Talk:Jessica Alba/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hips

How the heck is there nothing in this article about the scientific study that proved the perfection of her hip movement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.216.61 (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does this keep getting removed? This was an actual research result from a team of mathematicians at Cambridge. [1]

Americans of French Canadian descent

Given that she's already been put down in the French Americans list through her mother and her mother's from Canada, is it reasonable to also add her to the Americans of French Canadian descent list [2] as Angelina Jolie is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.110.92 (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Warren

{{editprotected}} re-link Cash Warren - User:Nightscream keeps unlinking him because he "does not have his own article", which is not a valid reason according to WP:RED unless he never will —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.216.61 (talk • contribs)

 Done. east.718 at 23:24, January 15, 2008

Nothing I see at Wikipedia:Red link provides a rationale for wikilinking Cash Warren. The Intro of that policy page states: "Red links should not be created for topics that will never have articles, such as a celebrity's romantic interest (who is not a celebrity in his or her own right).. Conversely, I don't see anything listed further below in that page that would justify redlinking him. Alba may be noteworthy, but her fiancee and father of her child is not. One day, if that changes, then he may merit his own article. Until then, there no reason to wikilink him, and east718 has indicated on my Talk Page that I disagree with redlinking him, then I should revert it. I am doing so, and unless and until someone creates an article for him with info other than just his relationship to Alba, please do not revert it again. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

are you sure he does not qualify? he has been on oprah and has a famous parent as well. but more to the point, I primarily objected to your rationale, not to the unlinking itself. I will leave whether he should be linked or not up for debate, but your edit was made on the basis of an invalid argument, that was why I requested it be undone, even though I don't really know anything about Warren himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.216.61 (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand your position. But being on Oprah or having a famous parent does not qualify one for an article, let alone redlinking the person's name without one. Btw, please sign your posts. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Typo in the first line

Jessica Alba is a American actress - should be "an American" ... could not edit or would have fixed. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.50.124.162 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the report, I have fixed it. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Switching photo

I would like to switch the Spike TV award photo with the Good Luck Chuck photo. We would keep both but just switch the position.

The reason is the Spike TV award photo looks like she is carrying a weapon. Her eyes look sleepy, too. The best photo should be at the top. The Playboy photo is fair use so I can see why you don't want to put that at the top. Spevw (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Her eyes look fine to me, and the caption explains that she's at the "Spike" awards show, and I don't see how what she's carrying matters anyway, or why Fair Use would preclude use of photo on top. Her image is bigger in the Spike photos than in the Good Luck Chuck photo, so I think it makes a better accompanying image to the article. Nightscream (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a doctor, but it looks like she has Ptosis (eyelid) in the photo but not the other photo. I think it must have been late at night so she is sleepy. I favor the switch. Is it ok with you? Spevw (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No. The other not only features her more prominently in the photo, but does so in her capacity as an actress at a public event, whereas the other one is smaller and features her in a specific character from one of her films. It does not depict ptosis, it merely shows that her eyes were slightly lowered when the pic was taken.Nightscream (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear that she does not have ptosis of the eyelid but the other photo is of better quality as the Spike one shows her eyes lowered. The comment below also doesn't like the Spike photo. However, the Playboy photo is a fair use photo which I don't like for the main photo. Spevw (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You should switch it with the playboy photo. it does look like she is carrying a weapon. 16 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.70 (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The [Spike] photo at the start of the article is not the best of her. She is a beautiful woman - arguably the most beautiful famous woman in the world today - and the leading photo should be one that illustrates this. ~Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.243.60.12 (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the image to a better one I got someone to give permission to freely license for Wikimedia Commons. Hello32020 (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Any sisters/brothers?

This article doesn't mention whether Jessica Alba has any sisters or brothers (besides Joshua)? --72.230.46.168 (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

One more thing...

