Talk:Jennifer Garner

Violet

Do we really need to have Violet's birth mentioned twice (as far as birthdate and name?) Is no one going add Violet's little sister's name? Too bad other users are blocked from editing, or I would have added it myself.

Both her and her sister were born in L.A. yet it's only mentioned Violet was born in L.A., why is that?

Links

The picture gallery link doesn't work for me. Does it work for anyone else? SpaceCaptain 04:59, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

which one? Boneyard 13:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Filmography

The new filmography format on this article is currently a limited test. Please see Wikipedia:Filmographies for more information and to leave feedback. RADICALBENDER★ 01:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Did she really change her official name?

I reverted the move of this article to Jennifer Garner Affleck until someone give a source that she did officially change her name and that under Wikipedia:Naming conventions, this name is the most common name for her. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes I have a link---http://toronto.fashion-monitor.com/news.php/toronto_celebrities/2005122902jennifer_garner_affl

Thanks. Unfortunately, that does not claim that she has legally changed her name, just that she has taken an alias (if you'll pardon the pun). Married women in Canada may be known by their husband's legal surname but do not legally change their last name, they just take an alias. If someone can show that things work differently in the U.S., or that she has legally changed her name, that would be great. Also, not that this article does not claim (unlike some prior editors) that she also changed her middle name from Anne to Garner. --Yamla 00:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

She is still using the name Jennifer Garner in her professional credits (ie Alias, Academy Awards), so unless there's a reputable source to suggest otherwise, I say we stick with Jennifer Garner. Certainly she wouldn't be the first performer (or woman, period) to choose to keep her name after marriage. 23skidoo 15:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

                    um....stfu maybe  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.216.82.17 (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 

Is this a Garner's article or Affleck's article?

I believe somebody should take the time to clean this article up. I don't know much about Jennifer, but It seems to me the article speaks to much about Ben Affleck (his name is even substituted for her's). --unsigned comment from 65.23.239.96

I think you are confused. Jennifer changed her last name to Affleck recently, or at least that is the unsourced claim in the article. Thus, the references you think are to Ben Affleck are instead to her. --Yamla 17:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The "Pierced ears" controversy

I noticed that the link titled "Exploding The Myth Of Jennifer Garner's 'Unpierced' Ears" keeps getting put up after several deletions. The reason I believed that that link should remain deleted is because I don't believe that Jennifer Garner has ever actually had her ears pierced, which therefore makes the link's claims little more than an unsubstantiated rumor, and I'll explain why; first, there is such a thing as stud-looking earrings that are not actually studs, but are held in place on the earlobe with a sufficiently strong magnet; second, the "ear studs" do not appear to be in exactly the same place on her lobes in several of the link's photos; and third, there is no evidence of any photos that show Garner with any holes in her earlobes that would indicate that she ever had them pierced. It is for those three reasons that the link should be removed. Starbuck-2 09:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the evidence is there that she did have them pierced for a time. If you check the guestbook at the site concerned, you'll see mention of her talking about it in a magazine interview, although sadly no info on what magazine it was. Secondly, your argument about how the studs she's wearing seem to be in different places in some of the pictures doesn't appear to be born out. To me, they look to be in exactly the same spot in each one, and any minor variations in apparent position can easily be explained by 1) the angle of the photograph (in some, she's looking down, and in others, the camera is below the level of her ears, i.e. the equivalent of her looking up), and 2) the fact that the post part of the earring which goes through the hole in the ear isn't always dead centre on the earring. If they were magnetic earrings, the variation in position between pictures (if there actually is any) would be a lot greater, making it highly unlikely that they are magnetic studs. Thirdly, you say there's no pictures showing holes in her ears, but if she stopped wearing pierced earrings a while back and let the holes heal up, then they wouldn't be visible in recent pictures, while the older pictures are not of a high enough quality to show her ears in detail. If you look at other female celebrities who we do know have pierced ears, there are quite a few of them where the holes in their ears can be very difficult to see, even in really large high-quality images. Using your criteria, anyone who only wears stud earrings and doesn't actually say on record that they have pierced ears can't actually have them done, so your argument is very flawed on all three counts. As a trained and qualified historian, I've got to say that the evidence for her having them done in the past is a lot stronger than that for a lot of events we consider to be accepted historical facts.Gidz 00:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The website in question is a self-published personal website that falls short of Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources; we can't use it as a source to substantiate factual claims in articles. --Muchness 01:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Photographs are a much more reliable source than text-based articles, which are always subject to the perspective of the writer. As a trained historian, I was always told to regard photographs as primary sources which trump written evidence, even if that written evidence is itself a primary source. The pictures, most of which are screen captures from commercially available films or TV shows, are also available on other websites. They are therefore reliable as secondary source material, because the person posting them on the website is not the original creator of the images - the guidelines on "self-published" sources only cover text-based sites, not images sourced from third parties. Plus, of course, the available interviews where she talks about not being allowed to have her ears pierced are all talking about when she was growing up, not about what she did after she left home, which is when the pictures show she had her ears pierced. Gidz 02:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The site in question consists one individual's self-published analysis and speculation based on photographic evidence; the author's claims have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking. Two editors have now disputed the addition of this content; please don't add it back to the article without first gaining consensus for its inclusion here. Disputed content follows:

