Jump to content

Talk:Jenny McCarthy/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

RFC

The following discussion 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.

Per the WP:Snowball clause I am closing this. "If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process." The intent of the Snowball clause is described as "to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions from the start" and that pretty much sums this discussion up. This has clearly become disruptive and time wasting. Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Are Referenced Credible Sources on Jenny's Vaccination Views and Impacts "Fancruft"?

I recently attempted to add the following to the article:

In July 2013 the Huffington Post published an article entitled "Jenny McCarthy's Got The Wrong View On Vaccinations", which reported that:

"...since the idea of refusing vaccinations in order to prevent autism became popularized in the United States in 2007, more than 1,000 children have died and 100,000 were sickened by illnesses that could have been prevented by vaccines"[1][2]

The content above was repeatedly deleted because the deleting users labeled it "fancruft". For the uninitiated, "fancruft" is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question.

Now, I'm not the smartest person in the world by any means, but even I know that vaccinations and vaccination policy is hardly "fancruft". Nor are McCarthy's views on the matter. One of the deleters made a crack about "HuffPo", which I can only guess reveals some kind of political agenda on the part of the deleter and therefore wholly inappropriate for wikipedia. That deleter also wrote an admonishment that "This BLP article has extra scrutiny". I think that was an incoherent attempt to refer to wikipedia's policy regarding article on living people.

So what does wikipedia require of such articles? Per wikipedia, "Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

1) Neutral point of view (NPOV) 2) Verifiability (V) 3) No original research (NOR)"

Lets look at each of these points, in reverse order for discussion purposes.

"No original research": I merely ask that the reference to a published piece from a mass media source and a quote from it be added to the article. Nothing original. Check.

"Verifiability": per Wikipedia, this means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Further, wikipedia says  : "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process"

The source I tried to add is a piece published by the Huffington Post, and the byline is from a professional blogger by the name of Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff. So before I added any content to this wiki article, I investigated it for compliance with wiki policies. What did I find? A piece that was heavily linked and sourced. Where the piece covered the same data points already existing in this article, they stated the same things and even cited the same or similar sources.

But the key reason I wanted to add the piece to this wiki article is its information on the number of preventable illnesses and deaths that had been caused by a lack of vaccinations. So, following wikipedia guidelines, I checked her sources. The Huffington Post piece sited a website that had calculated the body count of preventable illnesses and deaths. So I went to that website. What were its sources? Its sources are the weekly "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports" put out be the Centers for disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Every count is linked back to such a report. Don't believe me and unwilling to check? Then try http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Anti-Vaccine_Body_Count/Preventable_Deaths.html. Verifiability? check.

"Neutral Point of View": This is key. According to wikipedia, this means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." I heartily agree with this criteria, which is why I added the Huffington Post piece to this article. Where else in the wiki article is a reference to the CDC views on illnesses and deaths caused that were preventable had vaccinations occurred as recommended? Where? Should we just assume that McCarthy's vaccination views are without consequence to public health? If so, I humbly but forcefully ask that people take the time and effort I have to find material that meets the 3 criteria above to assert that McCarthy's and those that share her views on vaccinations have NOT had an impact on preventable illnesses and deaths.

Adding the Huffington Post article is also a common sense move. If vaccinations are as successful as claimed in wikipedia articles, then isn't the avoidance of vaccinations something that will lead to the illnesses and deaths that vaccines prevent? But the wrong way to go about that is to censure this article and suppress information that meets wikipedia's standards.

Lastly, I note that the McCarthy wiki article currently contains McCarthy's assertion that she was never against vaccinations etc in the October 2013 interview (that ironically was probably done in whole or part because of the fallout from the widely-read Huffington Post piece in July that I'm trying to add). That's a classic "moving the goalposts" fallacy among other travesties. But that's only apparent if the article and history itself retains documentation and knowledge of her many years in fighting child vaccinations. We can slowly or quickly scrub this article and perhaps history itself of her high profile efforts in fighting vaccinations so that only her denial of doing so is the only remaining record, but why would we voluntarily do that? Why? And why here of all places?

In short, we should fight censorship, bias and protection by fans and allow the Huffington Post article reference and quote into the wiki article. Specifically because this is a living person, we need to be especially vigilant in keeping this neutral. Alternatively, since the key is the CDC data to the piece I want to add, people need to provide a great deal of information refuting CDC statistics on vaccinations that is not original research, is neutral, and is verifiable. A few smug, refuted comments in the comment section of deleting content doesn't cut it per wikipedia standards.

