Talk:Jena Malone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Place of birth[edit]

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

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

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

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

Her website is:www.jenamalone.com 71.96.236.134 04:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Just to close the discussion, Jena Malone was born in Sparks, Nevada, and grew up in a number of locations in the Lake Tahoe region. Since 2003, she owns a house in the California side of the Lake Tahoe region (For obvious reasons, I won't disclose the precise location). Anyway, for the purpose of finding work as an adult actress, Jena has recently moved - at least temporarily - to LA. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.239.92.79 (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Footnotes and references[edit]

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

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

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

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

Donnie Darko[edit]

I honestly cannot understand why my reference to Donnie Darko was deleted. The person who deleted it made a smarmy comment about her prior nomination for a Golden Globe for a TV movie. There is a fairly large difference between getting a Golden Globe nomination for work done as a supporting actress for a TV movie and starring as the romantic lead in a (relatively) big budget Hollywood movie (albeit one that did not make much money). Indeed, the page _inaccurately_ says that her first starring role was in the 2004 film Saved! But her first starring role was in Donnie Darko. Three years earlier. And no, playing "Young Ellie" in Contact would not qualify as a breakout role. Nor was playing a minor role in a Showtime movie of the same nature. Donnie Darko was a) a romantic lead where she was the second most important character b) a Hollywood release that played in cinemas and IMHO c) the highest visibility role that Jena Malone has played in her career. With all due respect to Saved!, Donnie Darko is in fairly common rotation on the various cable movie channels, and I've never seen Saved! shown once. (Nor Bastard Out of Carolina for that matter). The only two Jena Malone films that get regular play are Donnie Darko and The Ruins. I'm resubmitting with language emphasizing the high visibility of the role.

I honestly cannot understand how the Donnie Darko reference was deleted while the relatively unimportant role of Lydia Bennett in Pride and Prejudice was left in. Clearly the person who made the edit has not seen Donnie Darko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickDesper (talk • contribs) 04:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

I'd love to know how to pronounce the name of this actress. The pronunciation of the first name can still be guessed, more or less, but that of the last name remains opaque. If anybody should know how to pronounce Jena Malone, he resp. she may just contact me. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Malone" is "opaque"?? I've lived throughout the USA and Canada, and have never heard it any way other than "mɐ'lon". How else could it be pronounced, unless you vocalize the silent "e", which would be very odd in English. Cresix (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You for the information. I have, myself, unfortunately, not (yet) lived throughout the USA and Canada for more than two months, and that at the time when Mrs. Malone was just ten years old. For me, as, for sure, also for many other foreigners, such an apparently simple thing can, therefore, indeed quite appear opaque. (Watching Sucker Punch in the cinema, one does not get the opportunity to hear the actresses` real names!)
My record of adding pronunciation information to Wikipedia articles is not absolutely flawless, but I think I can, for the beginning, add a hint to the article in the tokens explained at Wikipedia:IPA for English, which deviate from those You have used, above. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 09:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My knowledge of IPA may leave something to be desired. But the first syllable is "muh" as in "must") and the last syllable has a long "o" (as in "phone") and a silent "e"; emphasis on the last syllable. Cresix (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, the vowel(s) of the second syllable is / are to be pronounced just like those in "phone"? (I remove the pronunciation information till this is cleared.) --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 10:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; the last four letters of Malone are pronunced just like the word they make: "lone". Cresix (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., so the problem should be solved. I`m just going to insert a respective hint. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could, maybe, also contribute to the addition of such information to Seth Rogen, where the first name also does not have to be explained, but the last name could be (see old discussion: Talk:Seth_Rogen#Pronunciation). --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not sure about that one. Cresix (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about Amanda Seyfried (last name)? --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that`s already there. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more question: How does one have to pronounce Jamie Chung (last name)? I strongly guess /tʃʌŋ/, but am not sure. Is that name, maybe, so common in America or elsewhere that it could appear ridiculous to point to the pronunciation? --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this comment. Among native English speakers in the USA, I've always heard "Chung" pronounced with the "Ch" as in "change" and the "ung" as in "hung". If I remember correctly, that's how Connie Chung says it. But I don't know how Jamie Chung pronounces it, or how most Chinese people would say it. Cresix (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., that`s what I have suggested above in the IPA notation. If the name is so common, but on the other side there could still be an exception with Jamie Chung, we rather don`t add any pronunciation information to the article, at the moment. Jamie Chung, moreover, has not Chinese, but Korean ancestors according to this MTV biography page on her. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An American here, and I've always heard "Malone" pronounced the same way (like Sam Malone on Cheers for example) so that didn't trip me up too much.
However, I've never seen the name "Jena" before... is is pronounced like "Jenna" or like "Gina" ?? -- 68.9.50.187 (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The transcription of her last name as /mʌˈloʊn/ cannot be right because an "a" in spelling is NEVER vowel #10, /ʌ/, in its phonetic transcription. The options are: schwa /ɐ/, because the syllable isn't stressed; or /æ/, because the syllable only has one vowel in spelling, so it isn't likely for the phonetic transcription to be a long vowel (like /ɑː/ in "car") or a diphthong.190.18.40.183 (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link to General Educational Development[edit]

