Talk:Jena Malone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Assuming that the Wikipedia's Infinite Monkey Force has an eternity to do their work, roughly how long will it take before someone replaces that unflattering picture of Ms. Malone with something less cringe-worthy? 152.163.101.11

Well, it could be anytime. Or it could be a whole lot sooner, if you're willing to go find an alternative free-content picture of her. Incidentally, I don't find the current one that bad. Ambi 14:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whether that's acne or an unfortunate shadow that just looks like acne, it's still a sub-par picture. I couldn't find any explicitly public domain photos, but after perusing the Wikipedia's Fair Use policy and scratching my head with a banana for a solid three hours, I've come to the conclusion that one of the following screenshots ought to be fair use. Since I'm an anonymonkey with no uploading privileges and no desire to create an account, can somebody else do the dirty work? Thanks. 152.163.101.11

[edit] Place of birth

If Jena was born in Lake Tahoe (as it is mentioned in the article), she she will be drowned in a few seconds, because Lake Tahoe is a sea. So, maybe she's born in South Lake Tahoe, Tahoe City or another town aside the sea. If this isn't true she could have been born in Sparks, Nevada - that's what many websites say. Maybe she currently lives in South Lake Tahoe or Tahoe City or in some place at Lake Tahoe. So what's really true about this fact? --84.138.70.214 between 07:07 and 08:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this is somewhat misleading because Lake Tahoe indeed appears to be a lake not a city or town, though at the bottom of the same article it says that Lake Tahoe is one of the major regions of Nevada (see Template:Nevada). However, though most of the external sources simply repeat that she was born in Lake Tahoe, Nevada, this article in the Notable Names Database states that she was born in Sparks, Nevada. The same article suggests that during her childhood she had lived in 27 different places "including their car, and a trailer park on the outskirts of Lake Tahoe". I think it would be more appropriate either to mention the region of Lake Tahoe or Sparks as her birthplace. Nevertheless, I have no idea where she lives now. :) --Jūzeris | Talk 16:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, Lake Tahoe is a region, like the Vegas Valley (?) or the North Hills of greater Pittsburgh, where I live. There is no single municipality called Lake Tahoe. S. Lake Tahoe is on the CA side. I think it's perfectly fine to say Lake Tahoe, NV, just like saying "near NYC". It's a bit unsatisfying, as I've personally been to Incline Vlg., NV, and know the geography there, but what do you do? As far as Sparks, that borders Reno, IIRC, so Sparks is not a LT town.

I suppose we'll never know the truth. Doesn't she have an oficial website? That ought to clear it up.--Coryma 13:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punk'd appearance as "irrelevant content"

Why do you feel that this is "irrelevant content", Mr. Backburner001? Before you remove something like a TV appearance, you may want to get some consensus to see if everyone else feels that its irrelevant as well.--Azathar 04:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the Punk'd reference is irrelevant because I do not consider appearances on such shows to be substantive information about a the career of an actor/actress. Mentioning that Jena Malone appeared on a TV show where celebrities have pranks pulled on them tells me nothing about Malone's career or significance as an actress. It instead functions as nothing more than a subtle advertisement for Punk'd, which I believe is bad for the encyclopedia. -- backburner001
I don't believe consensus was needed in this case. Do you think it is necessary to reach a consensus everytime you remove vandalism from a page? Each article has a talk page and I made my edit clear on the history page. If people have a problem with it, as you did, they can post their comments here and I will respond to them. Doesn't that sound reasonable? -- backburner001 20:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
This is not a big or potentially controversial issue so one should not fear being bold about editing it. If someone disagrees they can raise the issue on the talk page as happened here. I do agree that the Punk'd appearence is not really significant for this article. --Bjarki 00:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, it depends on your defination of vandalism, I don't think the Punk'd reference is vandalism, and I do think it is relevant. You did make your edit fairly, I'll give you that, and you did explain yourself, though I don't agree with your argument, and I don't have too, which is the beauty of Wikipedia. But, we do need to come up with some way to decide if the reference shoudl stay or go, as neither of us are the final determination of it. Any ideas?--Azathar 03:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for not getting to this earlier. Before I discuss the reference, I’d like to thank you for the way you chose to address this issue. I’ve run into the same disagreement with another editor about the same reference that has evolved into a rather unpleasant dispute. I agree – neither you nor I can make a final determination on the issue as the nature of Wikipedia demands that we reach some sort of agreement or compromise on these matters. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this issue with me in a calm and civil manner.
I don’t think that the reference is necessarily vandalism; just that it is not relevant content unless it is placed within a context that makes it relevant. In discussing this issue on the Lindsay Lohan talk page, I’ve suggested that Punk’d is not any different from a news appearance (and I doubt many Wikipedians would consider such news appearances as particularly notable). I’m not sure how to go about solving this issue. There are three options I can come up with:
  • Keep the reference (which I would rather not do)
  • Delete the reference (which you would rather not do)
  • Rewrite the reference with attention to making its relevance explicit
It seems like the third option is the option with the most potential. What do you think? -- backburner001 00:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about my tardiness on this, as I have been in the process of moving and have no internet (I'm currently at work, off the clock, writing this). Anyway, Something I have thought about is what about trivia sections. Mackenzie Rosman has one, and it includes some things which woudln't fit into the rest of the entry, but in which others would consider important. Perhaps this is a solution where we could add a section to each entry that this is in dispute with regarding the Punk'd reference?--Azathar 04:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
No worries about the tardiness. I made this suggestion in regard to the Lindsay Lohan Punk'd dispute. Some editors feel that trivia sections trivialize articles and are generally not looked upon with favor when going through the FAC process. I tend to agree that trivia sections are not encyclopedic, but it is a potential compromise and I don't feel extremely strongly against the inclusion of trivia sections for content that cannot be expanded upon.
Are there any guidelines on Wikipedia that address the relevance of references in articles that would be helpful in situations like this? -- backburner001 04:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes and references

