Talk:Jenny McCarthy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

PoV / trivia

Someone has taken a hacksaw to my edits to this article - someone with very little grammar skill and an obvious affinity based POV for McCarthy. I am re-editing. Pacian 06:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I made a change to add some humorous (true!) trivia about a website Jenny maintains. The edits were removed by EngineerScotty, but I think he failed to realize that the hilariously ridiculous assertions were totally true! So I created an account and reinstituted my changes. Knodi

Rolling Stone cover

Someone wrote,

"For instance in a cover photo for Rolling Stone magazine McCarthy was scantily clad in a bikini, but at the same time was squirting mustard all over a hotdog whilst it splattered unattractively all over her body."

Since someone included the jpeg for this article, I'm wondering if people are paying attention. 1 - She is NOT in a scantily cald bikini...she's wearing a bikini top and shorts. 2 - Mustard is NOT "splattered unattractively all over her body." If anything, the purpose of this cover was to titillate with sexual imagery.

Accordingly, I removed this part of the article. Asc85 17:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced trivia

• McCarthy's younger sister, Amy, is now a Playboy model.
• McCarthy is currently a spokeswoman for José Cuervo Tequila.
• McCarthy worked as a meat slicer at a Polish grocery store in Chicago.
• Was known for a long time as "Vanna White of the next generation" for her role on the game show "Singled Out."
• She is known to have a foot fetish and enjoys showing her bare feet to guys and having them played with.
• She was voted the "Best Breasts of the 90's" by Playboy magazine subscribers.
• McCarthy hosts an online community for mothers, IndigoMoms.com.
• McCarthy is a die-hard Barry Manilow fan. She began liking him since the age of 2 and has seen his recent concerts in Las Vegas.

If possible, please provide sources for these trivia items before reincorporating them into the article. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me— Preceding unsigned comment added by Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk • contribs) 00:54, July 28, 2006‎

What's with the nudity?

Jenny McCarthy is known for many things, one of which is appearing in Playboy, however this encyclopedia is for everyone, not just adults, so therefore I think the naked picture should be removed.

Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of children, but I've reverted to a less explicit photo because the Santa photo is too in-your-face for this article. Anyone who wants to put the Santa photo or another photo with similar exposure will need to get a consensus here first. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 17:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Pro-wrestling

Why is she categorized as a professional wrestler valet for a one night gig, and why is there a whole section in her bio for it (Furthermore, why is this important)? Irk_(talk) 21:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question, all it needs is a small mention, not a "section" for itself, besides that whomever put it there didn't even bother make it 100% accurate. EDIT: Whoops, forgot to sign my comment. PHOENIXZERO 09:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Good question indeed, and yeah it certainly doesn't need a section for itself. Perhaps it should be moved into the "Other interests" section? Or maybe "Public Persona"? Actually I think the latter should also be merged with "Other Interests" and the whole thing be renamed, though I can't think of an appropriate title at the moment. Any thoughts? Swimforestswim 08:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Picture description

i think the picture description is a bit wrong, or playboy is a lot tamer than its made out to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.36.83 (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sister Amy

Why does this article redirect from her sister Amy McCarthy too? She's not her. 213.39.187.143 (talk) 07:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WWE

This article doesn't mention her appearances with WWE. She was Shawn Michaels' valet at WrestleMania...I think 11... She will also appear at WWE Saturday Night's Main Event, in which they will raise money for Generation Rescue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.140.225 (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Marriage

She just married a St Loise Blues NHLer. Like this weekend. Apparently they had a theme wedding. I'm sure a fan of the Blues will come along to update it though.Asatruar (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3

I didn't know the proper placement in the article for this, but McCarthy is an actor in the upcoming video game Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3. They use real-life cutscenes in which she will act.

http://investor.ea.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=88189&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1188849 75.67.186.66 (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Appeared on Wings TV show *after* it was cancelled?

Articles says that "since 2001" she has appeared in (among other shows) Wings. According to the Wings wikip page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wings_(TV_series), that show lasted from 1990 to 1997. I don't know if the error is that she was never in Wings, or that she was in Wings long before 2001. Either way, there is something wrong there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.208.255.215 (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed original research

The cite does not say , "Her claims that vaccines trigger autism have contributed to distrust of vaccines, decreased immunization rates, and increased incidence of measles, a highly contagious and sometimes deadly disease."

Please discuss FX (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It’s all true. The only inaccurate part is the implication that they’re her claims. They’re just claims that she parrots.

I don’t see the OR part. Did you maybe miss the article’s second page? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 06:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Public Persona

Why is Jenny McCarthy described as deriving her fame from "toilet humor"? She is a comedian. Something makes me think the same thing would not be said, unjustly, about any of the male actors and comedians in performance and movies with countless scenes of diarrhea, farting, crotch shots, debilitating crotch shots, vomiting, sexual accidents, and other graphic what have you. Just because a woman passes gas does not mean that "toilet humor" is her forte. Come on, people. I have never linked McCarthy with "toilet humor," only a refreshing presence in the overrepresented male-based comedy. Can someone a bit less ignorant (and more informed about the details of her comedic career than I) re-write this section, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.106.238 (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed amateur website from external links

Using Wikipedia to pimp your site, not a good idea. FX (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Promoting False Claims

Regarding this discussion at BLP/N, and the sentence: "Most recently, she has written books about parenting, and has become an activist promoting false claims that vaccines cause autism[3] and that chelation therapy is effective against autism.[4]"

There are separate issues here: one is the MEDRS related claims that vaccines cause autism and that chelation therapy cures autism; the other is McCarthy's promotion of these ideas. We do this article a disservice by fusing the two as if 'McCarthy promotes false claims'. We know that: McCarthy is an activist in the controversial area of vaccines, and she promotes the view--not held by the medical establishment (or scientific consensus)--that vaccines cause autism and that chelation therapy can help cure it. I suggest rephrasing as such, since it describes all aspects without conflating them. I may tell a mistruth, but to say that I promote false claims suggests a level of intent that we shouldn't be implying. Ocaasi (talk) 08:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

A Solomonic solution. Very well done. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"Model" or "Adult Model"

McCarthy is called a model everywhere in this article. Model_(person) is defined as "a person who is employed for the purpose of displaying and promoting fashion clothing or other products and for advertising or promotional purposes or who poses for works of art." According to this definition and McCarthy's page, she has "modeled" once, for "Candie's", with her underwear around her ankles, no doubt a reference to her "adult modeling" career, exposing her breast and genitals for the pleasure of consumers of Playboy magazines. In contrast, her entry says that she has performed this "adult modeling" several times; it is why she is famous in the first place.

I humbly request that McCarthy be referred to as an "adult model" anywhere she is currently called a "model", unless the reference is specifically related to her work as a model (per Wiki's definition) promoting products and advertising. It is disingenuous to do otherwise. DGGenuine (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

After looking into one user's activity regarding the term "Adult Model", I have discovered that at least that user discourages the phrase for lack of clarity. I personally find the term very clear, in that it refers to someone whose modeling is/was generally considered inappropriate for minors. Such modeling would usually involve displaying sexual organs, and since several societies disapprove of minor consumption of such materials, i.e., minors viewing sexual organs, the materials are called "adult" materials, and the persons appearing in them are "adult models". I do not find the justification that this category is somewhat nebulous to be sufficient to remove the category, for as even the US highest court has acknowledged, adult materials are difficult to classify. I am sympathetic to the concern that "adult model" could encompass everything from almost nude artwork to hardcore pornography, and the concern someone might have for another's reputation by calling them an "adult model" when they are on the soft side of the spectrum. Personally I don't share the concern, but I understand how someone could have it. There appear to be two, non-mutually-exclusive solutions: (1) categorize a person more specifically as either a glamour model, softcore pornographic model, or hardcore pornographic model. Or (2) apply the existing Adult_model Category:

This category and its subcategories are restricted to people verified to be "adult models" by occupation, according to reliable published sources. It is only for models who appear in adult-oriented materials, not merely for models who are adults, or who have done some "glamour" work.

W.r.t. (1), I would not consider Ms. McCarthy to be a softcore pornographer (although I have only seen a couple of her Playboy materials), so in (1) I would call her a glamour model. I personally find the word "glamour" to be candy coating, but I may just be unfamiliar with the term. Perhaps it is a term of the trade. Much better that the wiki page for it seems to refer to the type of work McCarthy performed. Anyway, if (1) were taken, references to "model" should be replaced with "glamour model", except in the one instance when McCarthy engaged in modeling to promote a product. This would entail linking the phrase "glamour model" to Glamour_photography or Model_(person)#Glamour_models.

