Talk:Jennifer Lopez/Archive 2

Jennifer Lopez, Fashion Designer?
Both this article and others on Wikipedia associated with Jennifer Lopez characterize her as a "fashion designer". While it is true that she owns a clothing company, I'm unaware of any evidence that she is a designer.

Her clothing company's official Web site does not claim that she is a designer, but it does erroneously state that "Jennifer Lopez started the trend of celebrity fashion brands ... in April 2001."

In fact, celebrity fashion brands date back at least 20 years. For example, Jane Fonda brought out a popular line of workout clothes in 1984. Jaclyn Smith, whose rose to fame as one of the original "Charlie's Angels," launched her clothing line with Kmart in 1985. And J Lo's ex, Sean "P. Diddy" Combs, launched his clothing line in 1998. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Annulla (talk • contribs) 00:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Green Card
"It was highly rumored that Lopez married Noa because he could easily obtain a Green Card for permanent U.S. residency."

Is it true? Someone has added it on the article, but I removed it – I haven't found a thing about it on the Internet, and it sounds like a rumour. Funk Junkie 18:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Her Origins...
Its very shocking the ignorance of the media...

Jennifer ("J.Lo"/"Lola") Lopez was born from 2 Puerto Ricans. Yes, she was born on NY but her whole family, her blood and her culture is from Puerto Rico. Her husband was born in the same circumstance Marc Anthony is from Puerto Rican parents.

Shockingly and sadly the media refer to J.Lo as an American actress/singer, on the other hand they refer of Marc Anthony as a Puerto Rican actor/singer...

If you take a look at the International law your nationality and origins are from where your FATHER is (the father is the genetic responsible for everything you’re)…... in both of this cases they are PUERTO RICANS.

Is completely crazy to say that because she was born here by error we say that she is American she is not, I can understand if they refer to here as a PuertoRican-American.

She is equally Puerto Rican as Marc Anthony, Raul Julia, Ricky Martin, Benicio Del Toro, etc.

I think this issue is very disrespectful towards Puerto Rico.

Thanks!

Look stop saying that stuff it is proven that your latin if your born in a latin country with latin parents but if your born in that country than thats your country of origan but she is not born in puert rico she can only say that her roots are puerto ricans thats all she cant say she's more puerto rican than Marc Anthony because he was born and raised there and she is only considered latin american thats it she's not puerto rican she;s just latin american —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yorenounico (talk • contribs). TollïnchÆ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.206.171.240 (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Puerto Rico is a country. Because of that it has a nationality, Puerto Rican. Puerto Rican is a nationality, not a race. You can be a white Puerto Rican or you can be a black Puerto Rican.24.185.49.151 13:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to get educated becuase if J-Lo was born in America that makes her American. America is a nationality not a race. I am hispanic but im not mexican because i wasnt born in mexico.

Puerto Rico is also a US territory, so even if she was born in San Juan, she would still be an American citizen. --70.171.49.193 17:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(REGARDLESS OF PUERTO RICO HAVING CITIZENSHIP) She is an amrican, not puerto rican, thats her parents Nationl origin,

IF A BRITISH, GERMAN OR ITALIAN PERSON BORN IN THE UNTED STATES AND RAISED THERE ....CANNOT CALL THEMSELVES EITHER OF THOSE NATIONALITIES..... IT JUST MAKES PEOPLE SOUND SILLY AND DONT HAVE ANY GEORGRAPHICAL KNOWLEDGE!!... ITS PURLEY YOUR ANCESTRY AND NOTHING ELSE.... JULY 14 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.198.211 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 15 July 2007

Do not type in all caps. It is the equivalent of shouting and is rude.

Now, there is a difference between nationality and race. Nationality refers to citizenship, which extends the property of being American to Puerto Ricans, born in Puerto Rico or in New York to Puerto Rican parents. Furthermore, Puerto Rican refers to a heritage in terms of a culture, not a race- there are white, Latino, balck Puerto Ricans, etc. It is not at all inaccurate to refer to her as American.

