Talk:Jennifer Lopez/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Mistake

This is incorrect: "In June, Lopez starred opposite George Clooney in Out of Sight, Steven Soderbergh's adaptation of Elmore Leonard's novel Get Shorty (1990)."

Change it to this: " In June, Lopez starred opposite George Clooney in Out of Sight, Steven Soderbergh's adaptation of Elmore Leonard's novel of the same name."

Out of Sight and Get Shorty are two different books, both by Leonard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.76.194 (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out! It has been corrected!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 08:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

From Childhood and early career: "but they ensisted that it was a "really stupid" idea and that "no Latinos did that"." Should be "insisted" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deltasalmon (talk • contribs) 17:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The "Legacy and influence" section ends with the statement, "With the release of Glow by JLo followed by various other perfumes, Lopez is credited with popularizing celebrity endorsement of fragrances in the twentieth century. This is a trend that other entertainers such as Madonna, Lady Gaga, Beyoncé Knowles and Halle Berry among others have followed." then referencing a Women's Wear Daily article. Whether from the source or elsewhere; this is incorrect due to the fact that Elizabeth Taylor endorsed the White Diamonds fragrance in 1991 (11 years before Lopez) and it is still the best selling and longest running celeb fragrance of all time. I would reference WIKI-Ps own article on the topic at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_celebrity_branded_fragrances (Sambson (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC))

oops. It should be twenty-first century. Arre 15:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Lay-out

My question is in regards to the lay-out of this article. It seems everything has been lumped into time periods, instead of being divided into some of the sections found in other biographical pages. For example, you have to read through the entire article just to find the personal information you're looking for, (if it's there at all), instead of simply going to a "Personal Life" section, like what is found in so many other bio pages. Is there a particular reason the article is laid out like this?

I'm sure there must be some editors and/or J-Lo fans here that regularly contribute and maintain this page that can answer this. Thanks, - thewolfchild 02:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The format of the layout is supposed to be in time periods. Her personal life and her career go hand in hand, so that's not something to separate.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Slight edit

In the caption for the picture in the public image section, it says she was named "World's most beautiful women" but it should be woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.102.141 (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

In the article, at the top, in the box on the right, the length of Jennifer Lopez's marriage to Cris Judd is listed as 2001 to 2003; however, the second paragraph of the personal life section says that their divorce occurred in June 2002. An article from People magazine (at http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,624417,00.html)supports this second date. 72.95.47.98 (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Recommended edit

I think this edit better captures what the original author was trying to convey.

• From: "She received her first leading role in the Selena biopic of the same name in 1997."
• To: "In 1997, she received her first leading role as Selena in the eponymous biopic."

Infobox

Dear adminisrtator,

Could you change infobox from actor to musican arist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.109.154.200 (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Casper Smart?1

Why does the page Jenifer Lopez is redirected from "Casper Smart"?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teispes (talk • contribs) 20:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Which infobox to use

There has been some debate over whether Template:Infobox person or Template:Infobox musical artist should be used in this article. Discuss the reasoning for each here.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• I personally feel that the music artist one should be used. Many artists are also actresses and have sideline projects but still use that info-box. The person info-box ...all it does extra is list her spouses, number of children, sibling and net worth. Her children, marriages and net worth are mentioned in the lead already.. The musical info-box does more for the article, IMO. It tells us more than just personal details. She's been an entertainer for over twenty years and a recording artist for fifteen, so....I would prefer having information about her record label, genres etc over personal details that are already in the lead. The person infobox does nothing in regards to her other professions... So Lopez being much more than a recording artist doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. But that's JMO. Arre 01:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • She has been in the industry for 27 years now; 14 of which involved her being a singer. Her net worth, her spouses and her children (all very relevant to a person who is known in the media almost mostly because of their personal life) is more important than listing what record labels she has been signed to or what genres her music have spanned. The article mentions the labels that released her albums, and the "Musical style" section covers her genres. Using the "Infobox musical artist" is putting her in the box of simply a musical artist, when that is not the case. In the grand scheme of the things, when she is longer with us, what is more important for someone to know when looking at her infobox.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I still disagree, presenting personal life information in the info-box (which is repeated in the lead & "personal life" section) still doesn't serve the purpose of showing that she is a lot more than a recording artist. Both info-boxes kinda seem limited for her.Arre 08:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Add "singer"

I added "singer" to the lead, but it was reverted. Status, why do you oppose addition of "singer" "singer Jennifer Lopez" gets 1740 refs in Google Books. Note that I did not remove "entertainer" ("entertainer Jennifer Lopez" gets 32 refs). Is it not true that Ms Lopez is also a singer? She appears to have released several recordings. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

She's also a professionally trained dancer, as well as an actress. "Entertainer" sums that up. She's a person who entertains. Films, music, dance. That's why this term is used. It's listed individually in the "occupation" ibox field. Arre 10:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

But that's the problem, it doesn't, Jack Benny is described as "an American entertainer" but was not a singer. The term "entertainer" does not indicate the person is notable as a singer. How is the reader expected to know from the lead that Jennifer Lopez is not a comic like Jack Benny, but also has some notability as a singer (assuming Lopez has notability as a singer, sources suggest she does). Also Lopez is categorized in Category:American female dancers but not Category:American female singers. Is there an objection to adding Lopez to the singers category? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess you're right partly; also, that category should be added, not sure why it isn't there. But if "singer" is going to be added, than actor and dancer should be too. This is why I agree with having "entertainer" (Google definition "A person, such as a singer, dancer, or comedian, whose job is to entertain others") works. Arre 14:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Print sources support that Lopez is an "actress". Sources indicate that she is better known as an actress than an actor.

