Talk:Jennifer Lawrence/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Introduction states that she won her first Academy Award for Winter's Bone

Just thought I'd point out that the article currently states that the second paragraph of the article states that "After transitioning into film, she had her breakthrough role in the independent drama Winter's Bone (2010), for which she received her first Academy Award." 45.47.234.119 (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that should be her first Academy Award nomination, which Krimuk90 somehow missed when copy-editing the lead. -- ChamithN (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Thanks for correcting it. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead discussion

This has gone too far. I want this to be resolved rather than experienced editors reverting to X version. I tried to restore the version per WP:STATUSQUO, but I realized it was the wrong version. I apologize for that.

I am pinging all editors involved: @Krimuk90:, @SNUGGUMS: and @Musdan77:.

Enough with the reverting and start discussion now. Nobody has done so right now.

Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I actually wasn't reverting to any specific version. However, the lead is currently too Oscar-centric in terms of awards and shouldn't downplay her BAFTA or Golden Globe wins just to emphasize Oscars. The Oscars aren't the only lead-worthy accolade she's received, and not every nomination from them needs be mentioned in the lead; that's just overkill. Additionally, describing Winter's Bone as her "breakthrough" when it is later said she gathered "wider attention" for X-Men is misleading. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

When any improvements that are made to the article are blindly reverted by editors without citing any valid reason, I think it's time to move on. My intention was to take this article to GA-FA status in the near future, and thus my recent edits, but certain editors seem allergic to any edits that don't closely match their own version. If such behavior continues, it's impossible for an editor to work out here. I have written 4 featured biographies of actresses, and I thus have a fairly good understanding of how the lead needs to be. Very disappointed in Musdan77 for undermining my contributions to this article. Believe it or not, I want the article to be the best version of what it can be, but it's impossible to do so if others won't let you do the job. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I fail to understand why are editors these days engaging in over such trivial disputes. I agree with SNUGGUMS on not to sideline Golden Globes and BAFTAs just to mention Oscars. And since this is for Lawrence, someone with four Oscar nods and a win, I don't think we need to mention all of them. She won Golden Globes for roles which earned her Oscars nominations, and I think the former is more notable. And Krimuk90: by all means take this to GA and beyond. I can be of some assistance too if you like of course. -- Frankie _talk 17:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Krimuk90, your edits were not "blindly reverted by editors without citing any valid reason". In fact (from what I can tell), your edits weren't reverted at all until the second time that you reverted edits by other (more experienced) editors. (Also, many of your edits don't have any explanation in the edit summary.) I'm sure you have the best intentions (most editors do), and you think you know just how it should be done, but what you need to know is how to interact with other editors (collaboration). Consensus is found though edits, or though discussion (to avoid edit wars). By the way, something I think all bio editors should understand is that although WP:LEAD says that the lead should be a maximum of 4 paragraphs, that doesn't mean that we need to try to make it 4. Usually, 2 or 3 is sufficient. And although JL has accomplished much already, she's still very young. There's plenty of time for her article – and thus lead – to expand. —Musdan77 (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

That's ironic. You speak of interacting and discussing with others, and yet fail to give me a valid rational as to why you had to remove well-sourced information from the lead. In this edit of yours, you have removed several key informations from the lead, such as Lawrence being one of the highest-paid heroines in Hollywood and the fact that she has won an Oscar, a BAFTA and three Golden Globes. In addition, you have removed any mention of her involvement in charitable organizations in its entirety from the lead. Now, these are pertinent information and in no way do these excessively bloat up the lead. Mashing information into 2 paragraphs only because you dislike having more than that is very silly IMO. If I had gone ahead and added irrelevant information then you had all the right to revert me, but in this case I strongly believe that my addition did help summarize key information concisely. I must say that one has to be bold to make improvements; if editors such as yourself keep discouraging others from this, the article will be never improve. Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying that?? Read the edit summary I gave. And look at the diffs. There was no "mashing". I removed what I consider redundant and non-notable content that's not needed in this lead. If you disagree, that's fine, but that's when you start a discussion (WP:BRD), not making disruptive reverting. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I reverted you once, as did you. Anyway, I have started a discussion below. Feel free to discuss. Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Which version of the lead is better?

Is this version of the lead, modified by editors such as Musdan77, better than the version I wrote? Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I personally feel your edition is better, Krimuk, but personally wouldn't go with either per my comments here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Snuggums. I'm definitely open for discussion regarding the way we can mention awards in the lead. I'm sure we can find a way to come up with something that we can both agree with. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion for awards is something like this:

• "She has earned various accolades from her collaborations with director David O. Russell, including Golden Globe Awards for his films Silver Linings Playbook (2012), American Hustle (2013), and Joy (2015). Lawrence also won an Academy Award for Best Actress for Silver Linings Playbook, making her the second-youngest Best Actress Oscar winner ever, and a BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Supporting Role for American Hustle."

It's much less wordy than the current edition, and takes into account her Oscar, BAFTA, and all three Golden Globes into a reasonably concise way. The charitable organizations (which shouldn't be ignored) could be included in a separate paragraph or perhaps the accolades paragraph. Not really sure how to include her being the highest-paid heroine, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I like that, though I wouldn't want to repeat the film names in the lead. I also think what roles she played in the films is important to mention, without repeat mentions of the film. Maybe this:

• "She has earned various accolades from her collaborations with director David O. Russell. She won an Academy Award for Best Actress for playing a depressed widow in Silver Linings Playbook (2012), making her the second-youngest Best Actress Oscar winner ever and a BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Supporting Role for portraying a troubled wife in American Hustle. She also won Golden Globe Awards for starring as the eponymous inventor in Joy in addition to her roles in the aforementioned films."