"Jennifer did get her ears pierced in her mid-20s, but has now let them heal up again[1]"

--Muchness 02:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This information has been confirmed by discussions on the IMDb forums over the past year, by more than two people, therefore it has been restored to the article. Emma white20 11:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussions on internet forums do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources. From the guidelines: "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking." --Muchness 14:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The "disputed" website has recently been updated with new pictures which clearly show pierced holes in her earlobes, addressing the main original objection on this topic. For that reason, and as the situation here appears deadlocked, with two "for" and two "against", the link has been restored to the article to permit further peer review.Emma white20 00:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It is easy for a Photoshop user to take photos of Jennifer Garner and create the illusion of "holes" in her earlobes, which it appears has been done with the photos of Garner used (and again, the "holes" are not in the same spots where the stud-looking magnetic earrings were put on her lobes in the other photos, thereby proving that the photos claiming that Garner had "pierced" earlobes are a hoax). Since there are no legitimate photos that actually show Garner with pierced earlobes, this conclusively proves that she never had them pierced, and because of that, the website link has been removed again and should not be put back in the article.Starbuck-2 11:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you guys spend that much time discussing the status of Jennifer Garner's lobes. You have way too much free time, and you probably should use your energy towards more valuable causes...

This recently added link [2] has been removed after being repeatedly re-added to the main article because, like the previous link that was removed [3], this new link is a self-created website with unsourced articles (where the site creator again claims that Jennifer Garner got her ears "pierced" without legitimate proof) and Photoshopped photos of Garner. The site does not meet the WP:RS criteria, and it is obvious that both sites were created by the same person, so the new link is not to be restored to the article. Creativity-II 23:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Jennifer Garner images

The continual removal of images of Jennifer Garner from Wikipedia articles about her and her Alias character, Sydney Bristow, is starting to get tiresome. The image that was most recently used for both articles came from the Alias section of the ABC.com website - the same site as the photos of other actors from the show - and yet Garner's photos keep getting removed, while the other actors' photos are allowed to remain. All images from that site are considered fair use under Wikipedia guidelines (and that includes Garner's images), so why keep removing the Garner images while letting those of the others stay? Starbuck-2 07:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not the case. Please see WP:FUC. We may not use a copyrighted image any longer to depict a living person. --Yamla 14:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Aren't all the images used for the other actors in Alias (i.e. Victor Garber, Ron Rifkin, etc.) also copyrighted? If they are and they're being allowed to remain anyway, then I think that shows bias.Starbuck-2 22:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, I haven't checked out those images. Please check them out for me and if they are copyrighted non-free images, please add {{subst:rfu}} to each of the images. Thanks. --Yamla 22:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

While I'm thinking about it, what sources are out there that would have free images of Jennifer Garner to use? Starbuck-2 22:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You can always search flicker for CC tagged images, but I had no luck looking for Jennifer Garner. You can try to find a screenshot of her on a show or movie as that usually constitutes fair use as an example of the show or movie in question. --Mattarata 00:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"episode order cut..." -- does not make sense.

These words: "...with the season's episode order cut by a few episodes..." do not make sense. Did the author mean "...with the season cut by a few episodes..."? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LeroyVJunker (talk • contribs) 05:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

How does it not make sense? The network ordered 22 episodes. Then they reduced their order to just 17 episodes. Removing the "episode order" part just makes the sentence less precise and somewhat vague.

Main picture is very slutty-thoughts?

I think it speaks for itself...

