Talk:Jessica Biel/Archive 1

Just a little curious...
I know this is a "thing" people like to do on Wikipedia....But who felt it necessary to completely delete the ENTIRE personal life section? Just because you're some rabid fan that happens to disagree with certain sections of it doesn't give you the right to rip out the entire section without comment. This happens constantly on biographical articles and it's getting extremely annoying. Abalu (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Abalu


 * Some editors interpret WP:BLP as a license to delete immediately* and remove whole sections of even uncontroversial claims (easily verifiable with a Google search), without even asking for a better citation, and even when the material is sourced they will still delete rather than make any effort to help. Granted some of the claims are a bit ridiculous but removing a whole section is an excessive reaction to one point in a section that could be fixed. It is a lot harder to add or try to improve than it is to delete, it is amazing sometimes Wikipedia gets added to at all. -- Horkana (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * * interesting that she was a spokesmodel for L'Oreal, that might be worth adding back in, details about the modelling aspects of her career are pretty sparse.


 * Face of Revlon too apparently. -- Horkana (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Descent
I have removed this sentence:

the family is of German, French, Irish, English and Choctaw Native American

Is there an accurate, verifiable source for this information? (unsigned comment)

Of course there is: that was very arrogant of you to take it out, since there are 100 references. And also, she's probably half Native-American, and 1/8 Irish, 1/8 German, 1/8 French, 1/8 English. But she doesn't wanna be thought of as Native, so she lists these ethnic groups as if she's equally English and Native. Look at her: she looks very Native. And I'm putting that info back in, since there are 100 references for it. (unsigned comment)
 * Her surname is German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.255.15.132 (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * She has mentioned her ethnicity frequently in interviews. Disappointed to see the work of one misguided editor hasn't been successfully reverted.  -- Horkana 02:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny and so fashionable to have put the Choctaw at the front of her ascendency. Any proof she is half Native_american rather than probably half Native American (because it is so fashionable) ? (Look at her blue eyes, a recessive trait not found in the Choctaw I believe... She must then be more than half Choctaw, sorry to disappoint) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.205.142.75 (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

":Sorry to disappoint anon 205.205.142.75, but I have several points. Fashionability has nothing to do with this issue,"
 * You have to prove this !
 * I don't have to do anything. You're the one throwing around the accusations of "fashionability" without a shred of evidence. Ward3001 (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * " despite your POV assumptions that you know what was in the writers' minds. The article says nothing about what percentage Native American she is,"
 * It is written just above in this discussion ! Quote : "And also, she's probably half Native-American, and 1/8 Irish, 1/8 German, 1/8 French, 1/8 English."
 * Take the time to actually read my words. I said the article says nothing about percentages. The article. What's written above is not in the article. Ward3001 (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * " and the order of listing the various aspects of her ancestry does not imply anything in that regard."
 * Then state this fact since the order was changed when this ancestry line was put back!)
 * We don't need to state anything about something that is not there. There is nothing implied about percentage of any ethnicity in the article. That's simply you reading something into the article that is not there. Ward3001 (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * " Secondly, it is genetically possible for her to be 90% Choctaw or 10% Choctaw, and if she received her eye color genes from the non-Choctaw people in her heritage, she could have blue eyes either way. "
 * Again prove it with 90% or 51% Choctaw.
 * I don't have to prove anything. You're the one making false claims about eye color, recessive traits, and Choctaw ancestry. So if you're interested in correcting your misconceptions, read a basic book about genetics. Ward3001 (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Very much lacking in any evidence all this... But so fashionable.
 * Yes, your claims indeed are very much lacking in evidence. Fashionable in your POV assumptions only. Ward3001 (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What was the name of the Choctaw ancestors? Is is this just a family myth (we have some French ancestors in the Louisiana purchase and they often mixed with Indians, etc.) ?
 * Let me clue you in to a basic fact about policies and procedures on Wikipedia. If a reliable source says something, it can be included in an article unless another editor finds contradictory information from another reliable source. We don't need the names of her ancestors. Let me suggest that you stop writing your own Wikipedia rules and that you go to the trouble to actually read the policies that are already in effect. Ward3001 (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please at least say "SHE CLAIMS TO BE" and respect the original order mentioned (Native last).
 * Completely unnecessary, per WP:RS and WP:V. In fact, inserting "she claims to be" suggests that she is not, and that phrase is likely to be removed as weasel words. Ward3001 (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If i may interject here,reality check many "WHITE" people in america have nominal admixture of native american or black african admixture!!and as far as she claims jessica beil is one of these people i.e she is not no mestizo i.e somebody who is half white and half native american because if you look at the source she says she has a "BIT"of native american ancestry....she looks totaly european because that makes up the vast majority of her ancestry i.e if this is a debate about race i think it's pretty obvious she is white and is precived that way by society and anybody who is stating she looks like native american is fooling themselves and has never seen a full blooded native american but if you took the time out and look around at the many mexican imigrints you would she what native americans and real mestizos look like and i will tell you they don't look like jessica beil  also there is no one drop stigma when it comes to native american ancesrty so american society(even though she claims native american ancestry)accepts her as white,though on the other hand there are people who lie about having native american ancestry, it's said that some white people lie about having native american ancestry because of white guilt i.e they lie to make themselves feel better about being on this land and  that they really belong here because they have a blood connection to this land.--Pleasenowz (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That is exactly right. I grew up in an Italian American immigrant community on the East Coast. It was a "badge of honor" to make up one's ancestry to include Indians or Native Americans (they actually prefer Indians). Looking back it is hilarious since Italians starting coming here en mass AFTER Indians were killed off so it was really impossible for them to have so many descendants who were Indians. It always confused me why whites pretended to have 1/16 Cherokee or Apache or even a smaller amount...lol. It was always enough just to give them a little "spice" but not enough to corrupt their whiteness. I don't know if it was guilt; I think whites actually respected Indians a little bit so they appropriate the "positive" stereotypes of Indians. With blacks they have and will always (until they die out) think of us as slaves or property so they fundamentally don't have any respect. They love to fantasy about our large penises but that is about it. Anyway who cares anymore, whites are turning gay or not having kids so they'll be dying out soon. Don't sweat it. Most of them will die out in our lifetime...assuming you are < 30. It is a glorious time to not be white!!

