Talk:Jenna Elfman

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).
  • I have also added a citation from an article by Austin Cline, whose publisher is The New York Times Company. They picked up the TMZ.com story. Smee 06:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC).
    • Added additional reputable secondary sourced citation, from MSNBC, and a second one from About.com, again, published by The New York Times Company. Smee 07:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

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):

• 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 ✉ 09:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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. (June 13, 2006). "When Elfmans Explode". TMZ.com. AOL and Warner Bros. Retrieved 2007-03-18. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
2. Cline, Austin (June 20, 2006). "Scientologists Freak Out Over T-Shirt". About.com. The New York Times Company. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
3. Walls, Jeannette (June 15, 2006). "Madonna's latest young friend: Lindsay Lohan". MSNBC. NBC. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
4. Cline, Austin (July 9, 2006). "Have You Raped a Baby? Ask a Scientologist..." About.com. The New York Times Company. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

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

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)

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)

Philanthropy

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)

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)

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)

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)

Request for comment

The following content appears to be a source of contention because, as far as I understand, o User:Man It's So Loud In Here (and an IP user from June 2009) feels that the content does not fall under "Philanthropy" because the "Museum run by fringe cult is not philanthropy".

In 2005, she appeared at the Scientology-owned Citizens Commission on Human Rights' "Psychiatry: An Industry of Death" museum grand opening and she and husband Bodhi are listed on the organization's website as members of the board of advisors from the arts, entertainment and media community.

Thoughts and suggestions are needed. Thanks. Pinkadelica^♣ 01:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a couple comments. I've verified through an ArbCom clerk that indeed, this particular article is subject to ArbCom probation. This is the response I received. It specifically says "Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. See Category:Articles on probation."

Effectively, just because one or two editors believe that a Scientology-related "Museum run by fringe cult is not philanthropy" does not exempt the editor from sanctions when removing content based on his or her WP:POV, especially after having been informed of such. I am also noting that I have so clearly informed the recent editor in question of this here, to which the editor responded here, stating first "Whatever dude, it's freakin scientology" and then clearly stated my warning "speaks of such arrogance on your part that I am inclined to not believe you in any of your claims. Finally, it is definitely my pov that working for an anti-psychiatry "museum" is not philanthropy. It is also the pov of others here - it just isn't your pov." The editor then again removed the content and was given a 3RR warning, which was removed with a "Thanks for clearing up the rules pinkie." I am posting all of this here and will post a note to the editor's talk page to this page and the clear confirmation of the ArbCom injunction. If this continues, I have no issue against reporting this to WP:AE for action. It is imperative that all editors recognize that Scientology-related articles and content are subject to such sanctions, blocking and topic bans. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• The issue is a little vague at the moment, and I do not feel like trawling the history to work who might not have followed all the correct procedures. However, looking at the Philanthropy section I see that Elfman:

• Appeared at a museum opening, and is listed as a member of the board.
• Donated an hour of her time for charity on three occasions.
• Was keynote speaker at an event for an organization.
• Donated her lip print for charity.
• Co-hosted a detox charity event.
• Has lobbied for criminal rehabilitation and human rights.
• Asked for charity donations instead of birthday gifts.

I think the title "Philanthropy" is wildly inappropriate and promotional in view of the modest listed achievements. Particularly since many of these events appear to be supporting Scientology, it might be reasonable to change the title to "Support of Scientology" (and put the items that would not fit that title elsewhere, if they are sufficiently important to be listed in the article). It is true that technically the word "philanthropy" could be used to describe almost any act of charity, but it is questionable whether the promotion of a cult can be reasonably described as "philanthropy". Johnuniq (talk) 06:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Except that isn't the issue. The issue is removing Scientology-related content repeatedly because an editor thinks it's a fringe cult. Because there are events and activities that are not related to Scientology by definition makes it more than support of Scientology. That a person's charitable activities, whether they be related to their membership in an organization or not, is beyond personal opinion regarding how to characterize activities and involvement outside of his or her profession. The whole point of the ArbCom injunction is to encourage editors from making POV characterization of the involvement, and that includes characterizing Scientology as cult involvement. WP:NPOV is absolutely the basis for not using such terminology or making such an assumption. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the content of the text is more important than the header it sits under. I think it broadly falls under the title of philanthropy and to suggest otherwise would be to doubt not Scientology, but the aims of Jenna Elfman. Elfman's participation, her patronage, her support, whatever you want to call it, can be philanthropic regardless of the organisation she is representing, and in this context "philanthropic" is a word applied only to her and says nothing about the organisation. Having said that, there are other articles for prominent scientologists - more prominent than Elfman - that do not use the word. Would changing the header be a reasonable compromise? Rossrs (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