7FlushSetzer 22:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a better freely-licensed replacement, please feel free to upload it. You will want to read and understand WP:FU before you do, though; almost 100% of the images you find on the Internet would be inappropriate for this article. --Yamla 22:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree the picture is not that slutty compared to most starlets in the hollywood spotlight Jenn garner is not the person that comes to midn when you think of the words slutty. Now a better image maybe with her playing with violet to show how she is a careing and loving mother of one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.75.135 (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Location, Location

I've added a 'citation needed' marker to her current residence. I think it's wrong, but a preliminary internet search reveals nothing. Someone once pointed out a house in Newton (Mass.) to me as the Affleck/Garner homestead, but that's not much of a source. Nigel Napalm 07:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Purported Methodist connection

Please document this person's membership in a Methodist church before adding her to any Methodist categories. Before that can be documented, it's uncertain if she's really a Methodist.

One author said she is Methodist because her daughter was baptized at a Methodist church. That in fact does not signify formal affiliation with the Methodist church. She may have done that to please relatives.

Nova SS 01:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP concerns

I reverted an anon edit that says Jennifer Garner likes fans to stop her to say "Hi"! — which used a fan site interview as a source. First, a fan site is not a "reliable source"; more importantly, this article should not invite/give permission to fans to stop her on the street. — ERcheck (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

On the argument to authority basis of Wikipedia...

If I'm correct (and I may not be -- it could all be a ridiculous coincidence) then things like famous acresses are a perfect example of why documented, cited sources may be completely wrong. It's sad that Wikipedia's guidelines require ONLY argument by authority and no 'original research' or anything else.

I sat behind this girl in 4th grade, nowhere near Texas or Virginia. Either that or I sat behind another girl in 4th grade named Jennie Garner who happened to look exactly like this one, except younger.

(Adding:--) Almost forgot to mention that I very distinctly (because I had a crush on her) recall an 'oh wow, you're birthday is only two days after mine!' conversation taking place with Jennie Garner in fourth grade. Seeing as I was born on the 19th of April, 1972, it seems pretty weird to think I coincidentally sat behind someone with the same name as this actress, who looked just like this actress would have as a little girl, and had the same exact birthday.

65.87.20.98 (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine, except that we have no way of knowing if any of what you wrote above is true, or if you are making it up. I'm not saying you are, but if you were we could never find out. That's why we must have reliable sources and no original research. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Mauruschka Kruger?!

Is it a joke? Or I didn't know? (it's written under the pic)

Girl !

Best known movies?

The article says "She is best known for her role as CIA agent Sydney Bristow on TV's Alias, as well as for her roles in the films Juno, Pearl Harbor and Dude, Where's My Car?."

While agree that Alias is one of roles she is best known for, and Juno is a recent movie, I can't agree about Pearl Harbor or Dude, Where's My Car. These are both earlier supporting roles. Since that time she has had leading roles. She might be better known now for Daredevil, Elektra, 13 Going on 30, The Kingdom?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.47.95 (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Article Name

Shouldnt we change the article from Garner to Affleck?

Baby16 (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor/Pearl Harbour

Can people please stop editing the filmography to remove the alternate "Pearl Harbour" title? This is a genuine alternate title for this movie, as used in the UK and Europe using the UK English spelling of "Harbour", as opposed to the US English version of "Harbor". If you have any doubt as to the existance of this alternate title, please check the movie's IMDB entry, as it IS listed there, and appears on the DVD packaging in the UK. Emma white20 (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Baby Girl #2

I noticed that no one can add info on her second daughter, who finally has a name.

She was born in L.A., same as Violet and her name is: Seraphina Rose Elizabeth. http://celebrity-babies.com/2009/01/13/jen-and-ben-reveal-daughters-name-seraphina-rose-elizabeth/

Both her and her sister were born in L.A. yet it's only mentioned Violet was born in L.A., why is that?

Dispute over Violet Affleck's middle name

Apparently there is an issue over whether the middle name of the eldest child is Anne or Anne Marie (or Marie Anne, I'm not entirely sure). As far as I know or have heard, there is no Marie in the child's name. I have changed the article to reflect this, but the source I was given is not particularly good for referencing. If someone could come up with a more reliable source, please feel free to delete the one I've put and add that instead. But in the meantime, it would be nice if people would stop adding random middle names without any reasonable proof (or any proof at all as far as I see) that they are correct. Sky83 (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on that one. For three years, it's been (as far as I know) Violet Anne Affleck and now because her baby sister has two middle names, all of sudden so does Violet. 65.92.171.64 (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Garner's official divorce date from Scott Foley?