Should Cash Warren redirect to Jessica Alba#Personal life temporarily, until a full article can be written? --72.230.46.168 (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

American Christian

Hi. I recently saw an edit about her being an American Christian. She should still fall under that category. She has left the church not lost her faith in her beliefs those are two different things. To be honest I've left a couple of churches but I've never lost my faith in God people just drove me crazy wit there religiousness which is what her statement is suggesting131.230.135.14 (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah technically she is still a christian. There are plenty of Christians that don't go to church at all.131.230.135.7 (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a well-sourced quote where she states, "I thought [the Bible] was a nice guide, but it certainly wasn't how I was going to live my life." If you can find a reliable source indicating that she is still Christian (that is, that she once again claims to be Christian, not that she necessarily goes to church), please feel free to readd the information. Otherwise, WP:BLP (and WP:V, etc.) requires that we not make unsourced claims about her religion. --Yamla (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that these comments were left by abusive sockpuppeteer, Mcelite (talk · contribs). --Yamla (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy?

That is not a controversy. It really doesn't even belong in the article about her. Boo hoo - I'd get sick of Applebees, Chilis, and Walmart too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.152.166 (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That's one reason why I removed it yesterday (the other being that it was completely unsourced). Nightscream (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Except for the fact that Albuquerque certainly has MUCH more to offer than cheap American restaurants? Except for the fact that Ms. Alba is stupid enough to confuse two completely unrelated cities? Not a controversy? Hmm.... Mortalias (talk) 8 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.250.221 (talk)

You are confused. Please read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE. --Yamla (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I understand the reliable sources and citations were absent, it's not that I'm trying to debate here.(talk) 8 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.250.221 (talk)

great new photo

the new photo in the article is great. it's also sexy, too. let's keep it! Spevw (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the photo back to the one that was up before, if any of you disagree we can discuss it here. This image displays an event related to what she is noted for, at the premiere of a movie which she acted in. It is also of higher quality. Hello32020 (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont care what the photo is, its just that that one is up in her business and her head looks big; thats why I changed it. If everyone else likes it better than the photos fine.--CPacker (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the current photo is atrocious. This is a woman known for her beauty, so any photo that doesn't reflect her beauty instantly makes the entire Wikipedia article inaccurate. That photo needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.80.144 (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That photo is horrible. Worse than the one before. I've replaced it with an image from the Wikimedia Commons. But even that is a temporary fix. We will have to get a better one eventually. --Pwnage8 (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested edit

This article is apparently "protected", which means that I'm unable to edit it.

Could someone with the necessary permissions remove the words "as she claims" in the sentence "This isolated her from other children at school because, as she claims, she was in the hospital so often that no one knew her well enough to befriend her."

Those three words imply that she may not be telling the truth, which I feel is unnecessary and unfair in a biography. Cole Dealton (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Good call on the weasel words. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks EVula. Cole Dealton (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   There is a double wikilinkage of California and according to the Manual of Style linkage use. It is extremely important to link full dates as part of the Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Some copy-editing would be sufficient for the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article reads well, the only thing holding the article is if these comments can be met. Once they are completed, the article would be turned into a Good article. Good luck and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Zenlax ^{T C S} 20:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Date issues fixed. There were a few instances where distinct references were assigned the same name; I think those are fixed now too. Gimmetrow 21:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, any more problems Zenlax? Hello32020 (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for catching the reference doubling. One minor question, the sentence that reads, Her mother is of Danish and French descent, and her father is Mexican American (though both of his parents were born in California), in the parenthesis should it not say "her" instead of "he"? Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's trying to say something about her paternal grandparents, that she's third-generation, not second. Gimmetrow 19:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well that was my fault and I have passed it as a Good article. Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Missing Part of Television Credits

Sorry, I've posted this on another actor's profile, too, but where is "Too Soon For Jeff"(1996) under her television film credits? I just watched it in LMS and it stars her opposite Freddie Prinze Jr. It should be on that list, I think. If someone could add it, that'd be great. Thanks! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.94.233 (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Background of her Mother