W.r.t (2), I would consider McCarthy to have done more than "some glamour work" considering that she has done it multiple times over the course of several years and that it was how she originally became famous. I would therefore apply this category DGGenuine (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Since she's done work of the nude and non-nude varieties, I really think "model" says it all. "Adult model" seems to have a negative connotation, especially in regard to someone who hasn't done any nude work in quite a while. Dayewalker (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed "adult" earlier because i thought it was in comparison to "child model." I'll put it back now. I had no idea.... Eperotao (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Journal: Study linking vaccine to autism was fraud

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j5W87jAs9mPrcilNDPYP7vxBjqdw?docId=e361bf7682cc43ce998219c5eb2d151e • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is interesting and definitely relevant at Austism or the Autism controversy article, but I don't think it has any direct bearing here. Ocaasi (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Since she serves on Generation Rescue's Board of Directors, and is a very outspoken outperson, and they have decided the fraud and data manipulation was "much ado about nothing", it is relevant here. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Andrew_Wakefield#Andrew_Wakefield.27s_autism_study_declared_.22an_elaborate_fraud.22

Plenty of sources here. What's most relevant for this article is her relation to Generation Rescue, where they say that this "media circus" over the findings is "much ado about nothing." -- Brangifer (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Relevant details?

I'm all for getting into McCarthy's role in the autism debate, but I think we've gone on a tangent in a few places. I recommend we move or rewrite the following pieces:

The BMJ published a 2011 article by journalist Brian Deer, based on information uncovered by Freedom of Information legislation after the British General Medical Council (GMC) inquiry into allegations of misconduct against Wakefield that led to him being struck from the medical record and his articles retracted, stating that Wakefield had planned a venture to profit from the MMR vaccine scare.[41][42][43][44]

...Neil Cameron, a historian who specializes in the history of science, writing for The Montreal Gazette labeled the controversy a "failure of journalism" that resulted in unnecessary deaths, saying that The Lancet should not have published a study based on "statistically meaningless results" from only 12 cases and that a grapevine of worried parents and "nincompoop" celebrities fueled the widespread fears.[46]

It reads like a lot of detail about the Wakefield controversy, but this is McCarthy's bio, and it's a tad irrelevant how Wakefield was specifically exposed or what his ulterior motives were. Those details belong a) at Andrew Wakefield; b) at Vaccine/Autism Controversy; or c) at least in their own sub-section titled 'The Wakefield study'. Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You might tighten the wording, but since she wrote the foreword to his book, is on the Board of Directors of Genertion Rescue, and she and they are continuing to defend him, readers need enough detail to know the nature of the controversy. And since she has stated that it's All About Deer (not those exact words), Deer needs to be introduced. And since all reliable sources discuss how much impact "nincompoop celebrities" had on the vaccination scare, via the media and Internet, it's relevant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the Generation Rescue or book forward parts, just specifically the above paragraphs. The first paragraph seems a bit wonky as well as speculative towards the end--and it is only about Wakefield. The second paragraph quotes a science historian in a newspaper using the word "nincompoop". Criticism of McCarthy is noteworthy but "nincompoop" is not an encyclopedic addition here, it's just name-calling. Ocaasi (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Doonesbury Cartoon

I think this is more than relevant to Wikipedia. Doonesbury is a major player in the cartoon world and choosing to lampoon McCarthy is like an top-fold political cartoon. This isn't up there with McCarthy liking her feet rubbed it is a carefully thought out statement by Doonesbury and I think it is relevant to her controversy. Feb 20, 2011 Cartoon Doonesbury lampoons McCarthy's endorsement of the discredited Wakefield report saying "she's done real harm to preventive healthcare...". SGerbic (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that Doonesbury is a major player, not just a run-of-the-mill cartoon, we have other sources saying the same thing, so using a cartoon seems gratuitous in this case. If other disagree, fine with me, but I think it warrants discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Doonesbury is a significant cartoon. However, we're still in the realm of the dreaded "In popular culture" here. Using the suggested test there, let's see how we do: "Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference?" No. "Have reliable sources that don't generally cover the subject pointed out the reference?" No. "Did any real-world event occur because of the reference?" No. "If you can't answer "yes" to at least one of these, you're just adding trivia. Get all three and you're possibly adding valuable content." - SummerPhD (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with SummerPhD above. Doonesbury is notable, McCarthy is notable, but Doonesbury having a strip about McCarthy isn't necessarily notable unless other reliable sources pick it up. Dayewalker (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"Unsupported by medical claims"