Just wondering, this article states Garner's divorce from Scott Foley as 30 March 2004, but on IMDb it says 30 March 2003. Does anyone know which is the right date?

The alias (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Fashion and Style Section

Is the Fashion and style section needed, or relevant? It seems long winded and trivial.

24.163.91.142 (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's relevant, as she's often noted/criticised in the gossip blogs for her rather plain and ordinary clothes while out and about - A personal style that provides a real contrast to many other high-profile celebs and their designer outfits. The section also covers how this personal style came from her upbringing and the rules she and her sisters had to follow. Many other articles have similar sections, so it's not unique to this article, and is a lot better referenced than many other similar sections. And as for being trivial, it includes things such as her Oscars appearances, which I would class as hardly being "trivial". Maybe you should have a read of WP:HTRIVIA and what it says about what could be classed as trivia, the different types of trivia, and how they can be included in Wikipedia articles. This article actually suggests having a "Public Image" section in biographical articles as a way of integrating and eliminating trivia sections, and you could probably say that the Fashion & Style section is simply this suggested section under a different name. Maybe there's some scope for rewording the section to remove some of the possibly "flowery" prose, and so shorten it by a few lines, but in my view the information the section contains is relevant, properly sourced, gives a valuable insight into the subject of the article, and it's removal would certainly diminish the article. Emma white20 (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ, I searched a good number of celebrities and seen nothing regarding fashion or style. As far as her Oscar appearance, which indeed, isn't trivial, what she wore to that appearance is trivial. 24.163.91.142 (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, WP:HTRIVIA suggests having a "Public image" section in biographical articles as a place to put what some may class as trivia, and that the Fashion & style section could be considered to be such a section under a different title. While you may not have found anything, I've just spent over an hour doing an extensive search on Wikipedia, and got significantly different results to you. A search for "fashion and style" turns up such a section for Pat Nixon, plus a "Style and image" section for Rihanna. If you search for "Public image", you'll find that such a section exists for Gwen Stefani, and this includes various things about her dress and personal style. There's also such a section for Mary-Kate Olsen, Alison Goldfrapp and Tonéx, and as the search for "public image" turns up over 200,000 results, I'm sure there's others out there that I've missed or not had time to find. Additionally, searching for "personal style" brings up a section in Phillip Oakey's biography discussing his style and image changes, plus a a similar section in the article on Irina Lazareanu. So there are a number of biographical articles out there on Wikipedia that do have sections on the subject's personal style and fashion choices. While the section headings may differ from article to article, the general content is the same, so the Fashion and style section on this article is far from being unique in that respect. And as for the triviality or otherwise of the designers of someone's outfit to a major awards ceremony, if its so trivial, why do major TV networks and women's magazines pay so much attention to the subject? If it was an unknown designer, it probably would be trivial but, in our celebrity-obsessed world, major designers are of great interest to many people, and so who wore what when often becomes big news - especially when major public events are involved. So I still say that this section is valid and relevant, and should be retained - I may try to rewrite it a bit, but I think it has value and should stay. Emma white20 (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree with 24.163.91.142. The section is unenyclopedic and the majority of it is unsourced. If it's not rewritten and sourced within the next few weeks, I'll remove it myself because it doesn't belong in the content of an encyclopedic article about an actress. This article needs to focus on why Jennifer Garner is notable (ie her acting career), not about her quasi-Amish childhood, what she wore to the Oscars one year or what designer she likes to wear. Wikipedia should not be taking its cues from celebrity obsessed fashion mags anyway. As for the argument above, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. 70.241.26.184 (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I find it amazing that, after this section has been accepted for so long by registered editors of long standing and great experience, we suddenly have two brand new IP editors appear and start objecting to it. Don't you think that, if this section was considered poor or irrelevant by experienced editors who've been here for years and know exactly what they are doing, one of them would have removed or rewritten it by now? This article is regularly policed by a number of very experienced editors, who will quickly remove or modify anything that shouldn't be here. The fact that they haven't done so for this section should tell you something about it. As for being unsourced, there's four different references given for the key points, and the guidelines do say that not everything needs a specific reference. And as for the guideline you point to, I could just as easily use that to point to the flaws I see in your arguments - It does say that the absence of other similar articles or sections shouldn't be used as a reason for excluding things. Should the details of her childhood and the rules she had to obey be included? If they have had an influence on her personality or style and she's made mention of them in interviews as having had an influence, then I think they should. Should things done specifically for a certain production or event get a mention? Again, I think they should. But, as you want extra references, I'll track them down and add them over the next day or so. Emma white20 (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As you can probably see, I've started the job of rewriting the section and adding extra references. This is very much a work in progress, and I need to go through my cuttings and magazine collection to see what additional references I can find in there, and do some more online searches. At present, I've added a number of new references, and also edited out some of the padding. Over the next few days, I'm sure I'll come up with some more changes, as I'm never happy with my first draft of anything, so stay tuned! Emma white20 (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You can find it "amazing" all you want, but the truth of the matter remains that even lowly IPs can challenge crap content. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and even people who choose not to register a user name can still change consensus on any article at any time. Unless you have good evidence that the person editing behind an IP is "new" and has no grasp of Wikipedia policy, you'll be wise to keep your assumptions to yourself. This bulldozing attitude isn't going to help fix the article at all and believe it or not, your word is not the end all be all. If the section isn't improved in "the next day or so", I'll ask for a third, forth or fifth opinion on this because I'm not about to roll over just because you have an issue with playing well with others. 70.241.26.184 (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm 100% behind Emma white20 on this one, as I think this section definitely is relevant and perfectly in keeping with the rest of the article. So I certainly support it's retention, although I do agree that, in it's original form, it probably did need a bit of an edit down. And if there's any "bulldozing" going off here, I personally don't think it's coming from Emma white20, as giving ultimatums and adopting what comes across as an aggressive tone seem a lot more like "bulldozing" to me - Editing an article down and adding extra supporting references certainly doesn't class as "bulldozing" in my book! Gidz (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I stated that the attitude was bulldozing - I did not say any course of action taken was bulldozing. It's also a fairly normal human reaction for one to take an aggressive tone and/or stance when met with dismissive and condescending comments which is exactly what two different people were met with previously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.26.184 (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it is your attitude that is "bulldozing" - Firstly, you go and set an ultimatum involving a very short timescale, saying that if someone else (i.e. me) doesn't change the article into what you personally want it to be, you're going to take a certain action. And then, as soon as someone appears to support my stance on retention of this section and even the numbers, rather than continue the discussion here in this section, you go and open an RfC in what seems like an apparent attempt to try and get more support for your stance, and that to me smacks of "bulldozing"! And how can simply asking a question pointing out that a number of very experienced registered editors have had no problem with the section be "dismissive"?? Emma white20 (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

