Talk:Jenna Elfman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jenna Elfman article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.
The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
Scientology Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics.
See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

Contents

[edit] POV

I'm new to wikipedia, however this is obviously been turned into a page about Scientology so I am proposing that the same thing that was done to Catherine Bell's article regarding the Neutrality and Dispute box is put under the Scientology section on Jenna Elfman's wikipedia page as well. Can an eperienced editor please help me out with this? I would like to see a lot of interesting information on Jenna and I think that's what the public is looking for rather than more Scientology sensationalism.Avan 18:58, April 22 2006 (UTC)

Put "{{POV-section}}" in the appropriate section. Amcfreely 19:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Amcfreely meant to take the entire section out, since it's factual and does contain proper citations, but I do agree the orignal tone had a bias. For now I'll add a line about her conversion to the Personal Life section, but hopefully a more seasoned editor can jump in. ArturoR 04:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to keep both sides of the story in the public eye, I have added more to the controversy section, helps to keep things in perspective. leelandia 7:10pm, June 27 2006

The question to ask here is who the accuser [1] is: soothsayer, self-aggrandizing sensationalist, or failed 40-year-old film fabulist? 66.26.76.35 03:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


I looked at the reference for the so-called June 2006 incident and it really doesn't look reputable to me. I am reluctant to delete this right off the bat, but it sure looks to me that this violates the "living persons" guidelines as it is anything but factual to quote one side of a fight as to what happened (like when was the last time you had a fight with your partner and you both agreed what happened??? duh)grrrila 03:03, December 8 206 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections I am taking this statement out.Grrrilla 04:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heritage

Does anyone have a reputable, first hand source that her grandfather/father was Croatian (i.e. not IMDB or any of the trivia sites out there). Also, if restoring the "Croatian-American", you must have a source that says she is actually Croatian-American or "Croatian". Mad Jack 21:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

_________________


Her grandparents are Croatian. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20031121/ai_n12526213/pg_1 UNITY99 01:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baby!

Jenna's pregnancy should definitely be included here.Grrrilla 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The only citation for this is TMZ.com. I think TMZ.com is a reliable source, but others do not. See below. Smee 17:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC).
  • She announced her pregnancy on her own website (http://www.jennaelfman.com) in January 2007. It looks pretty official to me. 86.139.63.135 23:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poorly Sourced contentious material

Two paragraphs in the "Personal" section were earlier removed based on the living persons bio policy: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space," but were added back in over the past month of so, without discussion. I'm deleting them again. The so-called sources are not reputable. One (re HIV) is just a gossip blog that itself doesn't name any source. Just because somebody said that somebody said that somebody said something is no reason to assume it is true. The second (re. so-called incident outside Celebrity Centre), is also bogus. See earlier discussion as to why I removed it. If anyone plans to revert these edits, please have the courtesy to discuss it first, since I DID discuss it, and then made the changes in good faith.193.37.152.232 15:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Listen, I think the material should stay. I think you shouldn't judge how reputable a source is just because you have harbored some ill sentiments toward so-called gossip sites, which receive millions of readers each day. Get off your high horse, just because it is contentious doesn't mean its wrong. You can't just write off these incidents because you think they're bogus. They're interesting, and I don't think you have a comback to that. Biznatchnumerouno 21:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and I respect your right to believe these articles may not have been based on completely false information, but according to Wikipedia policy on bios of living persons the onus of proof lies the other way: "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." This has nothing to do with "ill sentiments toward so-called gossip sites" it is simply Wikipedia policy. Jenna clearly refutes ever having made the statement about AIDS. Do you have any actual evidence that she did? As for John Roecker's claims about a confrontation with Jenna and Bodhi if you read the blog on TMZ that is sourced for this it's quite clear -- it says "Indie film director John Roecker tells TMZ..." and has no further corroboration than his saying so, when according to that article he was there on a total agenda to piss people off. So, does this mean if I call TMZ tomorrow and tell them that I saw GW Bush at the local bar drinking a Cuervo right out of the bottle, that we can then include that in his bio? I don't think so. Grrrilla 05:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree that this is poorly sourced, as we can trace exactly where we got our information from. Besides, true or not, this is a well known allegation, and should at least be mentioned. A fair compromise might be to also include Jenna Elfman's website denial alongside this allegation.--220.238.216.161 09:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
You are using a wrong definition of "poorly sourced". Knowing where the information comes from means it is not "unsourced". "Poorly sourced" means not sourced by reliable sources (cf WP:RS). The Roecker claim would not appear to fit the definition of reliable source. People here should read WP:BLP very carefully. The material will be removed. Do not re-add without better sourcing, otherwise it will be reported to the BLP noticeboard. --C S (Talk) 12:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to create a controversy section in this wiki for the contentious material. Whether or not the story is true there is, and I think this discussion section proves it, lots of discussion and controversy surrounding it. I'll change the language slightly in the post so that it is clear that this incident is an ALLEGATION and may or may not have occured. Censoring something that is so controversial and that has created so much discussion seems to go against the purpose of wikipedia. Think about this talk page before you delete. Biznatchnumerouno 05:59, April 16 2007 (UTC)