An edit removed this phrase from the intro, calling it unnecessary. It was reverted (by another editor), and this explains why: while I agree that the phrase doesn't have to be there, and will seem like a potshot to some, we did have some discussion about it, and it does in fact summarize the article body per WP:LEAD. The following is in the article:

• The underlying rationale for chelation, the speculation that mercury in vaccines causes autism, has been roundly rejected by scientific studies, with the National Institute of Mental Health concluding that autistic children are unlikely to receive any benefit to balance the risks of cognitive and emotional problems posed by the chelating agents used in the treatment.

• McCarthy's claims that vaccines cause autism are not supported by any medical evidence, and the original paper by Andrew Wakefield that formed the basis for the claims (and for whose book McCarthy wrote a foreword[36]) has been shown to be based on manipulated data and fraudulent research.[37][38][39][40] The BMJ published a 2011 article by journalist Brian Deer, based on information uncovered by Freedom of Information legislation after the British General Medical Council (GMC) inquiry into allegations of misconduct against Wakefield that led to him being struck from the medical record and his articles retracted, stating that Wakefield had planned a venture to profit from the MMR vaccine scare.

So, as long as those paragraphs are in the article, the phrase 'unsupported by medical evidence' is a reflection of the body and at least is a reasonable addiction to the lead. Ocaasi (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The phrase appears to have morphed into: an activist promoting claims—not supported by medical evidence—that vaccines cause autism[3] and chelation therapy helps cure it.[4]

The first citation does say (three times) that studies have failed to show a link, but it doesn't convey that McCarthy is promoting claims not supported by medical evidence; and the second cited source doesn't mention McCarthy. Yes there are paragraphs in the article that debate the whole vaccination-autism controversy, but the summary would be more suitable for that article instead of this BLP. Do we have more directly relevant sources (and more up-to-date ones, at that) to which we can cite that lede summary? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

From the first source: "Although several studies have failed to show a link between autism and vaccines, lay concerns about a possible cause and effect continue to arise. In the past year, those concerns have been flamed by celebrities, such as comedian and former Playboy centerfold Jenny McCarthy, whose son is autistic; she has appeared on television to insist that vaccines cause autism." Um, it says that she is promoting that vaccines cause autism while studies don't show that. I don't know how much clearer you can get. And the article is from 2008, which is plenty "up-to-date" since her views haven't changed (unless you can provide a RS that show it has). As to chelation, I have added another source that speaks to her support of it. Yobol (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Trivia in personal section

I removed this material from the Personal section. It seemed to be trivial and more suited to a magazine than an encyclopedia. "She is also an avid Chicago White Sox fan.

McCarthy is a vegan. --BweeB (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

So, this is a little obscure, but before she eventually decided that vaccines were the cause of her child's autism she wrote several essays in which she claimed that her son was an indigo child, as can be seen in this article written by her here: [2]. I think that the switch between that being cause of her child's autism to vaccines being the root is odd enough of a 180 degree switch that it's relevant enough to warrant mentioning in relation to her anti-vaccination efforts, though I don't know how to include it without disrupting the flow of the section as it's written.Yeahchris (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add the link to www.jennymccarthybodycount.com that was removed back in Feb 2010, but it was immediately removed by User:Dismas when I attempted to do so May 16, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by IIGLinda (talk • contribs) 08:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't www.jennymccarthybodycount.com on the page under controversy? It is completely relevent. SGerbic (talk) 01:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's an attack site, not a reliable source. Dayewalker (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Weight

This whole section is given way to much weight in the article, IMHO. Perhaps it can be trimmed and summarized? --BweeB (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Confusion

English is not my native language, maybe that's why I don't understand the following from the lead: has become an activist promoting the disproven claims that vaccines cause autism[3] and that chelation therapy helps cure it—both claims which are widely unrecognized or disputed by the medical community.[4]

Does it mean she is going against the medical community or is she helping it? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

She "promotes disproven claims that vaccines cause autism". Basically, she says vaccines cause autism, but this is not true. She says "chelation helps cure autism... (which is) disputed by the medical community". Basically, she says chelation treats or cures autism, by doctors and scientists say it does not. In short, she is going against what the medical community says. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining Summer! 81.68.255.36 (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Comedian

Four IP edits have challenged the use of "comedian" in the lede. The IPs resolved to Iceland, the U.S. and the UK (x2). One removed the term, two[3][4] added malformed tags, one added a detailed tag.

