![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
A biographical article such as this usually only needs one picture (for identification purposes). Right now, this one has three. Let's try to reach a consensus on what to keep. My opinion is that we only need the photo from I Still Know What You Did Last Summer, it's the clearest one. Thoughts? -- MisterHand 20:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I missed this discussion, and have been carrying on a similar discussion at my Talk page and that of Stiles. I agree with MisterHand; the claim that articles should have as many pictures as possible is a minority one, and not Wikipedia style (many, including me, think on the contrary that too many images clutter pages and make Wikipedia look rather tacky). The copyright issue is also important. One photo for identification is all that an article like this needs. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
What do readers/editors prefer for this article?
Please share your opinion one way or the other. -- MisterHand 18:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Since only one person apparently is againt headings, I'm going to restore them. However, I'll try and do it in such a way that more information is under each header. -- MisterHand 20:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The whole article is less than one screen, and shorter than the sections in many other articles. The "may be preferable" refers to the use of bullet points, not to the question of whether or to use the headings. Why not put this up for RfC? In fact, I'll do that now, and see what other editors say. If there's consensus for going against the guideline in this case, then fine.
Note, though, that implying that I'm being unreasonable when I've given reasons is slightly odd. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 10:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I've seen no reasons other than the dubious claim that headings make the article easier to edit. The article is listed at RfC; why not wait to see if your insistence on adding headings is shared by other editors?
As for "meeting you halfway" — you want headings, I don't; what is half-way between those positions? -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 19:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify; headings can make an article easier to edit when it's very long and/or is heavily edited. neither is the case here. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 08:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Thought I'd set up a new section for those coming here due to the RFC, since the section up above is cluttered with debate. Basically, there are three different proposals for this article, and dispute over which one to use:
I find it strange that there are a lot of things being discussed regarding this article except a topic concerning the lack of content. There are only a few paragraphs, and not enough for what seems to be a popular article. Check out Meagan Good's article which I almost singlehandedly worked on in terms of increase in content, although Meagan Good, the actress, probably does not have as many references as Jennifer Love Hewitt. I am saying that there should be enough on Jennifer out there that we can include here. So, for all those with me, I ask that we work together to make this article better than what it is now. There's a lot that can be done. Stiles 01:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely hate that line, not so much because I admire Hewitt, but because it is entirely false. I am sure I can find a quote from someone somewhere on the Internet that disputes how great of a basketball player Michael Jordan was. I am sure there is someone out there who believes Jordan became a top player for a reason other than his skills. I am disappointed in this comment, because it is the opinion of a single person, and it does not show impartiality in that it only reflects one side. Where are comments about Hewitt being a great actress according to other critics? I am sure there is something out there on this. Let's say Hewitt is a poor actresss. Even if that is the case, there should be a section on what critics in general have said about her, rather than a single critic who is in love with Hewitt's bossom. I want to remove this comment, but it won't be any help if someone is going to put it back up, and if others are going to put up similar comments. Let's have a vote on whether single impartial comments about Hewitt's looks should be allowed here. I don't have a problem with a mixture of comments of what Hewitt is like as an actress, but I won't tolerate a comment that is there just to insult her. Stiles 03:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
It's actually really obvious that Jennifer Love Hewitt is attractive, which is why she is successful, which is why people want more pics of her, which is why people want to know more about her, which is why this article is so popular. Let's just ignore those rebels out there who disagree. 165.247.83.219 21:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I am honestly reconsidering the thought of working on improving this article. It seems that, after every effort, someone takes it upon himself to remove almost everything I've done. I have no problem with someone improving something I've added, but entirely removing a chunk of text? It seems users such as Boris Ziv have no understanding of how much time it takes to add just a few lines. It takes a lot of time to first research a topic, and then add it here. As a matter of fact, it took me several hours to add some information to this article, because of how difficult it is to find reliable and useful information.
I am growing tired of having to constantly defend every single action of mine, and having to contact other editors about things that shouldn't even matter. Take, for example, my mention of Boris Ziv. He removed a part that was, according to him, trivial. In all honesty, isn't the definition of trivial subjective? It definitely is. So, what should you do if you don't know if you should remove something? Let the person who took the time to work know that you like it. That way, issues can be resolved before action has to be taken.
