Jump to content

Talk:Jessica Alba/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Why is this locked?

^^^ tildetildetildetilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.64.131 (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Excessive vandalism. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

I've been working on combining the two different types of archiving (I'm currently waiting on Talk:Jessica Alba/Archive 3 to be moved to Talk:Jessica Alba/Archive 2 before continuing). I'd like to take this article off the Cluebot III archiving system, since it seems necessary archiving is minimal (the archive for the full year of 2008 is only 23 KB total and 12 KB readable prose size) and has been leading Cluebot to create archives containing, on average, 1-2 threads. If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and do so. Liquidluck✽talk 23:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding and for your efforts so far. I think your idea of halting cluebot is good.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Great. I've deleted the request, and the archives should be all in order now. Liquidluck✽talk 07:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Why is there an archive box and an archive header?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The archive header appears automatically when archives are formatted correctly in the Talk:PageName/Archive # format- but they both link to the same places, there's no longer two separate archiving styles. You can remove the box if you'd like. I added it while sorting everything out so that I wouldn't be confused. Hope that helps! Liquidluck✽talk 07:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"The Office"

Jessica Alba's appearance in "The Office" was in episode 13 not 15. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcastro88 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There were several 2 part episodes. Some people number them as 1 and some as 2. Jessica Alba's episode, Stress Relief, has 2 parts. She is in part 1.Robinrobin (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Machete (2010)

There is no mention of Jessica Alba's appearance in Robert Rodriguez's 'Machete', released in 2010. She has a major role, and the film has generated a lot of buzz among those who saw the original Machete trailer, so I think it is worth mentioning. I don't yet have editing priviledges for semi-protected pages, so maybe someone else would like to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobemory (talk • contribs) 05:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Jessica Alba

"Jessiac Alba Report"= Her full name is Jessica Marie Alba. She was born on April 19, 1981 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.25.26.129 (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Not according to the source.--Terrillja talk 01:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

High school graduation claim

I deleted the citation for the claim that Alba graduated high school at age 16, because it is an unreliable source. After looking at it, I found that it can be edited by anyone, just like Wikipedia. Therefore, just as Wikipedia is unreliable, so is that source.Wikieditor1988 (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"Latin American Family"

This is a weird quote since in another interview she said this: "I had a very American upbringing, I feel American, and I don't speak Spanish. So, to say that I'm a Latin actress, OK, but it's not fitting; it would be insincere."--From "Para Todos" Magazine Her mother is white and no one in the home ever spoke Spanish. Seems to me she's making stuff up; she doesn't come from a "Latin American" family. Check this page: http://www.mediatakeout.com/7187/jessica_alba_dont_call_me_a_latina.html184.59.7.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

Weird or not that's what she said and it's attributed to a reliable source. Mediatakeout on the other hand is a gossip blog that doesn't even come close to being considered a reliable source. 69.154.180.190 (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It is also my understanding that this woman does not speak any Spanish and I too understand that she has said American family. For someone who denounces the Catholic church and is so "Liberal" I find it hard to believe her stance is that of a "Latin American Family" is this something her handlers have dreamt up? Confirm, clarify and site with more than one source or I say remove it. 99.178.151.55 (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request from Keymusic, 17 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Her role in Little Fockers is not a pharmacist, it is pharmaceutical rep, as she stated on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon on 12/13/10.

Keymusic (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done   — Jeff G.  ツ 04:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Brother Joshua

The line "She has a younger brother, Joshua." is incorrect it should say: "She has an older brother, Joshua." — Preceding unsigned comment added by J1j8 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Not correct. Her brother is younger, not older. She's one year older than him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.59.253.217 (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Tattoo

Can we put on the page that she has 3 tattos, including 1 in hindi on her wrist which says "padma"? [1] 58.179.137.88 (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Leading role in "Camp Nowhere"

"Her first appearance on film was a small role in the 1994 feature Camp Nowhere as Gail. She was originally hired for two weeks but her role turned into a two-month job in a leading role when one of the prominent actresses dropped out.[2]" "Small role" is correct, "leading role" definitly is not. The reference verifies the "two months" detail, not that her part was in any way significant. She was clearly visible in only a few scenes and I don't recall if she even spoke in any of them. CyR (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC).