Please read the relevant policies (WP:BLP) before deciding what goes against the purpose of Wikipeida. Poorly sourced potentially libelous materials will be removed. It's that simple. --C S (Talk) 06:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've read the policies, but I am concerned that the matieral is being CENSORED. It's placed under a neutrally titled section out of Eflman's personal history section. If the material is controversal, and is cited as controversial, then I don't see what the problem is. 132.239.1.231 06:52, April 16 2007 (UTC)

If you've read the policies, then you know that it is mandatory that this kind of poorly sourced material be "censored". If you don't see what the problem is, then ok, but you should understand the policy is there and you may not agree with it. Some explanation of what the problem is explained in the BLP policy page. I hope you see that not all controversial claims should be included, even if marked as such. For example, it is often the case that rumors about some celebrity being a pedophile starts, gets reported in gossip rags. Should this be included? BLP says no. When some reliable source like the New York Times starts reporting on this issue, that's different. --C S (Talk) 07:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've mentioned this article on the BLP noticeboard, so there will be more people looking over these edits. Sorry to say this, but keep in mind that repeated violation of BLP is a blockable offense. If you keep doing this, I will be forced to recommend a block. --C S (Talk) 07:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think its sort of a ridiculous policy to strive for ny times reliability (especially given your, or wikipedias through you, judgement of TMZ despite its readership and that it is run by AOL), but that isn't really a debate for this talk page. what IS a relevant comment is that this talk page should (in my mind) not be deleted, even under the policy you quote. There isn't really anything that substantially references the offending material in the edit history on this talk page (the one named-referenced could be sensibly deleted) but beyond that to erase evidence of controversy seems to go to far (to me). Talking about blocking and watchlisting? I think you're taking this too far, but thats my two cents. All that happens on this talk page surrounds wether or not to include the offending material, which to me, it makes sense to keep - it reflects the current shape of the given article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.1.177 (talk • contribs) 07:58, April 16 2007 (UTC)
First, please use a userid for your comments or go back and add your signature to the anonomous posts. It makes it easier to follow the conversation. Determining reliability of a source is difficult and the guidelines are not always helpful. Due to the legal issues concerning information about living people we have to be extra careful. --Gbleem 10:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've found the original link to the story at "[2]]" In addition to the story appearing on AOL owned TMZ I've also found a reference to it on a VH1 owned site at "[3]" I have not heard of any lawsuits against AOL or VH1 over this story. I believe a reference to the story on Elfman's page is reasonable. Can a compromise be a reference to the controversy surrounding a possible meeting between the Elfman's and Roecker? The sources can be included and the post can appear in a controversy section and maintain as much neutrality as possible.

At the top of the discussion page it says, "Be polite. Assume good faith. No personal attacks. Be welcoming". I really think that unnecessary threats, and beligerant deletions are not in the spirit these words. Also, at the top of the BLP page it says: "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." I feel some have forgotten that the BLP is a guideline. Throwing rules and deleting without enough debate stifles posts and stifles wikipedia. Maybe this Elfman story can possibly be an exception to the guideline. Biznatchnumerouno 03:18, April 17 2007 (UTC)

Internet gossip websites and alt.* hierarchy discussion groups such as those you linked are not reliable sources in line with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. That is why this encyclopedia's neutral point of view editors will consistently reject them. — Athænara ✉ 06:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually the BLP page is official policy and has been for quite a while, so I don't know what you are talking about. In any case, as I said, I'm sorry to have to bring up the possibility of a block, but there's no nice way to explain that if you keep violating BLP by repeatedly adding unsourced or poorly sourced material, there will be harsh consequences. There are no exceptions to the BLP policy; that has been made absolutely clear by Jimbo Wales. --C S (Talk) 14:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There can always be exceptions -- even the constitution can be amended. There is absolutely no need for threats. Harsh consequences in wikipedia? Are you kidding? You've blown this way out of proportion. You should listen to how you sound and how you break the common sense rules at the top of the page that talk about kindness and other things. I've merely tried to create some discussion around this, but you're more interested in threats. Get over yourself and the small amount of power you think you have in wikipedia. Please by all means try to erase this from the discussion page. I know how much you believe in censorship. It's too bad that the Soviet Union fell, you would fit in great. Biznatchnumerouno (talk · contribs) 16:55, April 17, 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Wikipedia expects our contributors to treat everyone with kindness and respect on wikipedia. It appears you are not treating Jenna Elfman with this kindness and respect by repeatedly including poorly sourced claims about her. Perhaps you should consider your own behaviour before you start attacking others? Nil Einne 17:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy: In process of adding more citations