All the good faith is overwhelming, it really, really is. How is asking for additional opinions to gain consensus a bad thing? Isn't that what we're encouraged to do around here? This ultimatum nonsense is just that - nonsense. I didn't tell you to do anything and and me stating my intentions to follow proper dispute resolution steps have no bearing on your plans to do whatever it is you want to do to the article. I'm still trying to discuss this here which has been fruitless hence the RfC. The only answer I'm getting from you is that no "experienced registered editor" has a problem with the content and since you think the content should stay, it should. That's not collegial or collaborative and comes off as dismissive. It doesn't matter if a thousand different "experienced registered editors" peruse this page and see nothing wrong with it - silence is not consensus. Consensus regarding content can change at any time and any editor (that includes IP editors) can bring about that change. If you don't think an IP editors opinions are valid, don't get involved in the discussion. I said it before and I guess it bears repeating - unless you have good evidence that the person editing behind an IP is "new" and has no grasp of Wikipedia policy, you'll be wise to keep your assumptions to yourself. Now if we're done with this boring tit for tat, I'd like to discuss the relevance of the section in question in the proper section. 70.241.26.184 (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that your edit history begins on December 17, 2009, and today is December 19, 2009, certainly implies that you are indeed a new editor - Is there some absolutely verifiable way you can prove to us that you are not a new editor? I know IP addresses can change, but that's why people are encouraged to register, so that if their IP address changes, everyone else still knows it's them. And the fact is that, with an edit history going back just two days, you are going to be regarded as a new editor, no matter what you may say or imply to the contrary. And Wikipedia also has a history of new editors coming in and spouting rules and guidelines to try and justify their actions, which always makes people suspicious too. Gidz (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Fashion/Style Section