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.23.77 (talk • contribs)

  1. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachel-lincoln-sarnoff/jenny-mccarthys-got-the-wrong-view-on-vaccinations_b_3605185.html
  2. ^ http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Anti-Vaccine_Body_Count/Home.html
  • Strong oppose - It's WP:UNDUE. HuffPo Blogs, which the article you referenced is, are not WP:RS. HuffPo itself is a questionable source anyway. See RSN discussions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. The body count website cannot be used at all in this article as it's libelous. WP:BLP is paramount here; we must have rock solid sourcing for anything controversial or potentially libelous. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
>You've incorrectly and selectively invoked wiki policies regarding sourcing and verifiability, and your incendiary accusation of libel without ANY supporting facts is an outright violation of wiki principles. Labeling the article and its sources as "undue weight" as I think you've attempted I think is very telling - are you anti-vaccine as well? You certainly are behaving so. But isn't taking an anti-vaccine stand the undue weight position? After all, the vaccine movement is supported by the vast majority of families and scientists. The article in fact does a great job of pointing that out with reliable sources. There's just a few, but very vocal, anti-vaccine campaigners, of which McCarthy is very prominent, as again effectively noted in the piece to be added and this wiki article. But giving in to anti-vaccine campaigners and censuring this piece would violate the very principle of "undue weight" that you are attempting to twist to your personal agenda. Just as the other objectors need to do, so must you disprove the veracity of CDC data that is at the heart of the content you want scrubbed, as well as the links between vaccinations and how they prevent illnesses and deaths, and how a lack thereof will result in preventable occurrences of the same that are at the heart of the CDC analyses. You also need to prove that the anti-vaccine view is the majority view and that those that support vaccines are in the minority to support your claim of undue weight. Wikipedia has hundreds of articles supporting all those ties and support that they are held by the vast majority of people, yet you offer nothing but unsourced assertions and selective and bad interpretation of wiki policy as your support. It is abundantly clear you wish to censure this article to remove McCarthy's connections to the anti-vaccine movement and its consequences, but the very wikipedia policies you attempt to twist to justify your bias are in fact the very policies that support the content's inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.23.77 (talk)
@98.100.23.77: You are in violations of WP:AGF. Also the word you are looking for is "censoring", not "censuring". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Short version: the sentence is a statement about the anti-vaccination movement, not McCarthy. Being used in an source about McCarthy does not make the sentence itself about McCarthy.
  • per WP:MEDRS. A professional blogger is not a reliable source for medical statistics; neither is an attack site. I do not see a CDC&P report to comment on, but if their report is a reliable source it cannot be used here unless it is directly discussing McCarthy.
  • per WP:UNDUE. The statement does not directly say McCarthy is the cause of x deaths and y illnesses. It is discussing the anti-vaccination movement and unvaccinated illnesses and deaths, not McCarthy. Putting this sentence in her article because she is part of the movement is an attack, using the article as a coatrack and a violation of BLP.
  • per WP:OR. The statement does not directly say McCarthy is the cause of x deaths and y illnesses. Putting this sentence in her article because she is part of the anti-vaccination movement is making a fallacious connection between McCarthy, the anti-vaccination movement and unvaccinated illnesses and deaths. "A happened → B happened = A caused B; C is part of A, therefore C caused B." That kind of connection does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia, especially not as part of a BLP.
71.234.215.133 (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
>You're invoking a strawman argument in a very insidious way. Let's take them one by one. Is the blogger the source for the medical data? Of course not - the CDC is the source. Your requirement that the CDC must discuss McCarthy directly in the reports you were too lazy to read is noted, but is arbitrary and a setup. And your demand that the CDC discuss her directly to establish the strawman that she's being directly accused is refuted by your very next point, in which you admit she is not being directly accused of deaths or illnesses! Your argument is all over the place and degenerates into coatracks. Are you attempting to label McCarthy's views and the consequences of adopting those views as tangential to accomplish what the "fancruft" label failed to do? Stick to the facts: Is McCarthy linked to the anti-vaccine movement? Of course, as documented on wkipedia and many, many other places. But if you think otherwise, prove it. Do vaccinations prevent illness and death? Of course, as heavily documented in wikipedia and many, many other places. But if you believe otherwise, prove it. Do the lack of vaccinations lead to preventable illness and deaths? Of course, as documented in wikipedia and many, many other places. But if you believe otherwise, prove it. You have a high bar to disprove the CDC data and that there is no link between vaccinations and the lack thereof in preventable deaths and illnesses, and yet you offer nothing but distractions and fallacies to refute it. The very policy of undue weight that you invoke is the very policy that shows your fact-free denials have no place at wikipedia in suppressing content that is the majority view. You don't want McCarthy and her views tied to preventable illnesses and deaths - that's obvious, and a position no doubt common among her fans. So prove your assertions instead of shallowly and selectively invoking wiki policies to censure content you don't like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.23.77 (talk)
> Yet another strawman - or prove your assertion that I said you used the term "fancruft" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.23.77 (talk)
  • The above sentence has no link to the CDC&P report; I cannot read what is not being used as a source. As the sentence above stands, you have a blog and an attack site for sources about medical statistics and a medical conclusion, and nothing at all in the sentence names any person directly. Adding it to any Wikipedia article would be an exercise in poor sourcing; adding it to any BLP article would also be original research and a backhanded attack on the subject of the BLP. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