In the articles cited in reference to her parents' ethnic backgrounds only one lists the additional ethnicities of English and Italian (on her mother's side) - this article is not an interview but a brief biography and list of stats. In all the published articles (those in magazines and on the internet) I have read she has always described her ethnic background as having "a Mexican-American father and a Danish and French-Canadian mother" I have never read/heard her include the ethnicities of Italian and English. So maybe they should be removed? If it is needed I can reference many articles concerning this issue I just didn't want to change anything without suggesting it first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.230.242 (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Was added here. The Yahoo movie bio seems to be an outlier. Gimmetrow 07:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Name

Whats with all the anti-femenists on wikipedia. As far as we know her name is still alba —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.78.63 (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's anti-feminism. I think it's that people get very excited when their favorite stars get married, so they rush to the Wikipedia page to interact in the only way they can: by altering the name. Something similar happens when a celebrity has a baby. There's a rush to post about the birth and name and then various other editors add ever more minute details. A few days later, when the excitement has died down, a regular editor of that page (or a name-nerd) comes along and tidies it all up. Some of us are name-nerds, who just care that the name on the page be accurate, no matter what it is. That's why you'll see some posters who will, for instance, revert this article to Alba every day, but who will also come back and change it to Warren if reliable verification of a name change is found. Ariadne55 (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Gaelic for Scotland

Why is this there in the first line? We don't translate anyone else's last name (Zimmerman, LeBlanc) and we have no references that indicate that is the derivation of the name; especially as there is no indication of Scots ancestry. Unless someone objects I'll remove it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Honor Marie

Baby Girl Alba/Warren is named Honor Marie Warren Rienoupas (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rienoupas (talk • contribs) 15:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Title of page

Jessica Alba is now a newlywed under the husband who made her famous. Therefore she is really Jessica Alba Warren respectfully to her and her new family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmatthew71 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, you sound like a real idiot for claiming someone other than her made her famous, and describing a wife as being "under" her husband, like he's her boss. Besides, a source would be required that she's taken his name, which is not a given. And there's WP:COMMONNAME issues to deal with, as it may be a long time, if ever, before she becomes most commonly known as Jessica Alba Warren. -- AvatarMN (talk) 05:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

New sections

The image section is really about her sexual image. The personal life section covers a large amount of sexual issues. This drowns out discussion of her other personal life.

A possible solution is to have a sexuality section, image sub-section and personal life sub-section. We could then have a dedicated and separate family life section which doesn't mention sex at all but merely covers her husband and life.

A side effect of this division is that if the sexuality part becomes too much of the article, we can detect that immediately. In Wikipedia, we can cover that but BLP concerns should always be kept in mind. We should cover the biography first and not be sexually sensationalists. This will help us from not doing this and make a very respectable article! Spevw (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

In a way, I do agree with you. The "Public image" and "Personal life" sections do mention much of the sexuality issues concerning Alba. However, Alba is viewed, by many people, as someone who exudes sexuality and attractiveness. Unlike Angelina Jolie (who is also viewed as extremely attractive by many), Alba's charity work isn't reported often. Sexuality, unfortunately, is Alba's public image.

In my opinion, instead of making up entirely new sections, perhaps we should find more information about Alba's personal life and public image that doesn't concern sexuality instead of creating an entire "Sexuality" section (which would kind of lead people into believing that sexuality is on par with the importance of her career...something that you are trying to disprove, correct?). That, or we should weed out the sexually-related comments that we believe do not justify being in the article (i.e., I don't think mentioning every single magazine cover she's been on or every single "Hot 100" list she's made warrants being in the article). Not to mention that you have ignored the few comments that had nothing to do with her sexuality (e.g., her Razzie award nomination and the critical reception she received from her Dark Angel role). Those comments would then have to make up an entirely new section so that it doesn't fall under the "Sexuality" section. This could not only make the article seem cluttered and/or bulky, unless we find enough information that is not sexually-related, the comparison between the "Sexuality" section and the non-sexuality section could make the sexuality factor much larger than what we would like it to be.