Moved from user talk pages

 * please don't try to censor talk pages wikipedia is not a place for censorship if what i am saying is a rant that whole section is a rant thank you much--Pleasenowz (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:TALK. Talk page comments are supposed to be directed toward the goal of improving the article. Your extended rant, at times incomprehensible, based on an innocuous comment by Biel that she has some Choctaw heritage, consisted primarily of a personal attack on her, accusing her of lying, and without the least shred of evidence. So while you're reading, read WP:BLP, which applies to everything on Wikipedia, not just articles. Your edit was not intended to improve article; it was intended to damage Biel's reputation (and I have no vested interest here; I don't even think she's a good actress, but she deserves the same protections as anyone else who has an article on Wikipedia). Even if she is 1/100 of one percent Choctaw, her statement is not a lie, and the burden of proof for an editor calling a living person a liar is on that editor. You had no intention of trying to improve the article. You just wanted a soapbox to rant about someone you thought might not have as much Choctaw heritage as you think she should. So here's your choice. You clean up your edit and take the unfounded attacks out of it. You add a reliable source for your allegations that she is lying. Otherwise, I plan to post a notice on the WP:BLP noticeboard and an WP:RfC on the Biel talk page, and we'll see what the larger Wikipedia community, not just me, thinks about your edit. Ward3001 (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Be honest ward their is just something i said you just don't like and want it off the talk page(censorship) because you were fine in that very same section about her ancestry talking about recessive genes etc etc wow that has alot to do with improveing the article on jessica biel come now let it lie don't get to attached to articles or even worse attached to the bleeping talk pages--Pleasenowz (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh this is much better, wow i did not accuse her of lieing, i said it was possible and saying someone could lie is not in no way slanderous angelina jolie father admitted that her mother lied about being part native american and ever hear of Grey Owl???i did not call her a liar, first i correct you silly people on the source in my so called rant(which was right in line with the other non sense that was going on in this section) where she says she has a "BIT" choctaw native american ancestry i.e she is not no 50/50  she might be 5% native american for all you know like i said she is white (White American) anyway at the end of the day get over it --Pleasenowz (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You have 24 hours to remove your unsourced allegations that she is lying, or to produce your sources. Ward3001 (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

i hope you are not threating me ward??? and no there does not have to be a source unless it's within the article this is a talkpage there is alot of unsourced material here don't be silly now ward--Pleasenowz (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a threat. It's a promise. And you have been told to read WP:BLP; it applies to everything on Wikipedia, not just articles, and you have violated it. From WP:BLP: Applies "to any Wikipedia page ... Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons." 24 hours: produce your source, or remove your slanderous allegations. Ward3001 (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No nothing i said here rises to the level of slander, sorry i did not with out a doubt call her  a liar though i did point out historic facts settle down,and i think it was more slanderous to suggest she was 50/50 now that would be a lie--Pleasenowz (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Another thing ward looking through the edit history of this article it seems like u may be a little to interested in this article maybe you are being a bit overprotective my friend please don't try to own the talk page as you have already placed an ownership on the article it's self, instead of playing cop in a ridiculous fashion try to improve articles instead, make wiki articles not wiki drama ,which is what you are doing here --Pleasenowz (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You've been warned about WP:BLP. And my edit history has nothing to do your policy violations. So here's another warning. It is a policy violation to make personal attacks on other editors. You now have 12 hours to produce a source or remove your accusations of lying. This is my last edit before taking action. You can comment about me, do nothing, or conform your edit to Wikipedia policy. The choice is yours. End of discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay Sheriff ward i removed your little tinker bell name from the comment i would not want a lawsuit from miss biel hahaha,but let me tell you something, your edit history tells me you have a bit of an obsession with actors who claim nominal native american ancestry such and just an obsession or with young actresses in general--Pleasenowz (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My editing interests are neither known to you, nor relevant to this discussion, nor related to improving this article. Consider this your final warning about personal attacks before I make a complaint at WP:ANI. Ward3001 (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