In addition to this, I added several references for statements I made in the article. For example, I referenced Askmen.com. Another user, without even explaining why, removed that reference, as if it against the rules of Wikipedia. Askmen.com is often a great source for information on various people, and it apparently is a more reliable source than the widely referenced IMDB.com. So, why was it removed? Just to find the reason, I'd have to contact the person who removed it, ask for an explanation, wait generally about 24 hours for a response, and then discuss the matter some more. I don't think all that is a single reference.
Since I started working on this article, the only thing I had in mind was improving the article, which was a poor state for a long time. It appeared that no one was seriously contributing to the content of the article, but that, rather, people were arguing constantly about other matters. I have had more difficulty here than any other article. I feel that, if I were to leave this article, people would go back to ignoring the need to add content. Anyhow, if this much headache needs to go into an article, it simply is not worth it. I better go on to work on articles that receive less attention and squabble. Stiles 19:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, then, you argued that an on-line men's magazine is "a more reliable source than the widely referenced IMDB.com" because you'd seen the reliability of the latter questioned, but not the former. That's not good grounds for a comparison. As for trivia, in so far as what's trivial is subjective (and I contend that it isn't), then we can apply the test of consensus. How many editors think that an actress's self-deprecating comments to a journalist about her looks are trivial, and how many don't? As you've insisted on removing a negative comment on her acting ability (pretty central to her identity as an actress), despite its being backed by a reputable source, I'm not sure that you're exactly neutral here.
Wikipedia isn't a fanzine. There are lots of outlets for writing that detials actresses' every giggly comment, and go into detail about their private thoughts and insecurities, while ignoring or denying every adverse judgement about them, but this isn't one of them. She's at best a minor actress, and I'd have said that the article says at least as much about her as is warranted by her significance. In any case, Wikipedia articles aren't subject to capitalist economic theory, whereby there has to be constant growth. There is content here, and you need to make a case for there being more. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
There's this guy who is vandalising this article with references to the size of Jennifer Love Hewitt's bossom. Check out the history page for edits made by 132.49.221.25. He has done it twice so far. Anyone who would do something like that obviously is not here for improving Wikipedia. It'd be great if he could be banned by someone who has "the powers." Stiles 19:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Jennifer Love Hewitt had a stalker, but it wasn't your usual romantically-obsessed male fan. It was a woman with false victimization syndrome, who had paranoid delusions that Ms. Love Hewitt was part of a group (including Steven Spielberg) that targeted her with so-called "psychotronic technology." Due to this technology, the stalker, Diana Napolis believed that they were able to tell what she was thinking. [1]
This article would be better off without critical evaluations of Ms. Love-Hewitt and her breasts, because it's possible to find movie reviews that rave or pan just about any performance. Ever gone to a movie based on the rave reviews quoted in a newspaper ad to find that it was universally awful? The reviewers quoted now - Moviehole and JoBlo - are hardly the gold standard. Most other wikipedia articles don't have this. I've deleted the section. Ghosts&empties 23:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The early life and career section states: "At the age of three, she sang "The Greatest Love of All" by Whitney Houston at a livestock show." The associated Whitney Houston link shows that song as being from 1986, when Jennifer was six or seven. 208.247.255.11 18:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)analretentive
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a title called "I'll Always Know What You Did Last Summer" supposed to be released in the next 2 years? Is she gonna be in this? Or is the film already out? I'm not entirely sure. Double Dash 19:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting discussion on this above - but it's clear, based on the family tree I found that matches all other details given on her parents/grandparents' names, [2], that she isn't Italian or German at all. Interesting to know where this claim originated, but I see it's spread all over the junky trivia websites on the net. Mad Jack 07:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Shes Irish American.