> Yet another strawman - your arbitrary requirement that I include links to CDC data for your convenience instead of you actually following the links in the article and its sources is noted. So here's the link you've probably really found but are choosing to ignore: http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Anti-Vaccine_Body_Count/Preventable_Deaths.html http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Anti-Vaccine_Body_Count/Preventable_Illnesses.html. In case it's beyond your abilities to discover, you can actually click on every report reference and pull up the source CDC data. If you have a different result or conclusion from the data, please provide them but please note that such will in fact be the only "original research" here. Your demand that any individuals be named in CDC links per your specifications continues to be arbitrary, contradicts your own argument, and is a not-so-subtle attack that represents the minority opinion that lack of vaccinations does not cause illness or death. Again, provide your proof for that. It also reveals that you've probably already found and looked at the links you claim to not be aware of - how can you claim to know that the CDC data does not directly call out McCarthy, and also claim that you didn't see the links? Ooops! Labeling the source of the article as an attack site is a crude and indirect way to ignore or refute the CDC sources that I have now provided for your convenience, so show some integrity and provide your proof that the CDC data is the minority view or has been refuted with reliable sources. Anticipating your repeated refutation that the reported vaccine-preventable illness and deaths aren't really related to a lack of vaccines or not connected to the anti-vaccine movement, or that McCarthy is not connected to the anti-vaccine movement, provide the mountain of proof that you'll need to overcome the mountain of proof already all over wikipedia. Denial isn't proof. Your assertion that you don't need to provide proof for your censorship position is directly contradicted by a slew of wikipedia policies. Labeling links to articles that reference sites that are based on CDC work as "original research" is simply ignorant of wikipedia policy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.23.77 (talk)
  • What I believe about vaccines has absolutely nothing to do with this or any other article on Wikipedia. I do not have to prove anything. I do have to, and did, cite policy-based reasons for my opposition to including this sentence in a BLP. You have responded with walls of text, assumptions about editors' motivations ("your personal agenda.", "You don't want...", "...common among her fans.", "...content you don't like.", "I get it that you're her fans...") and personal attacks ("...you were too lazy to read...", "...a profound lack of reading comprehension on your part."). Please stop commenting on the editors and deal with what the editors are saying. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
> You haven't produced any evidence to support your position other than your fact-free assertions, apparent agenda and selective and distorted interpretations of wiki policy. Not my problem if that's all you've got, but it is your problem. You can easily prove me wrong with sourced data that meets wikipedia standards that the links the article mentions and the data CDC provides concerning vaccinations, illnesses and deaths are the minority position - why are you withholding them? Or if you have evidence that McCarthy has not been prominent in the anti-vaccine world, the world awaits your sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.23.77 (talk)
  • Strong oppose. Blogs such as HuffPo Blogs are absolutely a violation of WP:RS and does not specifically say a thing about McCarthy herself (WP:UNDUE). It is a complete statement about an anti-vaccination movement that has nothing to do with McCarthy's personal life. Putting such statements that has no relevancy to the person is a complete violation of WP:BLP and WP:PEACOCK. IPadPerson (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
>There is no blanket ban of HuffPo blogs at wikipedia -if so, prove it and scrub the many wiki articles in addition to this one if you intend to implement a personal crusade to do so, or your focus of pursuing such a ban on this article is selective and biased. But if this is your best response to the far more detailed and balanced application of wiki policies that I presented above to this article, then so noted. Your claim that the article does not say anything about McCarthy herself (in addition to other strawman statements that don't deserve a response) reveals a profound lack of reading comprehension on your part. Read the article again, carefully, slowly and repeatedly until you understand that the article is about McCarthy and her actions promoting her anti-vaccine views, assessments of her sources and assertions, and the CDC calculations of the impact of anti-vaccine behaviors. And I'm sorry, I again missed the part where you or the other objectors prove that the CDC data are unreliable, or that McCarthy has not been a prominent member of the anti-vaccine movement. I get it that you're her fans and this information is not complimentary to her reputation, but objectivity and a neutral point-of-view via reliable sources are of critical importance to wikipedia and thus the proposed content should be included in the article. Several of you incorrectly invoked and selectively interpreted wiki policies on BLP, but it is precisely for that very wiki policy when interpreted accurately that this article should be included.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.23.77 (talk)
I already gave you the links to the Reliable Source Noticeboard where editors have expressed concerns over HuffPo and explicitly said that HuffPoBlogs is not RS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
> And I already asked you to provide proof that wikipdedia has "explicitly said that HuffPoBlogs is not RS". I looked. I looked extensively. I found otherwise, as I previously reported in detail. Provide your proof to prove otherwise. I followed wiki policy to the letter, in detail, all the way back to the CDC source docs. You know this already. You, however, are making up stuff, perhaps in the hope I won't track it down and to silence me. That won't work. Your best bet is to try to use my tenacity, logic and sourcing against me in the hope that unsourced, facile comments will prevail, but is that really in the best interests of wikipedia and aligned with wiki policy? That's not a rhetorical question.98.100.23.77 (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

