a certain extent, a scholarly undertaking even when covering material such as this and we should keep that in mind. Herostratus (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

But even the titles go by their first names. I completely understand using last names on articles such as Brad Pitt, etc. But here, all the audience knows (and is told repeatedly) are their first names. Either way, it is good point to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Flyer22 (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want, you can go to our manual of style and try to get an exception approved for use of first names for real life people in reality TV shows that use the first name as the title. I dont think it will wash. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 16:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No need for the attitude directed at me. That won't wash either. I was asked for my opinion, and gave it. I am an experienced Wikipedia editor here, not some random IP, and I know all the rules. I also know what has generally been accepted on articles such as these; the IP was right about that. You can call it WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS all you want. I don't care. But the Wikipedia Manual of Style is not always followed. Case in point: Tila Tequila, where WP:Consensus was reached to do something different at one point, before finally going back to her real last name throughout the article. Flyer22 (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The MOS may not always be followed because 1) the people editing the article dont know about the MOS (not applicable here) 2) because no one has yet taken the effort to apply the MOS to the text (not aplicable here) or 3) consensus of the editing community decided to ignore the rules because it resulted in an improvement to the encyclopedia. You can attempt to gain a consensus that it is an improvement to the encycloepdia to use the overly familiar first names for this article, but you are not going to convince me that we should be ignoring our policy in regards to minors whose private lives have been put under a public microscope. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 16:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, I was asked to give my opinion. I am not the one seeking any change. Flyer22 (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think "I don't think it will wash" is a legitimate comment here in the marketplace of ideas. I think opening a centralized discussion on this matter in general at the Manual of Style is a good idea. And it might wash. As to "But even the titles go by their first names", many entities have their style rules, we have ours. Our article Macy's is not titled Macy*s notwithstanding that is how they write it themselves. Herostratus (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The titles weren't my only argument, of course. But as I said, I understand the reasoning for going with the last names; I have corrected many Wikipedia articles in such a way. Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Reception and Impact

This seems like it may be a pretty controversial show dealing with very sensitive topics that raise a number of questions. Is there a consensus on the value of this show? Maybe more importantly, is it regarded as exploitative? Phenylphree (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Further edit: this seems to be a pretty notable show these days. Given the publicity it receives and the fragile subject matter, should we consider making this a higher priority article? I see it is 'low priority' right now.Phenylphree (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

A development of that section would certainly be a benefit to the article and the encyclopedia. If you can find sources, you can certianly start making improvments yourself! Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

would it be possible to put a graph showing teen birth rates before and after this show premiered? if you look at the difference between the gentle downward slope before 2009 and the steep decline afterwards? the impact seems pretty clear Here and also Here 38.103.136.34 (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Mostly filmed in Southern states?

I came to the wiki page to see if there is a reason why nearly every episode (or at least a majority) are filmed in Southern states? Any ideas on this? Just curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdrumstik (talk • contribs) 07:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Teen pregnancy rates are much higher in the South, for a number of reasons including religious taboos against abortion and birth control, as well as differences in sex education. This is not a forum; if you can find any discussion about scouting locations in sources (e.g. statements by casting agents, etc.) I think it'd make for an interesting addition. 174.53.187.179 (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/sns-rt-television-us-babietre7447fo-20110505,0,6302877.story
  • In 16 and Pregnant on 2011-05-25 01:54:49, 404 Not Found
  • In 16 and Pregnant on 2011-06-01 19:14:37, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Too Much Detail? Maybe an Episodes page?

I just undid a major change by someone who took out ALL the episode detail.

On one hand, I understand the motivation for the major change and the editor is totally correct that "Wikipedia is not a TV guide", but on the other hand, the documentary-style format with each episode having different dramatic turns, lends itself to a description of the episodes. Also, this is a particularly controversial show.

As a reference point, there are lot of TV shows that have episode guides on Wikipedia...sometimes even separate articles for each episode.

So, I lean toward distilling the episode descriptions, but still having them, and they should all be moved to a Episodes page, like most shows with episode descriptions (e.g. Mission: Impossible and Lost In Space) Thoughts? I'll do the work, but I didn't want to bother if that new page, via eventual concensus, is just going to eventually get blown away for the same reason this got massively shortened last night.

--PoughkeepsieNative (talk) 09:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy with a separate episode guide list, as long as they are referenced correctly. As they stood they where far too detailed and reliant on the primary source, notability of each episode should really be proven by coverage in a 3rd party reliable source. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 10:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Also regarding your edit comment about unilateral removal of content, that's what we are supposed to do, as long as a valid reason has been given and it's not in conflict with other editors. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 10:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Truth be told, I've always struggled a little bit with my edits on TV episode descriptions (I'm a fanatic about 60s/70s TV...and I still watch a lot of it). I try hard to hold to the no-personal-research/observations rule on Wikipedia (i.e. I shouldn't update a famous person's biography with an anecdote that s/he told me personally), but does that mean I can't summarize the episode myself and, instead, must use a verifiable summary from another source? On one hand, it seems like personal research, but on another hand, if I am paraphrasing something verifiable, i.e. I'm summarizing an episode that can be seen on DVD, then it seems that it is verifiable. (And, then, this discussion goes into the vortex of citing IMDB when I can just go update IMDB myself....) --PoughkeepsieNative (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

OK...I'm going to give it a whirl and see what I can come up for an episodes page. First time ever using my sandbox. We'll see how this goes.... --PoughkeepsieNative (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Episodes Page Created and Cleaned Up

I've created an episodes page, moved the episodes to it, and did a major clean up on the episode descriptions. They were shortened to describe the episode rather than give all the plot details. Also, unsourced material about living people was removed. I also removed the WikiWarnings from this page since they no longer apply following the clean up. --PoughkeepsieNative (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)