You have provided no evidence to support your incorrect ancestry hypothesis. Please do so instead of calling others stupid (especially given the way you whave written your message, which could be seen to point in the other direction...).

Thanks,

The Rhymesmith 05:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

How is this an incorrect ancestry hypothesis?... An american is an american...but their ancestry maybe Irish American for eg..but they are sill not Irish...hence no Irish unbriging and way of life etc.. spain21 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not. The user who typed in all caps has the opposite viewpoint.

The Rhymesmith 06:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

to all the ignorant people.... "Hispanics" or "Latin American" is a Ethnicity not a Nationality. By the way American?? You guys mean North American because let me refresh you that AMERICA is the whole NEW WORLD... there is North America (that includes Centro America) and South America. If you don't get it yet! a person born in USA is North American (not "American"). All the people born in USA, Canada, Central America, Caribbean or South America are Americans..... These is "The Americas"..... (is the same difference between: South Korea and North Korea = Koreans). http://teacher.scholastic.com/activities/suffrage/images/Web-Continents.gif for furture references.....Do you even know where is USA?? or Puerto Rico?? Do you know the differences between "Hispanic Countries" (same thing with Middle Eastern or Asian countries?)


 * Yes, but "American" is a nationality. If you are from Canada, you are Canadian.  If you are from Mexico, you are Mexican.  And if you are from the United States of America, you are _____________ (Hint: the answer is not United Statesian).  If you are still confused, please refer to this list: http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa030900a.htm  Anyway, I like how you addressed your comment to all the "ignorant people".  Of course, you are probably a 14 year old kid so it's not your fault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.112.81.129 (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rico follows the Jus soli law (the right of the soil or the land) meaning that one’s nationality is determined by the place of one's birth. Someone born in Puerto Rico can claim to be Puerto Ricon and American. Since Lopez was not born in Puerto Ricon, although she, in ethinic terms, is a Pureto Ricon-Ameican or, more generally, a Latin-American her nationality is clearly American not Puerto Ricon. See passage below: The modern world is divided up into nations with each nation, at least nominally, exercising control over its own territory and the people who reside within that territory. Among modern nations, citizenship at birth is conveyed in one of two ways; either though Jus soli (the right of the soil or the land) meaning that one’s nationality is determined by the place of one's birth; or through jus sanguinis (the right of blood) where nationality is determined by the nationality of one's descent (parents). Birthright citizenship is the term used for Jus soli as it is applied under US law. Dainamo 00:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't get why we can't call Lopez a Puerto Rican-American but we can call Sofía Vergara a Colombian-American and Gloria Estefan a Cuban-American. Both of this ladies were born and raised in Colombia and Cuba respectively and did not move to the U.S. until they were young adults. On the argument about the nationality of a person being defined by their place of birth then I don't understand why Joaquín Phoenix is called an American when he should be a Puerto Rican. Wikipedia documents have been altered to show as if the U.S. has more talented people than it actually has and I think it is unfair and disrespectful to the countries of origin of these people.

Photo
The photo is blurry as hell. WHY was it chosen as a main photo? 74.229.215.99 00:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC) llll


 * Someone did change it to a nice clear promo pic, but SOMEONE keeps replacing it with that crap picture, PLEASE change it!

i thing that this foto is nice: http://www.jlo.net/images/vivaromance07/vivaromance0701.jpg :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.203.248.139 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 March 2007


 * Unfortunately, we can't just grab any image from the web and use it however we want. Some images are copyrighted, and it's not nice to steal someone else's images. That's why the "crap picture" keeps returning - it is available for use under a free license. The www.jlo.net site, however, says "©2003-2007 JLo.net - All images and content within this site may not be used without prior permission from the author." Therefore, the above image is presumably a copyrighted image. (And it was uploaded to wikipedia without licensing information, so it will likely be deleted soon.) Copyrighted images *may* be used in some circumstances, such as "promo pics". "Promo pics" are promotion photos explicitly released by the celebrity for publicity, typically as part of a press kit. An image used even on an official celebrity website is not a promo pic unless it is specifically released as such. Gimmetrow 20:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This issue to truly pissing me off now, this must be some kind of vandel who hates Jennifer Lopez and promoting some blog... Every single other article about a music artist has no trouble using a promotional image of an artist released by the record company - PLEASE stop replacing a fair use picture with that crappy grainy picture This issue seriously needs to be sorted out, because this is the only music page that is having a prob with a main picture. Who agree with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJP19 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 16 April 2007