Enough time, removed the "leading" part myself. CyR (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Reference #66 has been moved: http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity/Jessica+Alba-5690.html

67.2.186.70 (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.250.84.144, 6 August 2011

Can you change the profile pic,please...I suggest this one : http://www.xarj.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/jessica-alba6.jpg 94.250.84.144 (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

 Not done No indication that the new image is free-use. Tabercil (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

File:ALBA-2011.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ALBA-2011.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Jessica alba personal life

Jessica Alba has 2 daughters. 7 month old Haven and 3 year old Honor. Jessica claims to be the disciplinarian in the family because she was the naughty child always pushing her parents buttons.<ref>http://omg.yahoo.com/news/jessica-alba-shares-magazine-cover-daughters-honor-haven-235725702.html</ref> Queenamyv (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

New Images in September 2011

There's a new image of Jessica Alba in 10 September 2011:

I think you could replace the picture in infobox with that picture. Thanks. --37.106.176.92 (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look like much of an improvement to me. It has a weird, blurry effect. Nymf hideliho! 13:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Well I think at least its like a more recent pic. We should constantly update these pics as soon as they become available for use. I mean like obviously we don't want a pic that doesn't even look like her now.--TheBigNatural (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Nope, we shouldn't. The best image should be used, unless it is very old. 2010 is not very old. Nymf hideliho! 06:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Don't see how the old image is better. You don't own this article.--TheBigNatural (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
And neither do you. How exactly do I "own" an article that I have edited twice in a year? The new picture is blurry, slightly out of focus and has a weird glowing effect applied to it. Nymf hideliho! 18:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Umm I don't see anything wrong with the new pic at all. It's a better pic cause she doesn't really look like the old pic anymore. She changed up her style...--TheBigNatural (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Fake quote?

In the public image section, the quote "I have to go to certain lengths to use sexuality to my advantage, while guiding people to thinking the way I want them to" doesn't actually appear in the source. As far as I can tell, the quote is bogus. Cursory googling reveals no secondary sources backing up the quote. It struck me as strange that no one noticed and it's been on this page for 4 whole years (it was first introduced by an editor on June 25, 2009). It struck me as being at odds with her other quote about "not using her sex appeal" to further her acting career. This discrepancy caused me to look up the source of the first quote, which sounded dubious since it was contradicted by the second. 116.15.154.170 (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I just found the original source here. The issue is that the website had since changed. I've updated the footnote accordingly.
That being said, I don't see the point of including this quote at all; it doesn't seem to contribute anything encyclopedic to the article. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Excellent sleuthing! 116.15.154.170 (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-free image

Regarding this revert: there is nothing on Wikipedia that says every paragraph needs an image. As I already explained when I removed this image, it does not convey any information that needs an image to convey it--the paragraph just says her image was used and there was litigation about it, and no picture is needed to explain that. Because this is a non-free image, it cannot just be used as decoration. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

If you're gonna remove a pic, then remove the other one. It's nothing but fluff. At least the cover photo is on point, coincides with not only an entire paragraph of that section, but also provides a visual for what is at the heart of the entire episode. An incident that seemingly serves as the only bump-in-the-road for an otherwise respectable personal image. Personal image - that is what this about, an image, a visual, one that made news all over the world and lead to a lawsuit. Let readers see just what it was all about. It completely serves to enhance the article, whereas the other pic (Alba signing an autograph - big deal) does really nothing for the article - at all. Yet you have no qualm about leaving that in. Please reconsider your position on this. - thewolfchild 04:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Blatant WP:NFCC#8 failure. There's nothing about the picture which substantially increases the readers understanding of Jessica Alba. The other picture is licensed as a free picture: WP:NFCC does not apply, and it's a purely editorial decision as to whether it is included or not. I agree with Thewolfchild that it is useless, but it doesn't contravene any policy in any fashion.—Kww(talk) 05:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Same thing that Kww said--there is no reason to remove the other image, as it's not non-free. Non-free images have different standards for inclusion than free images do. Read the link that Kww provided. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
What is "blatant" here is the inappropriateness of your conduct, Kevin. I made an edit. Another administrator has opened a discussion about this edit and invited me to join in. You, of course, are welcome to join in as well, but should not simply barge in and revert the edit until there has been an opportunity to thoroughly discuss the issue, allow others to weigh in, and possibly reach consensus. And, no you can't claim speedy-anything applies per NFCC, as it is NCFF that is being discussed here. As an admin yourself, you are out of line since you are not neutral here, as you carry a bias over from another discussion you and I are currently involved in, one that is being hotly contested at length and be considered as having a degree of acrimony and (as you have already admitted) you are simply stalking my contribs, seemingly to revert, undo, delete and contest any action of mine that you can.
As for NFCC#8, this singular issue is about an incident where this image of Alba was used on the cover of a pornographic magazine. She contested the use of this image and went as far as to bring a law suit, regarding this image. The issue of this image was important enough to be prominently mentioned in the article lead, and additionally there is an entire section titled "Public Image" within the article. There, again the issue of the use of this image on a magazine and Alba's lawsuit contesting the use of this image is covered in more detail. At the heart of this matter is the fact that both the file in question and the issue being referenced to is of a visual nature. There is no way anyone can claim that use of this file does not contribute to the reader's (viewer's) understanding of the issue being referenced, Alba's views on the issue (and hence) an understanding on Alba herself.
It is entirely appropriate to use this image to these ends, for as this issue did receive extensive media coverage, the image was used just as extensively to support references to both the issue and the image in multiple online and print publications. This was not only seen in the U.S. (where WP copyright laws apply) in examples such as people.com, msn.com, The Smoking Gun, Handbag and Mediabistro as well as being openly and freely hosted on Photobucket, but also used by media sources all over the world. For example; The U.K., France, Germany, Norway, Poland, Romania, Honduras, India and China (!).
Now, I respectfully submit that NFCC has been more than satisfied here, and furthermore, I respectfully request that you, Kevin, undo your revert, thus re-inserting the image into the article. I further request that you, Rjanag, desist in pursuing the deletion of the file. I would do it myself, but... - thewolfchild 16:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
There's nothing at all inappropriate about my edit. Whether the image is discussed or not doesn't isn't the pivotal issue of WP:NFCC#8, the question is whether there's anything about the image that significantly enhances a reader's understanding of the issue. It conveys nothing that the phrase "a picture of Jessica Alba in a bikini" would not convey. If you think that the removal is inappropriate, WP:NFCR exists. —Kww(talk) 19:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "There's nothing at all inappropriate about my edit."

