Talk:Jennifer Love Hewitt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Gossip and ephemeral relationships[edit]

This article is out of hand with the amount of gossip, as well as the beginnings and ends of short relationships of questionable notability. I see that one editor worked to remove it five days ago, but was soon reverted. I shouldn't have to mention that this kind of material fails WP:NOT and WP:DUE. Hewitt has considerable acting credits as well as a discography, and a long list of accolades. I believe the article should focus more on her career and less on who she dated for nine months. Elizium23 (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Despite adding numerous subsections to her relationships a while back (misleadingly, probably), I agree. I've shortened down the relationship section slightly. Although I do believe that her engagement to Ross McCall should be left as it is. --JustToClarify (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree the info about engagement should be in the article. That engagement is also the context for one of the surges in news reports about the subject. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
It looks much better now, doing a great job. Thanks folks. Elizium23 (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
You might want to consider how that comment could be interpreted or misinterpreted by others. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal life[edit]

To be honest, I think there needs to be some kind of understanding at to what we think is actually relevant to the "Personal life" section. There's been so many complete re-edits over the past few days that it's getting annoying (for everyone, I assume) to try to keep it to a relevant-but-not-too-detailed status. Personally, I think there should be a paragraph about her "Image", followed by one about the paparazzi photos, then the "Relationship" header with the information as is and then the "Stalking" header and information. People are constantly editing the Image section and removing the paparazzi photos information, which I would deem important (it is probably one of the most publicized stories about her in the past decade after all). What do you think? --JustToClarify (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with removing [1] as inappropriately sourced; I wonder if the alleged "quote" is genuine (and I can give some basis for that doubt) - the alleged quote would need a specific citation before it could be considered for inclusion. I agree some mention of the paparazzi photos is appropriate. I think that info shouldn't be in a separate section, and certainly not in a section with the word "contoversy" in the title. Rather, I think it should be combined with the info about the engagement with McCall, as it occurred in that context. I prefer not to have two section titles together without some text between, but I'm OK with three broad topics (image, relationships and stalking) in the image and personal life section. As the lead is a summary, some mention of this content should be in the lead, but that could be as generic as "Media reports include discussion of her appearance and celebrity relationships". Info about the interviews related to her book belong with the text about her writing the book - in the writing section - and not in a separate section with a colourful section title. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with pretty much everything you said, although I personally think the bikini photos should be in the "Image" section, because even though it occurred while she was engaged, it doesn't really have anything to do with her relationship to Ross McCall. As for the quote, I do believe she said something to that effect at one point or another (allegedly, whether she actually said that or it was a fabricated quote by a journalist remains to be seen), but I would certainly not see it as relevant or encyclopedic. I'm glad we've got some common ground to work off of now, thanks for your response. --JustToClarify (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The quote associated with the paparazzi thing refers to the engagement. It's part of the context and significance. I think the paparazzi incident happened during the vacation shortly after the engagement began or was announced. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I can see where you're coming from, really the paragraph would work in either context, but because McCall and the engagement itself aren't referenced in the paragraph (besides briefly in Hewitt's quote), I'd still prefer for it to remain in "Image". But again, either placing works. --JustToClarify (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Next issue, the other celebrities she's dated: what are the views? Her past dating seems to be part of her image and a regular part of news reports in major media, eg. Carson Daly (People NYTimes), John Mayer (MSNBC* People), Jamie Kennedy (MSNBC, MSNBC*) and so on. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sort of on the fence about this topic. On one hand, I think it should be left out because a dating history isn't entirely relevant to a Wikipedia article (in my opinion at least, I'm not sure what the official verdict on this topic is, although I've had a look around and not many other celebrities have a dating history in their articles). On the other hand, I also think it's a large part of her image and news reports, so maybe it is relevant. Perhaps just keep McCall in the article and add anyone she's currently dating when the 'announcement' arises, but I'll probably change my mind on this numerous times. --JustToClarify (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

New image: promotional?[edit]

The image added today to the article: File:Jennifer Love Hewitt 2012.jpg, shows Hewitt holding a product box, which she appears to endorse. I do not know whether she is compensated for this endorsement. Is this considered promotion of a product, per WP:PROMOTION? Elizium23 (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the policy you linked to actually applies to images or not. As far as I can tell, it doesn't, and even if it did, the mere presentation of trademarks or products in a neutral manner (which this arguably is) wouldn't make it promo material, anyway. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
That WP:NOT is not for this kind of promotion: "This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." Also, the image was not designed to be published in Wikipedia. See File:Victoria Justice and Aria Wallace playing guitar hero.jpg as another example. If there is a problem, we can crop her face-only. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

