Talk:Jennifer Aniston/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Greek-American

"later on" its explained in more detail? your kidding right? ITS THE NEXT SENTANCE! do you repeat everything you say twice when you talk? do you read everything twice before you understand it? you know what, im not obsessed enough to stick around and argue over your idiotic changes. keep the redundant junk, this page is obviously way too important for you if you have the time to nit pick over it like this --Omniwolf 19:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

the easiest way to solve this arguement is to not even lable her with an ethnic tag. the place of her birth and the ethnic background of her parents is listed right at the top of the article. thus negating any possible need for an enthic word with simple factual description. in other words, why call her "greek" "multi-ethnic" "purple martian girl" or whatever else pops into your head? its a pointless label. "she was born at x, her parents are y and z", this sentance alone at the start of the article gives you all the cultural/ethnic info you need without resorting to argueing over labels. if anything her mother probably needs a tag in front of her name (like the father already has) thus giving even further detail to jens background without resorting to this pointless endless redundant debate --Omniwolf 18:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

She was born in the united states of america. shes lived here 99% of her life. shes an american citizen. she has no citizenship status in any other country. shes american. simple. this has nothing to do with what her ancestors are. unless you plan to change every single article about every single person to include all of their ancestral heritage: shes american. theres not one single person in america that doesnt have a parent, grandparent, greatgrandparent, great-whatever, from another country at some point in the past. does that mean no one is an american? if your born in a country, and your citizenship is in that country, and you live in that country, hello? get it? how does anyone become anything? its where your born, and where you live. so is her ancestory greek and english and whatever? sure, it doesnt make her any less american than the day she was born. --Omniwolf 23:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I want to say please stop changing Greek-American to American on the article. Your explanation of "She's only half Greek" is not good enough. Somebody who is half Greek and half American IS a Greek-American. The first paragraph of each article is almost like a quick description of who the person or thing is, and whatever is below is the extra details, and basically an in-depth version of the introduction.

There is no reason to say that I can't put her as a Greek-American, because that's what she is! There is no excuse to exclude it, I'm sorry. If seem to think you can constantly change it to American, then I can change it to Greek, but neither are 'accurately' correct, are they?

Please just leave it as it is. Jennifer Aniston is a Greek-American and is even on the Wikipedia list of famous Greek-Americans.

Leon.

First, user User:Arniep tells me it's not encyclopedic to define a person as "Greek-American", "Italian-American", etc. in the first paragraph. We are working on taking that kind of information out of the first paragraph of people's articles.

Second, her father's ancestry is Greek and her mother's is English. Why shouldn't she be called an "English-American"? Who exactly decided to pick out Greek over English? She is a half Greek-American, certainly, and half English-American. And third, the information on her background is in the very next paragraph, under early life. There's no need to repeat it twice. Oh, and calling her "Greek-American" would be only half correct, calling her an American would be 100% correct, which she obviously is, having been born in the U.S. and living there most of her life. Vulturell 22:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

_____________

Hi.

I cannot see what is 'non-encyclopedic' by calling someone a Greek-American (or Italian-American, Australian-American etc.). If it's who they are, then why not put it? It doesn't seem a 'strong-enough-' reason to me, sorry.

I didn't realise that her mother is English (I thought she is American), in which case to call her American would be 100% wrong! In this case, she is an English-Greek (or an American-English-Greek, but I would presume that people would prefer to avoid this usage due to complications and confusions).

Thirdly, why isn't there a need to repeat it twice? The opening paragraph is a little introduction to who she is, so it should be included.

To settle it, I would be happy for it to be written that she is "an American-born English-Greek actress", or an "English-Greek actress in the USA" (although the latter doesn't really 'say much', does it?).

Thanks.

Leon.

Well, it's exactly because of her mixed heritage that she should just be called "American". Honestly though, if you want to change it to Greek-American so much, just go ahead and do it. It's not that big of a deal, I just didn't think it was necessary and not 100% accurateVulturell 20:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

________

Hi again.

I don't think that because she is of mixed heritage you should just put the 'easiest thing possible'. It should be made extra cautious not to make mistakes. Jennifer Aniston is not American at all given the fact her father is Greek and her mother English. It would be non-encyclopedic to list her as an American, wouldn't it? Encyclopedia is about information and this doesn't state it in her short biography. I'll change it to 'American-born English-Greek', which is the best term to describe her (from a detailed point of view).

Leon.

"American-Born English Greek" just looks confusing. She's never lived in England and only lived in Greece for something like 2 years. The child of immigrants who is nevertheless born and raised in the U.S. is an American. And especially since Aniston's acting career is confined to the U.S. only (see Joaquin Phoenix, born in Puerto Rico to American parents of varied ethnicities, is described as "Puerto Rican-born actor active in the U.S.A.") But Aniston was born in the U.S. and acts in the U.S., so I don't see why we can't just call her an American actress. This should be an article about Aniston, not her parents. "American-born English Greek ACTRESS makes it sound like she acts in England and Greece despite being born in the U.S.Vulturell 19:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ yet again. It doesn't matter where anybody was born in the world, it's their parents' ethnicities that make who they are. If someone's mother is English and their father is Greek, the person in discussion is half English and half Greek, which is also known as English-Greek. I don't think it is at all relevant that she has never lived in England (she resided in Greece for a year), and this is not the discussed matter here. An encyclopedia should give information on the person or thing it is describing (in this case, Jennifer Aniston), so previous residences or places of birth should make no 'contribution' to one's nationality or ethnicity at all.

It wouldn't be incorrect to state her as an American-English-Greek, but this isn't very clear and can be confusing, but to call Jennifer Aniston as just an American is definately wrong. Ethnically she is an (American-born) English-Greek, and I still don't see your problem with this. If you don't think 'American-born' is the best fit, then why not 'American-active'(although this is neither accurate, as she is well-known in various other countries too). I think it's my duty to re-change it.

Leon.

Well under this system NO ONE would be American, because everyone's ancestors come from somewhere. Calling Aniston an "American actress" refers to both her place of birth and the country she is active as an actress in. How about Christina Aguilera? Has a Canadian mother and an Ecuadorian American father - but isn't called an American Canadian-Ecuadorian. Only American is appropriate for all of these people, because that's their place of birth, citizenship, residence and career. The family background is relevant to the early life/background section, but not to the definition of who they are right now.Vulturell 23:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course after so many generations being in one country one has that country's nationality or ethnicity (like the Turks in Cyprus some centuries ago eventually became Cypriots (Turkish-Cypriots), and not Turks), but that's completely different.

Christina Aguilera has an Irish mother and an Ecuadorian father, thus is an (American-) Irish-Ecuadorian.

I know somebody who lives in England and has done all her life, has never been to Cyprus (where her parents originate from), but she's still Cypriot, not English!

Jennifer Aniston is an American-born English-Greek, as I have said, so bases of work shouldn't even come into the equation because they are not relevant to one's ethnic background.

So you're saying every single American person should be listed like that? I.e. Angelina Jolie as an ""American-French-Czech-English-Iroquois actress"?? Oh, and Aguilera's mother was born in Canada, her father in the U.S. but I think you're aware of that.Vulturell 09:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

__________

No, I'm not saying that every American-born/based/active person should be listed like Jennifer Aniston. I think it depends how mixed the person is. Now it would not in any way at all be wrong to state Angelina Jolie as an (American-) English-Czech-French-Canadian-Iroquois, but some would argue that this should be simplified to be more understandable, in which case I would suggest an American-born actress of English, Czech, French-Canadian, and Iroquois descent, or to keep it sweet and short, an American-born actress of mixed heritage (and then go on to explain what the mixed heritage is in the next paragraph). Jennifer Aniston doesn't have such a high mixed descent, therefore an American-born English-Greek actress fits well. I would have no objections to changing it to "an American-born actress of English and Greek descent" as it gives an equal meaning. To call her "American" wouldn't be correct. I also think that all Wikipedia articles on people with a different heritage to the country they were born should be changed to fit this (i.e. Madonna, who is stated as a British-American, when she was born in the USA to an Italian father and a French-Canadian mother).

However, if a person who is of mixed heritage and is born in one of the (two) countries in which he/she originates (let's say somebody is born in England and is of English and French descent), then he/she should be written as an English-French.

I would also strongly oppose the use of the term British when describing a person on Wikipedia (unless this person is of two or more of the following ethnicities: English, Welsh, Scottish, and Northern Irish), because it doesn't really 'explain' much. A Brit could be either English, Welsh, Scottish, or Northern Irish, and the term doesn't indicate which of these ethnicities the said person belongs to.