- I wouldn't expect you to say anything otherwise.

  • "Whether the image is discussed or not doesn't isn't [sic] the pivotal issue of WP:NFCC#8, the question is whether there's anything about the image that significantly enhances a reader's understanding of the issue."

- Hence the reason we are discussing this. NFCC doesn't kick in simply on your say-so.

  • "It conveys nothing that the phrase "a picture of Jessica Alba in a bikini" would not convey."

- Yes, that is your opinion on the subject. One that is already noted here. Do you think repeating it makes it more-so?

That another admin chose to create a discussion here, instead of just jumping in with a revert, is very telling. That, and our recent history of course. You edit was out of line and you have, as usual, completely evaded any relevant points made on the issue. - thewolfchild 20:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Telling of what? You think the fact that I didn't revert you means I agree with you? No, it means I don't edit war. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
No, NFCC doesn't suddenly kick in on my say-so. It applies to all non-free content. It's also a burden solely upon those advocating inclusion: what is it that you think a reader of the article would fail to understand in the absence of the image? Simply saying that "no one can claim" something is easy. Actually making a logical case that there is something that a reader of the article would have failed to grasp in the absence of the image is the challenge you face.—Kww(talk) 21:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
It isn't that I "think a reader of the article would fail to understand in the absence of the image". What I do think is, that since the issue repeatedly and prominently mentioned through-out the article is regarding an image, it totally enhances the article to include said image - instead of just saying "a picture of Jessica Alba in a bikini", it shows the reader just what it is that is being discussed, and therefore, helps increase their understanding. The image, essentially, is available, (save for this dispute) and let's face it, WP is not an audio-encyclopedia, it's a visual medium. NFCC does not say "it can't be used - period!" It's says it can be used if it increases the users understanding of the issue. Whether that is the case here or not is simply a matter of conflicting opinion. I've stated mine and supported it. I vote for inclusion. And in the end, the more sourced info, the better. - thewolfchild 00:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Read again: it says that "non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." You haven't indicated what detriment to the readers understanding occurs by removing the image, or how any increase to the reader's understanding is "significant". As I said earlier, WP:NFCR exists, and its purpose is to get a wider view on an issue of non-free content. If you think this thing meets WP:NFCC#8, feel free to make a case there. The image has not been deleted: there's a week to go before that happens.—Kww(talk) 00:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, please. Wikipedia is full of image files. Theoretically, I could blitz thru the entire project, deleting images en masse, using the argument you've presented, (where ever it could even be loosely applied) following NFCC#8 both to the letter and the extreme, and (if I wasn't blocked indef for vandalism) you know full well I'd be laughed at for years. But, the question isn't about all those images, is it? It's about this one. But, why this one, and why now? You've edited this page a couple times before now, in fact your first edit was all the way back in June of 2008. The image was there then, yet you left it in the article for over 5 years! But, all of sudden now you feel this great urge to get rid of it - as soon as possible. What's up with that? - thewolfchild 01:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

by the numbers

RJ, this interesting little factoid I found about Kevin, applies to you as well.