The line "At the age of three, she sang "The Greatest Love of All" by Whitney Houston at a livestock show." is obviously incorrect, as the song was not released until 1986, when Hewitt would've been seven. Is there a credible source that actually proves this? Pejorative.majeure 19:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The current picture of her is really ugly. There's bound to be a better one. Rlevse 15:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
How is there no image? There have to be free use photos available, and if not, there are certainly fair use alternatives. But no picture at all simply doesn't make sense. -- Kicking222 02:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
A biographical article such as this usually only needs one picture (for identification purposes). Right now, this one has three. Let's try to reach a consensus on what to keep. My opinion is that we only need the photo from I Still Know What You Did Last Summer, it's the clearest one. Thoughts? -- MisterHand 20:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I missed this discussion, and have been carrying on a similar discussion at my Talk page and that of Stiles. I agree with MisterHand; the claim that articles should have as many pictures as possible is a minority one, and not Wikipedia style (many, including me, think on the contrary that too many images clutter pages and make Wikipedia look rather tacky). The copyright issue is also important. One photo for identification is all that an article like this needs. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
What do readers/editors prefer for this article?
Please share your opinion one way or the other. -- MisterHand 18:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Since only one person apparently is againt headings, I'm going to restore them. However, I'll try and do it in such a way that more information is under each header. -- MisterHand 20:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The whole article is less than one screen, and shorter than the sections in many other articles. The "may be preferable" refers to the use of bullet points, not to the question of whether or to use the headings. Why not put this up for RfC? In fact, I'll do that now, and see what other editors say. If there's consensus for going against the guideline in this case, then fine.
Note, though, that implying that I'm being unreasonable when I've given reasons is slightly odd. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 10:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I've seen no reasons other than the dubious claim that headings make the article easier to edit. The article is listed at RfC; why not wait to see if your insistence on adding headings is shared by other editors?
As for "meeting you halfway" — you want headings, I don't; what is half-way between those positions? -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 19:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify; headings can make an article easier to edit when it's very long and/or is heavily edited. neither is the case here. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 08:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Thought I'd set up a new section for those coming here due to the RFC, since the section up above is cluttered with debate. Basically, there are three different proposals for this article, and dispute over which one to use:
I find it strange that there are a lot of things being discussed regarding this article except a topic concerning the lack of content. There are only a few paragraphs, and not enough for what seems to be a popular article. Check out Meagan Good's article which I almost singlehandedly worked on in terms of increase in content, although Meagan Good, the actress, probably does not have as many references as Jennifer Love Hewitt. I am saying that there should be enough on Jennifer out there that we can include here. So, for all those with me, I ask that we work together to make this article better than what it is now. There's a lot that can be done. Stiles 01:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely hate that line, not so much because I admire Hewitt, but because it is entirely false. I am sure I can find a quote from someone somewhere on the Internet that disputes how great of a basketball player Michael Jordan was. I am sure there is someone out there who believes Jordan became a top player for a reason other than his skills. I am disappointed in this comment, because it is the opinion of a single person, and it does not show impartiality in that it only reflects one side. Where are comments about Hewitt being a great actress according to other critics? I am sure there is something out there on this. Let's say Hewitt is a poor actresss. Even if that is the case, there should be a section on what critics in general have said about her, rather than a single critic who is in love with Hewitt's bossom. I want to remove this comment, but it won't be any help if someone is going to put it back up, and if others are going to put up similar comments. Let's have a vote on whether single impartial comments about Hewitt's looks should be allowed here. I don't have a problem with a mixture of comments of what Hewitt is like as an actress, but I won't tolerate a comment that is there just to insult her. Stiles 03:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
It's actually really obvious that Jennifer Love Hewitt is attractive, which is why she is successful, which is why people want more pics of her, which is why people want to know more about her, which is why this article is so popular. Let's just ignore those rebels out there who disagree. 165.247.83.219 21:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I am honestly reconsidering the thought of working on improving this article. It seems that, after every effort, someone takes it upon himself to remove almost everything I've done. I have no problem with someone improving something I've added, but entirely removing a chunk of text? It seems users such as Boris Ziv have no understanding of how much time it takes to add just a few lines. It takes a lot of time to first research a topic, and then add it here. As a matter of fact, it took me several hours to add some information to this article, because of how difficult it is to find reliable and useful information.
I am growing tired of having to constantly defend every single action of mine, and having to contact other editors about things that shouldn't even matter. Take, for example, my mention of Boris Ziv. He removed a part that was, according to him, trivial. In all honesty, isn't the definition of trivial subjective? It definitely is. So, what should you do if you don't know if you should remove something? Let the person who took the time to work know that you like it. That way, issues can be resolved before action has to be taken.