The fact that she is the highest-paid heroine can be included in the first paragraph itself. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That just might be even better than what I had before. Good point on repetition. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. :) If it's okay with the other editors, can I go ahead and change it now? Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

(I was notified by the Feedback Request Service) I had not read this article before. I am in favour of whatever puts less emphasis on how rich and famous she is and concentrates instead on her actual acting accomplishments. Certainly there is no need to have two references to money in the lead section.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2016

The current image, dated 2015

My request is just that I can change the picture because that one has been up there for a while now. Paigelesper9 (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? There are several at Wikimedia Commons that conform to Wikipedia's licensing requirements from:

• 2011
• 2012
• 2013
• 2014
• 2015

It's probably best to go for a more recent image. That's one advantage of the current image: it's pretty recent. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The only reason why some pictures stay on the article for awhile is because not all images can be used. It is has to be a free image according to WP:Image use policy. If you have an image that corresponds to such policies, then you are welcome to introduce to a new image. Also, based on your edit on Shailene Woodley, please see WP:UPLOAD. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Vocal about issues

To describe Miss Lawrence as "vocal about social issues such as feminism and gender equality" is meaningless. It would be more accurate to say that she is "a vocal advocate of feminism and gender equality".Royalcourtier (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done your suggestion is also more concise, so thank you for pointing this bit out Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Parent's occupations

Jennifer's father OWNS a construction company and her mother founded and owned a children's summer camp. Nyellen (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Birthplace

Jennifer was not born in Indian Hills, Ky. She was born in St.Matthews, a neighborhood in Louisville. Nyellen (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nyellen: What's your source for that? We have a source in the article, albeit a tertiary source, that says Indian Hills. —C.Fred (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I am a friend of the family, and lived down the street from them whedn she was born. Nyellen (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, the main article says she was born in Louisville, Colorado. She was born in Louisville, KY. Nyellen (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion for recent edit warring about Askmen stuff

I can't help noticing that there's an ongoing revert war (and active edit summary chat) going on ([1], [2], [3], [4]), but nobody's discussing this in the correct place: on talk. I have no dog in this hunt. Can we resolve this off the live page before somebody gets a 3RR warning? BusterD (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit soon to call this a "revert war" at the moment, but my issue is that the site's overall credibility is questionable at best. Their content is likely user-generated and thus is better left out. There are much stronger sources talking about how sexy people see her as anyway. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if calling it user-generated would be right since AskMen is a very popular website and its Top 99 Women is released every year since - I don't know - 2007. – FrB.TG (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

IMDb is really popular too, but is a user-generated site as pretty much anyone can put anything into it and can easily be wrong. Popularity is an irrelevant factor. I also said "likely" due to suspected lack of oversight, though could be wrong on that. Either way, what makes me hesitant to use Askmen is that relationship/sex advice sites aren't that professional to begin with. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that AskMen should be compared to IMDb. The former is owned by a reliable company, Ziff Davis Media, which also owns IGN. Besides I have used the source in my articles before and did not really have any issue - it is just to used to cite the information about a certain beauty list and not anything controversial and earth-shattering. - FrB.TG (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I think ownership is entirely beside the point. I believe User:SNUGGUMS raises the issue, as yet unrefuted, that the AskMen acclaim comes from user-generated content (like that of IMDB, which has often been determined by boards like RS to be unreliable because of user-generated input for the purposes of BLP sourcing). One of the following is not like the others: AskMen, which is from a user-generated poll, the methodology of which is not revealed; People, FHM, Maxim selections are all done by paid staff. A lot of static was put forward in the media last week, for example, about user-generated polls on the subject of the presidential debate being unreliable because of the possibility of certain comment communities stacking votes. Generally speaking, on Wikipedia user-generated material is judged insufficiently reliable to source BLPs. That's how I read SNUGGUMS's concern and the policy. BusterD (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Spot on, Buster. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The list is often mentioned by several high-quality newspapers - user-generated or not - when actors make it in the list, something which never happens with IMDb. Also, the user-generated part is just an assumption of you which may or may not be true. - FrB.TG (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Being mentioned in credible papers doesn't by itself indicate its quality. Just saying. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If a mention in other sources does not, a reliable company does not then what does? Also, what are we arguing about here - it doesn't "seem" reliable to some users 'cause it does not look professionally designed. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

An established reputation of accuracy would help. So would a paid staff and editorial oversight. From what I've seen, it's mostly just dude's opinions (sometimes with advice) on relationships and sex. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

But then the list has nothing to do with accuracy. We shouldn't use AskMen only for something controversial and this is their opinion about the sexuality of women. - FrB.TG (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Miss Lawrence's character name in Passengers (2016)

Miss Lawrence's character in Passengers (2016) Aurora Dunn, is actually called Aurora Lane as confirmed by the director on Twitter, which is what I think should be changed on this page. Jlawisabean (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Aurora Afjalhussain (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2016

The 2nd sentence is grammatically incorrect: The highest-paid actress in the world, Lawrence's films have grossed over $5 billion worldwide.

Lawrence's films are the highest-paid actress in the world?

I propose something along the lines of: The highest-paid actress in the world, Lawrence has starred in films have grossed over $5 billion worldwide. OR Lawrence's films have grossed over $5 billion worldwide, leading her to be the highest-paid actress in the world. OR Lawrence's films have grossed over $5 billion worldwide. Or, none of the above. 2620:0:1000:157D:E0EA:41D9:5686:5FD (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I changed it to "Lawrence is the highest-paid actress in the world, and her films have grossed over $5 billion worldwide". Thanks for pointing this out. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, actually that was a deliberate attempt as I didn't want to begin every sentence in the opening para with "Lawrence" as that makes for a repetitive prose and I did realize that the sentence would be incorrect at some level. Can we rephrase it in another way? – FrB.TG (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. What you changed it to now is definitely better than it was before the IP made the above request. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Image sizes

I thought we agreed at FAC to keep the images at standard "upright" size? They seem to keep getting bigger again. I don't see any reason to boost all of them. Good practice would be to make maybe one of them bigger if it depicts the subject especially well. But not all of them. Thoughts? It did strike me that we maybe don't need so many images in the first place. --John (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

They are upright, just a littler bigger. To make one of them bigger and others original would be inconsistent and I don't know why we are having problem with size a littler bigger and more visible. We are having an image per section. I don't see any overuse of pics here. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Why do they need to be bigger? --John (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Because it's better this way. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is it better this way? --John (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• I've trimmed the worst of the pictures; the page was looking gallery-like. I put the image that was in the wrong section of the chronology into the right place. And I've returned the images to the formatting we agreed during the recent FAC. It is fine to discuss changing one or some of them if there is an actual reason to do so. "A little bigger and more visible" is not a reason. --John (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is a policy or a guideline advising against the size of the images to be original. Also, I don't like the fact that you shifted the Oscars img to the Hunger Games section (it is totally related to that section as she was nominated for the film mentioned in the earliest section) that too to the left whereas the pic should face the text and not look away. – FrB.TG (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2017

Jennifer Shrader Lawrence was born on August 15, 1990, in Indian Hills, Kentucky, to Gary Lawrence, owner of Lawrence & Associates construction, and Karen (née Koch), a summer camp manager. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 04:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done Sources in the article do not support this change, and none were provided in the request. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 05:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2017

124.189.201.161 (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

What do you wish to add?Crboyer (talk) 06:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

TFA

Holy crap! This article was on Wiki's front page yesterday and viewed 109k times, enough to get it an entry here. Congrats to the article's main contributors, including myself. – FrB.TG (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Yay! This won't go down well with a certain graph-obsessed reverter, who thinks a) that the article is crap, b) sexy women shouldn't be called sexy, and that c) anyone who thinks women can be sexy isn't a feminist. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

In the media section

Lawrence appeared in Victoria's Secret's listing of the "Sexiest Up-and-Coming Bombshell" in 2011, Maxim's Hot 100 from 2011 to 2014, and topped FHM's sexiest women in the world list in 2014.

References

Like most of the section, nearly all the sources given are primary. Yes, multiple publications have noted her beauty/attractiveness/whatever, but why are these particular ones important? Where is the decent secondary source that deals properly with her "sex symbol" status, perhaps with her response? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 16:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Why should secondary sources mention sex appeal lists by primary sources? Why is that even an expectation? And why should she respond to them? What should she say? Thank you for including me in the lists, I'm flattered that people find me sexy? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Primary sourcing isn't necessarily a bad thing when it's not being used for contentious claims, which none of the above involve. Including a citation specifically calling her a sex symbol is understandable. Not sure what to say about any response she might have. As for including those specific rankings, I could be wrong, but my guess is that they're among the more major publications out of those who praise her appearance (or at least among the more respected ones). Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

"Why is that even an expectation?" Bloody hell. You'd think a Featured Article would deal with the matter of her "sex symbol" status properly, not just give an apparently random and cherrypicked list. Something like Julien Coallier (18 December 2014). Exploring Cinematic Narratives Through Feminist Lenses: Mulvey and the Hunger Games. pp. 6–. ISBN 978-1-312-76713-3. This one from Reuters reports on her being voted "most desirable" woman at least. While we're here, does this article actually use any book sources? (Her response, by the way, was that being called a sex symbol made her feel queasy.) --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 16:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The book hardly tells us anything about Lawrence's sex appeal. The most desirable source that you are referring to is (was) here that you are so keen on removing. PS I came across the being a sex-symbol makes me queasy source long ago but decided not use it because, as far as I know, Metro is generally discouraged in FAs, although I think I might have mistaken it for some other British newspaper. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Metro is overall deemed subpar; better to use other sources regardless of what state a Wikipedia article is in. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

That version said Multiple media publications have deemed Lawrence attractive... followed by a list which seemed rather synthy to me, none of the sources talks of "multiple publications" etc. The list also had "awards" like "Most Outstanding Woman" or "Top Woman", which don't really fit. Like much of the article, it appears to be cherrypicked from whatever news or reviews were available, with few decent secondary sources. I am surprised (though not muchly) that it passed the FA review; without proper secondary sources giving an overview of her career, I don't see how a decent article can be written. The book was only given as a rough example of the sort of source one would expect to find in an FA. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I see Krimuk2.0 just reverted again. Perhaps you could design us a neat line-graph that charts her level of sexiness over the years, as assessed by all the various lad-wank publications? --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 19:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

How very rude. From one feminist to another: graphs and wanking should never be used in the same sentence. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Krimuk2.0, speaking as a trained mathematician and professional analyst, I would like to say that charts can be extremely sexy.

That Lawrence features in various "Hot 100" lists is notable if the publication is notable and there's some history behind the list. Someone appearing on say the FHM 100 Sexiest Women is notable, because FHM is notable and the list existed for quite a long time. If a magazine published a one-off list then I'd say that's not notable. I'm not sure I like the phrasing "publications have deemed Lawrence attractive", just state she appeared in the list for years X-Y. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Questioning removal of my edits? (sacred rocks and Planned Parenthood)

Hello,

I made some edits to this article last night, with additional articles as citations for Lawrence's support of Planned Parenthood. I also added a notation about the controversy around her onset error with some sacred rocks in Hawaii. This was also heavily referenced.

These were made in good faith and I wanted to know why they were removed? They were not malicious.

Thank you very muchSunnyBoi (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Because that whole butt-scratching controversy is not something that should be mentioned in an FA, it is quite trivial. – FrB.TG (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi @FrB.TG , thank you for the update regarding FAs and what is eligible. I disagree because the sacred rocks issue was quite a prominent one given that it involved disrespecting an entire culture, and was deemed newsworthy at the time and is part of how she, as an actor, engages with the media and presents a narrative of her onset experience. If FAs are meant to be neutral, why are controversies not able to be listed as part of Media coverage and general reception? I also think that more information around the support for Planned Parenthood, and the linkage with her feminism, is notable. I am not going to add my edits back in seeing as they are not seen to be admissible, but I really question the neutrality of the article. Thank you for answering my question. SunnyBoi (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Irma comments

Block evasion from User:Uncucked

Jennifer Lawrence's outrageous comments that Hurricane Irma is 'wrath' due to Trump should be added. See [5] and [https://www.infowars.com/jennifer-lawrence-is-a-complete-idiot/] When Christian right figures have linked natural disasters to gays, articles will mention the outcry. This article does not. MAGA Screaming Eagle (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC) Umm... let's leave that to Fox News and co. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC) Why? She said it. Just because I cited a Fox News article, doesn't mean she didn't say it. In contrast Pat Robertson has an entire article devoted to similar outrageous comments. See [6]. What's the difference? MAGA Screaming Eagle (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC) Because Fox News obviously twisted her words. She did speak of nature's "wrath", and the current divisive political climate, but drawing parallels with Pat Roberstson's statements is both offensive and ridiculous. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC) Jennifer Lawrence is an actress. How does this relate to her acting? Why must every Wikipedia article become politicized? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC) She's not just an actress. She is a public figure whose words are generating controversy. As Fox News reported, "Tucker Carlson had some strong words for actress Jennifer Lawrence, who said Hurricanes Harvey and Irma are 'Mother Nature’s rage' and 'wrath' for America for electing Donald Trump and not accepting man-made climate change." [7] Per your reasoning, the similar comments by Pat Robertson should be omitted as well, since he's 'just a minister'. MAGA Screaming Eagle (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC) Sock blocked; if another brand new editor comes along laser-focused on this same "outrage", report them to ANI (or, if you're feeling lucky, AIV, but that might backfire) as a sock of User:Uncucked / User:MAGA Screaming Eagle. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Nicholas Hoult purported relationship

We don't report rumors, and unless either Lawrence or Hoult or their representatives confirmed a relationship, that's all this is. Without an incontrovertible WP:RS cite, this is a WP:BLP violation. If it's true and not simply some echo-chamber rumor repeated by gossip sites, then an RS cite can be found. If not, isn't that a red glag?

Note that BLP-vio reversion are not subject to 3RR. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Please hear her talking about Hoult in this interview. K thnx bye. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Another one, this one from Vanity Fair, that confirms much about the relationship. There's a plethora of such refs available online. I genuinely don't understand the fuss. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The only thing Vanity Fair confirms is "I was also in a relationship with somebody for five years and that was my life. So my life was this person and these movies and we broke up around the same time that I wrapped those movies." So it's perfectly accurate to say they were in a relationship for five years, which I'm happy to agree with you about and even add myself. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not about making you happy. It's fine the way it is. Thank you. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, you say I' at 2RR, how many RR's are you at? You have reverted two editors much more than three times. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Lawrence had a five-year relationship for a time with Nicholas Hoult...!! That's what you add to a FA-class article. WOW! --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

RE: "See the refs:: http://www.etonline.com/news/175897_jennifer_lawrence_reveals_intense_struggle_after_her_big_breakup just re-reports what Vanity Fair said, so use the original source and not that copycat that properly attributed it. And nothing in either citations says they had "a brief split in 2013." That's an uncited BLP claim, and if you re-add that uncited claim — which is the only thng we disagree on at this point — this is going to the 3RR noticeboard.

You disagreed on their having been a relationship in the first place, for God's sake. Look at your edit diffs. Also, I've reported you at 3RR already. Cheers! --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm ok with removing the brief split part, but the rest is NOT OK. Especially not the poor grammar and the atrocious ref formatting. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagreed on the relationship part until we had RS citations for it. What's so hard to understand about properly citing personal-life claims?

In any case, I think we're actually in agreement by now. But since she never mentions Hoult by name in Vanity Fair, we need The Hollywood Reporter cite, where she identifies him by name.

Please point out what "poor grammar and ... atrocious ref formatting" to which you refer. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

If you think there the provided ref lacks in something, WP:DOITYOURSELF. A simple google search gives you the Vanity Fair article. Isn't it simpler than warring with multiple editors? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to add fuel to the fire, but WP:BURDEN also applies if you imply that a user do the search of sources for you. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 18:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I did provide the source. Look above and here.

Also, "Lawrence had a five-year relationship for a time with Nicholas Hoult..." is poor grammar. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. I do agree that wording is awful. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 18:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. :) And there's no need to apologise. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and that wording clearly was inadvertent, and simply the result of neglecting to remove "for a time" when I added "five-year." An editing slip-up that he could have corrected without snarkiness.

And in point of fact, I was adding RS cites the entire time, as the diffs well show, so claiming I was not is simply inaccurate. The larger issue is an editor who felt comfortable adding non-RS gossip.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand either BLP or RS. Anyway, I'm done here now. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I've been here 12 years, with more than 137,000 edits and several plaudits from fellow editors, as anyone can see on my user page. I understand BLP and RS perfectly well. And unconfirmed, anonymous claims are rumors that only someone who does not understand WP:GOSSIP would consider encyclopedic. This is not The National Enquirer. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Clearly material that qualifies to be an WP:FA is not unsubstantiated gossip. I might agree that an additional ref might be required at times to clear things up, but calling information (that's both sourced by a high quality ref and can be easily verified with a simple google search) "gossip" only because "you don't like it" is not a policy we follow on this website. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

There is serious disconnect when anyone believes removing uncited, anonymous rumors is "I don't like it." No. We do not publish unconfirmed gossip, and I'm very disappointed in any editor who believes we should. I would also note that because an article is FA once that it stays that way forever; subsequent bad edits can take place with little notice.