John Mayer song in personal life section[edit]

I have to question whether that type of tabloid style information is really appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Sure, it's sourced, but is it really significant enough to include a paragraph about it? Even though it was initially removed without comment, I think it's probably too trivial to include per WP:TABLOID point number four. —Torchiest talkedits 22:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is trivia and should be removed. The IP editor should stop edit warring and weigh in here on the talk page to discuss and defend its inclusion. Elizium23 (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Elizium, please stick to the facts. I added the content and it was removed twice, without any edit comments, by Tim Correll who was warned by an administrator as a result. Then, a few minutes ago, I see that it was removed by Nymf for the reason "Has nothing to do with Hewitt's personal life." I fully explained in my edit comments why it certainly does have to do with her personal life; in fact, it had recent media coverage again, which is what prompted me to see if the content was already in the article in the first place. Then, you remove the content for a completely different reason than Nymf: "trivia". Clearly, it has to do with her personal life since it's tied to her well-known relationship with Mayer, and it includes an inciteful quote about how she sees herself. The talk about that song being about her has been going on for many years and is therefore notable. I was very surprised to find that it wasn't already in the article. And anyone familiar with that song knows about the Hewitt connection. -- (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
In reviewing the article's edit history over the past year, I see almost the only thing that Elizium does is revert other editors. My quick count was over 30 reverts. I hope Elizium understands that no one owns an article; it is a community effort. -- (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
You would do best to read and understand WP:OAS. This article is a frequent target for vandalism and pointless trivia, which I do my best to keep out of it. Your bogus warning notwithstanding, I made only one revert to your proposed edit. Unfortunately for you, that does not constitute an edit war on my part. You, on the other hand, seem to think that you own your talk page, which is untrue: it also belongs to the community. And I do not appreciate your implication that you would be less hostile in this discussion if I had not posted my comments to your talk page. Elizium23 (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
"which I do my best to keep out of it"... more evidence that perhaps you really do think you own this article. I'm not sure who made you this article's police officer, but the community can handle things. Almost all your edits are reverts, about 30 of them just in the past year. When someone reverts reliably-sourced content, an edit reason is needed to support it. This is why an administrator warned that editor and told him the content was put back. So I revert two invalid reverts a few days ago, then one today, and you pounce.. sending a clearly bogus warning falsely claiming an edit war. Yet you are the one who reverts, and reverts, and reverts, and reverts... and now essentially admit that you think you are law enforcement for this article. You need to sit back and relax, and let the community deal with matters. You're not the boss here, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. And you don't appreciate my comment that had you been friendly to begin with we could've worked this out amicably? Really? Did you actually say that? Do you even think before you speak? -- (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
(ec x 4)There's no need for this to get hostile. While it's true no one owns the article, at least four editors agree the Mayer song information should not be included. The reason I gave was based on policy, namely WP:TABLOID. —Torchiest talkedits 23:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Tim Correll cannot count as one of the four since he gave zero explanation for why he did that, and did not reply to the administrator. As well, that editor was warned prior to that for his editing of this article.[2]. So it's not "at least four" editors. It's three editors. And two use trivia as the reason, while the other says it's because the content has nothing to do with her personal life, which clearly it does. I still have yet to hear anyone address my reasons for feeling the content is worthy of inclusion, which are stated in this thread (22:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)) and in my edit comments. By the way, Wikipedia doesn't count votes. Consenus is reached through discussion and only considers arguments that are in line with Wikipedia guidelines. I read a recent discussion where the "vote" was about 25-10 and the 10 won because most of the arguments of the 25 violated guidelines and the 10 were backed by the guidelines. I'm not saying your reason violates any guidelines, I'm saying it's your opinion that it's trivia. I'm saying it's noteworthy content about an issue many people associate with her and that has been widely reported in mainstream sources. It's not about some obscure song. Rather, it's about a very famous song that purportedly was written about her. That's more than trivia. It's a part of her life that she has talked about on many occasions. -- (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd also like to know how you can say the content we're talking about is trivia, yet the following content, currently in the "Personal life" section, is not trivia: "Paparazzi photographs taken of Hewitt in a bikini on November 28 during that vacation[98]" led to scrutiny and criticism of her body by bloggers. Hewitt responded: "I've sat by in silence for a long time now about the way women's bodies are constantly scrutinized....What I should be doing is celebrating some of the best days of my life and my engagement to the man of my dreams, instead of having to deal with photographers taking invasive pictures from bad angles."[99] Several celebrities supported her views.[100] During her engagement, Hewitt reportedly said: "I’m getting ready to turn 30 and get married and all those things. This year was my year to try to glow from within and feel better."[3] So all that content about her bikini body is fine, but content about a very famous song being named for her is not fine? IMO, that's a total contradiction. I would like any editor with an open mind to address this. -- (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll give it a little more time. All the points I have presented about the content need to be appropriately addressed. -- (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You would do well to read and understand WP:OAS. I'll propose another policy-based argument against inclusion: it is undue weight given to an unimportant topic. It is trivia with little to do with her career. You, on the other hand, have offered zero policy-based reasons to include it. You have actually not discussed your proposed addition much at all, instead, you have chosen an argument such as WP:OTHERSTUFF about other parts of the article, parts that arguably could be removed by the same rationale. And you have chosen to attack me personally, commenting on the editor rather than my contributions, and you have made this some kind of referendum against my decision to fight vandalism and fandalism in this article, as if my reverts are somehow worth less than those who contribute meaningful content. Well, I have news for you. Those of us who fight vandalism and uphold Wikipedia policy are human, too. I would remind you to remain civil and comment on your proposed addition. So far you have offered no reason at all that we should include it, and your pettiness and attacks on my person and accusations that I claim to own the article are mere distractions from the issue at hand. You will not build consensus this way. I would suggest that you cease your current strategy and try a different one. Elizium23 (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
