Talk:Wife Swap (British TV series)

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.

"Atheist" Family

This:

"They were revealed as parents who neglected their children, spent far too much time on their computers, exhibited anti-social behavior, made their young son do enormous amounts of chores, etc."

Isn't just POV pushing, it's getting into libel territory. Mark K. Bilbo 01:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change "revealed" to "portrayed". Better? --Jason Gastrich 02:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I proofread the entire article and fixed its poor grammar. Verting my entire contribution because of a word is awfully impolite.--Jason Gastrich 02:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To use "portrayed" instead of "revealed" is still to inculcate a point-of-view that may or may not be shared by others whom viewed the program. How the couple was "portrayed" or "revealed" is a matter for the viewer to decide, and there's no good reason to single out this particular episode in the manner that it was. - WarriorScribe 02:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By my reading the reversion was not due to the use of a single word. - WarriorScribe 02:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was state the facts. Something about Wife Swap's (possible) distortions should be mentioned; in some way, shape, or form. In the particular case I mentioned, I know the person who was on the show. I saw the show. I have evidence that he says the show was inaccurate. Did you see the show? --Jason Gastrich 02:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You stated no "facts." You included a point-of-view that may or may not be shared by other viewers, whom may see them simply portrayed as a typical, "pretty normal", modern-day American family, as is clear by some of the comments in the thread on the subject at The Infidel Guy site.

You are not stating facts Gastrich, you think you have an opening to attack Reggie Finely and you're trying to use the Wikipedia to launch an ad hominem campaign against him because of the conflicts you had with him. And you know that's the truth of the matter. Mark K. Bilbo 02:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Making this personal is absurd. --Jason Gastrich 02:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "debating" this with you. You know what I'm saying is the truth. Mark K. Bilbo 03:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not hardly. All one has to do is start here and read forward to see that this all started on the IG page and you're trying to bring it here.

Not hardly. Nothing regarding Wikipedia started on Reggie's forum. If you think otherwise, look at the time/date stamps. I contributed to this article, then a couple people brought it up on his forum. --Jason Gastrich 05:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the dates? Sure thing Skippy. You made your first snotty post on Reggie's forum the morning of the 29th. Your first "contribution" here was the 30th. Anything else you want to compare? Mark K. Bilbo 14:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I stated the facts AS they were portrayed.

Others feel that they were "portrayed" somewhat differently.

It really isn't hard to do, either. For those that didn't see the show, here they are:

The oldest boy does too many chores and basically does everything.

How many chores are "two many" chores? Ah, ha...we seem to have a matter of opinion, don't we?

Reggie admittedly works 70-80 hours on the computer.

Disingenuous. The time that Reggie puts in on the computer is mostly as a consequence of the Infidel Guy radio show, is it not? And how much time do you spend on your "ministry" in a week?

It's not unusual for a person to put in long hours to get something in which he believes going.

The wife drops the kids off in daycare, so she can play on the computer. She has no job.

Why does it matter that she doesn't have a job; and as was shown in Amber's segment, she believes that day care has some value for children.

Reggie said he hadn't been outside with his kids for a month.

My father was in the Navy, and there were times when I wouldn't go outside--or anywhere else--with him for several months. This is a common way of life for lots of people.

Reggie's wife said she doesn't like going outside at all.

Lots of people aren't thrilled with being outside. Where's the problem?

These things, true or not, were seen by the viewers of Monday night's Wife Swap. Reggie Finley says they are distortions.

You claim that they are not? Wow...POV pushing.

Therefore, a mention on the Wife Swap entry should be made that questions Wife Swap's integrity. This is all I have done. Future reverts will be met with more reverts and moderation. You have no good reason to silence the fact that Wife Swap may be distorting the truth. Do you work for them?--Jason Gastrich 02:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Met with moderation? You think you own this place? You are the one trying to use the Wikipedia to attack someone you have a grudge with. That is against the policies here. So go whine to somebody that you're not being allowed to launch a character assissation of Reggie Finely. Please. Whine away. Mark K. Bilbo 03:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As much as you may want to dodge your motives, the thread to which I refer above (and again here) makes it clear that you did not have altruism in mind. - WarriorScribe 02:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the current edit I made might be a compromise. I don't see any harm in stating that people felt they were wrongly portrayed. --DanielCD 02:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's better. It's less obvious whom we are talking about with that wording, and perhaps some of the problems with some of the other episodes could be listed, as well. - WarriorScribe 02:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mewtwo_X: I thought I'd just put my two cents in here... why exactly is it important to mention a specific episode in a wikipedia article devoted to the ENTIRE show? Just asking...