>I also note silence on the previous repeated assertions of "fancruft" that led to this discussion. What happened? You can continue to move the goalposts, but you can't bend reality, objectivity and wikipedia's policies to implement a personal agenda that is blatantly in opposition to wiki principles. EvergreenFir, if not also others, is obviously biased - on June 28 I attempted to discuss this topic on the talk pages before adding anything to the article - but she deleted my talk page entry quickly by stating in part "Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:Jenny McCarthy for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article...". Yet on July 9, EvergreenFir deletes the sourced article with the admonishment "Please discuss on the talk page". The very topic under discussion is apparently objectionable to EvergreenFir, and is rather obviously working backwards to justify a strong position taken before ever actually reading any of the article in question or considering any of its sources - in short, EvergreenFir made up his/her mind before applying wiki policies to the actual content. Keep that in mind when making up yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.23.77 (talk)

  • Oppose Huff Post info - There is no claim by Huff Post that Jenny McCarthy is the cause of kids not getting vaccinated. Even if the source were considered reliable, its writer is at most implying some original synthesis, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
>You make one of my points when you assert "There is no claim by Huff Post that Jenny McCarthy is the cause of kids not getting vaccinated". Thank you. But is she is a prominent member of the anti-vaccine movement (as documented in wikipedia) and opposing vaccines is a factor in illnesses and deaths, as determined by the CDC by labeling some of the illness and deaths as preventable if vaccinated. I eagerly await your sources that are not original research or fact-free assertions that the CDC is wrong. Connecting anti-vaccine promoters with avoided vaccines isn't "original synthesis" - it's their goal as heavily documented everywhere. You don't really believe that anti-vaccine promoters are actually trying to increase the number of vaccinated, do you? If so, produce your evidence. Connecting lack of vaccines with preventable illnesses and deaths is not "original synthesis". It's medical fact as widely published across wikipedia and obviously supported by the CDC. If you have proof otherwise, provide it.98.100.23.77 (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Are there any reports that parents of the victim kids have specifically blamed Jenny McCarthy for their decision not to immunize? If you have proof of that, then provide it. Otherwise, it's original synthesis from a questionable source, and (ironically enough) "McCarthyism", i.e. "guilt by association". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Obviously inappropriate. Others have already eloquently explained in detail why this is so, but I'll echo their statements that it is undue and has nothing to do specifically with McCarthy. Even beyond the content issues, the Huffington Post is a terrible source, equal in reliability to the Daily Mail, and it should not be used in a BLP (and certainly never to source negative information in a BLP). The article already covers the controversy over her views quite well, and we don't need to include statistical data, unless it's her height and weight. I have no clue why the IP editor is fixated on "fancruft", but I would advise him/her to stop bludgeoning the process. Post once, state your argument, and then go do something else. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
>Your views that "negative" information should never be sourced in a BLP are certainly not endorsed by wikipedia - if you continue to believe so, provide your proof. I see nothing in wikipedia policy that labels HuffPo as a "terrible source", or any equation to any other source, but you are welcome to provide your proof. Your personal belief that statistical data is not needed or welcome is noted, but rather against wikipedia policy. Many of them, in fact. You also confuse eloquence with absence of support. If you don't know where the "fancruft" references come from, then you haven't done the appropriate investigation to make an informed statement - I can only assure you all I have is evidence. I continue to only state my case once per (unsupported) claim, but the goalposts continue to move by others. Stop moving goalposts or making strawman assertions and you'll never hear from me again. Tenacity in the face of shifting sands, unsupported arguments, distortions of wiki policy and moving goalposts should not be confused with your concept of bludgeoning. I agree your best bet is to intimidate me into silence instead of producing a valid argument, but that won't work.98.100.23.77 (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not "fancruft", it's quite the opposite - it's an accusation of mass murder. Whatever Huff Post does is not our concern. But Wikipedia can't be in the position of endorsing such a claim. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
> OK, so this is interesting. Let's first dispense with the obvious: wikipedia doesn't endorse anything anywhere on the site - that's one of the major points of wiki policy. But let's ignore for the moment your crude attempt at a strawman and blatant ignorance of wiki policy. You've directly contradicted the fancruft claim that led to this discussion, even if you refuse to take the 2 minutes to check on that. You acknowledge that if illness and deaths increased as a result of avoided vaccinations that it would mean mass murder? I make no such claim, nor does any source I've provided, but your belief is telling. Let's assume the CDC is an unreliable source, which is strongly asserted otherwise in thousands of wikipedia articles and sources. And let's assume that HuffPo can't competently link to a source directly linked to CDC reports (that's a high bar for you to disprove, and a requirement that you do so to have