This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Illinois B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance). Chicago B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing an infobox. Pornography B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Television B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please!

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)[reply]

McCarthy is making a fine idiot of herself claiming not only that Evan’s autism was caused by vaccines, but that autism can be treated with diet and vitamins. Aside from being false and worthy of inclusion in the article, it also begs the question: is she a closet Scientologist? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 12:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I whole heartedly agree. I'm writing this as I'm watching her interview on CNN. I can sort of understand what she is going through, but that does not give her the right to make outrageous sorts of claims. Autism is onset through a corruption of genetics which affect brain development. Autism is 5x more likely through be passed on through a corrupted chromosome from the mother or father during pregnancy. In addition, since when are "parental anecdotes" considered scientific evidence? I can honestly say that is one of the most BS things I have ever heard. Has this playmate even studied basic chemistry and biology? I think not. Darksamus8 (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever studied the autism cases? Thousands of American kids developed autism symptoms immediately after their series of vaccinations. Autism symptoms look exactly like those of mercury poisoning. So, yes, if the autism appeared directly after the kid has been given a vaccination, it's very likely that diet and vitamins help cleanse their system. 213.39.187.143 (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autism symptoms manifest at a certain age. Vaccinations are given to children around the same time. This is a textbook case of why you cannot infer causation from a correlation. There is no proof of a connection, nor is there any evidence to warrant drawing one. Many things happen to children at that age in their development; none of them linked to vaccinations (Time Magazine had a good article about this here. We don't say that vaccination causes children to start crawling, or develop teeth -- so why draw a link to autism? Also, vitamins do not "cleanse systems" (whatever that means). Regardless, autism is a genetic disorder, not something caused by a build-up of "toxins".--Squishy bananas (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its got to do with the mercury in the vaccines that they use to preserve them. There is plenty of information out there that does indicate that the vaccines lead to autism because of the way mercury affects the brain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.239.2 (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The use of thimeresol the agent that contained the agent that led to the controversy over mercury poisoning being a causation of autism was eliminated in 2002 as it was removed from childhood vaccines then. see this link for the FDA's info on the issue [1], also here on studies involving the autism vaccine debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.133.212.104 (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@ 68.89.239.2: With plenty of information you hopefully don't mean the infamous Wakefield study, because this one's completely discredited by now. Latest refuting study for example here: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003140 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.195.185.82 (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was probably referring to the misinformation antivaxers like McCarthy put out there, not any actual information. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 05:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All your views here are surely irrelevant to the entry- McCarthy's activism, written in NPOV with no OR? So why the current OR and POV on the article page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.226.217 (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

Since she serves on Generation Rescue's Board of Directors, and is a very outspoken outperson, and they have decided the fraud and data manipulation was "much ado about nothing", it is relevant here. [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relevant details?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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