  • This image has been in the article since 2006-02-28T05:01:26. That's exactly 7 1/2 years!
  • There has been approx. 4,800 edits to this page in that time.
  • RJ, you have edited this page 86 times.
  • Your first edit was way back in Sep 2008.

There have been countless numbers of others users, including admins and other copy-right do-gooders, that have viewed and/or edited this page, yet this image has remained for all this time, and survived all this scrutiny. But, now, despite all this well-established consensus, you RJ, all of a sudden feel a burning need get rid of this image. Why? To protect WP from a copy-right suit? Ha! That's so laughable it can't be it. So, please tell me. I would like to know the real reason behind this. (and I'm really asking you, unlike Kev, who I asked rhetorically 'cuz I know why he's really weighing in here). I look forward to your response. - thewolfchild 02:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


There's no doubt that I check your contribution history to see if you've replied to me, and I noticed this as a result (I have 17,000 pages on my watchlist, so I do that as a backup). I don't think I've ever reviewed this article in detail before: all I see is cases where I have reverted vandals and sockpuppeteers. I haven't deleted this file at all: it still exists. Like I said: WP:NFCR is where to go if you want a wider review. Right now, there are two editors that have explained to you why the image violates policy. If you think we are both wrong, then seek that wider review.—Kww(talk) 02:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, but it's not quite 2 vs 1 here, is it? How do you account for all the stats I've just listed? - thewolfchild 02:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you need to focus directly on WP:NFCC and not worry about any conspiracies. WP:NFCR will certainly attract a larger group of reviewers.—Kww(talk) 02:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Who said anything about a conspiracy?. Anyways, I have a question; since you are so knowledgeable about this NFCR, how would you go about presenting this issue there? - thewolfchild 02:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Pretty straightforward: create a section with a link to the image, a link to the section of the page where it is discussed, an explanation that the image has been removed from the article based on WP:NFCC#8, and an explanation of why you believe that removal to have been misguided.—Kww(talk) 02:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Naw, I meant what would you write (as if you were in favour of doing so) for an argument, to keep it? You seem to enjoy debate, I'm as to how you would approach that. - thewolfchild 12:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


Thewolfchild, why don't you go read WP:NFCC like you have already been asked? The number of previous edits [by anyone] to a page has absolutely nothing to do with non-free content rules. Non-free content is non-free content, no matter how many times the page has been edited. Everything you are saying is irrelevant. The image simply does not meet WP:NFCC. (The rest of the above looks like tl;dr. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I've posted it for non-free content review. The discussion here is getting to be a waste of time. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "...why don't you go read NFCC like you have already been asked?"
- RJ, perhaps you should keep your attitude in check. Your snipe comes across as exasperated and rude, scolding me as if I were a child who has neglected to do his school work. It's insulting and not only unbecoming an editor, but especially an admin.
If you had bothered to read through the discussion, you would see I have already presented my argument for NFCC#8, more than once. I have read NFCC, and therefore I know that this image definitely qualifies for 9 of the 10 criteria, (12 of 13 if you count 3b and 10b and c). Hence the reason we are only debating one of the criteria. (and a silly debate it is, considering the article is listed as GA)
"Non-free is non-free" only after it has been decided so. We're not there yet. And, as for "everything I say is irrelevant", thanks again for your condescending and dismissive attitude. Is it only user comments that agree with you that are relevant? - thewolfchild 12:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