any credibility. Go for it, with links and sources!) But whatever you do, make sure you discredit the following with detailed references, among many, many others sources stating the same that wholly support the HuffoPo piece: http://www.cfr.org/interactives/GH_Vaccine_Map/#map or http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-antivaccination-movement-20140120-story.html#axzz2r56gsV1e http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/jenny-mccarthy-stands-firm-autism-childhood-vaccine-link-reacts-discredited-medical-study-article-1.117335 Wanna ban the Council of Foreign Relations? The LA Times? Many, many other sources that state the same or similar? Go for it! But I'm not sure what will be left of wikipedia if you succeed in your pogrom.98.100.23.77 (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Have you yet found any source that quotes parents saying, "I didn't immunize because I listened to Jenny McCarthy"? If not, then you need to get to work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
> I'll prove that right after you prove I stated that. Go ahead! It's always fascinating to see someone try strawman arguments for the first time. Let's hope you abandon attempts to get good at it and instead stick to wikipedia policy. Your crack about "work" reveals bias and a lack of professionalism that you can't undo.98.100.23.77 (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
As I thought... You've got nothing. You're trying to push a point of view that holds Jenny McCarthy responsible for 1,000 deaths. Sorry, but you can't do that. It's a gross BLP violation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your posts @98.100.23.77: please sign all of your posts when you make them, and copy over the original sig with time/date stamp if you must break someone else's comment into sections. Thank you. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The material added by the IP states, "(article titled)...Jenny McCarthy...(says) statistics about vaccination refusal deaths". This is not a statement about McCarthy, the subject of the article. Yes, the opinion piece does tie those to McCarthy. The presentation here does not. If it did, the question would be whether we have a reliable source for whatever the claim might be.
There are two possible ways of re-stating this so that it is about McCarthy. The first way directly states that McCarthy is, in part, responsible for the illnesses and deaths. The source quite clearly does not meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS, so this is out of the question.
The second possible rewording so that it is about McCarthy would state something to the effect that the author of the opinion piece says that McCarthy is, in part, responsible for the illnesses and deaths. We do not have an independent reliable source for this: the statement is trivial, as any one person's opinion would be without such sourcing. We cannot take a speech/opinion piece/letter to mom from anyone and extract whatever we would like from it (hey, Lincoln said the Civil War was "great!"). Instead, we would report what reliable sources said about the author saying it. In this case, independent reliable sources have nothing to say about her opinion, as she is merely someone writing for Huffington Post.
If you want to tie McCarthy to the illnesses and deaths associated with the anti-vaccine bullshit (and it is bullshit), you will need a reliable source directly stating this in their own voice. Joe Schmo writing an editorial/letter to the editor/whatever in the New York Times makes the Times reliable source for the statement that "Schmo believes George Bush is an alien lizard man". So what? Who is Schmo? The Times saying "Bush is a lizard man" would be something else entirely. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
> I think you're commenting on a completely different article, because the one I'm referring to is entitled "Jenny McCarthy's Got The Wrong View On Vaccinations", which bears no relation to your claimed title. But let's entertain your attempt at yet another strawman for the moment, without derailing into the wordsmithing game you attempt. First and foremost, is McCarthy tied to the anti-vaccine movement? State definitively your position on that, keeping in mind the evidence on wikipedia and elsewhere in support of that is overwhelming. If you oppose that, keep in mind you're subject to undue weight and must provide overwhelming evidence to refute it. Second, do you believe that vaccinations reduce illnesses and deaths? Again, state your position on that definitively, and again keep in mind that the evidence on wikipedia and elsewhere in support of that is overwhelming and that a contrary position is subject to undue weight considerations. Third, what is your position that a lack of vaccinations leads to preventable illnesses and deaths? State your position definitively, and keep in mind the evidence that supports that is overwhelming on wikipedia and elsewhere, and a contrary position will again be subject to undue weight considerations. The link between McCarthy and the anti-vaccine movement has been, again, overwhelmingly documented here and elswhere, and any position to the contrary should be subject to wikipedia's undue weight rules. Lastly, the CDC data referenced is a reliable, published secondary source that has been published for over 50 years. The CDC data overwhelmingly meets the conditions of the wiki policy you invoked. If you have proof that the CDC data does not meet that standards, I again caution you that you must provide proof to support your position and such a position yet again will be subject to undue weight considerations. Think about that for a moment - for over 50 years, the CDC has been publishing this information. But maybe I'm reading too much in your strawman: are you really trying to state that there is no link between people fighting vaccinations and deaths and illnesses as a result of not getting vaccinations? Or that McCarthy is not a prominent member of the anti-vaccine movement? Really? Wikipdeda is rife with articles and