She does not look 100% white. I can clearly see the Native in her, and I'm not a native, I'm 100% white. It's her eyes, I believe mostly. One of her parents must look even more native than she does, are there any pictures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.253.85 (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hold on a minute
I understand WP:BLP, but there is nothing wrong with being a lesbian or bisexual. I don't see that there is any reason why WP:BLP applies here. Ther other part of the claim, however, obviously is affected. I don't think removing discussion of her possibly being a lesbian or a bisexual from the talk page is justified. Without any sources for various other claims though, obviously the rules prohibit us mentioning them here. --Stenun 22:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree there's nothing wrong with being lesbian or bisexual. However, given still-widespread discriminatory practices and hate crimes against homosexuals, this is still something that can be called libelous if its posted falsely. WP:BLP directs that unsourced information of this sort should be removed from both articles and their talk pages. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 23:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Having read WP:BLP I don't think it applies to homosexuality at all. However I am quite happy to go with the majority on this one, particularly as the only source that has been offered first is of, um, not entirely of the highest calibre.  I think, if certain statements by her family that have been alledged to have been made were in fact made, that there would be wider news coverage of it.  --Stenun 23:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, despite what some may think, most people feel that there is something wrong with homosexuality and bisexuality, so therefore it does apply. 67.142.130.40 22:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree fully then. Extremely sexy 12:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is unrelated, but I noticed her charity work needs citation.  Megan :)  Rubyandme 03:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

New photos
I have recently been given permission by Gen Art to use their photos as freely licensed for Wikimedia Commons. The photos of Biel can be found here. http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=70879681@N00&q=Jessica+Biel&m=text Please, tell me if anyone thinks I should replace the current one with one of these. Thanks.--CyberGhostface 20:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would prefer another one than the one used with the article. Extremely sexy 23:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nude photos in NakieMag
''Biel is a supporter of naked yoga and has appeared in numerous campaign ads against laws banning public nakedness. To show her "appreciation of the human body," she posed clothes-free in an editon of NakieMag, in which she keeled on the ground and tucked her knees under her chest, displaying her anus, exposed between her two fully spread buttocks. In another photo, she sat in a wooden chair holding her right leg above her head and providing a natural view of her contracted labia and clitoris. On page six of the essay's pictorial, the actress performs a headstand with her legs spread apart in an upside-down splits maneuver, with breasts in full view and a stiff labia minora standing upright in between her thighs.''

IP-number 75.18.176.130 and User:Wasabi fandango added the above to the article, and I subsequently removed it. A google-search didn't give any results for NakieMag or any other info. I'm not too familiar with how things are done on the English Wikipedia, so I found it best to mention it here. --Heelgrasper 07:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's probably vandalism.--CyberGhostface 19:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * IF THIS IS TRUE, WHERE ARE THE PHOTOS? ADD A LINK, AND PROVE IT! (unsigned comment)

not from Nakie Mag but a topless photo. you can see her right nipple. http://www.celebritees-nues.net/actrices/jessica-biel/jessica-biel-03.jpg http://www.celebritees-nues.net/actrices/jessica-biel/jessica-biel-24.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ufish (talk • contribs)

I'd like to point out that this is a free encyclopedia. It's likely younger kids will want to read about their favorite celebrities. Kids will be shocked with those photos. Please stop. Also, many people hate the nudity. I hate it too, I wish they would be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubyandme (talk • contribs)

I do not believe wikipedia has any such policy of censorship and if you believe it does then you should be easily able to provide a suitable and official reference to any such policy. The above quoted comments about nudity are almost certainly vandalism as Jessica Biel has in various interviews expressed a certain amount of embarrassment at the revealing photos taken for Gear magazine at only age seventeen and her discomfort at being thought of as the "Worlds Sexiest Woman". If someone wanted to mention this in the main article it should be relatively easy to find and cite a source (such as the Sunday Times, September 2, 2007) where she again mentions this, her dogs, and an interest in Scrabble. -- Horkana 00:54, 3 September (UTC)
 * Wikipedia explicitly does not have any censorship policy. See WP:CENSOR and Content_disclaimer.  The Gear pictorial is of course copyrighted content and would not appear on Wikipedia, but those who want fluffy bunny encyclopedias suitably scoured of any content anyone could dislike won't find it here.    Ravenswing  20:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Relevant and unsourced material
I removed some stuff and tagged some other. Thanks, --Tom 14:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of faith?
I noticed that she's in the category "American Christians" but I can't find any evidence that she is one. I'm wondering if the category is there solely bc of her character on 7th Heaven.Jonjames1986 (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've read in a magazine that she has stated being Christian. I'll see if I can find my time a limited today so I can't promise that I will find it soon.Mcelite (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just read on another site that she's a Rastafarian - not sure if it's right though. 86.9.235.80 (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Most dangerous celebrity
She was named the 'most dangerous celebrity' because searches for her name are most likely to yield sites that install spyware and adware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.56.153 (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * She's not dangerous, searching her name is hazardous. This has nothing to do with Jessica Biel's article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Confusion over her name
Am I the only person who gets the name of Jessica Biel confused with the name of Jennifer Beals? I know that's as silly as confusing Ivana Trump with Vanna White, but it does happen. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is something that occurs very often. Maybe it's a matter of attraction? :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Gear Magazine Image.
Biel appeared on the cover of Gear Magazine. Wikipedia includes a copy of that image. If the image were included directly in this article as an image it would require a non-free image rationale. Linking to any image or article does not require a non-free rationale. It is wrong to delete a reference that simply links the image. I have very deliberately not included the image directly since this article has a good amount of images and the argument as to what images are fair to use is too much hassle.