This is a no brainer. Non-free image of living person is simply not acceptable. Going to tag for CSD. --MASEM (t) 03:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
It's tagged already. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
NFCR is not the same as FFD (which is here [2]) --MASEM (t) 03:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I see. What I meant is it's already tagged for CSD (F5). Do you think it's too much to have an FFD and a speedy tag at the same time? rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
It's got the "not used in any image" tag, but that's not quite the same as CSD or FFD. The the FFD is to affirm the image should be deleted, period. --MASEM (t) 03:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Geez, when you want something done, you just ram-rod it thru as many policy pages as it takes, as fast as you can, to get it done, huh? So, no matter what the circumstances are regarding this image, nor how many people have accepted it for as long as they have, you and a couple other guys have suddenly and arbitrarily decided this needs to go. You just dig up whatever policy vaguely applies and march on. If this file does get deleted, it will not be because of any clear and decisive policy violation. There is something wrong here. - thewolfchild 00:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how long its sat in the article - we have no automatic system that checks for proper image use all the time. So once its found, we deal with it in a timely manner as demanded of us by the Foundation. And this is exactly the type of image where there is pretty much no grey zone allow, in the article's current state, for its usage - it's a non-free of a living person (which we have only very limited exceptions for), and the image itself is not discussed in any means that requires visual understanding, failing NFCC#1, #3a, and #8, among others. I almost CSD'd this because of how improper this image is against policy, but figured in the unlikely case someone can pull something out to keep it, I FFD'd it. --MASEM (t) 00:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
You are misapplying one piece of policy, though, Masem: Alba being alive is irrelevant. That would only apply if the image was being used to illustrate Alba's appearance, and that's not the problem here. The problem is that the cover is being used to illustrate a point which requires no illustration.—Kww(talk) 02:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Granted yes, the first and foremost failure is NFCC#8/#1 in that we don't need to see the cover to understand that there was a legal tussle between Alba and Playboy. But I would contend that the arguments that those that want to keep have given that involves showing Alba in a swimsuit circle around the issue of non-free imagery of living persons. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x 3!! Since the crux of the litigation was the image, I think that it is entirely reasonable to have the image next to the paragraph that discusses it. Basically, I agree with Thewolfchild. In addition to that, I also feel that simply saying "Alba appeared in a bikini" does not adequately convey enough information about the image. A reader may see that and wonder "Was it a particularly skimpy bikini? Was she in a seductive pose? Was one strap maybe off her shoulder or something similar?" or any number of other questions about what the image actually looked like. That can't be completely conveyed with a textual description. As is so often said, a picture is worth 1000 words and in this case, it's true. Dismas|(talk) 03:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Our non-free policy has a very high bar for using non-free images of living persons. This does not meet it. --MASEM (t) 03:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
(ec) (re Dismas) Then you're not understanding NFCC. None of those visual details about the image are relevant to the issue (at least, not as it is presented in the article). According to the way the article is written, her litigation was not details about how the image looked, it was the fact that they used an image of her at all. If there's not relevant discussion about specific visual aspects of the image, then the image is not needed. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


Razzie Awards not mentioned

the actress won a razzie award for machete (2010) http://razzies.com/history/2010-worst-supporting-actress-winner.asp it should be mentioned in the filmography along the alma prize.2.227.147.50 (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Jessica Alba's baby edit infor

Jessica Alba's second baby was born inside the entire amniotic sac,a sac which completely covers the baby like a balloon until popped/cut after birth and only happens in around 1 in 80,000 births. This rare occurrence inspired her to name her second daughter Haven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S165054 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2014

There is a misspelled word in the fourth paragraph under "Charity and politics." The paragraph reads,"In June 2009, while filming The Killer Inside Me in Oklahoma City, Alba was involved in a controversy with residents when she pasted posters of sharks around town." and lists "http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/jessica-alba-shark-posters-article-1.376281" as a reference.

The word "pasted" in the original paragraph, should be "plastered." Kearneyweard (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - we only follow the original wording in a direct quotation, which this is not. We therefore need to ensure that we do not follow the original wording too closely, as this would be a copyright violation. - Arjayay (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Edits by Nmarte

I went ahead and reverted the edits added by Nmarte (talk · contribs) over the past couple of days, as they were obviously written by a publicist. Loads of fluff, editorializing, peacocky words, material that could be viewed as negative removed (e.g. the "virgin" part), etc. Nymf (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2014

Noah Wymer's ex girlfriend 204.38.146.2 (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2015

Can you please add that she appeared on the music video Bad Blood by Taylor Swift. Moh'd.K.M (talk) 06:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Gparyani (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixing to get back to GA status or will go to review

Going through the article, I removed 12 unreliable sources, most of them were from IMDb. Ref #14 isn't even a complete reference and there are 3 dead links. In the references, some names are wikilinked and others aren't, not consistent and some references are just the url and since this is a GA, all references need to be filled in completely. Some publishers are italicized when they shouldn't be and works aren't italicized when they should be. These issues need to be addressed and fixed, otherwise I'll take the article to get reviewed on whether or not it meets GA standards. Pinging original nominator: @Zenlax: LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Zenlax hasn't edited in almost 7 years; unlikely to return let alone notice the ping Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Weeeeeell maybe he'd come back after 7 years JUST to fix this article, ya never know ;) LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Her mother has Danish, Welsh, German, English, and French Canadian ancestry,

