Talk:Jessica Simpson/Archive 3

WHISLTE NOTE
g6 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=S9ddQC2RZVk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.197.41 (talk) 16:12, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Whistle
Please take her off!!!

She hit an E6 in "Your faith in me"


 * Hitting a whistle register on occassion does not warrant her to be listed as a WR singer.

That was not an E6. That was not in the whistle register.

Actually, it was in fact an E6. I know what I'm talking about.

Rumours
Do "well publicised rumours" really have a place in an encyclopedia entry about Jessica Simpson. Perhaps if it was a well known fact that (removed unsourced contentious material per policy) then it should be included. But seeing as it was just a rumour circulated and probably created by tabloids is it really relevant to the article?

No It is not allowed. Only information that is completely true should be included on the wikipedia articles, if you included it, it would be deleted. Jessica_simpson121

I wasn't planning on including it. It's already in the article and the reason for my question was because I believe that it should be deleted but just wanted clarification to see what others thought

Rumors shouldn't have a place on wikipedia, they are just rumors that have floated around on tabloids, far from anything factual. Once there is solid evidence besides widespread publication e.g. evidence, then it has a place here. wkilis

Just an added thought on the topic: (removed unsourced contentious material per policy) LightningOffense 19:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Augusta Lee?
In the Personal Life section it says (removed unsourced contentious material per policy) Who exactly is Augusta Lee? Can't find on google. Is this vandalism? -- Jmartinsson 01:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

stop changing the "A Public Affair" worldwide sales !!!!!!!!!
all knows that the album sold over 600,000 before 2007 starts ! so change that stupid 300,000 because in the billboard and other magazines and Epic was written 600,000+ !!! people who hate jessica always get down her sales ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.109.39.119 (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

STFD 71.222.9.110 (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Replacing image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jessica_Simpson.jpg

Does someone have a problem with this image being in the info box? IMO, it's better than the current one, but it keeps getting replaced. Crumbsucker 21:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's ugly picture....she already paint her hair into brown. you can put this one -

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/5185/llohancrazy020407271kn7.png

pleas someone help me...
U.S. Sales: 950,000 Worldwide Sales: 417,100

it can be ? that's mean what ? worlwide is all the world exept u.s or i'ts wrong ?

thats mean she sold 1,367,000 millions ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.109.39.3 (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

removed offtopic

New External Link
Hello, I would like to contribute this website to the external link list:

http://www.razzipapa.com/jessica_simpson

This site ranks Jessica’s celebrity status by monitoring her internet activity and news exposure. It takes values from many popular and reputable websites and news outlets. It looks like it generates a number like a stock price…then ranks her against other celebrities. A big part of Miss. Simpson’s story is her popularity. Although we know that critical acclaim doesn’t always follow popularity, it is a measure of her effect on popular culture. It’s also a measure of how easily she can get more work in Hollywood, and reach out to more people. In other words, this ranking doesn’t attest to her talent, but does give us an idea of her influence on our culture. The link is also encyclopedic because it gives us an idea of just how far she has come; from humble beginnings to A-list celebrity.

This information can’t be incorporated into the actual article because the ranking is dynamic and changes often, that’s why I’m recommending it for the External Link list.

To further demonstrate that this site meets the requirements of WP:EL and support my request, I would like to quote sections from the guideline and explain how each one applies to this site:


 * Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added...or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article.

The rating is dynamic, therefore can’t be incorporated into her article.


 * From Restrictions on linking:
 * Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked…

No copyright laws seem to be violated.


 * Sites that match the spam blacklist without being whitelisted. Pages that contain such links cannot be saved.

I don’t think it’s been blacklisted as spam.


 * What to link
 * There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.


 * Is it accessible to the reader?

Yes, the website is easy to understand and accessible to the reader.


 * Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?

Yes, as mentioned above…this link related directly to Miss. Simpson and is a testament to her celebrity status, or influence on popular culture.


 * Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?

The link seem to work. The site is hosted by Yahoo, a large and reputable company.


 * What should be linked
 * Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

The site offers no point of view, and is completely natural. Its ranking is based on numbers and information from reputable websites. It can’t be integrated into the article because of the dynamic nature of the website.


 * Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

Again, it can’t be integrated into the article because of the dynamic nature of the website.


 * Links to be considered
 * Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such.

The page is quite small and easily accessible to someone with a low speed internet connection


 * Links normally to be avoided
 * Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

Again, it can’t be integrated into the article because of the dynamic nature of its contents.


 * Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable sources.

The raking is based on information and statistics from reputable and reliable websites as listed on the main page.


 * Links mainly intended to promote a website.

I'm making this request because of it’s relevance to Miss Simpson, and the fact that it completes her story.


 * Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.

No product or service is for sale.


 * Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.

There’s no objectionable advertising.


 * Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content.

No payment is required to view this page.


 * Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser.

I tried this site on EI and Firefox; both work.


 * Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required.

This is a plain website.


 * Links to search engine and aggregated results pages.

No


 * Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.

No


 * Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

No


 * Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.

No


 * Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article.

This link is directly related to Miss Simpson.


 * Advertising and conflicts of interest
 * You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked.

I am not the owner of this website.


 * A few parties now appear to have a spambot capable of spamming wikis from several different wiki engines, analogous to the submitter scripts for guestbooks and blogs.

I wouldn’t even know how to make a spambot!


 * Sites requiring registration


 * Sites that require registration or a paid subscription should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers.

No registration is required.


 * Foreign-language links
 * English language links are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia.

It’s in English!


 * Redirection sites
 * Do not use URL redirection sites in external links.

I’m not sure what this means.


 * Rich media
 * It is acceptable to link to pages rendered in normal HTML or plain text.

The site is in plain text.


 * Avoid undue weight on particular points of view

The site offers not point of view whatsoever.


 * Longevity of links
 * It is very important to consider if the link is likely to remain relevant and acceptable to the article in the foreseeable future.

Ranking celebrities will always be relevant to Miss Simpson.

Thank you. Please allow me to add this link.Sabory 21:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

One final note, I plan to link this site like this:


 * Jessica Simpson's Celebrity Ranking at Razzipapa.com

Thanks againSabory 21:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the link provides no useful information, and is not supplementary reading, so it has no business among External links. See also Talk:Halle Berry. Gimmetrow 00:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

rm of david spade comment
The comment was removed because it could not be verified, and the editor that added it posted it in an incorrect format which messed up the Notes section. ndyguy 16:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Bias and carelessness
I don't know if this page has been rewritten much, but it's the most sloppy, biased story I've come across. I've tried to polish some of the language, chopping completely out those bits that were bias alone and added no credible information, improving the syntax and punctuation, and in general making it read more like an encyclopedia article than an amateur hodgepodge of notes by teenage Jessica worshippers, edited by Jessica's publicist. The most offending parts were lame explanations of why Jessica goofed up her lyrics during a tribute program, or other apologetics that came straight out of press releases. The only fact that matters is that she changed her recording label, not that she decided to spin it as an attempt to get a "fresh start" following her divorce. Etc. The number of items I edited were lumped into one. It would have just taken much too long to do these one at a time. In fact, after reading halfway through the article and noting more errors and biased statements than I could keep track of, I started over and read the whole thing in edit mode so I could make changes as I went. She's an important pop culture figure and we need have a credible article about her. I hope others will contribute to making this article into more of a refernce resource and less of an apologia. Preston McConkie 09:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

OLD PHOTO
hahhahaha somebody please change it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jak3m (talk • contribs) 20:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Jessica at Cowboys game
The article appears to state that Jessica Simpson has been in several games, but she has only attented one game on 16 December 2007 vs the Philidelpha Eagles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian38 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)