There is no reason not to reference the image in some form or another since it shows she did appear on the cover of the magazine. If the image was external to Wikipedia I would have used the Template:External media, that is also an option. I encourage editors to read WP:OWN before deleting and as I said in my earlier edit summaries to suggest a better way to present this information.

The image is not a "citation" and does not make any claims to answer all the questions and controversy raised in the paragraph, and it is a straw-man argument to even claim that is necessary.

I will discuss this issue here on the article talk page as it is relevant to the article and should be kept off user discussion talk pages which are easily ignored. -- Horkana (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First, I converted the image in your post above to a link to the image, as non-free images are not allowed outside of articles (WP:NFCC). Second, that she posed for gear is not in contention, nor is the fact that it was topless - as I understand it it was the reason she posed that was in contention and unsupported. Third, either using it via External media is a failure of WP:ELNEVER and as a reference it's use does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" nor would its omission "be detrimental to that understanding" as required by WP:NFCC. Yes, you could argue that WP:NFCC does not apply to the use of it as a reference (in which case we could review it at WP:NFCR to gauge consensus), but the MSN source also backs up the motivation for the shoot, and so is better all-around. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Added the image as external media but it was removed with reference to WP:ELNEVER. Due to the odd nature of this situation and that the image is not on an external site but Wikipedia itself it is hard to believe there is any risk of contributory copyright infringement.

The edit block caused my earlier reply to this on the talk page to be dumped. I will try to get the gist of it again here.

From you above edit it seems an extra colon is required. For some unknown reason all I have been seeing is blue link text but others see a full image included in the article.

If you look at the MSN article (and I updated the citation to reflect this) the byline says the content comes from All Movie Guide. The AskMen article also supports some of the claims but neither of these seem like authoritative sources, and even then very heavy with their own POV, and it seems a far inferior option to giving readers the choice to see the image and decide for themselves if they really think it is "controversial". The claims of controversy and reaction from Aaron Spelling are badly or not sourced at all.

The rules as to what images can be included are very confusing, and seem inconsistent. You tell me the full weight of rules apply to even linking to an image already included on Wikipedia and yet an article like Batman includes many non-free images.

Ingore all rules for a moment and please suggest ways to better improve this article. If I might digress from the Gear Magazine images for a moment, it seems odd this article has no section for "Personal life" although the text about her film career makes two clumsy statements about her dating Chris Evans and the various other linked articles (FHM and People magazine, perhaps others too) mention her relationship with Justin Timberlake. The dead links I found just seemed further examples to me of how stale and in need of work this article is, and it is unfortunate to be stopped from improving the article because of a minor formatting issue. If editors are going to act like they own the article they could at least try and be constructive and not just delete from it. -- Horkana (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I have no real comment on the article's content other than agreeing that it can be improved, and that you are doing good work on it, which is why all I've done is remove the image and link to the image. My concern was entirely with the image and copyrights; I'm aware that the use of non-free images is confusing, but in this case it will soon be a moot point as I have replaced the only other use of the Gear magazine cover with it's logo and so the image should be deleted in a week. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Deletion seems like an unfortunate "solution" to the "problem" and inconsistent with the articles for many other magazines. I will comment on the talk page for the Gear (magazine) article. -- Horkana (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wholesale revert to clean-up of page
I spent a great deal of time the other evening cleaning up citations, making corrections to works cited, and other fixes. I was quite concerned when I returned and noted that all of the work I did was reverted on a wholesale basis with a rationale of "completely stripping all spaces from citations is bad, makes very difficult to spot mistakes. separate table reveals how little television work she has done. prose > tables". I went to the editor's talk page to discuss it, only to find a note that says "I am unlikely to read messages written here and even less likely to reply to them." I was also concerned to note that she had been blocked for edit warring over the addition of an image as a citation, essentially to return the article to her preferred version, and she had proceeded to return from her block to do the same thing again, again to citations, and with a rationale that is completely invalid. I will discuss each point separately:
 * The revert restore the article to the use of Template:Infobox actress from Infobox actor. That there is no infobox actress, it returned a hard and unnecessary redirect to the proper infobox. It also returned capitalization to parameters of that infobox. While that isn't a big issue, it was unnecessary.
 * The most relevant issue is the contention about the style of citations used. It isn't a case of "expanded" it is a case of the use of horizontally place citations vs. vertical placed citations. It isn't true that one version allows spotting of errors better in one vs. the other. In fact, errors are quite easily spotted by simply looking at how the citation displays in the actual reference section, see here. The rationale for reverting isn't valid. It is quite easy to see what citations have bare links, incorrect works cited, even date errors. If one looks at the page for Template:Cite web, the cite format is displayed, in horizontal form, with the date for the day already handily available so that the cite template can be copy and pasted. In addition, the examples section on that page are also given to show how to use them and how they display. There is no wording on that page whatsoever that recommends one style over the other, nor is there any prose that indicates that "spacing out" the template is preferable, or that horizontal use is "bad". That is essentially a matter of personal opinion and reverting on that basis is not a valid rationale for reverting a mass of clean up work. Further, at Template:Cite news, the usage and examples are identical. I would go on to note that in the template, it isn't proper to use |publisher=people.com or |work=people.com. It should be |work=People, working meaning it is a publication like a magazine or a newspaper, and it includes a wikilink to the page for that work. |work= renders the product in italics, |publisher= does not. ny work that has a Wikipedia article, should have a wikilink to that page. The standard now is to display publication and accessdates in full form, such as June 13, 2010, not as 2010-06-13.
 * On to tables. There is no valid rationale to create a separate table that displays either one or two entries, or roles. The table should have a full header with columns, not like it was rendered, like this. The "notes" column of the table exists to make notes, as it did originally, to indicate an "episode" name or number. Films don't have episodes, so if an episode is given, it is a given that it is a television program. There is no valid rationale that says a table must exist to "reveals how little television work" someone has done. That is for the main body of the article, not a table, to relate. In the case of Biel, her second television role resulted in a nomination for an award, which specifically was the Teen Choice Award for Choice TV Actress. Again, the separate table isn't needed to convey that, the abbreviation of "TV" does that job. That Biel does little TV work is apparent. I have no idea what is meant by "prose > table". It is present in the article, in prose, so it makes no sense to me.