That's a very good question. See this page at Infidel Guy, and read forward. - WarriorScribe 02:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's true the family feels this way, it says something about the show, that not everyone agrees with how things are portrayed and that there could be bias in the editors in how they choose what aspects of a family's life to show and what not to show. People might be interested to know that the subjects feel this way.

Simple, Jason Gastrich has a history with Reggie Finley. Gastrich is interested only in the episode that has Finley in it and which Gastrich believes makes Finley look bad. That's why one episode. Mark K. Bilbo 03:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess I don't even know if this is the "christian" or "athiest" family or whatnot. I've in fact never even heard of this show. I'm just trying to see if I can help compromise a bit. --DanielCD 03:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you might want to consider that if the producers of the show take exception, that exposes the Wikipedia to possible legal issues. A vague comment that the show is misleading people could be problematic for the Wikipedia. Mark K. Bilbo 03:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point! S'pose that's why encyclopedias are particular about objectivity and neutrality? - WarriorScribe 03:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is free press. People can say whatever they want. No names were named. I can see your point, but then again, I don't think it applies if the comment has already been made somewhere else. We're just reporting. But then again I don't know this... If such a statement was made in an informal media, then you are right, and it should be removed immediately. Where were the comments originally made; what's the source? A blog? --DanielCD 03:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can get most of what you need as far as the viewpoints by reading this thread. It's rather long, but you'll get a feel for what's going on with the particular episode in question. I also have a copy of the episode in .avi form, and it can be retrieved using bittorrent. - WarriorScribe 03:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I've gotten out on a limb here in not knowing what exactly is going on. The statements should be removed altogether if they cannot be referenced, and if they stay, I insist that they be so. If they were made informally, then there is no reference and it never should have been brought up to begin with. I'm gonna back off now. LMK if you need any third opinion on anything. --DanielCD 03:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The show is being kicked around a great deal over at Reggie's online forum. Which is one place, interestingly enough, Gastrich has been hanging out of late. If you pop over here: [1] you can see the threads. That, basically, is his source. He even stated above on this Talk page that "In the particular case I mentioned, I know the person who was on the show." Yes, he does. And had a domain name fight with him that almost resulted in Gastrich being sued. That's the part of this story Gastrich doesn't want you to know. Mark K. Bilbo 03:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep...I'd doubt very much that Gastrich "knows" Reggie in the manner that he wanted to convey, as if they are old pals, or something. Their interactions have been by phone, email, and on the boards, and it hasn't always been pleasant for either of them. The fact is that they don't like each other, and it was pretty clear what Gastrich was trying to do with this entry. After all, is it a coincidence that the "Wife Swap" article has seen no activity since the 22nd of November, and the 31st of October before that, but after Gastrich gets involved in the thread at the Infidel Guy site--today--he shows up over here to "proof read" it, and he just happens to feel that an insertion of a comment about what the show "revealed" in the specific episode featuring the family of the Infidel Guy was appropriate? Anyone who believes that should also come and see me...I have a bridge for sale. - WarriorScribe 03:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed again