"the dancer jennifer lopez" is unsupported, but "singer-dancer jennifer lopez" has a few references. Sources indicate the claim that Lopez is a dancer is only as supported as for Frank Sinatra or Bing Crosby - "actor, singer and dancer". So in sum "actress, singer and dancer" would be supported by print sources.

FWIW a pocket dictionary like http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/entertainer is only a thumbnail, normally we do not interpret from dictionaries, but follow in-running-text usage to determine how words are used. Danny Gans, Wayne Newton, Bob Hope are the sort of names that come up as "entertainer" in print sources, however my suggestion is to follow print sources and supply "singer" and "actress" for readers who don't know who Lopez is - whether "singer, actress, and dancer," is followed or preceded by "entertainer" doesn't matter. Either way the article should indicate that Lopez has some notability as a singer and has released several notable recordings. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. We'll see what Status has to say before altering occupations in the opening sentence, as this discussion was directed to him. Arre 17:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Collapsed infobox details

Is there a particular reason why it's like this? It looks weird and unnecessary to me and is used nowhere on Wikipedia. Didn't bother reverting though. Can someone explain?Arre 13:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

spouse(s)

If she filed for divorce in April 2012 wouldn't you put "-2012" next to Marc Anthony

Spouse(s) 
  Ojani Noa (m. 1997–1998)
  Cris Judd (m. 2001–2003)
  Marc Anthony (m. 2004-2012)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guslb12 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC) 

Hello; he filed for divorce in April 2012, but they are still married.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Name

Somewhere in this article there needs a edit explaining why her last name is now Muñiz, other than a simple "nee", since Marc Anthony does not use his last name professionally. I don't care if it's in the infobox or 'Personal' subsection, but some kind of clarification is needed somewhere. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan-site. Not everyone coming here knows every detail about JLo (or Marc), like some of the obsessed editors here. In fact, that's exactly why some people come to this page... to learn what they don't know. Perhaps one of the regular contributors here would like to address this, or I will. - thewolfchild 19:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Status, First you wanted it as only "Marc Anthony", arguing it's "his legal name". You then revert an edit to keep it as just that. THEN, you want to change it completely to "Marco Muniz"? Who nobody has ever heard of? Please tell me, what is wrong with "Marc Anthony (Muniz)"? Its keeps his well known professional name while adding his real last name in brackets, so readers realize 1) who he is, and 2) why this is Jenn's current last name. I left a comment on her talk page which you haven't responded to (like you demanded last time). Could you please explain yourself (here or there) before going for your 3rd revert (in 24 hrs)? It would be appreciated. Thanks. - thewolfchild 20:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

There you go again, saying I said things that I never said. You complained about nobody understanding Muniz, so I changed it to put his legal name instead. "Marc Anthony (Muniz)" makes absolutely zero sense what-so-ever. It's either Marco Muniz or Marc Anthony. There's nothing in between. At all.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

- "There you go again, saying I said things that I never said." - Um, what? Could you clarify that please?

- "It's either Marco Muniz or Marc Anthony. There's nothing in between. At all." - Why? Because you say so?

• Your dismissive arrogance aside, I see once again you have an intractable need to control articles you have an interest in with your ridiculous sense of entitlement. Please read WP:OWN. And, speaking of wiki-policy, perhaps you could provide one to support your last comment. - thewolfchild 20:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Status, how about some contributive editing, instead of just constant vandalizing? - thewolfchild 22:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

And the definition of vandalism was...? — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"was"? or "is"? - thewolfchild 23:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"Was", because looks like you have changed it. Just saying. In my humblest opinion, I can't see how Status' edits can be called vandalism, under any perspective. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Changed what? - thewolfchild 01:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Peer review needed?

I think that nominating it as Good Article is greater than leaving the article graded as B-class. However, I bet that issues may prevent the article from becoming a Good Article. If peer review is not needed, then what are issues to easily resolve? --George Ho (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

GA has been the goal for the article for some time now. The article is still incomplete and needs more work before going for a peer review (which I hope will happen before the end of this year). — Status (talk · contribs) 06:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 September 2013

Jennifer Lopez networth, according to celebritynetworth.com is $300 million.

Patmenina (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't consider celebritynetworth.com to be a reliable source, and it is questionable whether a given celebrity's estimated net worth is necessarily a noteworthy item to mention in her article. If you feel strongly that the information should be added, please provide a reliable source and seek consensus here on the talk page before opening an edit request. Rivertorch (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Venus

At paragraph 2, sentence 3 of Jennifer Lopez#2010–12: Career rejuvenation, American Idol and touring, the link to Venus should go to someplace like Gillette Mach3, because the context is about the razor, not the planet. 24.22.173.74 (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC) 24.22.173.74 (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for spotting that, 23.22.173.74; Gillette Mach3 seems the most appropriate link. I couldn't another one that was more appropriate. Acalamari 17:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Wording of the lede

What's conspicuously absent from the recent back and forth over the order of words in the lede is a discussion here on the talk page. This—not a series of edit summaries—is where valid points get considered and consensus is determined. I'd ask the parties involved to please state their opinions here before reverting one another again. The only alternatives to discussion are temporary full protection (which absolutely should not be required for a dispute of this significance) and action against the editors involved for edit warring (which is liable to snare both editors, regardless of one being correct and otherwise following policy). Could we please take the high road and follow best practice? Rivertorch (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Not too long...

Why does it say that this article is too long? Its not comparing to other artists pages... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.245.241 (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Marriage to Marc Anthony

Why does the marriage section of the infobox say "Marc Anthony (m.2004-11)"? They are still legally married. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.9.91.125 (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)