In any case, I am going to revert to return my clean up since the rationale given for discarding it was invalid. It was a concern that the first action on this article by the editor after her block expired was to revert, again to her version with unsupported use of citations, with no regard to the clean up done, the links and other corrections, without bothering to either contact me or make a post here, after being blocked for that same action.

Also, this link has locked up my browser six times in a row, including making me have to retype this post twice. I wouldn't recommend clicking it unless you don't mind rebooting the browser. I'm not quite sure how to tag the citation, but I'll figure something out. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * *I* object to the squashing of the citations into a less readable form. Strongly. This is about readability in the edit box. You've other changes in there, too, and I'm agnostic at this point re them, as I've not really looked at them. While tempted to revert, I'm going to simply reformat them, again. The other editor's rationale was fine and I suggest you not do this elsewhere, either. I recall at least on instance where you specifically did this sort of reformatting to citations that I had worked on. Jack Merridew 19:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Short answer. If you want one big table (which is all your edit summary said you were doing) then that is okay, change it back.
 * If you have other edits and are going to continue working to improve the article then I would of course discuss them and encourage you to make smaller clear edits. Your other edits and complete removal of spaces makes it much more difficult for me to keep editing this article and to continue to fix and improve those citations.
 * Other points discussed below in more detail -- Horkana (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia beginner guidelines tell you to make lots of small edits. Your massive edit made it impractical to seperate the good from the bad. Also stripping of indentation and line breaks makes it substantially more difficult to identify what you have actually changed. If an article is stable and not badly in need of work then stripping the line breaks is at least understandable but completely stripping out the spaces makes it difficult to see which citations need more parameters properly filled in and which ones are just flat out wrong. One big edit makes for one small summary, so in effect very little explanation of your edits. Your edit summary only seemed to suggest you were merging the table back. If an editor was not acting in good faith then removing all line breaks and making a whole load of changes with an edit summary only explaining one change that would be the way to intentionally hide changes their edits and make them hard to see. I don't think that is the case with your edits and I do think they were made in good faith but it is very hard work to see that for sure, and as frustrating and inconvenient for other editors as you seem to think my edit was for you. I'm willing to make a small more effort to salvage some good bits of your edit but you made it very difficult.
 * As for my temporary block, if you take a look at my block of edits you can see I was cleaning up citations, checking deadlinks and filling in more parameters. I shot myself in the foot with that other edit since I couldn't see the reason why it was being reverted. If I had known the whole image was displayed instead of just a text link to it which is what I thought I had posted, then we would have had a much more reasonable discussion like this and not a block. This only became clear when another editor was actually a bit helpful and explained here on the talk page. I am still working on that and watching a discussion to see if the image will be deleted from wikipedia completely but if it is not then I will again try to find the most appropriate way to let readers easily find it and judge for themselves if they think it is controversial and let them decide their own Point of View (POV) and try not to let the article be skewed by critics of Biel.
 * My page is clearly marked to strongly discourage personal remarks and irrelevant comments, out of any proper context. Far too many comments are put on user talk pages when they belong on article pages. If an editor wants to spend lots of time editing in their own sandbox and collecting shiny buttons then they are welcome to do so but I try to spend time editing articles first.