"Those of us who fight vandalism". Haha. There he goes again, doing a great job of helping to make my point. Sheriff Elizium is in town. Hysterical how he completely ignores the issue of all the current content about JLH's bikini body, as if no one would notice his complete evasion. Hopefully, one day he'll learn that he can't own this article or any other. And he should probably brush up on what is and is not vandalism. And take a look at his complete edit history and see how many reverts you can count. I'll bet you've never seen an editor with so many reverts. Or one who's so obsessed with wikilinking. ;) Anyway, I'll wait about six days for any open-minded editors to appropriately address my points about the John Mayer song content and the hypocrisy of all the similar content being in the article. -- (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
IP editor, you seriously need to tone it down. Attacking other editors will not help you at all, so try to resist the urge. Stick to the content arguments.
With that said, I'm not sure what all the the fuss is about the attempted entry. The content the IP editor (I've no idea who this is, how long they've been here or how many accounts they've used, but they clearly know their way around here) is attempting to add is indeed well-sourced, though the Mail source claims the song was written about her, and this seems unlikely. Here's an interesting point: the song was from an album that was released before he started dating her, and was probably written before, say, the day he started recording that album, maybe even years earlier. So he's written a song about a specific woman's body he has never actually experienced? Meh. "I love the shape you take when crawling towards the pillowcase" and "I know you're mine all mine all mine" to me would indicate that he probably wrote the song about someone he had already "known", and not Hewitt. Perhaps he was fantasizing about her when he wrote it, but seeing his track record with the ladies also makes me believe that it was some other babe from his past and definitely not her. I would lose the lengthy quote from JLH about her body, but otherwise I can't see the harm of mentioning the alleged connection to the song, simply due to its multiple mentions in reliable sources. One quick sentence with the sources attached would not kill this "C" class article. If it ever gets beyond that grade it can be re-examined then. Doc talk 09:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I think why it should not be in the article is right there, right off the bat: "There has been speculation". The source even says that it is a rumor, and Hewitt herself denied it. If it needs to be mentioned, it should be in the Your Body Is a Wonderland article. It is trivia at best in the Jennifer Love Hewitt article. Nymf hideliho! 12:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I'd say almost everything IP 76 quoted above about Hewitt's weight should go for the same reason the song speculation shouldn't be included. In fact, I'd say there are some BLP concerns with that as well. I only brought the subject of the song up because of the recent back and forth editing over its addition. You'll note I haven't edited the article itself. —Torchiest talkedits 13:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Doc and Torchiest, thank you very much for your neutral, balanced input. I appreciate it. Nymf, you are completely misunderstanding how Wikipedia works with regard to speculation. It doesn't matter one bit whether the claim that the song was written for her is true or not; the encyclopedia is not a truth-finder. All that matters is that it can be verified and, of course, that it's worthy of inclusion. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, which explains this. The bottom line is that for many years there has been a great deal of coverage from reliable sources about the connection between the John Mayer song and Jennifer Love Hewitt. It's shocking to see that such a well-known piece of information about her does not even have a mention in the article. This is not trivia. Trivia would be that she went out to dinner with some famous movie star last week, or that she likes to wear socks that don't match. But the fact there has been a huge amount of speculation that a famous song by a famous singer was written for her is beyond trivia. It's a piece of information that will cause many readers familiar with both the song and JLH to say, "Where's the part about Mayer's song being written about her?" In any case, I'd like to ask Torchiest a question: Do you agree that if the Mayer song content goes, then the all the bikini body text should also go? And if the bikini body text stays, then the Mayer song content should be included? In other words, do you feel they should both have the same fate? Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful, open-minded input. -- (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Re: the comment on verifiability, I'll just go ahead and leave this here: WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I also think you are overestimating the impact this song has had in regard to Hewitt's personal life (which is the section where you are looking to place it). The references you have provided are all tiny one-sentence tidbits. Nymf hideliho! 19:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Doc, thanks for your nice input. Just out of curiosity, though, I have a question regarding your claim that Mayer's album was released before he started dating JLH. Do you have any reliable sources that say that? I ask because they dated in 2002 and the album wasn't released until October 14, 2002. And all the sources I've read said they dated earlier in 2002. As I said, I'm just curious because it actually doesn't matter since it is an undisputable fact that there has been coverage about the issue for years. In fact, a couple sources reported on it recently; CNN did just six days ago. -- (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The album the song was on, Room for Squares, was released in 2001, according to Allmusic. The single was released on the date you mentioned, but it was recorded at least a year before that, well before their relationship. So I'd say all we have verification of is unsubstantiated rumors that don't match the timeline. —Torchiest talkedits 20:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Nymf, every time you say something about this issue you give a different reason for why you think the content about the Mayer song should not be included. First, in your revert edit comment, you said "Has nothing to do with Hewitt's personal life", which obviously it does. So that was invalid. Next, in this discussion, you changed your reason by saying it's "speculation" and "rumor", both which are invalid per WP:VNT. And now you have just taken a third path for objecting to the content. But the problem that stands out most is the fact that you have again failed to address the issue