We agree on one thing: Information can be verified with a Google search. That is the complete entirety of what I was asking for and doing. I was the first one to find an RS cite where the subject herself confirms a relationship. I truly do not understand anyone being reluctant to find non-gossip RS citing ... as you yourself eventually did with Vanity Fair once you were prodded into doing so.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

ExtraTV is a gossip site, and it's highly ironic that you'd qualify that to be an RS after you refused to believe the infinitely better Entertainment Weekly source. Sigh! Anyway, yes, I did come up with the Vanity Fair source, not due to any "prodding" but because it was easily available to verify the info that you so vehemently denied. It has now been added to the article, and there is no point in continuing with this conversation, because we clearly have very different understandings of what a BLP is and isn't. And I have no interest in getting into a further argument about it. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, for the nth time. "unconfirmed gossip" was never added. That's not how I, or the two other qualified editors who worked on this article, do our job. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

For goodness sakes: "Extra TV is a gossip site" — It's not gossip when she is being directly quoted by its reporter! I don't think you understand the definition of "gossip." It's not gossip when the subject herself directly confirms something. Entertainment Weekly was making anonymously sourced claims — which are the definition of "unconfirmed gossip".

RE: "easily available to verify — and that's exactly what I did and, afterward, you did. That is all I was asking ... that we verify those claims with RS citing rather than cites that only contained unconfirmed rumors. Adding RS citing sounds like something you agree with, so I'm not sure what the issue is. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

How do you stop hyperventilating?

It says in the text that she was given supplemental oxygen when she hyperventilated, that would kill her. Treatment for hyperventilation is to restrict oxygen by holding breathe or breathing in and out of a paper bag, thus breathing less and less oxygen. This was marked as a quote so should be double checked for accuracy and then perhaps, if it is correctly quoted, a statement of it not being accurate. PetePassword (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2018

change: Lawrence appeared in Victoria's Secret's listing of the "Sexiest Up-and-Coming Bombshell" in 2011,[152] People's Most Beautiful People in 2011 and 2013,[153] Maxim's Hot 100 from 2011 to 2014,[154] and topped FHM's sexiest women in the world list in 2014.[155] From 2013 to 2015, she was featured in Glamour's annual listing of the best dressed women, topping the list in 2014.[156] to: Lawrence appeared in Victoria's Secret's listing of the "Sexiest Up-and-Coming Bombshell" in 2011,[152] People's Most Beautiful People in 2011 and 2013,[153] Maxim's Hot 100 from 2011 to 2014,[154] and topped FHM's sexiest women in the world list in 2014.[155] From 2013 to 2015, she was featured in Glamour's annual listing of the best dressed women, topping the list in 2014.[156] On February 20, 2018, Lawrence was involved in a controversy surrounding an outfit she wore to a photo call for “Red Sparrow.” . News outlets and social media users ruminated on whether her choice, a Versace dress with a plunging neckline and thigh-high slit, was appropriate for brisk London weather. Lawrence responded to criticism on her Facebook page, that she was “extremely offended” over the controversy, claiming "That Versace dress was fabulous, you think I'm going to cover that gorgeous dress up with a coat and a scarf? I was outside for 5 minutes. I would have stood in the snow for that dress because I love fashion and that was my choice. This is sexist, this is ridiculous, this is not feminism. Over- reacting about everything someone says or does, creating controversy over silly innocuous things such as what I choose to wear or not wear, is not moving us forward. It's creating silly distractions from real issues. Get a grip people. Everything you see me wear is my choice. And if I want to be cold THATS MY CHOICE TOO!". Webintegrity (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Per WP:RECENTISM. Almost 200 words on a micro-"controversy" based on a 5-minute photo call is vastly unnecessary and not compliant with WP:NPOV or WP:BLP. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

References

An explanation

I would like an explanation as to why my edits aren't welcome to this page. I don't know if the user who keeps reverting is a fanboy who doesn't want anybody editing the page but him, but I would like answers. As I've explained on the edits summaries, I included the two sources of her televison credits and I don't know why there has to be separate columns for the same show? Just cause she played two different characters on Medium doesn't mean there has to be two columns. Her other SNL appearance is just plain redundant. There have been many celebrities who have made cameo appearances on the show and aren't included because it's not note-worthy. If she was the host, musical guest (which is unlikely), or made an apppearance on a sketch than fine, but it was just herself in opening. Cameos in the show isn't new. I would really like to know as to why my edits aren't welcome here. This is a first for me. Film Atom (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Can't say I know all the answers, but this page definitely isn't run by any controlling fanboys. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Film Atom: I have restored your changes with some additional tweaks; see this. FrB.TG (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how saying "if the user who keeps reverting is a fanboy who doesn't want anybody editing the page but him" helps the situation. While I do think your edits are valid, I disagree with the summary. It wasn't a lie. The source could have easily been misled regarding Jennifer's education. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 22:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Jennifer Lawerence edited her own Wikipedia page