Xenophrenics two reverts refer to the Jenny McCarthy Show which we call "an MTV sketch comedy show". (Another revert was by a bot. The most recent one currently remains.)

Comedian defines the term as "a person who seeks to entertain an audience, primarily by making them laugh. This might be through jokes or amusing situations, or acting a fool, as in slapstick, or employing prop comedy." This, IMO, fits the bill.

Discussion? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Just 4 sections up on this Talk page, Yobol quotes one source already in the article which describes her as: "comedian and former Playboy centerfold Jenny McCarthy". Xenophrenic (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This is your problem: http://www.cracked.com/article_20200_8-celebrities-with-unexpected-famous-relatives_p2.html. "Jenny McCarthy is classified on Wikipedia as a comedian, and if there's one phrase on the entire website in sore need of a "[citation needed]" by its side, that's gotta be it." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.52.130.149 (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a cracked article by some schmoe who thinks we'll be surprised that Jamie Lee Curtis is Janet Leigh's daughter. Wow. (Someone should drop him a line about the bombshell story hidden on Carrie Fisher's birth certificate.) It'll be forgotten in a month. If it continues to be a problem, we'll just protect the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice pictures [5] of her new hair style as she host a show of comedy (according to the article.) She's great! Note that the British paper lists her comedy show. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms/Controversy re: Ottawa cancer foundation

The debacle about her being dropped from being a guest at a cancer fundraiser has been all over the news recently: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Ottawa+cancer+foundation+drops+Jenny+McCarthy+from+Bust+Move+fundraiser/7906939/story.html

Does this warrant a section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukekfreeman (talk • contribs) 04:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that today. I think it would fit, its a big deal being turned down like that.Sgerbic (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that it says more about them than about her. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

She was scheduled to appear. This was cancelled, allegedly due to her pseudoscientific claims. She allegedly demanded a financial settlement and stated she cancelled due to a "schedule conflict". It is very well sourced and serves to emphasize how far from medical science her beliefs are. It certainly merits inclusion. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It would work either way: (inclusion, or not.) Keep in mind that fans and knowledge seekers who read Wikipedia judge Wikipedia on our quality. Many of us view mainstream medical literature of the West to be behind preventative homeopathics of the Eastern culture. Her criticism is well-founded. Actually, all she has done is note the rise of over-vacinating infants and children and the rapid rise of autism. And she is right to call attention. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Correlation does not mean causation. We present the mainstream facts because we are a mainstream encyclopaedia. What she is saying is dangerous, as evidenced by this and we are right to say it is unfounded. AIRcorn (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Charles: Whether or not we believe her pseudoscientific claims (and whether or not those who accept other pseudoscientific claims view science to support their pseudoscience) is immaterial to this issue. The event is significant: She was scheduled to speak, her claims got her tossed, she demanded payment, she claimed it was a schedule conflict. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm just saying, be careful what we write in Wikipedia because we will be judged. Was Jenny McCarthy to be criticized? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

We are not here to criticize McCarthy. We are not here to defend McCarthy. We are here to report on significant coverage related to McCarthy. A notable organization's dispute with her is clearly significant. Her embrace of various versions of a disproven theory is clearly part of this. The obvious disconnect between her version of events and other reports is also of note. I'm not really sure what else can be said here. If you feel there are aspects of the issue which you feel we are not giving balanced coverage of, are omitting or are giving undue weight to, please explain. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The View - revisions

I have reverted the removal of material related to criticism of McCarthy's selection as a co-host on a news-based talk show by pro-immunization groups. Notable criticism in reliable sources should be represented, though care must be taken not to echo that criticism in Wikipedia's voice. The "Activism and autism controversy" section should not itself promote or decry the subject, but notable criticism (and response thereto) should be included. Nmillerche (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources for The View controversy

While this source is not a RS here, it contains a list with many RS we could use:

• The vote on Jenny McCarthy–a resounding NO

Brangifer (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hasselbeck's replacement

By far most sources state that she is to be Hasselbeck's replacement. Here are a few:

• http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/16/jenny-mccarthy-vs-elisabeth-hasselbeck-how-the-view-hosts-compare.html

• http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/07/15/jenny_mccarthy_abc_s_the_view_taps_jenny_mccarthy_to_replace_elisabeth_hasselbeck.html

• http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2013/07/19/how-earth-jenny-mccarthy-ideal-replacement-elisabeth-hasselbeck-view

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/17/jenny-mccarthy-the-view-blonde-stereotype

It's true that a few sources mention both Hasselbeck and Behar in a confusing manner, but most sources state it's Hasselbeck who is being replaced, without mentioning Behar at all. If there is a source directly from ABC that contradicts this, then we need to see it. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Dating Donnie Wahlburg

A new editor has been removing the relationship saying it "was a lie". At the moment, this is very well sourced: Us Magazine, People Magazine, s, NY Daily News, VH1, etc. Unless there is a wery reliable source explaining this or retractions from the major outlets, this seems quite solid.

(The new editor has been warned for WP:3RR and hopefully will discuss this rather than ending up blocked.) - SummerPhD (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Then again, maybe we'll have to block the editor, block a sock and protect the page. Whatever works. If there is a reason to remove this well-sourced info, discussion here would be a good start. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The section on reactions to her appt as a co-host on the view violates WP:UNDUE. None of those block quotes need to be there. That section needs to be summarized and reduced to about one quarter of its current length to create a neutral POV.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Drew Carey Show

Appearance on Drew Carey Show season 7 episode 17 appears to be missing from filmogrraphy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.157.6 (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Place of Birth?

There are two different listings for her place of birth. In the inforbox it says Chicago Illinois and in the body text under 'Early life' it says Evergreen, Park. Evergreen Park is not Chicago. Leaving this for editors how care about this topic. Cheers --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing, and it is still there. Maybe a tag should be added on the page, to get this under attention. 82.141.67.208 (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"Autism activism"

I feel like the "autism activism" section header is inappropriate. Activism is typically to advance a cause, so it gives a misleading impression of McCarthy's work. The term is ambiguous because there is also a significant movement for destigmatizing autism, see neurodiversity movement. "Anti-autism activism" would be a clearer label. Knight of Truth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"Anti-autism activism" might suggest someone attempting to stigmatize autism. I don't think it's an improvement. --Yaush (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm tempted to suggest "antivaccination activist" with no real support, but McCarthy's position is ever shifting. Originally, she said her son was an "indigo child" and she was a "crystal parent". Then she decided it was autism and blamed it on vaccines which she argued don't work and are dangerous. (She may have shifted from blaming MMR to blaming thiomersal to blaming vaccine "overload" with some kind of need for "green" vaccines thrown in.) Now, while still saying it's autism caused by vaccines, she directly states that she is not "anti-vaccine".

Long story short: We should probably go with the sources. Searching for "Jenny McCarthy activist" (to find sources on her using the word "activist") turns up lots of ... um ... stuff. In any case, the reliable sources seem to go with "anti-vaccine activist" (or "anti-vaccine nut" or "anti-vac 'activist'"[6], which I guess we can't really use). Barring other suggestions (or a term that is more inclusive of her evolving views), I guess "anti-vaccine activist" is it. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking we should just go with "activism." --Yaush (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I would vote for "autism activist" or just plain "activist".-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with a rename to "activist" and nothing more. The broader issue is that the section is much too large, especially the "objection" section. Whole thing should be trimmed down considerably.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Trim carefully since there is high reader interest. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Scientifically unsupported claims

This part "promoting scientifically unsupported claims" is biased to say the least. The only one that don't support the claims are the BigPharma laboratories and their subsidiaries FDA and CDC. There are thousands of doctors that support the same claims. Check Dr. Blaylock, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.204.236 (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed this language from the introductory paragraph and added neutral language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.123.194 (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "promoting scientifically unsupported claims" is still there, and is incredibly biased. Did somebody change it back (with good reason)? Redmac54 (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

How exactly is it "biased"? Jackal Killer (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't. It's just that for anti-vaxers, science is optional when it suits them, and therefore this reads as biased to them. The claims are soundly debunked and can safely be categorised as "scientifically unsupported" or "medically unsupported", and no amount of honey can make them any less so. It'd be more "biased" if it said "ignorant, dangerous claims with no basis in science at all", even though that is true, too. Scientifically unsupported is carefully neutral language that very adequately describes the situation. Mirithing (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with user 'Mirithing' statement of "ignorant, dangerous claims with no basis in science at all". The internet is full of non-scientific claims and other bunk, and we need to put a stop to it! I strongly back the phrase "Prove it or STFU". Sbmeirow (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the "promoting scientifically unsupported claims" language; however, quite a bit of the language in the section "Activism and autism controversy" should be limited to Vaccination-autism controversy. For example, in paragraph 3, the author cites that J.M. appeared on Larry King Live. The following sentence ("No scientists were invited...") is irrelevant to the Jenny McCarthy article or her role in the controversy. Several phrases in this section attempt to bring a discussion of the merits (or lack thereof) of J.M.'s position on the Vaccination-autism controversy into this article on J.M.. I'm adding the POV-section flag and will attempt to keep the influence of J.M. in the controversy, while removing the wrongs and rights that have occurred in the media and journals on this subject. This will bring the article more in line with WP guidelines. DistributionAgnostic (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with DistributionAgnostic. There are dozens of redundant sentences in this article ON JENNY MCCARTHY that have nothing to do with HER, and should be removed. The reader can simply be referred to the Vaccination-autism controversy link. So, what is supposed to happen next? That comment was written over two years ago, but the referenced sentences are still in the article. 68.164.191.27 (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

why is nothing positive allowed in this article?

When a journalist as eminent as Barbara Walters showers Jenny McCarthy with praise, that's note worthy yet it seems the pro-vaccine advocacy groups are monitoring this article, making sure nothing positive gets reported because they want her to be a pariah. I'm as pro-vaccine as anyone, but I don't like wikipedia being used for smear campaigns and this kind of POV pushing and bullying. Wikipedia must meet the highest standards of journalistic integrity and that means giving equal weight to all notable content, not cherry picking to push an agenda. Historyhorror (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

What reliable sources do you think we should we be including that we are not? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Not to worry: readers of Wikipedia know the 'bent' to expect. Advice is well-given to make contributions here. Your contributions are needed and welcome.— Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• The issue isn't "positive" v. "negative". The issue here is whether marketing/advertising copy belongs in a BLP. When a TV show producer effusively praises someone she has just hired. in the context of promoting her show, that's hardly something an encyclopedia should be taking note of. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

When that TV producer is arguably the most admired journalist in the world, and the employee is a polarizing figure who was marginalized until said producer resurrected her image, it's an extremely notable and influential event. We have an entire section devoted to the backlash to Walters hiring her, yet we can't have a few sentences of her explaining why she did? Oh please. Historyhorror (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Tripe. Utter tripe. Advertising is advertising. And Walters is by no means "the most admired journalist in the world" [7]. Walters' hiring McCarthy was noteworthy, but hardly "influential" (what was the supposed influence, anyway? I don't see any trend of TV programs hiring attractive women spouting fringe theories, or at least no trend that didn't start at Fox News.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It's just your opinion that it's advertising. The anti vaccine loons argue that all the criticism of McCarthy is advertising by big pharma shills eager to protect their product (vaccines) and protect themselves from law suits, but I don't see you removing that because it's advertising. As a journalist Barbara Walters has a professional responsibility to meet the highest standards of truth and integrity, so her comments are supposed to represent her true reasons for hiring MCarthy. But even if if it were advertising, it's notable that such an eminent historic journalist would use her enormous credibility to advertise a woman who, until Walters hired her, had been a stigmatized pariah, unable to get mainstream media employment. And if Walters' decision to hire her was not influential, why do we have a whole section objecting to how dangerous that decision was. Wikipedia must meet the highest standards of logical consistency. When we fail to do that, we get exposed as POV pushers. Our readers are very very smart, so we can't POV push or our credibility diminishes. Historyhorror (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed content

The following properly sourced content was removed by Iselilja:

• Parental concerns over vaccines have led to decreased immunization rates and increased incidence of measles, a highly contagious and sometimes deadly disease and whooping cough. Neil Cameron, a historian who specializes in the history of science, writing for The Montreal Gazette labeled the controversy a "failure of journalism" that resulted in unnecessary deaths, saying that The Lancet should not have published a study based on "statistically meaningless results" from only 12 cases and that a grapevine of worried parents and "nincompoop" celebrities fueled the widespread fears.