Jason, I removed that paragraph again. A blog is not a proper source, and this one is more along the lines of a gossip column. It needs to come from something that has been through a formal publication with an author that can be cited. --DanielCD 15:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. We're talking about the truth; not about the conduit of the information. By contesting this citation, you are essentially contesting this fact; and you're wrong. It is known by Reggie Finley's blog (and his internet forum) that he feels he was misrepresented on Wife Swap. Furthermore, those are the only channels that Reggie Finley has to announce his displeasure. Making him have to announce it on other channels that are beyond his means, before his claims are taken seriously, is both wrong and absurd. --Jason Gastrich 19:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The blog is not an acceptable reference. Please see verifiability and reliable sources. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 20:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blog link was replaced by other link. I accept the current edit as nPOV and pertinent. Although Wiki rules warn against having a section like "Controversial" (or similar heading), I feel this works. --Jason Gastrich 21:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The blog link was replaced by an Internet forum which is also frowned on by policy. What's being in the article is hearsay. Hearsay does not belong in an encyclopedia. Mark K. Bilbo 21:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Taking it out. - WarriorScribe 22:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he isn't right. In fact, calling Reggie Finley's OWN WORDS (who was a participant on Wife Swap) heresay is the funniest thing I've heard all day! And I've heard a lot of funny things today because I was around high schoolers. Just how can the forum owner, Reggie Finley, when he comments about Wife Swap misrepresenting him and his family be heresay? His only verifiable methods of communication are his forum and his blog. What in the world else do you want from the guy? Should he pay a publicist? In this case, since he was a participant and he is clearly writing these things in verifiable mediums, I think the Wiki rules can include his writings even though they usually "frown" forums and blogs. --Jason Gastrich 02:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's a fact that you cannot establish objectively what happened. Personally, I believe everything Reggie and Amber have to say. But I know there's no way to verify any of it. Mark K. Bilbo 03:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and by the way, if you're really that hell bent to promote Reggie's site, why don't you go ahead, knock yourself out? I am fine with promoting an atheist web forum, I'm an atheist. I have to say I'm a bit surprised that you want to promote an atheist web forum. I guess miracles do happen after all? Mark K. Bilbo 03:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to the established standards, he is right with regard to non-neutrality, and it falls to an adminstrator to rule otherwise--not another Wiki participant with an agenda. As much as Reggie's words are directly related to his own participation in show, they still represent a non-neutral point-of-view, and as such fall within the rationale for Wiki's tendency to exclude such things. Meanwhile, there was no good reason to remove the relatively neutral critics link in my comments and replace it with a link to the discussion Reggie's board.

The comments about hearsay were less about Reggie's direct commentary than they were about a great deal else that has been posted in the discussions, and that includes those on his board. If Wikipedia is to remain as neutral as possible in these things, it is best to use the verifiable sources that are as unbiased as possible, under the circumstances. The critic link seems fair to leave in, as the site from which it is derived is a site that engages in analysis and criticism of television as a communications medium. If this was more about truth and less about ego and getting one's way, this wouldn't even be necessary to note. - WarriorScribe 03:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if we could find an analysis like on a review or "critic page," it'd be good. - WarriorScribe 22:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, being the pain in the keester that I am, I still have to point out that accusing a production company of "creative editing," "misrepresentation," and "exploitation" is potentially actionable if the production company takes notice. Fortunately, I didn't write that section and I oppose its very existence. Mark K. Bilbo 22:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did write that, and was looking for wording that is as neutral as possible. As an opinion piece, I would question how actionable it might be, but I think you have a point when it comes to inclusion in an allegedly-neutral "encyclopedia" entry. As it is, it's not that the inclusion would have Wiki taking that position so much as acknowledging that there are those who believe that these things have occurred. Certainly, it's open to more thought and revision. - WarriorScribe 22:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But over here, the guidelines are rather specific about phrases such as "Others feel." There's simply no verifiability here. And verifiability is policy. Mark K. Bilbo 22:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right again! Well, now, this thing about maintaining a neutral point of view isn't as easy as it might appear, when one is clouded by his or her biases, is it? - WarriorScribe 22:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrich's POV Pushing

Dave Horn isn't going to understand that his entry isn't perfect, but he has a couple of unnecessary phrases in the contribution he keeps reverting. Can someone clue him in? This is a community where we constantly improve entries, so there is no shame in having something edited and letting others contribute. Horn is acting like one of those kids who won't share his toys. --Jason Gastrich 06:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, the entry isn't perfect, but I was just curious how many times Gastrich will insist that his changes must remain (even though they do, somewhat, change the meaning of the original comments, just a little) and that he will change it, come Hell or high water, because it's all about him, after all.