sources and links that state otherwise. Or do you have data to refute the sudden increase since 2007 in both preventable illnesses and deaths as documented by the CDC in the links I provided, that amazingly coincides with the increase in celebrity endorsements of anti-vaccine positions since 2007, again as shown by the CDC data? There is no assertion of correlation or causation in the article or CDC data - so to assume one or the other is a strawman, and to demand one or the other is arbitrary. If you want to explore that detail, I suggest you create a separate wiki page. If the common sense of that is beyond you, and you are politically unable to accept the declaration of the obvious at HuffPo that McCarthy has been prominently linked to the anti-vaccine movement since 2007 and that there are many preventable illnesses and deaths that began to increase in 2007 per the CDC, then also please refute in detail the LA Times and Council of Foreign Relations links and countless other sources that assert the same. Go ahead. Really. Amazingly enough, the CDC in 2007 created a web page to deal with the misconceptions being promoted at that time per http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm. At what point will you admit reality on this, and if you won't, do you realize that you are in a minority position subject to undue weight? I await your links to reliable, published secondary sources that there is no link between the rise of the anti-vaccine movement in 2007 and the increase in preventable illnesses and deaths since 2007 as shown in the CDC data, or McCarthy's connections to the anti-vaccine movement.98.100.23.77 (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
You can argue till you're blue in the face, but Wikipedia will not allow such an outrageous BLP violation as the one you continue to insist upon including. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The text you added mentions McCarthy is in the title of the article, then says nothing about her. At the moment, the clear WP:CONSENSUS is to not include the material. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
> Hmmm, I count 6 references to McCarthy in the article outside of the title: quotes and everything. Do we have a counting or reading comprehension issue again?98.100.23.77 (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
"The text you added mentions McCarthy" once. It seems like a civility issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
> Let's first explore if we're still discussing the same story before denegrating to your baseless accusations. Chrome shows me six hits for "McCarthy" in the story. What's your count? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.23.77 (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
There might just be a comprehension issue here. In any case, the text you added mentions McCarthy once and does not say anything substantial about her. Try the link and count. You might also want to look up "denigrate". It doesn't mean what you think it does. Beyond that, I'm all out of food for you. Bye-bye. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
> Ahhh, so your misdirection in this case is that there is a minimum number of certain character string occurrences in a quote I'm trying to add to wikipedia (since you've already checked and confirmed I'm right about the actual story I'm trying to link), and specifically designed to ignore the referenced linked story. So enlighten the world: what's the wiki standard on actual arbitrary string mentions in the links story? Be specific, and keep in mind I know wiki standards better than you at this point, and that your argument is a red herring. But I think you already anticipated all of that with a preemptory "bye-bye" that does not meet any wiki standards for terminating discussion. .98.100.23.77 (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Assuming this is the reference in question, I see several mentions of the word "McCarthy", and I also see that it's strictly some blogger's guilt-by-association opinion and is unusable as a Wikipedia source. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The TEXT THE IP ADDED to this article mentions McCarthy once. The article the IP used as a source uses her name several times. The text added by the IP does not say anything about McCarthy, other than the title of the article. In any case the IP doesn't seem to hear the consensus. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
> At this point, do you really think your crude assault of fallacies is gong to silence me? Trying to craft an argument of incredulity into some kind of guilt thing your'e attempting is laughable and won't intimidate me into silence. At no point have you offered anything in accordance with wiki policy - just insults and intimidation.98.100.23.77 (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Noted.
Quite the contrary, the material you're trying to post violates a number of policies. Even if the article were only about the style of glasses she wears, it would still be an unusable source. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This simply doesn't add anything to the discussion of her well-documented anti-vax positions. We already cover them adequately in the article.
98.100.23.77, your behavior in this thread is well beyond WP:IDHT disruption. We don't need to "intimidate you into silence." If you don't have the good sense and manners to withdraw and save a bit of face, you can simply be topic banned or blocked for such battlefield behavior. You need to drop the stick and walk away from the dead horse. The consensus is a complete snowball against you. At this point, regardless if you were 100% right, continuing the discussion is disruptive and can get you blocked. It's time to just find something else to do. You won't win this one and you're wasting our time. Such disruption is not taken lightly. This IDHT disruption needs to stop, if necessary with a topic ban and closing of this RfC. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2014 (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.