Hello everyone. I just wanted to let everyone know that the following video from GQ (here) shows Lawrence editing her own Wikipedia page. I am not sure if it is relevant here, but I thought it might interest some of you. Aoba47 (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a fakeout, at least wasn't done with the "ActuallyJLaw" account when checking the article history, but was inserted by "WhiteDove". Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• That is what I thought. It is still pretty lame to do a fakeout. Aoba47 (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It is only fake insofar that the creators of the youtube video reshot the edits using autocapture after main shooting of Lawrence, for whatever reason. The video represents a primary source, which is applicable to the living persons policy WP:BLPSOURCES (she is challenging contentious material), and the publication of the video by GQ is a secondary source with has equal weight as the original Vogue interview. 1.202.54.72 (talk) 09:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Pity that it’s a fake coz it was really funny. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I saw that video immediately after it was published and rushed to check the edits. But there were none. LOL. BTW, the writers of this article should be proud that she actually read the article herself. That's a huge compliment!Krish | Talk 15:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2018

I would like to edit this to say how big she has become and how far she has made and that she has always been such an inspiration and that without her the world would be missing out on such a young woman Freyda cara (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The world "missing out" without her existing is a personal opinion, and Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral, so that bit isn't appropriate to insert. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Place of birth

I suspect that the source (Britannica) has this one wrong: she almost certainly wasn't born in Indian Hills, KY because there are no hospitals or medical centers in that city. (I say "city", but it's really just a Louisville neighborhood. Kentucky is weird like that.) Also, in this video she says her porn star name (which is your first pet's name plus the street you grew up on) would be "Ozzie Ormond". And while there is an Ormond Rd. in the Louisville area, it's not in Indian Hills. -- Hux (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

If you can't find a source for your claims, it's original research and we can't use it.--Jorm (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"It's stupid."

Her remark supposedly saying that acting is stupid has been widely misinterpreted. Rereading the complete interview in which she says "It's stupid" reveals that acting is not what she said was stupid; it is being conceited or having a big head about winning awards for acting -- because acting is not like the lifesaving work done by surgeons, firefighters, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikanon86 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC) Wikanon86 (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

learnt grammar?

"She learnt to speak in a Russian accent and undertook ballet training for four months." Can this be changed to "learned"? Learnt is more common in British type English and learned is more common in American English. She is American so using American spellings would fit better with the subject.184.96.201.93 (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done thanks for pointing that out. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2019

(At the end of personal section), "Page Six first reported Jennifer Lawrence was seen having dinner with a "massive rock" on her hand speculating engagement rumors. That same day, on Feb 5th 2019 Jennifer Lawrence's publicsit Liz Mahoney confirmed to multiple sources the actress is engaged to Cooke Maroney a New York City based art gallery director. https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2019/02/05/jennifer-lawrence-gets-engaged-boyfriend-cooke-maroney/2784268002/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2019/02/05/jennifer-lawrence-gets-engaged-boyfriend-cooke-maroney/2784268002/ Mo7777 (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2019

This page references several times that she is working on Anti-corruption laws and Represent.Us in the section "Off-screen work".

She has released(?) "Unbreaking America: A NEW Short Film about Solving the Corruption Crisis" in 2019 and she is basically the host/talent for this 12-minute segment, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfQij4aQq1k and it seems like this would be relevant to mention as she has taken a year off acting to focus on this. https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/09/jennifer-lawrence-anti-corruption-representus https://www.wmagazine.com/story/jennifer-lawrence-activism Garylapointe (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

"Model" categories

This article is in 3 different "model" categories, but they contradict the contents thereof. Her "early life" says specifically that she did not want to be a model, and turned down modeling opportunities. Nowhere is it documented that she ever accepted any. I couldn't even find discussions of posing or photo shoots or whatever (I am sure she's been on glamour covers and Maxim and the like, but is that "modeling" or just being an actress?) Therefore, I contest the presence of the categories, per WP:CATV. 70.162.235.236 (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I just removed them all. Even if she did do any professional modelling, it isn't exactly defining enough to include here per WP:Overcategorization. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2019

The Blender has not yet been accepted into the watchberry so it is wrong --107.185.216.145 (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 04:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Residence

Is it ok to remove her residence in the infobox? There’s nothing notable about it, it just says she lives in LA and NY, common among celebrities. It’s not like she’s the president where we know the exact place they live and relevant to the infobox. Reggie Herman (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd personally be fine with it per your rationale, but let's wait for input from others. Not a big deal either way. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Personal Life

Multiple sources noted a brief relationship between Lawrence and Chris Martin of Coldplay in 2014. Requesting the addition of this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tina Rosco (talk • contribs) 19:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Talk page previously agreed not to mention that as it wasn't any major involvement (at least compared to others included within the article). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)§

References

Combining tv and film credits

She only has 6 television credits - I don't see the point of having them separate from her film credits. I combined them but was reverted, so instead of just trying to undo that one, I'll come here :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

My guess is because they're separate entities. Pinging Krimuk2.0 for input when he was the one who reverted you. I personally wouldn't have merged them myself for that reason, but could live with that if there's consensus for it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, separate entities, and the note section becomes unnecessarily cumbersome when merged. Easier to keep them separate IMO. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I’m fine to keep separate, it’s not that big of a deal but where is the “separate entities” coming from, there are loads of filmographies that have the film and tv credits combined...? I just havent heard that before LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

By entities, I mean in this case that film is its own type of endeavor, and so is TV. Hopefully that makes sense. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Splitting off the Filmography section into its own article

