Talk:Jenny McCarthy

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 (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 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

RFC

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"

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)

• 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. 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. Wikipedia has hundreds of articles supporting all those ties, 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.

• 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.

You're invoking a strawman argument in a very insidious way. Let's take them one by one. 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. You don't want McCarthy 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.

71.234.215.133 (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• 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 itself (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.