Post close note: I have reverted the protection back to what it was prior to the RfC (pending changes), per Dougweller's closure, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that the material added with the sourcing provided will be permitted. As such, any repeated addition of the content can be considered in violation of the biographies of living persons policy, and may result in a block. --kelapstick(bainuu) 14:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going it add it without an extremely reliable source, but I thought it was the mainstream view that, regardless of intent, McCarthy's actions caused thousands of deaths. We just need to find a good mainstream source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps my comment was not as clear as it could be, but it is specifically related to the sources (and quality of sources) that was presented directly above. I was not speaking of exclusion if we are able to find good, mainstream sources. I have looked (unsuccessfully), although it is not surprising that mainstream sources are not eager to blame the death of thousands of people on a single person. Having said that I believe that if someone finds suitable sources, that there should be some degree of discussion on the talk page before addition. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Regardless of whatever the supposed "mainstream view" is or was, the only way this could be incorporated is if some significant number of the parents of those 1,000 were reliably on record as saying, "I decided not to vaccinate my child because of what Jenny McCarthy said." Anything short of that is guilt-by-association, a BLP-violating smear. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
That is not necessary. What would be sufficient would be a peer-reviewed paper stating she is responsible for thousands of deaths. It's unlikely to occur, but a column (not article) stating that certain conservatives are responsible for thousands of deaths was adequate there. It seems a question of political orientation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
What example(s) are you referring to, where specifically named politicians are said to be responsible for thousands of deaths? Also, Jenny McCarthy is an actress, not a politician, and obviously not a scientist. And in my opinion her views on vaccinations are wrong-headed (although, in her defense, she got those views from a scientist). But accusing someone of mass-murder with no evidence beyond someone's opinion, practically screams "Libel suit! Come 'n get it!" It would not be right to put Wikipedia into such a vulnerable position. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I more-or-less agree with Bugs, and I think anyone that wants to add this (possibly libelous) information should first run it by the talk page for comment. For one thing, it would be tricky to neutrally state, and not everyone is a good judge of reliable sources. An explicit statement from a WP:MEDRS would be a lot different than an offhand comment by a blogger at the Huffington Post. Still, I'm not sure that it would necessarily add encyclopedic information to this biography. We all know how controversial her opinions are, and I don't think we need to go to over-the-top hit pieces in order explain it. The article already makes it quite clear what she advocates, how it's been received by the scientific and medical community, and what controversy has erupted in the popular media. Why do we need more than this? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Bias