 * Back to this article: The table listed Television programmes under the heading "Film" which was wrong. This could possibly be corrected by changing the column heading to "Title". In any case Wikipedia prefers prose to lists, (and I don't know if it is policy but I think lists are often preferable to non-sortable tables) similarly prose is better than tables. By breaking down the table into smaller more manageable sections it makes it easier to turn those smaller sections into prose and maybe even build up a description of her career rather than just a dull list. This specific breakdown draws attention to how little television work she has actually done, essentially it is where she got her break but she is a film actress. (I'm also left wondering if the description of her as a model is not a bit misleading if in fact all she did was a bit of catalog modeling as a teen.) This article could be so much better, and breaking down the table would go a long way but it would be difficult to do all in one go. A section of prose about voice work might be good too. (As for the symbols > and < they are the mathematical symbols for greater than and less than, edit summaries make it difficult to fully explain and it is a fairly common shorthand, but as I said above prose is better and I was making the change to trying to move the article along.)
 * Gender is a useful thing to note. I have no idea why anyone would intentionally remove that from an infobox. Is there any guideline saying not to call an actress an actress? (The Academy Awards always do.) The redirect serves as an alias, to avoid duplicating the template, why is it possible to use it if it is not allowed? I would have expected a page explaining it should not be used or an error rather than for it to work perfectly. When you complain about the redirect are you making some issue about performance because that doesn't make sense when there are guidelines specifically saying Don't Worry About Peformance (DWAP)
 * I would appreciate if you could link to the guideline requiring accessdates be formatted as you suggest. It was my understanding that was a requirement only for the date parameter, and that (although bizarrely inconsistent) there was no such requirement to do so for accessdates, where formatting was optional and editors were only recommended to follow the style already used in an article. The guidelines may have changed again, but that was my understanding of them last time I waded through them. If there is a policy then there really should be a bot making the changes consistently in a big way across many pages and pointing to the guidelines, we shouldn't need to do it manually.
 * The website is legit, RTE has a wikipedia article. Absolutely no problem with the linked article you mentioned, must be a problem with your browser or perhaps flash plugins? Have you tried Firefox and Adblock? -- Horkana (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * clicking this link locks up various browsers. Consider it "broken".


 * Please specify which various browsers were used. Works fine in Firefox (no adblock installed) and I also checked using Internet Explorer 8. Also checked using Safari 4. Do not have Opera browser. No problem.
 * The page is not yet available in the Internet Archive. If the link was backed up using WebCite that might help prevent whatever issues you are having. Adding archive URLs to useful sources is part of cleaning up citations and improving articles I was in the process of doing. -- Horkana (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Mostly I agree with you re the citation formatting; other issues I didn't look at much. The link is not broken and I've removed the inline comment about it. I did update the url as it was redirecting. I've restored a readable citation format. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've also checked with Opera, Safari 5, Camino, and Seamonkey. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack, object all you like, there is nothing that supports the contention that errors are easier to find. Neither of you have a leg to stand on regarding your assertion that vertical citations are easier to find errors than horizontal. I'd also note that this article actually used horizontal citation style until Horkana came in and made a wholesale changeover to her preferred style of vertical citations. Thus, that change overrode the style used in this article and her wholesale revert of it and the clean up that was done in conjunction of it smacks more than a little bit of (everyone chime in) ownership. Jack, I have to wonder if you didn't come in to back up Horkana simply because it is me who objected to her wholesale revert to all the clean up work I did. And it is entirely improper to come in, disregard and dismiss problems someone else is having with a citation link, which results in locking up Firefox six eight times. To say "oh hey, tough about your luck on that link, it works for me" is dismissing the problem without addressing it. It still does it. Horkana, please don't misrepresent what I said in edit summaries and charge bad faith. My edit summaries didn't say I wanted one big table, they said there is no good reason to make a separate table for two roles:
 * "collasped refs, there is no real good reason to break out two television appearances for a separate table"
 * "clean up" when I returned the work I had done and included more.
 * And I gave rationale for the "good edits" I made. You ignored all of that to make a wholesale revert. I don't care why you were blocked, that the image was appearing in the reference section was quite obvious. My comment was that the first edit you made when you returned was to once again reverted to your preferred style. That you have a large note at the top of your talk page that says you won't look there has nothing to do with your rationale. You actively discourage editors from posting there, period. Making "huge" edits complaints are countered with making huge wholesale reverts are also inappropriate.


 * Making a table for two roles is pointy and has nothing to do with prose vs. tables. I understand, I don't require a vocabulary lesson. My comment was that it doesn't make sense because the prose is present as well as the table. The roles are covered in the main article body, so that is a moot point.


 * The infobox thing isn't anything to do with gender differences. It has everything to do with only needing one template for the infobox. It's silly to make or have two infobox that only differs in its title, and it is pointy to change to "actress" because it is a female and createa an unnecessary redirect. See the dictionary definition for the word "actor" and "actress". Actress tells you it is a female actor. That is really beside the point which is to use the template available and not unnecessarily create redirects. Besides, the article calls her a SHE. That's a distinction.