Refs:

• Lin RG II (May 2, 2008). "Rise in measles prompts concern". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved November 4, 2008.
• Cameron, Neil (January 12, 2011). "Autism 'study' represents a failure of journalism". The Montreal Gazette. Retrieved January 12, 2011.

• Active link to same source: http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=def2fb05-916e-454c-9294-099cfb62e880

Normally removal of properly sourced content is considered vandalism, but I'm going to let it slide after a quick examination of these sources. The content does mention McCarthy, but the wording chosen could be improved by actually quoting her and the reactions. Above we only have the mild part. Actual quotes will not put her in a good light, but will demonstrate just how unscientific and dangerous her POV really is. So thanks to Iselilja, this content will be improved and restored in due time. Good catch! -- Brangifer (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

After examination of the second source, I think we can remove it. There is little doubt that Cameron is referring to McCarthy, but her name does not appear, nor any absolutely identifying information, like "Playboy celebrity", or such like, so we can't use it. I'll strike it. The other can be worked on and improved later when I have more time. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I full agree with the removal of such quotations. That whole section should be scrapped, honestly, and worked into another part of the article with a much shorter summary of the reaction.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually this is a very short version of what could be a whole separate article. To avoid such a POV fork, we settled on this version of the most significant quotes. Whitewashing is frowned on here and violates NPOV. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

You say white-washing, I call it fixing BLP violations. The quotations in that "objection" section could be summed up in one or two sentences easily. People getting angry because she got hired on a talk show is hardly worthy of so much space in the biography of someone whose career spans two decades.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no BLP violation because any negative information is properly sourced. Otherwise, after looking at what she said in the LA Times source above, and noting when she said it (2008), I feel it's likely best to just leave it out. There are already other sources used which document the same thing and which show the progression in her thinking. I think we're basically finished with this thread. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

BLP policy is not just about using reliable sources. It essentially demands a stricter adherence to policy than normal. An entire section about objections to her being a host on a show with four separate paragraph-length quotes attacking her is clearly not strictly adhering to policy. WP:UNDUE comes to mind.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's important to document just how thoroughly condemned her POV is, so I have no problem including all the criticism, as long as we can also show that her views are more nuanced than her critics portray and that her views have received warm support from mainstream people like Ellen and that she's been personally praised by people like Walters. It's the attempt to include ONLY the negative and remove anything positive that I feel is POV pushing. Historyhorror (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism?

please add the citation for the "fart right away" quote. Streamless 16:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I know this is 9 years old, but I'd like for people to know, that if you see overt vandalism like that; remove or revert it. Don't take it to the talk page.Ging287 (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

#JennyAsks TweetStorm

I am somewhat surprised to find no mention of the recent #JennyAsks TweetStorm Public Ridicule trouncing which Jenny received from around the world. It would seem to be a legitimate sub-topic for researchers since there was widespread ridicule and outrage which has caused some damage to Jenny's career and which has caused a mild effort to boycot the television show she appears on.

Indeed, Slate covered it among numerous other well-read on-line publications. Yet not one hint of the hash tag activity though I'm happy to see there is some Twitter behavior getting covered in the extant article. The hash tag was "trending" for a while which always helps to ramp-up interest in who-ever or what-ever motivated the trend.

Has anyone thought to add commentary about the #JennyAsks fiasco? Is it relevant or not? Damotclese (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

What I Like About You

she was not in "what i like about you". that was jennie garth Snatchercat (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

According to IMDB, they both were. Granted, McCarthy was only in a single episode but she was still in it. Dismas|^(talk) 04:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

For note, IMDB is not WP:RS EvergreenFir (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Not for biographical info but for filmography info it is good for checking things like this. That said, here's another source that is more reliable. Dismas|^(talk) 04:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Can we get a better picture up there?

Please!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.39.126 (talk • contribs) 05:58, June 27, 2007‎

Or add additional pictures. Perhaps action photos . . . -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Full protection

This page has been fully protected for two weeks, some discussion on the issues in question please. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Censorship of The Huffington Post reference?

Users EvergreenFir and IPadPerson are censuring content on this page, repeatedly deleting references to a Huffington Post story per http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachel-lincoln-sarnoff/jenny-mccarthys-got-the-wrong-view-on-vaccinations_b_3605185.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.23.77 (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean censoring. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)