Regarding this, I agree that it's not yet necessary to split off her Filmography section into its own article. And as for size, what size issue? See WP:SIZE. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to add apart from voicing my agreement with Flyer. Sock (tock talk) 05:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The article's size is 123kB, and WP:SIZERULE says that articles > 100kB chars, almost certainly should be divided. So I think this move is justified. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Krimuk2.0, when it comes to article size, only the readable prose size should be considered. WP:SIZE is clear about that. What is the readable prose size for this article? This article is not big at all. I edit much bigger articles every day. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreeing with Flyer22 — Per my edit summary when I tried adding back Jennifer's filmography to her article, I still don't believe the size of her filmography warrant its own article. — Vistadan 20:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I really don’t see the problem. Lawrence is an A-List actress who’s filmography is only going to grow bigger and bigger. Spinning the filmography I feel is fine. If nothing else it’s getting ahead of its inevitable spinoff. As for my article size argument, it stems from the size of her biography section leading up to the separate filmography section. Rusted AutoParts 22:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Change of name

This page is protected so I would like to request an administrator to change the name of Jennifer Lawrence to Jennifer Maroney at all places in the article including title. This is due to recent (and first m. 2019) marriage between Jennifer and Cooke maroney Legend12345677 (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

That's going too far. Even if Jen legally has taken on the Maroney name, she is far more known by the "Lawrence" last name than that. WP:COMMONNAME says article titles should use what subjects are most often known by. As for uses within article prose, I wouldn't recommend it for anything prior to marriage. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean prior to marriage. They are married. I am not American but as I understand if she is marrying she would want her name to be changed Legend12345677 (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I meant not using the name for any part of her life that took place before she got married. Also, not every female who marries a male wants to take on his last name, nationality not withstanding. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you change the name if you want Legend12345677 (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You have provided no evidence that Lawrence has changed her name, and it's TOO SOON regardless. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Non-breaking space

@SNUGGUMS and Vistadan:, I'm quite confused by your objection to a nonbreaking space between "$6 billion" in the top line. On my monitor, the first line ends with "over $6", which is quite different from "over $6 billion". Not everyone has the same monitor width. Please read MOS:NBSP then self-revert yourself. Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: I'm not able to self revert since my revert was to remove the text "my" you added to the article's Infobox "name". Vistadan 17:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Vistadan, you can do the partial revert where that stray text I accidentally added doesn't get reinserted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Vistadan, thank you! – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I might be late to this, but any difference of line/word placement that insertion makes once published isn't exactly substantial, regardless of monitor width. It just didn't seem worth inserting anything for adjustment of where only one word appeared. All it really does in edit mode is make the text look messy. Not very beneficial overall nor is it pleasant to see. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, what it looks like in edit mode matters far less than what it looks like in reading mode, especially since most people who come to Wikipedia don't edit. "$6 billion" should be on the same line for every monitor width. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Line placement doesn't seem nearly as important as giving readers accurate information to the best of our ability. Is it really so bad when the "billion" text follows as soon as the following line begins? You might disagree with me on this, but I personally don't think it makes much difference in the long run (nothing more than perhaps a minor inconvenience), at least compared to what it is we actually write. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2020

The page inaccurately states her father is a construction worker, when he in fact owns a construction company. https://www.hellomagazine.com/profiles/jennifer-lawrence/ . 2600:1700:D401:11F0:C940:50D8:FDB6:598B (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done 2600:1700:D401:11F0:C940:50D8:FDB6:598B Gary Lawrence, her father, was a construction company owner. He isn't presently a construction company owner. Also, Hello Magazine isn't the most reliable source so I instead added a much more reliable source from CNN. Basically, I modified her Early life section with a much better source and made it past tense, not present tense. Factfanatic1 (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Electoral Reform Work

I thought it might be worthwhile to add references to Lawrence's participation in Maine's 2018 Ranked Choice Voting efforts, perhaps mentioning it in the Off-Screen Work section near other 2018 items sample article 1, sample article 2 Diabolical_Mdog (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Diabolical mdog: Please feel free to add that information to the article if you'd like. You have been an editor on Wikipedia for years now, and you made this comment here, so you definitely are able to add that information. The source you linked is reliable, so feel free to add it to her "Off-screen work". If other users feel that it needs to be improved upon, tweaked, or completely erased, then so be it. Factfanatic1 (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead

@SNUGGUMS Hi! I would like to discuss the recent reversion of my edits in the lead. As the first paragraph establishes the subject's career, accomplishments, and standing in the field, I have reason to think that her awards have reason to be reiterated here, a precedent which has also applied to pages such as Amy Adams, Emma Stone, and Meryl Streep. I don't see a good reason to omit this.--Bettydaisies (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Here are my objections:

1. It feels repetitive to list accolades more than once within the lead.
2. Your use of "several" downplays other awards not mentioned there (she has more than just an Oscar, a BAFTA, and Golden Globes).
3. Your edit replaced cumulative gross for no discernible reason. By no means is $6B a small feat.

With those in mind, I overall don't feel your change was beneficial. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS Thank you for your feedback. the Oscar, BAFTAS, Golden Globes, and Screen Actors Guild Awards are typically listed as the four "major associations" - obviously, she is the recipient of several awards and nominations, but are enough to denote critical acclaim. Merely listing her cumulative gross and payments in the first paragraph denotes her primary notability in the field as solely a box-office draw (which she is) rather then both a hugely bankable actress as well as one of the most critically well-received of her time period. Both of these are majorly significant to her biography - mentioning how she won these awards later in the lead doesn't feel repetitive to me, as the first paragraph establishes notability, prestige, etc. while the rest chronologically explain the trajectory of her life and career.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