of all the currently-included content about her weight and paparazzi photos, and explain why that content is worthy of inclusion but the Mayer song content is not. So your invalid and changing reasons, and evasion of the significant contradiction issue indicate a lack of open-mindedness, fairness and logic. Simply ignoring a valid point will never go unnoticed. -- (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Torchiest, thanks for the update. I have to check that out. But again, the dates really don't matter (in an encylopedic sense) because the issue is not about whether it's true, but rather if it's verifiable, which of course it is. Jennifer Love Hewitt will always be associated with that song either way, even if she never actually crossed Mayer's mind when he was writing it. ;) Out of more curiostiy (haha), do you have any sources which show when they actually dated? Thanks, Torchiest. -- (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I have just discovered that Elizium removed some of the content about JLH's weight from the article. I appreciate that and will take it as an acknowledgement that what I've been saying all along about it was valid; that it's totally hypocritical to say the weight content can stay, but the Mayer song content can't. Perhaps Nymf is ready to show the same open-mindedness as Elizium and will therefore admit it, also. It would've been nice if Elizium had said it here in the discussion to make the other editors aware that he agrees with me on that particular point, and so we could've stopped wasting time continuing to discuss it. But thank you for deleting it. In any case, I still believe that the weight issue was much closer to trivia than Hewitt's connection to the song, which I feel is outside the realm of trivia because she's so closely tied to that famous song (even if it's not true that it was about her). -- (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── On the dates, that People source you used says they were together in 2002, and lists their relationship right after the release of his first album in 2001. That's about all I know, as I'm not really a pop culture expert. This search shows an article dated from almost exactly ten years ago, which calls her his ex, so they were done by September 2002. —Torchiest talkedits 00:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, it's amazing how the issue became so well known in pop (music) culture. Even though they (apparently) didn't become a couple until early to mid 2002, at least several months after the album was released, it's conceivable that he still could've written the song about her. Perhaps they were secretly together earlier or he adored her from afar. Haha. But it's unlikely. Also interesting, and perhaps most telling, is the fact that they broke up by September 2002 and the song was released in October 2002. So it's very likely that all the talk about her being the inspiration for the song was simply because of the close timing of those two events. -- (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's the most likely explanation. Note also that the article I linked above seems to be saying something about how she supposedly inspired "Love Song for No One" too. So, lots of rumors flying, unsurprisingly, about a celebrity romance. —Torchiest talkedits 01:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. The Daily Mail article, written a full eight years after the song speculation started, not only mentions it in the story but actually uses it as the headline, which is clear evidence of how substantial the topic has been. This is another of many examples which I believe show that it's not trivia, but noteworthy enough content that should at least have a mention in this article. As Doc said in this thread, “I'm not sure what all the the fuss is about the attempted entry. The content the IP editor is attempting to add is indeed well-sourced...I would lose the lengthy quote from JLH about her body, but otherwise I can't see the harm of mentioning the alleged connection to the song, simply due to its multiple mentions in reliable sources. One quick sentence with the sources attached would not kill this "C" class article.” Torchiest, what do you think about that? Can you support the inclusion of the song content based on Doc's comments? It appears that Doc, like you, is a very good, experienced editor. -- (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I did a little more research, and the rumor is definitely false. Here's a video on VH1 with an explanation from Mayer saying it was about a girl he dated when he was 14. I'd really rather Wikipedia weren't one of the "terrible historians" as Mayer calls them. Since both he and Hewitt have explicitly said the song isn't about her, I don't think it's appropriate to include.—Torchiest talkedits 13:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
WP:VNT. Truth is irrelevant. Decision on content inclusion must be based only on whether the issue received meaningful coverage from reliable sources. Indisputably, it's received significant coverage. Bigfoot isn't true, nor are thousands of other claims that are included in the encylopedia. ;) -- (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
We have now verified that the song is not about her. And the decision for inclusion is not based solely on coverage. I think you may be conflating the notability standard, which does depend on significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I would say at this point the whole story, including Mayer's explanation of the true origins of the song, would fit well in its article, but not here. —Torchiest talkedits 19:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Here are just a few examples of the many entertainment myths that are included in Wikipedia articles: Cass Elliot choked on a ham sandwich, Lady Gaga is intersex or a man, Hugh Brannum (Mr. Green Jeans) is the father of Frank Zappa, Robert Johnson sold his soul to satan, Ozzy Osbourne bit off the heads of bats during concerts, Paul McCartney was replaced by a lookalike, mulitple myths about the death of Jimi Hendrix, Curt Cobain was murdered, Jim Morrison is alive, The Big Bopper was shot in the plane crash that killed him. None of them are true, but they're all included because they're well-known, reliably sourced rumors. -- (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not that important to me one way or the other. I've given my view based on my interpretation of policy, but I'm not going to make any edits to the article, or edit war to keep it out. Hopefully others will chip in again and a consensus can be reached. —Torchiest talkedits 19:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I understand your point and truly appreciate your input. But I have presented a lot of hard proof that this type of content is indeed appropriate for inclusion. Here are a few more examples: Walt Disney was cryogenically frozen, Marisa Tomei was mistakenly awarded the Oscar for My Cousin Vinny because Jack Palance said the wrong name, Shirley Eaton was in danger of mortal death from being covered in gold paint in the movie Goldfinger, Marilyn Manson, not Josh Saviano played Paul on the TV show The Wonder Years. Thousands of articles include content about urban myths, rumors and speculation based not of course on truth, but on significant coverage in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not saying that any of these claims are true; it is simply stating content that has been reported in reliable sources. -- (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Television Filmography[edit]