As proof of that, note the changes. Gastrich even backed off, waited a couple of hours or more, then changed it again. Can't say I'm surprised. He changes it, then again, and again, and claims POV pushing (there's none of that, for course, since simply acknowledging a show's popularity is not to push its popularity) and whimpers and states that the phrase isn't "perfect." It's not...I know that. This is a community. I know that. But Gastrich isn't interested in making it perfect, and he doesn't care about "the community." He wants to make it his, and he's pushing his own agenda.

Don't believe me? You don't need to. Read on.

Gastrich's claims that it's too bad Reggie's side isn't being told are virtual crocodile tears. Gastrich's real motives are so clear to anyone who will look:

"If the show taught us anything, it was that atheists have their priorities out of whack, they walk around with dark circles under their eyes, neglect their children, treat them like slaves [emphasis added], spend too much time online, etc.

"It was sad to see someone rejecting God in deed and in profession and being a miserable father [emphasis added], yet wanting others to praise him for his wonderful qualities and ignore the obvious. Kinda mind blowing . . . or mind numbing."

Who wrote those things? Gastrich did--describing atheists, in general and Reggie Finley, in particular, in the Infidel Guy forum, as quoted here.

When did he write that? November 30th. The day before yesterday. December 1st saw the same arrogant posturing, for which he was soundly chastized and which caused him to flee the thread and the board. So what happens after that? Gastrich comes to Wiki, and just happens upon the Wikipedia entry for "Wife Swap," and just happens to edit it, and include this new paragraph:

One Wife Swap couple (the atheists that were swapped with the Christians) said the footage was misleading and not truly representative of their family and its behavior. They were revealed as parents who neglected their children, spent far too much time on their computers, exhibited anti-social behavior, made their young son do enormous amounts of chores, etc. [emphasis added]

This was a clear attempt to push a mean-spirited and vindictive agenda, based on a point of view that was clearly evident when Gastrich wrote his comments in the Infidel Guy site's discussion forum. Subsequent attempts to rehabilitate his antics simply underscored his intense desire to see this particular family singled out in the Wikipedia and subject to scrutiny and criticism by his fellow evangelicals, and having a permanent record to which he can refer, so that he and his fellow "Christians" can point, giggle, and gossip amongst themselves.

Looking at the page history, edits prior to Gastrich just happening upon the article were last noted on November 22nd. And prior to that? October 31st. According to the page history, Gastrich had not engaged in prior edits of the article on the television show, but, whoa, presto! After getting into a pretty heated thread, elsewhere, in which he wrote some rather unflattering things about his host (while praising himself in other articles I didn't bother to cite), and being thoroughly criticized for it, Gastrich just happens upon the entry for the TV show in Wikipedia and feels the need to make corrections. That, of course, includes the addition of a brand new paragraph that summarized a specific episode--from Gastrich's point of view.

Regardless of the evolving neutrality of the subject, the subsequent insistence on the specific identification of one person out of all of the other participants during the run of the series, as well as the apparent insistence that his edits be the last word (even, for example, when he was told that Wikipedia has some specific policies regarding blogs) demonstrates Gastrich's less-than-altrustic intent.

Thank you and good afternoon. - WarriorScribe 13:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, but it is not WarriorScribe who is guilty of POV pushing. You (Gastrich) accused me of that on Antony Flew, and it was determined who was really pushing. Are you going to ask for an "unbaised admin" again? Because the reseult will be the same as on Flew. Harvestdancer 16:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-- This may be too late, but I think you should realise the following. The fact that they neglected their children is not POV in any way, and no one but they would object to that. Implying that being atheïst is somehow a cause of this IS. 84.53.78.33 14:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it, guys! I used to watch this show, but my parents said it was too controversial. If they're trying to bring Jerry Springer-esque controversy to primetime, they just succeeded. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an episode of Jerry Springer. Wikipedia is not Jerry Springer. 71.111.216.239 18:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wife Swapping/ Swinging

Surely the phrase "It is based on Wife Swapping." is misleading? Could it be replaced with something like "Its title is a pun on "Wife Swapping", another name for swinging."