  • An intriguing discussion thread. I re-added the sourced material, but also properly attributed it to the source, TMZ.com. Smee 06:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Gossip added to Biography of a living person

In re Controversy section in the Jenna Elfman biographical article:

"Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements… Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
  — Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight

Additional citations added in nine edits [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9] between 06:41 and 07:43 April 20 2007 (UTC):

References
  1. ^ …Hollywood Rumors, Gossip… (December 14, 1999).
  2. ^ Staff.. "…Elfmans…", TMZ.com, June 13, 2006. 
  3. ^ Cline. "Scientologists…", About.com, June 20, 2006. 
  4. ^ a b Walls. "Madonna's latest…", MSNBC, June 15, 2006. 
  5. ^ a b Cline. "… Ask a Scientologist...", About.com, July 9, 2006. 
Note:

As per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, I am restoring this biography of a living person to the version which existed prior to the introduction of gossip.

- The primary content of the article has four (4) references, each cited once (1).
- The gossip content added five (5) more references cited a total of seven (7) times.
- The 2005 purchase of About.com by The New York Times Company does not confer encyclopedic legitimacy upon the content of About.com subject area websites.

There should be no Edit warring over this. Discussion must be located here on the article talk page, not in numerous edit summaries accompanying reverts. — Athænara ✉ 09:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

  1. In that case, why are we allowing "gossip" from the same citation, TMZ.com, earlier in the article? ^ Baby Elfman on the Way!. TMZ.com (2007-01-19). Retrieved on 2007 March 18.
  2. Please, I am confused, just how many citations about this incident do we need? Give us an example of a type of source that would be satifactory please?
  3. You claim above that the item was being given "undue weight", but that does not seem to justify removing the paragraph completely? Perhaps simply, reducing the "undue weight" you perceive to be in place, instead, would be an apt compromise?

Smee 16:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

  • I am curious as to the potential answers to these points I have made above??? Smee 22:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
The number can represent independent confirmation of an original source. If two reporters from two separate newspapers are at the same scene and their stories match then we can assume the reports are reliable, but if the second reporter is merely repeating the first reporter then the number of reports has no bearing on the reliability of the story. A major newspaper quoting a police officer and referencing a police report would be a good source. There probably won't be a good source because the only three people at this alleged event were Elfman, her husband and the the guy with the T-shirt. Now if T-shirt man sues the Elfmans then maybe we can quote reports about the lawsuit. Even normally reliable newspapers handle gossip differently than other news. A lot of it is fake and hype but we pretend it's true because it's more fun that way.--Gbleem 08:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinions, and that does go a little bit towards answering my second point, but what about points 1 and 3? Smee 08:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
Full versions of citations
  • Here are the full citations in question, for posterity:
  1. Staff.. "When Elfmans Explode", TMZ.com, AOL and Warner Bros., June 13, 2006. Retrieved on 2007-03-18. 
  2. Cline, Austin. "Scientologists Freak Out Over T-Shirt", About.com, The New York Times Company, June 20, 2006. 
  3. Walls, Jeannette. "Madonna's latest young friend: Lindsay Lohan", MSNBC, NBC, June 15, 2006. 
  4. Cline, Austin. "Have You Raped a Baby? Ask a Scientologist...", About.com, The New York Times Company, July 9, 2006. 

Smee 08:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Biography section is unsourced

The entire biography section is not backed up by any citations at all, upon closer inspection. This whole section will have to either have citations added, or be removed soon as Original Research. Smee 17:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

As long as there is nothing libelous it can be left in until a source is found. --Gbleem 08:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Church of Scientology / CCHR

Church of Scientology / CCHR should be used as a source as a last resort, when other more credible secondary sources cannot be found. As a stand-alone-source, it is biased towards the subject, namely, itself and its actions. Smee 17:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

The reliability of the source also depends on the information. The church would definately be a good source for the correct ISBN number for Dianetics or the address of their headquarters. Comments on a lawsuit involving the church would have to be treated differently. What are we trying to say with the information? --Gbleem 08:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
"or the address of their headquarters" Not even that. They use two different street addresses for the same building to make it look as if CSI and RTC are at different locations. :) AndroidCat 16:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)