I updated Jennifer Love Hewitt's Television Filmography so that the programming is in order of release date. Signed by Tim Correll 08:53, 20 February 2014

I also changed the timeframe that Time Of Your Life was on from 1999-2001 to 1999-2000 since it was on 1999-2000 and not 1999-2001. Signed by Tim Correll 08:58, 20 February 2014

Okay, fine (with me). But please see the top of this page where it talks about how to sign your posts. --Musdan77 (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Somebody please update Jennifer Love Hewitt's acting career section so that the references I accidentally took out of the episode of Hot In Cleveland from 2012 are put back in? Her acting career section also needs to be updated so that the episode of Hot In Cleveland she is on the night of 23 April 2014 is stated with a reference. I already updated her television filmography so that it lists her being on 3 epidsodes (2011, 2012 and 2014). I had difficulty doing all of rest of this myself. Thank you. signed by Tim Correll 20:23, 23 April 2014. (Tim Correll 00:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Correll (talkcontribs)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jennifer Love Hewitt. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Jennifer Love Hewitt is not an Atheist[edit]

She has stated in several interviews that she is spiritual and loves God. She also says she is Roman Catholic. So I'm going to remove American Atheists from her article as well as remove her name from the American Atheist article.Tim Correll (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Tim Correll 10:25 Eastern Standard TimeTim Correll (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)