 * See Fair use and other image policies. If you can find a genuine promotional picture, released as a promotion picture and not simply grabbed from the web, that would be great. An image used for commercial advertising is generally *not* a promotional picture.
 * Fair use images of albums are rather questionable in the discography section, too. Fair_use says that cover art may be used "for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)." See also Image use policy. Gimmetrow 20:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Women's Wear Daily article
I recently replaced a citation to a forum (which had no real content except a link to podcaster), with the podcaster link. Shortly after, this was changed to a different forum link, with the explanation: Reverted reference because this is the only site with the Women's Wear Daily article, a first-hand source, rather than the podcaster site which reveals only some of the information in that article. This is still a citation to a forum, and forums are simply not reliable sources, and may only be used in articles about themselves, that is, about the forum itself. If a magazine article is being cited, then cite that, and let readers find the full text through google or a link on this talk page. Gimmetrow 20:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The new article has nowhere near the amount of info contained in the article on the forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.187.45 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 16 April 2007
 * Would you find such a reference to a forum post in Britannica? Forums are not acceptable references, except in very rare circumstances, such as the subject of the article herself verifiably writing in a forum. See Verifiability and Reliable sources. When the information is published in a reliable source, then it can be referenced. Gimmetrow 20:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia can hardly be compared to Britannica. Wikipedia isn't even a "reliable source". Nonetheless, I will lay off.

Indeed. Wikipedia is better. The Rhymesmith 07:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Discography section
This has gone back and forth between a list and a table a couple times now. As stated above, having a bunch of fair use images is a bit questionable. WP:MUSTARD says not to use images in discography sections. While this is marked as "disputed", the dispute is AFAICT focused on articles devoted entirely to discography. Fair_use says that cover art may be used "for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)."

The bare list of albums is perhaps too minimal, but the table didn't list DVDs. The table contained other information, but some prose could be added to the list to summarize the key points of the discography. I think this would be better than what was essentially a gallery of fair use images. Gimmetrow 00:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

US Number Ones
I would like to note she has had 5 US number ones. I'm real got to number one as a seperate single. I'm real the remix with Ja Rule also got to number one as a seperate single.

Total number ones is 5 not 4

Picture
That's a bad picture of her. Someone put up a better, more recent one. (dk)

request for comments
I'VE TRIED TO ADD INFORMATION TO THIS ARTICLE ABOUT HER BUTT - THIS IS WHAT SHE'S MOST FAMOUS FOR - IT WAS NOT DEROGATORY, PROFANE OR BAD IN ANY WAY - PLEASE SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS - MY CONTRIBUTION COPIED BELOW:Jerryskid 00:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition.


 * I think this is a terrible idea. Not enough sources and in bad taste. Other sysops have been treating it as vandalism, so I interpret that as an all-around no.--Chaser - T 00:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * One problem I have is that the source is a gossip magazine. I think that's pushing the realm of reliability quite a bit. It also doesn't have an encyclopedic section head or lead paragraph; by contrast, Dolly Parton is much more neutrally written. —C.Fred (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

i could cite 100 more sources i'm sure - type in any internet search for her name and see what i mean Jerryskid 05:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I Oppose mentioning her butt. Whether or not Jennifer Lopez has a great butt is purely subjective.  Even if she did have a great butt, that has never been her defining feature, and it has never affected her life or career.  So it isn't important enough to warrant any mention in this article.  Moreover, discussion about her butt is purely speculative, and more appropriate for tabloids, rather than in any encyclopedias such as Wikipedia.  Her having a great butt is a biased opinion, unimportant, and unencyclopedic.  (No if's or BUTTS about it!)--Endroit 15:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Her butt is not encyclopedic infromation expectually as it's written. It borders on pornographic.Angielaj 04:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I oppose. Endroit is right.


 * To not mention this is like not mentioning Jay Leno's chin, Owen Wilson's nose or Donald Trump's hairstyle, why should we be the judge of what is off/on limits? Isn't that up to the public? In which case the public reception of J.Lo has clearly noted her posterior. How is it biased? What's so biased about the media noting her butt on many, MANY occasions? To say it is not a defining feature of J.Lo is like saying Arnold Schwarzenegger's accent is not a defining feature of him.


 * As for if it borders on pornographic, well for one it is merely a notation of the balanced and well proportioned human anatomy and secondly, what does that matter? We have an article on the word [Pornography] so why should "bordering on pornographic" change anything?


 * If wikipedia shows an article of J.Lo and has not a single mention of her very famous backside, I would consider the article to be uninformative. 58.96.71.88 09:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubting that she has a fine, round shapely butt.

Leaving the 'butt' (US slang?) to one side (metaphorically, of course), this entry has developed the clear marketing hype bias which is trying to portray her as 'an actress'. The fact is, that while marketing types might convince their wishful-thinking-money-paying clients, the world at large will make up its own mind: it does not always align with the marketing hype. To the world at large, Ms. Lopez (aka 'J-Lo' - more hype) is not an actress. She is a singer of some disco-type songs that hit the sales at a particular moment. 'I'm Jenny from the block - used to have a little, now I've got a lot'. The trouble is, that she's been fooled into a lot of the US, money-is-everything, self-deceit.

If she were to return to her roots - she's a 'girl-next-door-made-'good' - she'd continus to develop a fan base that would expand and stick with her as they and she aged (we all do, and it's not all bad!), and keep paying the pennies (Dollars? Cents?) because they like what she is. If, instead, she were to be taken in by those hype-marketeers who think that the likes of her are fair game for feathering their own nests, she will fade into the would-be-actress obscurity that litters the foothills of Hollywood.

She /is/ a good popular singer, of her time. She does have an 'ace butt', many will think. If she recognises that, and sticks with it, she'll be a fantasy figure for a long while to come. If she thinks her real place is elsewhere, she'll fade into the obscurity of wish-they-were actresses. The fact is that many so-called 'actresses' are lesser people than singers, because they are, well, you get the idea by now... Or you don't.

J-Lo... be /J-Lo/ - you're good at it. People like it!

'Even if she did have a great butt, that has never been her defining feature, and it has never affected her life or career.'

Wishful thinking... like it or not, her butt was promoted as her 'unique selling point', and as such it defined and directed her career.

Buddhist?
JO is a buddhist according to this 71.135.36.120 04:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed. The source provided says she took up an interest in Buddhism after working on a movie with Richard Gere. Assuming that's true (the source isn't necessarily reliable for WP:BLP purposes), an "interest" is still a far cry from being a Buddhist. Gimmetrow 00:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

New Album Title
Never Give Up has not been confirmed as the title for the 2007 English album. Stop putting that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.68.159 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 12 July 2007

Her Spanish speaking and exploitation of 'Latin craze'
I think someone should point out how she didn't speak spanish. and she didnt even speak english with a spanish speaking accent. it wasn't until the "latin craze" in the USA of the late 90s, with (herself), ricky martin, marc anthony, and paulina rubio (and probably others.. Santana, Mana)that she decided to start embracing her herritage, and even took secret spanish lessons with a private tutor in her home. She had sung those songs on her album in spanish, but she didn't really know what she was saying. much like Selena had done in her first spanish speaking albums —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.249.246 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 13 July 2007


 * How do you know Lopez couldn't speak Spanish? Are you a friend of her? Opinoso (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Because I read about it in a magazine. if I had the exact magazine, title, publication, and date, I would put it in there myself. I also saw it on Entertainment Weekly back in the day. why the hell would I make that up? what would I have to gain or lose ? you're just a fanboy who doesnt want to believe it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.249.246 (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jennifer lopez3.jpg
Image:Jennifer lopez3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)