Agreed, it leads you to think alot more is going on on that show ;)

It seems to be common practice now for shows to be given eye-catching titles that draw adverse comment from the tabloid press (all publicity is good publicity, after all) only for the actual programmes to prove perfectly mundane. The exemplar of this was ITV's Celebrity Shark Bait... --88.109.39.128 14:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British/American Versions

I think they should have their own article!-- Hornetman16 01:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. 68.44.179.54 (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

There are messages sent sometimes (including mailing lists and newsgroups), soliciting people to take a part in Wife Swap, signed as sent by Wife Swap producers or something, with a subject-specific paragraph prepended. People say those are really from Wife Swap authors. Is there any source to use to mention that in the article? --AVRS 08:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge Lizzy Bardsley

Lizzy Bardsley fails the general notability criteria for biographies: She has not "received significant recognized awards or honors" nor has she "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". The article is well-sourced but, beyond Wife Swap it just refers to minor appearances on Kilroy, The Weakest Link, a short-lived reality series given to her off the back of Wife Swap. Tax-dodging and smacking children around doesn't cover the notability criteria either. Brad (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. Bardsley has "been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." She had been the subject of widespread media attention, including from the BBC. She had her own television series in addition. I do believe the included sources do show independent notablity. Wife Swap lead to a short-lived television career, which is notable. Merging to this article would only lose the sort of information Wikipedia needs.--UpDown (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the media career came off the back of Wife Swap. I'm not suggesting the article be blanked and redirected, I'm suggesting an actual merge of the pertinent information: namely the "television career" section (downplaying the Kilroy and Weakest Link appearances). Again, it is well-sourced, but the section on criminal charges isn't relevant to anything. Just because the information exists, it doesn't mean we need to include it. Brad (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Goody's career came off the back of Big Brother, does that mean her page should be merged. No, because she had an indepedent television career afterwards, like Bardsley (to a lesser extent I admit). Information like her spin-off TV series and Celebrity Fit Club have no relevance to Wife Swap article. As the MoS says people are notable if they are "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." - she meets this.--UpDown (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her career was brief. Jade Goody is still in the public view nearly six years after Big Brother. Lizzy Bardsley's "career" was minor television appearances and a novelty series ("Bed & Bardsleys" was hardly prime-time). Brad (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brief maybe, but still a media career which is noteworthy. The other TV appearances do not belong on the Wife Swap article, as its not relevant. The article passes WP:BIO and should stay.--UpDown (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A shame when articles on authors are deleted (not directed at yourself of course). *sigh* I'll leave the merge propsal up in case anyone else wants to weigh in. Brad (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to a particular article there? How long do you propose leaving the merge tag there, it can't be left there indefinatley. As I say I believe it passes WP:BIO and should stay.--UpDown (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give it until the weekend or so. I doubt anyone else will come across the article but on the offchance. Brad (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting Article Into Two Sections for USA/UK Versions

Variety came out with a spread today that features the history of the USA version (which airs its 100th episode on March 13th), and I noticed how this article only lightly touches on the many families that participated in the series. I suggest that this article be split into two distinct sections: one for the U.S. and one for the U.K., as to expand more on the content this show produces. U.S. version might come out longer due to the 100th episode hype, but hopefully the two versions will be able to balance out as a long-term improvement. Thoughts?Spring12 (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The only mentions of the US version at all are one line in the intro and a paragraph about a lawsuit against Fox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.40.212.28 (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about something similar to The X Factor (TV series). The original show was the UK version; it went on to be franchised across the world; there are loads of sub-pages including The X Factor (UK). So this page ought to become Wife Swap (TV series), the general discussion for the origin of the series and the territories it has spun off into, and if any of these individual country's shows are notable enough to have their own page, such as the UK and US versions, then make Wife Swap (UK) and Wife Swap (US). 86.152.23.225 (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]