"Several" is an understatement. I'm also not going to pretend like the aforementioned awards are the only ones she's gotten that matter, even when others aren't listed in the lead. Additional accolades are mentioned within the "Awards and nominations" section and even more are found at List of awards and nominations received by Jennifer Lawrence. As for denoting/establishing notability, I tend to say the opening sentence alone does that by saying who a subject is (or was for those who have died). She above all else is noted for being an actress and that of course is mentioned within it. At least in my experience, subsequent text (including the rest of the first paragraph) is used to summarize the person's life/career. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS Mentioning the most major and well-known critical awards doesn't denote the significance of other awards she has received, which are, as you stated, listed in further sections and articles. I understanding your reasoning, but IMHO, the first sentence of the lead states their notability and stance in their career, while the subsequent text summarizes their life (which, not to bring up irrelevant comparison, follows the format set for the majority of notable actresses in Lawrence's league.) For instance, on mobile viewing, the first paragraph appears directly above the infobox, and is the first total summary of the person's biography and career a reader receives, as they must scroll down to read the rest of the article. Using that rhetoric, why shouldn't her highest-grossing years be moved down to be featured alongside the films of that period as well?--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Beats me why the mobile view puts infoboxes in between paragraphs. In any case, I wouldn't have a problem with rearranging parts of the lead, and was more concerned with redundancy. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS I wouldn't oppose the rearrangement - my main qualm is for her to be foremostly listed as a financially bankable star without the critical acclaim also at the forefront.--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

"Jennifer (actress, born 1990)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Jennifer (actress, born 1990). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 3#Jennifer (actress, born 1990) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 17:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image

The infobox image has recently been changed to reflect a more recent picture of Lawrence; however, as recency is not the only consideration when choosing one, I have some concerns with the quality of the photograph, and thought it best to seek the opinions of other editors regarding the primary visual representation of Lawrence in the article.

Which photograph is more suitable for the lead?--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• 
  A.
• 
  B.
• 
  C.
• 
  D.
• 
  E

The current image is perfect, as B looks too wistful to me. Trillfendi (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021

Under PERSONAL LIFE: Common (with Jeremy Renner) ancestor’s last name should be spelled “Tague,” not “Teague,” per the source article. 52.119.113.22 (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done thanks for pointing out that typo. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Outspoken Feminist

"Lawrence is an outspoken feminist and an advocate for Planned Parenthood. "

Apart from the use of loaded language here, in which respect is she "outspoken"? Planned Parenthood is a mainstream organisation, and this notion is supported by the establishment, even the billionaire class who wish to lower population. (Arguably, because automation will lead to a handful of them and a vast mass of angry unemployed worldwide.)

This paragraph could be made better by temoving the word "outspoken" (which I can't do due to restrictions). Her view is very mainstream, and promoted by mass media, big business and national governments, not to mention the UN and internationalist groups.

Nothing could be less "outspoken" than supporting what the establishment supports. Seems a very mainstream view to me. I wish Wikipedia would stop claiming that supporting such things is "activism" when it is being pushed from the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:1488:8D98:E938:AEF5:84C5:8E5D (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2022

I would like to fix the broken link which was created when time.com/money was moved to Money.com

Tuttle, Brad (August 17, 2018). "Emma Stone Was Just Dethroned as the World's Highest-Paid Actress". Time. Archived from the original on August 17, 2018. Retrieved August 18, 2018.

Change the reference from

http://time.com/money/5370268/highest-paid-actress-scarlett-johansson/

to

https://money.com/highest-paid-actress-scarlett-johansson/ Gpowel (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Jennifer lawernce

Jennifer lawernce & Cindy Crawford come from the same stock William Montgomery Clark Co Indiana 2601:58B:4881:5190:4C07:E5D8:4FA0:7C73 (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean?--CreecregofLife (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Sigh

I don’t think anyone is moving off of sourcing TMZ about the birth. And now there’s photos of her physically having given birth, but they’re from the Daily Mail. Is there any chance of an exception or are we just going to have to wait until she appears at an awards show or other event that may or may not mention when she gave birth? Are we going to have to pretend she’s still pregnant?--CreecregofLife (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Much like any other instances where she was seen with a bump despite no official confirmation, we can wait here as well. Her team later confirmed her pregnancy. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 18:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2022

Jennifer Lawrence was not born in Indian hills Kentucky. Indian hills is the name of a suburb in louisville ky. There are no hospitals there. She was in fact born in louisville ky, lived her life in louisville ky. I went to school with her. She did not drop out at 14. That wasn't even a legal thing to do in ky at that time. Tinyviolins89 (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Here’s another (credible) source saying she was born in Indian Hills and grew up in LV. CNN is a reputable source (the one that says she dropped out of middle school). FrB.TG (talk) 07:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2022

She won the BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Supporting Role for playing an unpredictable wife in the comedy American Hustle (2013). 71.105.244.122 (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2022

Change "The world's highest-paid actress", to "Named the world's highest-paid actress". Using the in this instance dictates more of a statement, while "named" dictates more of an actuality. 63.158.47.177 (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: "Named" suggests that someone gave her that like a title or an award; this seems to just be a statement of fact.

Semi-protect edit request - Jennifer Lawrence Maroney

In the latest NYT article, Jennifer talks about changing her name after marriage. 31.124.36.230 (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

She actually removed her birth surname to use her husband's, so her new name is Jennifer Shrader Maroney. 177.12.8.78 (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Jennifer Lawrence Claims She's the FIRST Female Action Star?

Does this belong in the article? It seems to be the big news story at the moment. Algr (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Not yet, it's WP:RECENTISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

My recent edit

@MikeAllen, why did you revert my most recent edit? You said "Revert trivia," but I'm not sure why my information doesn't belong on the page. Thanks. PiratePablo (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Who is Jenn Selby and why should her opinion be included? (Hint: see WP:HUFFPOST contributors) A better question would be, why do you think it belongs in the page? Mike Allen 01:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know much about Jenn Selby, but I know that The Independent is a reliable source. I think it belongs in the page because The Independent is a notable source, and I think that commentary on Jennifer Lawrence publicly provided is notable enough for this article. PiratePablo (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)