The majority of this section is unenyclopedic and was tagged as such but naturally, the tag was removed. Some of the content could possibly stay (ie Garner's somewhat strict upbringing), but I fail to see why it is relevant to mention that Garner got her ears pierced twice. Is there some reason this event is notable in Garner's career? I'm also failing to see why we should discuss what she wore to award ceremonies. I think the section should be cut down dramatically and pruned of unneeded trivia. Instead of getting into an edit war, I'd like other opinions on the matter first. 70.241.26.184 (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm definitely in favour of it being retained, and it has already been trimmed down by me over the past couple of days, with (as I mentioned above) further edits to follow. I therefore think that this discussion is the thing that is totally unnecessary and a waste of time. As I pointed out above in the previous section, if it was unencyclopedic or considered unnecessary, it would have been removed a long time ago by other more established editors. Emma white20 (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The argument is fallacious as the article is continuing being revised so long ago it was different than it is now.Gerardw (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think the discussion is a waste of time, don't participate in it. No one is forcing you to. You're not addressing the points anyway, you're just reiterating that you want to keep it all just because you want to keep it all. Why should the article twice state that Jennifer Garner got her ears pierced? Why is this event notable in Garner's career? Why are her outfits to award ceremonies worthy of a mention? 70.241.26.184 (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongly support retention: I'm also in favor of keeping it, and think that the edits already made by Emma white20 are exactly along the lines of what the section needs. So I don't think it should be deleted or altered in any significant way. As for the specific questions raised by 70.241.26.184, they all seem to relate in various ways to, and contrast with, aspects of her upbringing, and so seem perfectly relevant to me. Gidz (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The status (IP or registered) and length of time an editor has been editing is not relevant to the discussion. Comment on content not the contributor. An RFC is exactly the correct thing to do when a few editors are unable to come consensus. And yes, it's too long and too much trivia. Gerardw (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Remove, revise or rewrite section - maintaining a large section of an article devoted to "fashion or style" is not in anyway encyclopedic. One large source for much of this inane drivel is from a fansite, http://www.jen-fans.com, not a permissible link or site considered a reliable source. The sections take the form of synthesis in that a premsise is formed and cites are appliedto support the preconceived statements. As if it matters how she was permitted to dress as a child in regard to how she was dressed as a character by costume designers and set decorators or how she is dressed by her fashion consultant for awards shows. This is not content present in other articles, and has no place in this article. And what does the age at which she got her ears pierced relevant to her notability? Or for that matter, at what age her sister had her ears pierced? WHy is that even in there? There is a totally fabricated statement in the article which says "In early interviews, Garner appeared to imply that she and her sisters had followed these rules closely." Where is the support for that? It's conjecture by the author of the section. For the rest of it, folks, please read WP:AGF. I see that being thrown to the wind here. As for "fashion mavens", Jennifer Lopez has long been considered a high priority person regarding fashion and her article does not address that, nor does Angelina Jolie. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep: - I think it should stay, and doesn't contain excessive trivia - Certainly no more so than other sections of the article (such as the name of her dog, or who designed her engagement ring, which I'm sure isn't important, but I don't see anyone objecting to that...). And I think that Wildhartlive's summary is badly flawed. Looking at the section, the fansite link is only used to point to scans of the article being referenced, and is used because the publication in question seems not to have an online archive. Remember, offline sources are allowed, and the link given seems to be nothing more than a courtesy pointing people to somewhere they can find the scans. And that reference, plus others, fully support the statement that Wildhartlive claims is "totally fabricated" - The section references and quotes an early (2002) article where she says that they obeyed the rules, and then a more recent one where she admits that they didn't follow them as closely as she first implied. So I don't see anything "fabricated" in there, as Wildhartlive claims, and I think that the information contained in the section does have relevance and should be retained. Can the section still be improved? Yes, I think it can, but the section is clearly not a synthesis and everything in it is fully supported by references. So I vote for the section to stay, along with the information in it - even the stuff about her getting her ears pierced. 78.143.193.214 (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