Is it the reason to use the category: American people of English descent? In which way the English descent influenced her? Xx236 (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

She speaks English. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Jessica Alba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Family backround/Ancestry

Here is a citation that could be used: http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2014/09/29/jessica-alba-latina-identity_n_5903210.html?ir=Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.120.233 (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight

If this is used at all it should be reduced greatly. This article needs input on reducing the undue weight on appearance and sexuality which minimizes Alba's work as an actress.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC))

Alba has been called a sex symbol,[1] and was nominated number one on AskMen.com's list of "99 Most Desirable Women" in 2006, and "Sexiest Woman in the World" by FHM in 2007.[2][3] She appears on the "Hot 100" section of Maxim.[4] In 2005, TV Guide ranked her number 45 on its "50 Sexiest Stars of All Time" list.[5] The use of her image on the cover of the March 2006 Playboy sparked a lawsuit by her, which was later dropped.[6]

References

  1. ^ Walter Scott (January 21, 2012). "Jessica Alba on Motherhood, Turning 30, and Her Sex Symbol Status". Parade. Retrieved April 14, 2012.
  2. ^ "Jessica Alba Is FHM's Sexiest Woman". FHM. Archived from the original on April 1, 2008. Retrieved July 31, 2009.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference askmenalba2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference maxim was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ TV Guide Book of Lists. Running Press. 2007. p. 202. ISBN 0-7624-3007-9.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference playboy was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2016

212.95.7.97 (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Done per WP:BLPCAT EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Jewish?

There's a Jewish tag, but the only religion mentioned in the text is Catholicism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.90.93.21 (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Jessica Alba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jessica Alba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jessica Alba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2018

41.113.219.31 (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Not done: Your request is blank or it only consists of a vague request for permission to edit the article. It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article; however, you can do one of the following:
  • If you have an account, you will be able to edit this article four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
  • If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this article.
  • You can request unprotection of this article by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:UNPROTECT. An article will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
  • You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate.—KuyaBriBriTalk 14:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

In the "Career\2000-2008: Breakout" section, the link toAwake, should instead link to Awake

2A00:23C5:D50A:6201:ACB9:F26E:6B03:399E (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2018

(see also this former edit request)

--212.95.5.111 (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: I've removed the category per WP:CATDEF and Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Disability, intersex, medical, or psychological_conditions. I've removed the sentence about ritalin as I saw no evidence that Green is a reliable source. For now I've retained the sentence about OCD and ADHD as it appears to be well sourced, but if there's an issue I'm not aware of, please re-activate this edit request. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2018

(see also semi-protected edit request above)

Please remove the sentence "Alba has acknowledged that she suffered from obsessive–compulsive disorder during her childhood, and was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder at age 5.[16][17]" per WP:BLPREMOVE.

Medical claims need strong sources, WP:RS/MC. The ADHD claim doesn't meet our verifiability standards, see given source [17], WP:BLP requires WP:INLINECITE for WP:V. It's also a not sign for reliability, when the given source [16] lacks longevity... and of course WP:NEWSORG applies here, since the list of 'Famous sufferers' is human interest reporting (junk food news). --212.95.5.111 (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done: OK, you've convinced me. Thanks for the well-thought-out requests. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Race and Heritage

Jessica’s maternal grandfather is Harry Christian Jensen (the son of Hans/Harry Christian Jensen and Sara Evelyn Rhys). Harry was born in Illinois. Hans was born in Illinois, to Danish parents, Mads Hansen Jensen and Johanna Jensdatter. Sara was born in Minnesota, to a Welsh father, Samuel H. Rhys, and to a New York-born mother, Eva Reiss, who had German ancestry. In 2011 she appeared on the talk show Lopez Tonight, where they exclusively revealed the results of her ancestry DNA test. To her surprise they revealed that she was 87 per cent White European. Then in November 2014, she appeared on the popular ancestry DNA testing TV show Finding Your Roots, with Henry Louis Gates Jr. Their DNA genealogy test results described Alba as being at least of 72.7% White European. So she is predominantly White (mostly Germanic: Danish and German), some Spanish and Indigenous Mexican/Mayan, not Latino and 0.0 % Native American. 2003:DC:8BE4:FA42:E148:7CE7:30D2:BE7F (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Residence

She lives in LA, not NY! Greeneeedllle (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jessica_Alba/Archive_5&oldid=1136841715"