 * Offhand, I don't know the page about date formatting, but if you look at the Citation template page, accessdates are displayed in written out form, not in ISO date style. And the clean-up I did also changed the date of publication from any ISO dates that remained to remove the ISO.


 * And back once again to the RTE reference, it locks up my browser. I use Firefox. I tried with Internet Explorer and Opera. It locked up eight times now. Don't disregard this complaint or dismiss it because you didn't have trouble. If you can get it to open, I would suggest you make an archived version that doesn't lock up with Web-Cite and not wait for the Internet Archive to get around to it. Just because you didn't have a problem doesn't mean that others don't either. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't say anything about finding errors; I referred to readability. I've been formatting cites this way, as do many others, for a long time. Go ahead; edit war over newlines and whitespace; that will look impressive. And that links works fine for me and for Horkana, and I expect that the next person who stops by will say the same thing. Whatever happening for you would seem to be specific to you. You should avoid magical thinking. Jack Merridew 06:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't the one edit warring here, Jack, Horkana did and did so before this. Her issue was that finding errors was difficult, which is fundamentally ridiculous, and she's the one who reverted wholesale a number of changes other than the direction of the cite. As I said, does ownership ring a bell? Invoking ridiculous assertions instead of addressing the problem of the cite is a tad bit over the line, even for you. It is the only problem with accessing a reference I've ever had. As I suggested, one of you who assert the link is just fine should apply a little good faith to the mention of a problem and go ahead and create the archived version with Web-Cite so perhaps the problem will be taken care of. If you can't be bothered to do that, I'd suggest you stop being tendentious about it. I suspect there will be others who stop by here and say they did have problems. Don't act superior. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I won't be bothered. Try and be a little less obviously manipulative. Try clearing your cache, too. There is nothing ridiculous about Horkana's position re citation readability; readability serves to encourage reading and can only increase the likelihood of something being read, and that would assist in finding any errors. Ya, you ring the ownership bell frequently; tell me something I don't know. Jack Merridew 19:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC) p.s. I'm not acting ;)
 * RTE works fine for me on IE6. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you just answered the big question of good faith regarding the cites. If you won't be bothered to archive a citation that locks a browser up, then you obviously have no inherent interest in being productive or meeting issues, Jack. Of course, we know that. And you've deteriorated into making your other tendentious comments too. Again, try valiantly to lose your superiority complex. It's unbecoming. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to make a big long comment but I think I would just be repeating much of what I said above. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make by mentioning my being blocked temporarily, so I will try not to speculate.
 * I could have been more polite and in retrospect perhaps I should have merged the table back together when I reverted your edits, but none of us like doing a whole lot of extra work if we can avoid it. Now all our edits need to be piece-meal and carefully dicussed, making adding to the article more difficult than usual.


 * Ah hell at the risk of repeating myself I'll try and explain again why I think indentation is good. The Wikipedia difference tool is very basic. If you have more line breaks then the changes between edits are much easier to identify. I and other editors prefer more line breaks. Unlike the short horizontal format, this vertical format makes it particularly easy to see if a citation is using just a few parameters and to then see if more could be added and if others could be fixed. (Far too often the author parameter gets automatically filled by a robot with the value "by" instead of an actual author name, but that is just one example of the rubbish that gets filled in.) In a more established article editors quite often come along and strip out the line breaks, and that isn't so bad if they don't strip out the spaces. If you strip out the spaces then keyboard navigation becomes more difficult, it is much harder to move the cursor to the right place using just the arrow keys and shift and control. Also the built in spell checker in browsers simply ignores the entire block of text in the citation, but if you have spaces then it will try to identify spelling mistakes and underline words that have been misspelled.


 * Even though I disagree with you I would be much more willing to accept your optional formatting choices if you were making more changes to the article. Removing or deleting is easy compared to adding a paragraph of prose which is really what I'd prefer to at least be trying to do. The article is severely lacking sources, and needs work.
 * I keep meaning to reuse the existing sources and write a bit about the Rankings/Media recognition and get a few comments about how Biel reacts to her perception as a "sex symbol" or "sexiest women". It also seems like this article should have a "Personal life" section instead of a few stray comments about her co-starring with her boyfriend Chris Evans and again the existing People magazine sources already mention Justin Timberlake.
 * Since Biel has done many interviews for The A-Team there should be many sources easily available and is should be a great opportunity to expand the article. -- Horkana (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to respond to a lot of what you've said above. Except, it's sort of a bizarre thing to do to comment that you'd be "much more willing to accept" anything if I were a more active editor. This coming from someone who has made a sum total of 29 edits to this article over a period of 7 days vs. the 41 I have made. Absurd to dismiss me because you don't perceive that I have "done enough work" here. That's sort of pitiful to me. And completely bad faith. Don't take a cue from Jack, here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I prefer vertical citations because they're much easier to maintain: it's easier to see which parameters have actually been used and to tell the difference at a glance while editing what's text and what's citation -- especially if the quote parameter is being used. (And add me to the list of people who can see the RTE page just fine.) Also, enough with the snarky comments about other editors. "you obviously have no inherent interest in being productive" is just this side of being NPA-blockable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but that editor followed me to yet another point and took up sides to edit to oppose me and goes on to say that he was tempted to also wholesale revert, which the previous editor did to remove my updates. This happens constantly. And when I bring up an issue I'm having with getting a reference to open, and suggest that someone for whom the cite will open should archive it with CiteWeb to clear up the problem, suggest I avoid magical thinking and went on to declare that he won't be bothered. Try and be a little less obviously manipulative, and when I suggested he not act superior, said he wasn't "acting". So an editor suggests I'm indulging in magical thinking (which is a sideways nod to a psychological issue), won't be bothered to archive a source that proved problematic, accused me of baiting hidden beneath his accusation of being manipulative and openly declares he is superior, I get warned about NPA? Lost me here on why I am warned and Jack isn't. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You do not like the table split. I'll leave the table as it is and try to express more of it as prose so the table becomes less important.

The small consensus here is that vertical citations are okay. Even within that the emphasis has been on improving them so perhaps when they have been more fully filled (and particularly include things like archiveurls, which avoids later dead link problem and much need for reformatting) then at least personally I wouldn't object to them being changed to horizontal formatted.

I would strongly recommend when formatting horizontal links you only remove the line breaks and leave some spaces, as the examples you mentioned from Template:Cite web do leave spaces. -- Horkana (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And I would strongly recommend that you do not reformat or remove or piddle with the talk page posts of other editors, as you did above when you removed the indentation of my post and replace it with a C. I'd also recommend strongly that you investigate the work of other editors before you dismiss them out of hand sucn as you did when you suggested with my 41 edits to this page, that I had not made enough edits for you to bother with, with your (then) 29 edits. I have worked on 6 good articles, a featured article and a featured list and have never been summarily dismissed from one as you have done to me. Jack, who delights in following me around to antagonize me, landed here because he sensed "fire" and his backing is the reason you have your "small consensus", although you didn't bother to garner a "small consensus" prior to your wholesale changeover of the citations to vertical from horizontal. It seems no one bothered to notice that. And I'll still note that despite the need being summarily dismissed as engaging in "magical thinking" and being told I'm baiting and being manipulative to suggest that someone who can get the RTE source to open without locking up the browser and also be told that it won't be bothered with, that I am at someone else's house right now, tried to open that link and it still locked up the Firefox. I still suggest someone interested in putting forth an article the cites for which can be read and checked, that someone get around to archiving that reference. WebCite archives it at request and doesn't require that someone wait around for the Internet Archive to store it. I've never seen so many people dismiss that someone has issues opening a source and tells them to stop "magical thinking". Sheesh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of responding directly to your comments then changed my mind and made a comment below trying to make my final comments in the discussion. I did not intend to remove your indentation. Apologies for that. -- Horkana (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Bad Move
Sorry. Thought I could move a copy of an older version of the page into my sandbox and keep the edit history. Clearly that doesn't work. It seems to have already been reverted by an administrator or automated system. -- Horkana (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That was me; I pasted a copy sans-categories into your user subpage. cheers, Jack Merridew 20:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Pringles and Dulux
I can understand why the YouTube link was removed but it does prove the material is true (and the Deluxe Paint link is far more likely to be Dulux) and provide an interesting bit of video. Unfortunately the video is not yet available from the Offical CBS youtube channel. What I was hoping was that we could at least keep the Cite episode but it is not clear if the date is from when the video was posted or the correct episode date. Perhaps that part of the citation can be restored at a later date. -- Horkana (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There seems to also be an official Letterman channel on Youtube, might be able to source something from there. -- Horkana (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with citing the episode at some point, as long as you have the correct data to cite it with.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I was hoping I'd have a bit more time or help finding it, but I can't fault the removal of the Youtube link. -- Horkana (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Another unsuitable youtube source but it confirms her first role was as playing the lead role in Annie at the age of eight and turning nine during the production, and supports the points about her original interest being singing. Shame I can't use it though. -- Horkana (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Photos
Why does this article need three different red carpet shots of her, two from a troop visit and one on-set photo? Biel has not been in the business long enough to fundamentally change between photographs... -- Imladros (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The article probably does not need so many photographs. If you look at the edit history you'll see an editor removed several photo's a while ago but they have since been added back.
 * I very deliberately changed the infobox photo to use a picture of her with straight hair, I felt the curly crimped hair picture of her in a white dress was unrepresentative of how she is usually portrayed.
 * Last week others editor added one or two photos back, I don't think it is a good idea to have more than one photo from the set taken on USS Abraham Lincoln. I'd remove "Jessica Biel in 2004" and I'd probably pick only one of the Stealth related photos, probably remove the one with Josh Lucas and keep the one from the premiere. -- Horkana (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

French
An editor removed a link to Jessica at Knol which was the right thing to do. The article at Knol doesn't have much that isn't mentioned here already anyway but it claims "Jessica graduated from the French school of Los Angeles, and speaks French fluently." It seems Jessica attended Lycée Français de Los Angeles and her name is listed on the Wikipedia article but is lacking a good citation. Anyone have a good source to confirm this? Has she made any claims of being speaking French fluently more recently? -- Horkana (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)