But the issue is that the so-called museum is an anti-medicine propaganda-mill. For fuck's sake, the name of the museum is "Psychiatry: An Industry of Death". So if I understand this Arbcomm bullshit correctly, you aren't allowed to edit scientology related articles if others disagree with you? I am clearly not the only one who feels this way. Just so I understand everything, if someone appears at the opening of the (fictional) "Holocaust Denial" museum would that be an act of charity? mislih 14:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't mean you can't edit articles, and nobody has suggested that. It's been explained above. Congratulations for feeling strongly about the subject, but you could calm down and be more civil. Rossrs (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Guy said "It is imperative that all editors recognize that Scientology-related articles and content are subject to such sanctions, blocking and topic bans." which means "Don't edit scientology stuff or we'll ban your ass!!". So WTF? Have these wackos infiltrated our encyclopedia's upper echelons? mislih 14:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, it doesn't mean that, and nobody said "Don't edit scientology stuff or we'll ban your ass!!", except you. That appears to be the conclusion you have leapt to. Rossrs (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Guy is a she, and yes, please be more civil. If you have an issue with the ArbCom injunction, take it up with ArbCom and don't kill the messenger. The injunction is clear about POV editing regarding this topic, as I tried to explain to you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie is concentrating on an over-excited editor, whereas the issue is whether it is reasonable (NPOV, accurate, verifiable) to describe opening a Scientology museum called "Psychiatry: An Industry of Death" as an act of philanthropy. If a tycoon opposed the concept and bought the building to demolish the museum, would we call that an act of philanthropy? Another example is that we do not say that Richard Dawkins is philanthropic when he attends a function to explain his views on the evils of religion. Dawkins has actually donated a considerable amount of money and time to establish the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, but that is not described as "philanthropy". Would the regular editors in this article please find an NPOV title for the section because it is offensive to genuine philanthropists to have such run of the mill activity described in this promotional manner. Johnuniq (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie is addressing the issue which brought about this discussion. It does not matter whether a museum is a Scientology-related organization, or a Catholic-related organization, or a Hindu-related organization. In the United States, Scientology is currently regarded as a religion and contributions to such are considered charitable and tax-deductible. The reason Scientology-related articles are subject to ArbCom is because it is so controversial and such articles have come under close scrutiny. The mandate from ArbCom is that editing be done neutrally, civilly, based on reliable sources and without 3RR violations or edit warring. Philanthropy is defined as "The effort or inclination to increase the well-being of humankind, as by charitable aid or donations; Love of humankind in general and Something, such as an activity or institution, intended to promote human welfare." It is not within the scope for us as editors to ascribe our personal viewpoints upon that or make value judgments based on our personal viewpoints regarding what is or is not charitable, philanthropic or whether a legally regarded organization has, or does not have, the well-being of humankind at heart. I don't personally believe in the teachings of Scientology, but I would argue that the organization has, to a degree, the interests of humankind at heart. Whether we accept those teachings is something else entirely. I don't believe in the teachings of Islam, but I don't dispute that it has the interests of humanity at heart, either. I'd also have to argue that the statement "it is offensive to genuine philanthropists" is a POV viewpoint. Wildhartlivie is also the second highest contributor to this article [4], so I am speaking as a regular editor, and one who is willing to address issues regarding the article neutrally and without a belief or involvement in Scientology-related articles and issues. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning mandates has nothing to do with the issue I raised. You asked for thoughts and suggestions, and mine are that labeling minor promotional activities as "philanthropy" is POV and frankly demeaning to those who are true philanthropists. Surely you agree that it would be POV to put a philanthropy section in Richard Dawkins with a list of his volunteer anti-creationist and anti-religious activities? Do you have a WP:reliable source saying the activities in Jenna Elfman#Philanthropy are actually philanthropic? If not, it is WP:OR for editors to construct a list that interprets opening a museum etc. as philanthropic. Johnuniq (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Richard Dawkins, nor do I think that going to the effort to research who he is and what he does in relationship to some organization he founded in his own name is a valid anology. Jenna Elfman did not found the Church of Scientology nor is there a not for profit or charitable organization being operated under her name. Non-sequitur comparison. I didn't ask for thoughts and suggestions, I clarified the points under issue here. And I have clearly stated that Elfman's activities in regard to involvement in organizations and sitting on the board of some part of it being termed "offensive to genuine philanthropists" or "frankly demeaning to those who are true philanthropists" is purely a POV call on your part. And yes, sitting on a museum board, whether you like her involvement or not, participating in auction events for three years running for Communities In Schools, involvement in human rights education events, and the other events are philanthropic activities. Remove the word Scientology from some of the events listed and I doubt highly that you would still minimize her activities and involvement. As I stated, it is completely beyond Wikipedia to cast value judgments on the activities in which she, or any other notable person, participates based on personal viewpoints regarding Scientology. Sorry, that is POV value judgment. Elfman has been on the Hollywood Reporter philanthropy list at least twice. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In the areas of Wikipedia that I normally encounter, it is very rare to see "philanthropy" mentioned. I guess that in the case of actors and similar, the profession has used the word sufficiently often in promotional presentations that it may seem reasonable to describe minor work in an area of personal interest as philanthropic. On a point of fact, it is a point of view to describe an action as "philanthropic". However, you have now indicated that there is a source describing Elfman in that manner. I accept that a source is not going to list every action a person performs and indicate whether it is or is not philanthropic, so I will be fully content with a reliable source describing Elfman as philanthropic. Is it in the article? Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(Coming in from the RFC.) Given the Church of Scientology's history of coercing members and dictating parts of their lives, it's not clear that anything Elfman does for the church is chosen by her. Perhaps "work for Scientology" would be acceptable to more editors? It is an uncontroversial description, and then readers can decide for themselves whether various acts of work for Scientology are positive and/or voluntary. ~YellowFives 04:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even about to get into a debate about whether or not the work Elfman does is philanthropic because frankly, no religion or religious organization is free from controversy or alleged wrongdoing. I'll admit that I don't agree with some of Scientology's methods or ideas, but if Elfman is out there doing something positive for society, even under the Scientology banner, bully for her. On that note, I think YellowFives proposal sounds good. Perhaps creating a sub-section under "Personal life" and listing what Elfman did for the church would be sufficient. Pinkadelica^♣ 05:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ack! I forgot about this. It seems to me that the main concern was answered by including a link that calls her philanthropic, which is available to add. Not all of her involvement is related to Scientology and not all of the Scientology-involved events were limited to the Scientology community. I will add that tomorrow - at present, I've had 3 hours sleep in the last 27 hours. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a subsection for her work with Scientology. Since I'm not original, I named the section "work for Scientology". If someone can think of a snappier name, go for it. Pinkadelica^♣ 06:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What you have done is perfect. It describes the situation accurately and with WP:NPOV. As YellowFives said, readers can decide for themselves how to interpret the work: philanthropic, the pursuit of an interest, or whatever. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed the section name to "Involvement with Scientology" because there's no evidence that she was paid for her work. -- Stillwaterising (talk) 06:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't particularly think that is the section title either. I changed it to "Scientology-related activities" because it doesn't cover her entire involvement in the group, it is about some public activities related to it. I personally still believe that because a person belongs to a group, as a member, that it is not incorrect to characterize her participation in public activities related to it, especially as a member of a board of directors, as philanthropy. Personally, I think that separating them from the philanthropy heading is a subtle POV exclusion of Scientology as a venue for philanthropy. Basically, this is dictating what can be philanthropy from what can't, based partly on opinion from persons who have biases against it. That isn't within our venue as Wikipedia editors. Having said that, I don't plan to be that involved in this article anymore. If we can't separate our personal biases from our writing neutrally, then we shouldn't be weighing in on discussions about it being treated neutrally. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha Ha! I win, you lose! mislih 20:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And this, folks, is the voice of reason that brought about an RfC. So that Man It's So Loud In Here could come back onto the page and complete his trek down the path to complete and total incivility. Makes you proud, doesn't it? Me, I'm going to either prepare a Wikiquette report or file a complaint to ArbCom about this conduct. Haven't decided yet, but this is just too much. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The above comment by mislih is wildly inapproriate for Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Better. How about changing to just "Scientology" if there's no consensus? - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Scientology section was removed without reference on this talkpage. Following the rfc and the amount of controversy on this talkpage I do not see a reasonable explanation for proceeding with that edit without mentioning it here. I have restored the sections and its citations to the best of my ability. I have a feeling that the best way to proceed here would be to reach some consensus and then lock the page down for a bit. Having heated arguments/rfcs here, implementing changes based on those actions and then having them completely ignored by future edits is silly. Jaydubya93 (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

References

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jenna Elfman/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*9 citations, could use an image, expansion, more citations. Smee 07:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 07:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 19:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)