Talk:Jenna Elfman

message: 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 "" in the appropriate section. Amcfreely 19:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Heritage

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

message: *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)
thread_title: Controversy: In process of adding more citations

message: 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):
*Gossip item on The Daily Radar:  
*Gossip item on TMZ.com:   
*Gossip item on atheism.about.com: 
*Gossip item on MSNBC: 
*Gossip item on atheism.about.com: 
*Gossip items on MSNBC and atheism.about.com: 
;References
;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 </font>  ✉  09:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gossip added to Biography of a living person 

message: #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. 
#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?  
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Questions 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  Church of Scientology / CCHR 

message: I don't think the first bit counts as philanthropy, showing up at a museum. Especially a museum explaining a minority view that may infact be dangerous to some people's health. Not to mention shes affiliated with the museum. Is it charity for the Pope to visit a church, or even for a parishioner to visit a church.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.16.133 (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Think as you may. The Pope is the head of that church, but if a member happens to appear at a function for a museum run by the Catholic Church in a capacity as a board member, it isn't the same thing. She's not the head of the Scientology church, she's attending an event in a capacity as a patron of the museum, for which she sits on the Board of Directors. Don't let your feelings about Scientology color your perception of what is considered philanthropy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is pov pushing to even call it a church.  It is a fringe cult, as verified by recent court rulings in France.  You should absolutely let the facts about this so-called church color your perception of what is considered philanthropy.  mislih 16:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since warning the user above has had little to no effect, I've taken the liberty of opening an RfC regarding the content. More eyes on the situation should be helpful. If that doesn't work, I'll request that the page be protected from editing until the dispute can be resolved. Pinkadelica♣ 01:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philanthropy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Jenna Elfman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100714054035/http://www.csun.edu:80/nso/pdfs/campus_facts.pdf to http://www.csun.edu/nso/pdfs/campus_facts.pdf/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 19:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jenna Elfman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130929171618/http://jennaelfman.com/club/events_calendar.php to http://www.jennaelfman.com/club/events_calendar.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jenna Elfman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070212182433/http://www.cchr.com/index.cfm/12434 to http://www.cchr.com/index.cfm/12434
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121101112714/http://www.laughspin.com/2012/03/06/jenna-elfman-shines-a-light-on-comedy-charity-laugh-for-sight-interview/ to http://www.laughspin.com/2012/03/06/jenna-elfman-shines-a-light-on-comedy-charity-laugh-for-sight-interview/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified