Talk:Jennifer Love Hewitt/Archive 3

Too many pictures!
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)
 * It's done. I've removed all but one photo.  If anybody disagrees with my rational, feel free to discuss it here. -- MisterHand 22:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute. I like pictures in articles.  They go very well with articles, because they provide an alternative to plain text.  I believe as many images as possibel, as long as they don't obstruct the flow of text.  I'll allow for more time on this issue, and unless there are good reasons for limiting images, I'll add more images.  Stiles 01:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. My concern here is a legal one: all the images we have of Hewitt are copyrighted, and the policy at WP:FAIR says "Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately." If we had public domain/free images to use of her, we could have as many as we wanted. -- MisterHand 03:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that statement about limiting the number of images does not apply to images that meet the requirement of "fair use." If the use of image qualifies as "fair use," that use is perfectly legal. In other words, as long as we are obtaining images legally, I don't see why the number of images we use is a problem. For example, screencapture images constitute as fair use. So, if we use screenshots of several movies that Hewitt has been in, it'd be perfectly fine, because we are using single images that are legal. That makes sense. The image that is currently being used is not really a close up; a headshot would be much better. Stiles 03:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would agree that a headshot is better, since the picture should be for identification purposes. As for multiple images, I'm just quoting what's on the WP:FAIR policy page. I'm not a copyright lawyer so I really don't know the legal ramifications. -- MisterHand 03:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think a head shot would be a good idea, or at the very least a portrait. This is semi-profile. Also, has anyone seen how many pics of Sarah Michelle Gellar her article has? I think we can afford two, if we can get the rights.

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)

Section headers or no?
What do readers/editors prefer for this article?


 * Headers? Looks like this


 * or no Headers? Looks like this

Please share your opinion one way or the other. -- MisterHand 18:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Headers. For sure. No question. Mel Etitis linked to "Wikipedia:Use subheadings sparingly", however, this was just a redirect to a page that said nothing about using headings sparingly. In fact, it seemed to endorse headings. Vulturell 18:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No headings. From the Guide to Layout: "Just as for paragraphs, sections and subsections that are very short will make the article look cluttered and inhibit the flow. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading, and in these circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points." This is a short article, shorter than the sections in many articles; it doesn't need the headings, and the attempt to divide it produced two very short sections. (The page to which I linked, and which has now been turned into a redirect on the grounds that it contained nothing that wasn't in the other article, originally included: "But use them well: ensure that they nest properly, and don't use them for only one or two paragraphs.") --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:59, 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)


 * One peson who quoted Wikipedia guidelines, as opposed to two people who offered no reasons. Wikipedia isn't a voting democracy; reasons count more than numbers. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've tried to be reasonable and compromise, altering the headings each time, and trying to open up a dialogue...but you keep reverting. The section you quote from WP:GTL says "it may be preferable to use bullet points."  I pulled the single sentence section and put it together with the discography, and I think the new version looks a lot better than the clump of text we had without subject headers.  Ultimately, all of these things are guidelines, not rules and we should be going with what looks and feels better to the reader/editor...something hard to measure without looking for consensus. So, I'm putting the headers back in. However, if a mob of people come in here demanding that we remove them, I'll have no problem with it. -- MisterHand 00:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with MisterHand. While I can see how Mel would be right in removing the headings from an article as small as Max Thieriot, this one is much bigger. Vulturell 06:01, 25 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 see MisterHand can no longer be bothered to discuss the issue, much less wait for other editors from the RfC, but is simply playing around with headings. Until there's genuine consensus that overrides Wikipedia guidelines, I'll continue to remove them.  If necessary, I'll take steps to have the article protected against editing until consensus is reached. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've gone above and beyond here: I've cited reasons for my edits, and offered several different versions in an attempt to compromise. Rather than meet me halfway, you just keep reverting. -- MisterHand 18:44, 26 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" &mdash; you want headings, I don't; what is half-way between those positions? --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 19:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Headings do make an article easier to edit: as stated in Help:Section, "Using section edit links can reduce edit conflicts on frequently edited pages." Here's how I've been compromising: my original version had several sub-headings.  One of your objections was that one of the sections only had one sentence, so I took care of it. I have also reduced the number headings I used: in my most recent version, there were only two. I've offered several variations in an attempt to find middle ground. You've offered one.
 * At any rate, I'm going to refrain from editing anything to do with headings for a week (or until consensus is reached) to give the RFC time. -- MisterHand 19:20, 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)

Request for Comments
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:


 * 1) Lots of headers?  Looks like this
 * 2) Less headers and lead section? Looks like this
 * 3) No Headers? Looks like this

Comments

 * I would go for 2, seeing as it combines the best of both worlds, and headers can be useful if a user expands the article in the future. Thenugga 23:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am leaning towards #2 as well. I like Mel Etitis' reasoning, and for that reason, we should increase the content of this article to please both sides.  I don't think this issue is as critical as some people are making it out to be.  Both sides make sense, and I appreciate Mel Etitis taking the time to offer a reason for his conclusion.  I believe, because Wikipedia is a community project, we should work together and offer reasons for what we do, rather than opposing others for lone opinions.  Stiles 01:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No. 2. Right now, I don't think you have enough to warrant more headers. Headers can always be added as more information comes in.Chandler75 01:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that the article is longer, headings are appropriate; I've added a couple. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I think we can consider this matter resolved. Thanks to everybody who stopped by and gave input, and special thanks to Stiles for expanding the article. -- MisterHand 16:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

A call for action
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)

Request for consensus

 * Hewitt is not universally regarded as a serious actor; for example, the review of Heartbreakers in Leonard Maltin's Movie & Video Guide 2002 includes the comment: "The cast seems to be having a good time; wonderful performance by Hewitt's breasts."

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)


 * Note that this isn't a vote (that's not how Wikipedia works), but an attempt to find consensus. Simply "agree"/"disagree" votes will be disregarded by any admin who is asked to act on this discussion (if that becomes necessary). --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. This is my vote.  Add your own below please.  Stiles 03:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The initial claim is true and verifiable; the quotation is part of that verification.  I suspect that you'd have a hard time finding a critic who attributed the success of Katharine Hepburn, Lauren Bacall, Holly Hunter, etc., etc., to their looks; I've seen this sort of comment made about Hewitt elsewhere, though.  I have no axe to grind here; I haven't seen any of the films in which she's appeared, nor any of the television programmes, and I don't find her particularly attractive; for all I know she's an excellent actress.  If Stile is concerned that there be a balanced set of comments about her acting ability, he should add one or more that praise her, not remove one that doesn't. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:23, 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 know that this has been settled, but in case something like it were to come up again, I'll just say that attributing the term "universally regarded" to one or two sources would seem suspiciously similar to a case of weasel words. -- 4.249.87.11 (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This article has problems
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)


 * 1) "Trivial" isn't particualrly subjective (at worst it's intersubjective). If it were, then the notion of being "encyclop&aelig;dic" would be subjective, and that's something that we rely upon heavily.
 * 2) You contradict yourself, in fact: "about things that shouldn't even matter" is a pretty good definition of "trivial".
 * 3) External links should be added sparingly; if you're citing one as a source, then why not put it in a section headed "Sources" (as per Wikipedia guidelines)?
 * 4) You say: "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." What grounds are there for these claims?
 * 5) Why do you think that there is a "need to add content" to this article? --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The word trivial is subjective in many cases. We can all agree that certain things are trivial, but on many other things, it is subjective.  What qualifies as encyclopedic can mhave different meanings to different people.  We just have certain expectations for an encyclopedia.
 * I said "things that shouldn't even matter" regarding issues such as whether to have lists, how many images should be displayed, and so on. I wasn't talking about what I mentioned in the first place.  The effort a person puts into an article is not something that "does not matter."
 * References is often used interchangeably with "Sources" in the real world, but that may be different here on Wikipedia. If I had known that References is something other than an area for citing sources, I would have used "Sources."  The problem is that so many articles use "References," that someone who has not been here that long like me assumes that this is the norm for Wikipedia.
 * I've heard that some info on IMDB is not reliable. If you scroll up, you'll see a mention of IMDB, and how it is not as reliable as some may have thought.  It seems that some information on the website is provided by IMDB visitors.  Read the paragraph that begins with "Be warned though..." here I have never heard anyone say anything similar about Askmen.com, and I have never read anything objectionable about it either.
 * People usually go to encyclopedias for information. If there's no content, where's the information?  Stiles 01:54, 9 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)


 * When absolutely necessary, I assume a source is unreliable unless proven to be reliable. Here, however, I assume that a source is reliable unless someone can say that it is unreliable.  I do this because it'd be extremely difficult to prove the reliability of each source before using it.  So, I can't say anything negative about Ask-Men.com unless others tell me there's something wrong with it.  You've said absolutely nothing about whether Ask-Men is reliable or not.  You didn't even address whether IMDB is reliable.  You danced around the issue.


 * I can start to see why what was removed by Boris Ziv should have been removed. It didn't add something critical to the article.  As for how whether Hewitt is a decent actress, you've upset me so much with this that I feel like proving her worthiness with comments from critics on her work.  I'll do this when I get the opportunity.


 * I realize that Wikipedia is not a fanzine, but the readers who are reading the article likely have an interest in what Hewitt has said at some point that is interesting. Why are people browsing this article if they have no interest in Hewitt?


 * If you don't mind, could you point me to an area where I can learn more about sources, references, citations, etc. Stiles 20:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I was responding to your claim about the reliability of Ask-Men.com, which made it sound as though it wasn't merely your opinion based upon the absence of evidence. I made no claims, and have no stake in proving anything either way; there are no issues for me to dance around.  (Were I forced to give an opinion, I'd say that I never trust journalists, and that I trust on-line journalists less than others, and journalists for on-line men's magazines less still.)
 * I can't imagine why you're upset. Our business, though, isn't to prove anything (in fact, we mustn't do things like that &mdash; see Original research).  If you can find reputable sources praising her acting abilities, though, they should certainly be added.
 * I've often looked up details about a person to find out what other films they've been in, albums recorded, books written, etc. I've had no desire to hear what they think about their looks.  Moreover, I've no doubtmany people look up people like her in the hope of seeing nude or semi-nude photos (this is the Internet); we don't provide those either.
 * WP:CITE is a good place to start. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ban this user please
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)


 * Such users generally get several warnings. The user will be temporarily banned when appropriate.  Don't worry.  :) --Yamla 20:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hewitt had a stalker
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. 

Critical evaluations
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&amp;empties 23:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Early life and career
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

..."What You Did Last Summer" titles
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)
 * It's a straight-to-video sequel with no Hewitt. We even have a page for it! I'll Always Know What You Did Last Summer Mad Jack 19:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ...That'll be why, then...heh. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Double Dash 21:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ancestry
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,, 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)
 * Wow...That's pretty weird...Then, where did the Italian/German thing come from? Michael 07:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably the IMDB or somewhere. It seems to be really old - it's been on the net for a while. It could have come from an old fansite, and then on the IMDB and on from there. A similar thing with Freddie Prinze, Jr., his mother was also claimed to be Italian by the IMDB, but seemingly is not Mad Jack 07:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Once more, it would be nice if every famous person would just line up and give a quote as to what they are... Michael 07:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Shes Irish American.

Early bio information
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)


 * George Benson originally recorded "The Greatest Love of All" in 1977. She could have covered his version in 1983.  --EZ76 06:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture
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)


 * Fair-use alternatives may not be used. See WP:FU.  --Yamla 03:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)