As Cresix has reverted the edit I unlinked GED with and wrote it out, I`d like to ask if the abbreviation could not also be unlinked, before I simply do that. I, personally, do not yet know the United States as well as to be able to decide how well this abbreviation is known throughout the country, and so on. Indeed, when I visited the country, in 1995, involuntarily, it was striking to me how much there was talked about such an examination. My Canadian relatives even showed me a strong paperback volume with mathematical formula which they told me about was the US equivalent to what I had just passed, in Germany, myself. I did not understand anything of those formula, but it was striking how often my cousin, and also others, began talking about that subject, again and again. It nearly looked as if they expected me to do that examination, myself. After all, also this my experience endorses my impression that the thing was quite well known in the US, and that is also what You are talking about, here, Yourself. So, why should we not unlink even the abbreviation - although it is only an abbreviation? Typing in "ged" into the English Wikipedia`s search field, one fairly swiftly finds out about what is meant. And it is always better if in an article there are only linked to the things which specifically refer to the article`s catchword, isn`t it? That brings about a much more calm overall atmosphere.

Jena Malone seems to be a special case regarding such matters, because she has already very early begun working as an actress and then, even, won legal emancipation from her mother, earlier than usual - anyway, an interesting case. Also the fact that Malone has moved unusually often in her childhood and that, often, over considerable distances draws the attention to such questions of how one might organize one`s education resp. that of one`s children, in the US. All this could indeed - falsely - be counted a reason to link to the General Educational Development. But, from a really systematic point of view, even this could not suffice.

Such a certificate, moreover, remains something dry and unromantic and, thus, forms a contradiction to the subject of this article and its nature. For me, the result is altogether that the General Educational Development, be it abbreviated or not, should rather not be linked, here. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hans. The only reason I reverted your good faith edit and restored "GED" is because that abbreviation is very widely used in the United States. It's quite common to hear, "He didn't finish high school but got his GED." I'm not sure how many people understand exactly what it stands for, just the general idea of what it means. Now, you raise another completely different issue that I didn't understand from your edit summary, if I understand you correctly now: Should "GED" be linked to General Educational Development. I don't feel strongly one way or the other, but I would like to hear other opinions. If others agree with you, that's fine with me. But we must include the acronym GED (linked or unlinked) if we mention her education, because she did not graduate from high school in the usual way, and I'm sure a lot of readers don't realize that "General Educational Development" refers to "GED". Thanks for explaining more fully. Cresix (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GED could, for example, reasonably be linked to, here, if it had been changed or been let as it was due to the Jena Malone case, by the legislative forces, and so on, or if Mrs. Malone had really experienced some troubles around it which directly refer to it. The GED is of bigger interest, here, than it might be in many other articles about people who have passed it, but the basic requirements for it to be linked are not yet given, here. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with unlinking it, as long as we include "GED" in her educational information. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who's her daddy?[edit]

Obviously her birth was not the result of conception between two lesbian lovers. So does anyone know who her father is and what the deal is about him? Won legal emancipation from her mother, who is now barred from interfering with Jena's career and earnings in January 2000. Filed suit against mother Debbie, charging mismanagement of her earnings, failure to pay taxes. But where is mention of her father? One article says that she was the product of a one night stand and only saw her father once at age 4. Albert14nx05y (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which article is that? Is it a reliable source? For An Angel (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try this http://www.biography.com/people/jena-malone-17176434 Albert14nx05y (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, that site appears to be a reliable secondary source with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight. I can accept facts cited to this page. Now find more pages and sites like this and you will have well-sourced articles. Elizium23 (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Catching Fire[edit]

Please do not add Catching Fire to the filmography yet, because as of June 2012 it is not yet in production. The current status is that Malone is said to be in talks with the producers for the role of Johanna Mason. Nothing is definite yet - so please observe WP:CRYSTAL. When the announcement comes that she has signed on to the picture, the story can be included in the prose section about her career. Catching Fire can be added to the filmography only when principal photography has commenced. It will assuredly be before the end of 2012. Thank you for your contributions. Elizium23 (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jena Malone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheaters[edit]

the link for her role in the film Cheaters is incorrect, it points to a TV show. The correct link should be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheaters_(film) as found in Jeff Daniels' page, he is also in the movie. 12.15.136.26 (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jena_Malone&oldid=1214118883"