This article is pro-vaccine biased and should be rewritten along the lines of neutrality, since this is supposed to be an article about the actress, not about vaccines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merryme.bd (talk • contribs)

The article is about the person. As McCarthy is probably the most well-known anti-vaccine proponent, her views and the reaction to her views from mainstream sources should be covered in this article. --NeilN talk to me 02:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with NeilN. Neutrality is frequently misunderstood to mean that we should give a false balance to claims rejected by the mainstream academic, scientific, or medical establishment. This is not the case. When someone is a prominent advocate for a pseudoscientific claim, those claims may be reported and addressed. However, I do agree that the article spends an inordinate amount of time debunking her beliefs. This could probably be streamlined somewhat. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

University of Google

Powerslide recently re-added info about McCarthy's quote saying she went to the University of Google. The two sources given were not the best, but I found two others that seem better to me: People and Forbes. That said, I cannot find anything about the claim that she dropped out of college (which was originally cited with the non-reliable source with IMDB).

Question is whether or not it should be included in the article. Without info on previous education, I think just adding the "University of Google" part would be WP:UNDUE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

-> User: Xenophrenic classified it as vandalism and used that as his reason for removal. It is certainly not vandalism. It is well-cited. Anyone can certainly go watch that Oprah episode. Jenny McCarthy claimed that her credentials for giving anti-vax advice is through her self-education and mommy instinct. Powerslide (talk)

I don't think Xenophrenic called it vandalism. In fact, he never really gave any specific, policy-based justification for its removal. But per WP:ONUS, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
To clear up any misconceptions, McCarthy never said "she went to the University of Google". In her interview with Oprah, she explained that she knew nothing about autism, so she turned to the internet as a starting point and began searching for information. Just as most people would do, she used Google and entered the word "autism" to begin her research. "The University of Google is where I got my degree from ...", she added, indicating with that humorous colloquialism where she began to educate herself on autism. There is no actual U of Google, and certainly no degrees from that mythical institution, so I figured the editor (IP:108.66.129.231/Powerslide) was just inserting a little humor alongside the actual school information in the "Early life" section for McCarthy. So I removed it. Since then, the same editor has edit-warred to keep the content in the article as if it were actual encyclopedic information, which has me baffled. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anyone took it seriously... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jenny McCarthy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jenny McCarthy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jenny McCarthy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jenny McCarthy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jenny McCarthy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jenny McCarthy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jenny McCarthy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLP Violation with Category?

@JoBrodie:@AngusWOOF: I can't help but wonder if this is a WP:BLP violation.[1] Do we actually have reliable sources that label this article's topic as "autism quack" The word "quack" seems particularly unencyclopedic. Do reliable sources actually use this term when describing Jenny McCarthy? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge:@AngusWOOF:The Guardian specifically references the term in "The View: a good place to debunk Jenny McCarthy's autism quackery " https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jul/16/the-view-jenny-mccarthy-autism (6 July 2013). I don't know whether the rest of these are deemed Rel Sources but quackery features in the headlines of https://theweek.com/articles/462145/jenny-mccarthy-view-antivaccination-quackery and https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2013/07/18/abc-the-view-gives-jenny-mccarthy-platform-for-crackpot-autism-theories/OwZzcwYI1TNWm4kqfsn8bM/story.html.
This article doesn't use the term quackery but refers to her views as hogwash https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/1/9/16868216/oprah-winfrey-pseudoscience
It's more that the category itself is non-neutral like "fake televangelists". Category was recently created (4 January) Boston Globe reference is an editorial. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
This article is in Category:Autism quackery, not Category:Autism quacks. The first is a Topic category, the second a set category. McCarthy is not a quack herself, so she should definitely not be in the quacks cat, but as an autism quackery fanatic, she is definitely an important aspect of the autism quackery topic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I created Category:Autism quackery because I wanted something that covered both autism and a range of unevidenced interventions, ideas and proponents of those. It's currently under discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_6#Category:Autism_quackery) and might be deleted, or renamed to Autism pseudoscience or Autism-related pseudoscience. I suppose pseudoscience is marginally more neutral than quackery however we already have a Category:Quacks category which includes plenty of people currently alive (re: BLP) and a page on Quackery. I agree with Hob Gadling that McCarthy isn't technically a quack herself (the Quacks category includes people like Andrew Wakefield and Gillian McKeith), but she has been very much a supporter of what is unambiguously wrong and harmful. JoBrodie (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
McCarthy's an advocate of the work, but not an actual scientist / doctor like Wakefield or McKeith, so she wouldn't fit the quacks category, which is supposed to be category-defining. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

vaccine bias

Why do you have extensive quotes from vaccine proponents but never once do you list MDs, PhDs, or other researchers who agree with her opinion on vaccine harm? Why do you not cite the Zimmerman quote and testimony that clearly links vaccines to some cases of autism? I thought Wiki was objective but this is so slanted it reads like a NYT article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.112.125 (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Because a large majority of doctors and other experts disagree with her, the idea is to explain what the scientific consensus on the issue is, not just to quote the rare scientist here or there who disagrees with this consensus. As for the Zimmerman quote, I don't know who Zimmerman is or what quote you are referring to, so I can't say if it should be in the article or not. Tornado chaser (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
And this majority is not just some random occurrence. It exists because there is no evidence for such a link. Andrew Wakefield's original preliminary study with 12 patients was rigged, and studies since then say the link does not exist.
Whoever Zimmerman is or was, science is based on studies and not on quotes anyway. See ipse dixit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

here's the study you are looking for proof: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30395948 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.154.230 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like Texan sharpshooter fallacy. Why would anyone look at "affiliative interactions" and find significant changes? That only makes sense in the context of also looking at many other parameters, which turned out not to be significant - voila, Texan sharpshooter.
Unless this study left an imprint in secondary sources, we should ignore it. (Wikipedia is based on secondary sources. Didn't you know that?) --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Also humans are not sheep. Well, those not involved in cults, anyway. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Humans aren’t rats or monkeys either, yet we regularly use animal studies to evaluate something’s effect on a human. CMTBard (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this page is ridiculously biased as seen by the immediate removal of even the smallest effort to keep the page in accurate, scientifically honest terms. CMTBard (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jenny_McCarthy/Archive_2&oldid=1027549001"