![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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." [1]
Please discuss FX ( talk) 14:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
Using Wikipedia to pimp your site, not a good idea. FX ( talk) 22:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j5W87jAs9mPrcilNDPYP7vxBjqdw?docId=e361bf7682cc43ce998219c5eb2d151e • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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...". [2] SGerbic ( talk) 16:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
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:
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)
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. [3]
McCarthy is a vegan. [4] -- BweeB ( talk) 20:46, 31 August 2011 (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)
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)
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)
Thanks for explaining Summer! 81.68.255.36 ( talk) 22:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
My opinion is that it says more about them than about her. —
Charles Edwin Shipp (
talk)
05:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
While this source is not a RS here, it contains a list with many RS we could use:
Brangifer ( talk) 04:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
By far most sources state that she is to be Hasselbeck's replacement. Here are a few:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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 following properly sourced content was removed by Iselilja:
Refs:
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)
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)
please add the citation for the "fart right away" quote. Streamless 16:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
she was not in "what i like about you". that was jennie garth Snatchercat ( talk) 03:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Please!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.39.126 ( talk • contribs) 05:58, June 27, 2007
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)
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)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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." [1]
Please discuss FX ( talk) 14:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
Using Wikipedia to pimp your site, not a good idea. FX ( talk) 22:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j5W87jAs9mPrcilNDPYP7vxBjqdw?docId=e361bf7682cc43ce998219c5eb2d151e • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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...". [2] SGerbic ( talk) 16:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
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:
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)
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. [3]
McCarthy is a vegan. [4] -- BweeB ( talk) 20:46, 31 August 2011 (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)
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)
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)
Thanks for explaining Summer! 81.68.255.36 ( talk) 22:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
My opinion is that it says more about them than about her. —
Charles Edwin Shipp (
talk)
05:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
While this source is not a RS here, it contains a list with many RS we could use:
Brangifer ( talk) 04:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
By far most sources state that she is to be Hasselbeck's replacement. Here are a few:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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 following properly sourced content was removed by Iselilja:
Refs:
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)
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)
please add the citation for the "fart right away" quote. Streamless 16:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
she was not in "what i like about you". that was jennie garth Snatchercat ( talk) 03:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Please!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.39.126 ( talk • contribs) 05:58, June 27, 2007
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)
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)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)