I've had this article tagged as unreferenced since May 22. My attempts at keeping this article tagged as such have been unsuccessful thus far due to multiple reversions by an editor who is unwilling to discuss her reversions any further. However, instead of engaging in an edit war, I've decided to add some inline citations to my previously tagged version of this article. I am hoping this will jump start the process of finding appropriate references and adding them here. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. -- backburner001 17:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. It's always good to have articles referenced, but not to the extent of defacing them for an indefinite period when they aren't disputed. Rebecca 05:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that tagging unreferenced statements qualifies as defacing articles. However, it appears in the current revision that you are willing to let specific statements remain tagged, which I think is a step in the right direction. -- backburner001 14:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
On the grounds that you actually intend to cite them in the foreseeable future. Rebecca 04:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
On the grounds that any Wikipedia editor intends to cite them. The responsibility to cite these statements does not only lie with me. It lies with you and other editors too. The templates I used to tag statements with in this article exist to alert other editors to citation problems. Removing these tags only impedes our ability to improve articles that do not conform to WP:CITE. -- backburner001 14:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I hate to tell you this but the IMDB is not a reliable source - in fact, it is usually quite the opposite. Mad Jack 15:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you suggest any alternate sources? Furthermore, can you elaborate on why IMDB is not reliable? (Note: I'm do not necessarily disagree with you on IMDB's reliability; I'd just like to discuss it in further detail.) -- backburner001 18:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I simply can not even begin citing examples of incorrect IMDB information. The IMDB is not reliable simply because it is, essentially, Wikipedia. It's just harder to delete wrong info from there then it is here. The IMDB trivia or bios are submitted by fans or by who-knows-what. If we're lucky, it's correct. If we're not, it isn't and came from the imagination of the submitter. Same thing for film credits for upcoming movies (see a recent example in Halloween (2007 film) (the "Rumored storylines and castings" section - two paragraphs in). Every single one of these trivia sites - IMDB, NNDB, TVtom are second-hand, info-gathering sources, just like Wikipedia. And unless they cite where they got their info from - which they don't - they simply aren't reliable. Good sources for actors, at least, are interviews/in-depth profiles - anywhere where the subject was personally involved in. I'm going to put this page on my "to do" list and cite it to reliable sources tomorrow or so. Mad Jack 07:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
There, I couldn't help myself and sourced it now - hope that helps. I couldn't find a source for this, though: "In 2002, Malone began studying photography at a community college in northern California." According to this,[1], she was planning to do so... whether she ever did I am not sure. But yeah, those are the kinda sources that make Wikipedia look almost like a first-hand source, and definitely more reliable than the IMDB. :) Mad Jack 08:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/n/Talk%7EJena_Malone_614c.html"