Sorry for being long-winded. Did I make any sense at all? In hindsight, I do agree with you. But I believe that there's a better way to go about this. I look forward to a response. Hopefully, we can come to a conclusion soon and get to work on bettering the article. Ms. Sarita (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Then we are in agreement! Maybe a subsection with the word "sex" or "sexuality" makes people uncomfortable so I will think of a way to avoid this. Spevw (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Multiracial Actors

Alba belongs to this category why does this keep being removed when she fully qualifies for the category.Mcelite (talk) 04:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been removing it because Alba is third-generation American, at least, and does not identify herself as being a member of any other race (AEB some interviews and other sources referenced in the main article). Thus, while she does have some Mexican, Danish, and French Canadian ancestry, it's not really significant (by her own acknowledgement), and the article already has a lot of categories. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 04:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'm sorry that's stupid. It's not about percentage of her descent her bloodline consists of Danish, Mexican, and French so it makes no sense as to why the category doesn't apply.Mcelite (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone else in addition to you has already restored it, so even though I disagree, I'm going to leave it in unless several other editors also show up and say it should be removed. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 05:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with others who believe that the category should stay. Even though Alba does not identify with being any particular race, she now acknowledges her Mexican ancestry and even shows pride in it. Just because a multiracial individual doesn't go around saying that they're proud of this or proud of that, I'm sure they realize that they are of multiracial descent. Ms. Sarita (talk) 05:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Being half-Mexican does not necessarily make her multiracial. There are plenty of caucasian Mexicans - those of Spanish (and not Native American) ancestry or descendants of immigrants from other European countries. One of the last Mexican presidents, Vincente Fox, had a father of German ancestry and a mother whose parents came from Spain; that would make him caucasian under the traditional definition. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not just about the Mexican-ness; according to the sources given in the article, her mother is also of Danish and French Canadian ancestry (although I don't remember how far back). Of course, if the sources I have read so far are true, Alba is 100% American (grew up here, identifies herself as that, says she does not identify with Mexican or any other non-American culture); but American is not a race. That's the main reason I changed my mind before and switched over to Ms. Sarita's way of thinking; if the category were "Actors of multiple ethnicities" or something like that, I would still be fighting it, since a term like that wraps up a lot of culture and identity issues as well. But since "race," as traditionally defined, is basically about blood and ancestry, I can see how the argument can be made in favor of her being "multiracial" while still being totally American. I'm ambivalent about whether the category is kept in the article or removed, but at least there's my [albeit hypocritical] two cents on the whole "multiracial" issue. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 06:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You bring up some good points All Hallow's Wraith. However, just noting on your example, Vicente Fox's paternal grandparents immigrated to America from Germany and Fox's mother immigrated to Mexico directly from Spain. Therefore, it is obvious that Fox is of European ancestry. Jessica Alba, on the other hand, has said that she is a third-generation American, leading me to assume that her paternal great-grandparents were born in Mexico and then immigrated to California. Mexico's demographic statistics leave little room for pure European-Mexicans and it would be safe to assume that Alba has at least some Amerindian ancestry since (1) she has never said that her heritage, specifically and only, comes from Spain, Denmark, and France, and (2) there is no evidence that her paternal great-grandparents immigrated directly from Spain or another European country. But, you are correct...we should not assume such things unless we find a source, per WP:BLP...I can't argue with that. Ms. Sarita (talk) 07:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, according to Wikipedia's Mexico#Ethnography article, only 60-75% of Mexico's population are "Mestizos" (Amerindian and Spanish), while 9%-17% are caucasian (some of whom have been in Mexico for centuries but are still more or less "just Spanish" in ancestry). As for Politizer's first reply, the majority of Americans have more than one ethnic group in their ancestry (for example, that's the case for the majority of Presidents), but it would make them "multiethnic", not "multiracial", since all of their ethnic backgrounds (i.e. Danish, French, etc.) are caucasian and thus of the same race. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to the CIA World Factbook, 9% of Mexico's population is Caucasian, while 90% (combined) are of Mestizo or pure Amerindian descent. So, we're guessing that Alba's great-greatparents fell into that 9% range, right? Like I said, I agree that we should not add the category until we have a reliable source stating otherwise, but don't you think that Alba would have said that her lineage comes from Danish, French, and Spanish roots? Not "Mexican"... That's all I'm saying. Ms. Sarita (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know what Alba would have said and I'm not guessing anything. I guess that's my point. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It was more a rhetorical question than anything; I was simply making a point, as was you. Both parties "guessed" in this situation: we guessed that Alba would fall within the 90% range of mestizos and Amerindians and you guessed that she falls within the 9% range of Caucasians. However, like I have said many a time, you are correct in that we should not put anything in the article until a reliable source is located. Happy editing! Ms. Sarita (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This question is slightly unrelated, but I just noticed that this article is part of WikiProject Mexico. Now, I agree with Ms. Sarita's arguments in favor of keeping the article in Category:Multiracial actors...but is there really any justification for having the article as part of Project Mexico? It's not really a "Mexico article"—the very word is only mentioned once in the entire article, where it describes her father's ancestry. I know it's not a huge deal and this is just a Wikipedia-internal thing that won't have any effect on readers, but I just find it a little appropriate, and am wondering if anyone would have any objections if I remove the WikiProject Mexico template from this talk page. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 14:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm a little torn between what to say. I took a look at Wikiproject Mexico and one of their categories include Category:Mexican people. Celebrities such as Eva Longoria, Salma Hayek, Alexis Bledel, Edward Furlong, etc. are also part of the Wikiproject Mexico. I have no objections to the removal of the template, but for the sake of consistancy, we would have to remove the templates from all of the previously mentioned celebrity articles as well...and then some. Ms. Sarita (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, and it might be troublesome to overhaul the whole thing. On the other hand, I don't know if the fact that other people who shouldn't be in the category or project are there gives us a good excuse to keep in one more person who shouldn't be there. Granted, I don't know much about any of these actors and actresses, including Alba, but from a quick glance at the articles it is pretty clear to me that many of them should not be considered "Mexican." For example...I don't have a problem anymore with Alba being categorized as "multiracial," for the reasons you pointed out, but calling her "Mexican" when her mother is not Mexican at all and her father and paternal grandparents were are born and raised in America seems pretty ridiculous to me. There's a difference between having Mexican (or any other) ancestry and actually "being" Mexican. And out of the actresses you listed (again, actresses whom I don't really know anything about other than what I saw from a cursory glance through their articles) the only ones I think can really be called "Mexican" are Hayek and perhaps Bledel (but that one is a stretch). The rest sound very American, at least from the way they are introduced in the articles. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 17:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You make excellent points, and I do agree with them. Off-topic, but I sort of laughed (not at you) when you stated that Bledel and Hayek are the only ones that could be called "Mexican" since they're of partial Mexican descent, like Alba. Longoria is the only one out of the four celebrities I mentioned that is acually full Mexican (even though Hayek is the only one who was actually born in Mexico). I couldn't find any others of full Mexican descent. Anyway, let's see what others have to say, but like I said, you made some very good points and I would have no objection to the removal of the template. But I am also not one to potentially piss off the contributers of Wikiproject Mexico. Ms. Sarita (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Haha, oops...I should probably be careful making those sorts of judgments regarding people I don't really know about. But yeah, as you can probably tell, I have been basing my standard more on where they grew up (and where their citizenship is) than who their parents were. Anyway, it's been over half an hour now and I haven't incurred the wrath of any editors yet, so I'll keep my fingers crossed! —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 18:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you don't know much about those particular celebrities, which is why I specifically stated that I wasn't laughing AT you. Haha, yes, you have not incurred any wrath...let's hope that you don't. I'll keep my fingers crossed too! Ms. Sarita (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