In addition to this, I added several references for statements I made in the article. For example, I referenced Askmen.com. Another user, without even explaining why, removed that reference, as if it against the rules of Wikipedia. Askmen.com is often a great source for information on various people, and it apparently is a more reliable source than the widely referenced IMDB.com. So, why was it removed? Just to find the reason, I'd have to contact the person who removed it, ask for an explanation, wait generally about 24 hours for a response, and then discuss the matter some more. I don't think all that is a single reference.
Since I started working on this article, the only thing I had in mind was improving the article, which was a poor state for a long time. It appeared that no one was seriously contributing to the content of the article, but that, rather, people were arguing constantly about other matters. I have had more difficulty here than any other article. I feel that, if I were to leave this article, people would go back to ignoring the need to add content. Anyhow, if this much headache needs to go into an article, it simply is not worth it. I better go on to work on articles that receive less attention and squabble. Stiles 19:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, then, you argued that an on-line men's magazine is "a more reliable source than the widely referenced IMDB.com" because you'd seen the reliability of the latter questioned, but not the former. That's not good grounds for a comparison. As for trivia, in so far as what's trivial is subjective (and I contend that it isn't), then we can apply the test of consensus. How many editors think that an actress's self-deprecating comments to a journalist about her looks are trivial, and how many don't? As you've insisted on removing a negative comment on her acting ability (pretty central to her identity as an actress), despite its being backed by a reputable source, I'm not sure that you're exactly neutral here.
Wikipedia isn't a fanzine. There are lots of outlets for writing that detials actresses' every giggly comment, and go into detail about their private thoughts and insecurities, while ignoring or denying every adverse judgement about them, but this isn't one of them. She's at best a minor actress, and I'd have said that the article says at least as much about her as is warranted by her significance. In any case, Wikipedia articles aren't subject to capitalist economic theory, whereby there has to be constant growth. There is content here, and you need to make a case for there being more. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 09:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
There's this guy who is vandalising this article with references to the size of Jennifer Love Hewitt's bossom. Check out the history page for edits made by 132.49.221.25. He has done it twice so far. Anyone who would do something like that obviously is not here for improving Wikipedia. It'd be great if he could be banned by someone who has "the powers." Stiles 19:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Jennifer Love Hewitt had a stalker, but it wasn't your usual romantically-obsessed male fan. It was a woman with false victimization syndrome, who had paranoid delusions that Ms. Love Hewitt was part of a group (including Steven Spielberg) that targeted her with so-called "psychotronic technology." Due to this technology, the stalker, Diana Napolis believed that they were able to tell what she was thinking. [1]
This article would be better off without critical evaluations of Ms. Love-Hewitt and her breasts, because it's possible to find movie reviews that rave or pan just about any performance. Ever gone to a movie based on the rave reviews quoted in a newspaper ad to find that it was universally awful? The reviewers quoted now - Moviehole and JoBlo - are hardly the gold standard. Most other wikipedia articles don't have this. I've deleted the section. Ghosts&empties 23:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The early life and career section states: "At the age of three, she sang "The Greatest Love of All" by Whitney Houston at a livestock show." The associated Whitney Houston link shows that song as being from 1986, when Jennifer was six or seven. 208.247.255.11 18:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)analretentive
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a title called "I'll Always Know What You Did Last Summer" supposed to be released in the next 2 years? Is she gonna be in this? Or is the film already out? I'm not entirely sure. Double Dash 19:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting discussion on this above - but it's clear, based on the family tree I found that matches all other details given on her parents/grandparents' names, [2], that she isn't Italian or German at all. Interesting to know where this claim originated, but I see it's spread all over the junky trivia websites on the net. Mad Jack 07:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Shes Irish American.
The line "At the age of three, she sang "The Greatest Love of All" by Whitney Houston at a livestock show." is obviously incorrect, as the song was not released until 1986, when Hewitt would've been seven. Is there a credible source that actually proves this? Pejorative.majeure 19:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The current picture of her is really ugly. There's bound to be a better one. Rlevse 15:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
How is there no image? There have to be free use photos available, and if not, there are certainly fair use alternatives. But no picture at all simply doesn't make sense. -- Kicking222 02:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)