My discussion is not "badly flawed". There are policies and guidelines on Wikipedia regarding linked sources and the fansite link is not an acceptable source. If it points to scans of copyrighted materials, it is doubly unacceptable. There is no mandate that references be available online, but if links are provided, the editor who adds the link has an obligation to ascertain that the link is not to scans of copyrighted materials. They cannot be used in that case. The fabrication comes from starting with a statement that Garner had a fairly strict upbringing, extrapolating it to support why she is conservative in her style and then linking to articles about red carpet styling and multiple instances about her and her sister's dates when they got their ears pierced. It's painful in its synthesis. And a request for comments is not a vote. The references are sadly lacking and full of copyright violations when they are present. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say Wikipedia can't link to copyrighted material? Gerardw (talk) 04:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not say we can't link to copyrighted materials, I said it was linked to scans of copyrighted materials. The fansite scans copies of articles from published sources. To my knowledge, WP:COPYVIO precludes such practices, otherwise a lot of links would be permissible which are not. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"There is no mandate that references be available online, but if links are provided, the editor who adds the link has an obligation to ascertain that the link is not to copyrighted materials."Gerardw (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there some sign at the top that says pick on misstatements? You know full well what point I was making. The links cannot be included to materials that are not legal scans of copyrighted materials. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment on the content, not the contributor. You have no basis to know what I knew or didn't know. What would have really been helpful was simply linking to Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works which I was not aware of until reading this thread. So it is helpful that you brought the policy to my attention but next time someone asks you to clarify perhaps a little more good faith could be offered? Gerardw (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd remind that right back. I was very clear on the scans of copyrighted material. You didn't ask for clarification, you attacked my statement. A request for clarification would start with "I'm not clear on what you're saying", not "Where does it say" followed by a copy and paste of a statement someone made. It would be extremely helpful if everyone were knowledgable about what is acceptable and what is not per policy before embarking on an assault regarding content. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

These "votes" aren't supported by any kind of policy which is what should be discussed to support the content being included. So far, no one who wants to include the content can still explain why tidbits about Garner getting her ears pierced and her award show outfits are notable. It really doesn't matter if the content is sourced - everything that has a source doesn't have to be in a Wikipedia article. Has there been significant coverage on the points discussed in the "Fashion & Style" section that would justify its inclusion here? Has the fact that Garner got her ears pierced as an adult impacted her notability in some way? Why is that event notable in her career and why should it be discussed in this context? Is there a reason why we should discuss what Garner wears when we do not do that on other subjects who are arguably more identifiable as fashion figures? Why is Garner's fashion sense more notable than say Gwyneth Paltrow or Sarah Jessica Parker? These are the points that should be addressed when arguing to keep the content. If these points can't be answered and supported by policy, that's a big red flag that the content is unneeded trivia and shouldn't be here. 70.241.26.184 (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Not everything has to be supported by policy - One of the "Five Pillars of Wikipedia" is that you should "ignore all rules" if you think that your actions will improve Wikipedia. I'd say that getting her ears pierced for a specific movie role or awards ceremony, and not for personal reasons, is notable because it was for that specific reason, and so should be included here. Sandi saraya (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Remove the section in its entirety because the sources used do not validate it as a sub-topic. Sources can also mention what a star likes to eat or how a star likes to work out, but it's borderline synthesis to pull together such piecemeal details into an unprecedented section. This kind of section would only work best retrospectively and not shoving together contemporary gossip sources to paint up the importance of what she wears. This is a biographical article, and the section reads like gossip articles slammed together by the LHC. Erik (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• The section should be removed. Some of the initial statements in the "early life and career" subsection can be merged into her main personal life section, but it probably doesn't need to go into as much detail as it currently written. However, the rest regarding the comparison to her Alias character or dresses she wore to various award shows is not encyclopedic and should be removed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Retain, but edit to reduce size and reword contentious statements I think the section should stay. OK so maybe it can be argued that some of it isn't supported by or goes against specific policies, but as I mention above, the "Five Pillars of Wikipedia" do state that its OK to ignore the rules if you think that your actions will improve an article. Is getting her ears pierced when she did notable? If it was for a specific movie role or awards ceremony, rather than simply for personal fashion, then I don't see how that is any different to an actor or actress gaining or losing weight for a role. And if such weight gains etc for specific roles are considered notable, then so should Garner getting her ears pierced for a specific role. And the bits about the rules she had to follow while growing up are certainly notable. So I say it should stay, but do think that there's a fair bit of scope for improvement. Sandi saraya (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with some of the details of Garner's early life being added into the main article and stated that in the beginning. I'd love to IAR, but trivia rarely improves any article and that's exactly what this ear piercing content is - needless trivia. There's no content indicating why a character she played in a television movie ten years ago had to have her ears pierced. Why was that detrimental to the character? 70.241.26.184 (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)