McElite, remember that conversation that we had about Zoë Saldaña? The same applies here. Mexicans can be of pure European descent (or any other race) since "Mexican" is an ethnicity, not a race. Although I don't believe that Alba is of pure European heritage (i.e., I'd be extremely surprised if she had absolutely no Amerindian ancestry), we don't have any other sources saying otherwise. Let's leave the category out until we can find a source. Ms. Sarita (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well my arguement is that she clearly has traits that are not Caucasian and she states herself I'm part Mexican not meaning nationality. That makes no sense that would be like me saying well I'm part American. Also she has been featured in Latina Magazine they don't feature u unless you have a little Latin descent. See [3]Mcelite (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Mcelite, like I said, I don't agree with the removal of the category, because I honestly believe that she has at least some Amerindian heritage (since she says she is part Mexican, not part Spanish or whatever other demonym her father's lineage may have come from). But, per WP:BLP, we'd have to find a source before we can positively say that she is multiracial.

ETA: I forgot to add that Latina Magazine has featured many people who are of Latin descent, yes. But, for example, they have included Penélope Cruz, Antonio Banderas, and Enrique Iglesias (actors and a singer from Spain) in their magazine, so saying that Alba was featured in Latina doesn't prove that she is indeed multiracial. Ms. Sarita (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the entire category should be deleted, because it's purely POV, as there is no biological basis or scientific consensus for what constitutes a "race". Race is a purely subjective, cultural idea, not a factual one. Nightscream (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying from a scientific standpoint but then that means every other category dealing with race would have to be deleted as well. I highly doubt that will happen.Mcelite (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I found two reliable sources referring to her as "multiracial".[4][5] --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Does no good if there isn't a source in which Alba, herself, states that she is multiracial. Ms. Sarita (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That's like saying getting a source for a band's genre from a music critic "does no good" because the band has to state it themselves. That's not how Wikipedia works. --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when it comes to WP:BLP, it is. Sorry. That is a very poor comparison you brought up, but I see what you're getting at and understand your point. If you hadn't noticed, I am one of the people who thinks that Alba is multiracial because the statistics leave little to no room for her not to be. However, this is just the way it goes. If we could use the references you provided, they would have already been worked into the article. But if we don't want any chance of it getting reverted, I say we find a reference where she states she is multiracial herself. That way, there is no way anyone can refute it. But I am also not one to tell other editors what to do. Go ahead and work it into the article if you feel the references are worth merit. Ms. Sarita (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ms. Sarita; one or two journalists or bloggers deciding to mention Alba in the same sentence as Tiger Woods and other multiracial celebrities doesn't carry the same weight as a personal statement from her identifying herself as multiracial. The writers of both the article and blog post you gave seem to be trying to make a certain statement about multiracial people and thus may have different reasons than ours for choosing to use Alba as an example. That's just my first impression; I haven't had a chance to read the articles closely yet.—Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 16:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Worst actress?

"Her acting has also drawn criticism, however, as she was nominated for a 2007 Razzie Award for Worst Actress for her performances in Awake, Good Luck Chuck, and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. [34] She was also nominated for the same award in 2005 for her performances in Fantastic Four and Into the Blue. [35]"

In my opinion criticism about this awards should be added, too. I have seen these films, and such criticizers just discredit themselves with such nominations. Now I know that this Razzie Award tells nothing beside maybe about jealousy of the nominator. Truchses (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the awards should only be added to the article on them, not an article on Alba, unless the criticism specifically mentions her, and only if there is a reliable source for it. Without it, it would violate WP:NPOV. Nightscream (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. Thanks. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 22:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 23:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

New Image

Can someone put this image in the article.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.131.28 (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice image. However, the article already has five images in it. I think that's more than enough. Nightscream (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I found a place to squeeze it in, where it wouldn't bump into anything else. So I added it for now. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Photographer Mark Liddell

Spelling -- "The ads by photographer Marc Liddel, which feature Alba wrapped ..." His name is spelled Mark Liddell. Please see http://www.markliddell.com. Yellowzebra (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)yellowzebra

Strange that the source would have the name wrong, but Mark Liddell does appear to claim the images as his own, and there are no google hits for Marc Lidel, yet many for Mark Liddell taking said images. I will update the article, thanks for bringing it up! --Terrillja _talk 06:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that your last source misspelled his name and that Mark Liddell is indeed the photographer of these Jessica Alba images. I work for his syndication agency. Even editors of large publications spell names wrong. Thanks for making the change! Yellowzebra (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC) yellowzebra