Anyway, back to the original discussion. I think it's definitely time for a decision to be made about this article. I'm only willing to accept the follwing three CORRECT terms: "An English-Greek actress", "An American-born English-Greek actress", or an "American-born actress of English and Greek descent/heritage".

What do you say?

Leon.

OK, out of those I would obviously pick "American-born actress of Greek and English descent" (and it would be nice if we took the "born" out of that sentence). I mean, it doesn't matter where someone's parents are from, if that someone is born, has a citizneship in and raised in the U.S., why on earth wouldn't they be American?Vulturell 17:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Her nationality is American. The header of articles is the place for nationality not ethnicity, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Thankyou Arniep 17:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I concur with Vulturell and Arniep. The first sentence is a particularly bad place to put confusing and potentially misleading statements about three nationalities. Pcb21 Pete 21:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
To Vulturell: I'm glad we can finally agree on something! As they say, blood is thicker than water (in this case I'm not referring to family, but nationality/ethnicity). Jennifer Aniston may have American citizenship, but she is an English-Greek.

To Arniep: Ethnicity is just as good as nationality. They are both used in the same kind of way. A nationality can (in a more broader sense) cover ethnicity, since it means "The status of belonging to a particular nation by origin, birth, or naturalization", thus calling Jennifer Aniston an American-born English-Greek, or an American-born actress of English and Greek descent fits the category of nationality, which is what is mentioned on the link you gave to me.

To Pcb21: There is nothing misleading about "An American-born actress of English and Greek origin", and it agrees with the 'rules' of first paragraph structure in Arniep's link [see above].

To conclude, the term "An American-born actress of English and Greek heritage" is not only one of the best ways to 'quickly' describe Aniston's ethnic background, but it also fits with the Wikipedia-advised structure of this paragraph. I will not change the article's current form until you have responded to this message (hopefully with the go-ahead), and if you fail to agree on it, then I don't think I can convince you any other way. More articles on mixed race people or those who are of (a) different origin(s) to their country of birth or fame, then this should be changed according to my theory.

Thanks.

Leon.

_________

The whole situation seems to be more confusing now! She has a Greek father, and a Scottish-Italian-? mother! On the article about Nancy Dow, it says that her father was Scottish, and her mother was half Italian (and obviously half something else but this isn't stated). What was her mother's 'other' origin (other than Italian)?

Leon.


Leon, what is your definition of an "American"? I would really like to know.

Vulturell 20:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, I've only just noticed this. A(n) (full) American is somebody whose parents are both American. Place of birth defines where you come from, not who you are. Jennifer Aniston's father comes from the island of Crete, thus he is Cretan (or Greek if you like), and her mother is of Italian, Scottish, and English descent, so that doesn't make Aniston American, but American-born. Like I said before, she is also an American-Greek-Italian-Scottish-English, but that is too long (as we agreed) and it can be phrased better. I decided to add multiethnic just to be more specific without giving details of her origins directly in the introduction.
Now tell me, Vulturell, what is an American to you?
Leon.
Anyone born and raised in America. Or anyone born elsewhere but having received U.S. citizenship. In that case they could be defined as, say, French/American due to the fact that they've had two nationalities throughout their life. Aniston is obviously American. All that belongs in the first paragraph is her nationality. Her ethnic background belongs under early life. Vulturell 18:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

That's where we differ then. I understand why you think American is better, but I see it as too unspecific to state her as an American. By putting multiethnic American-born is stating her birth/citizenship, but also that she has origins abroad, but without going into explicit detail (which is explained further on in the article). To call her just American (thus putting her under the same category as someone with American parents), when she has foreign parents, doesn't fit correctly, and my version is better anyway because that's who she is, yet it 'easily' states her background. A multiethnic American-born actress is the best way to describe her (and the other people whose nationality/ethnicity I have been changing).

Leon.

Nationality should go in the header not ethnic makeup, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies). Arniep 00:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Every single person in the U.S. has origins abroad. Even Native Americans, who are widely reputed to have split off from the Asiatic tribes of Eastern Europe and come over here before anyone else. Are all the Native Americans listed on Wikipedia now Russian-Americans as well?Vulturell 05:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

To Arniep: I know, and that's exactly what my proposal is! By calling her a multiethnic American-born actress isn't stating her ethnic make-up, but that she was born in America (thus American nationality) with origins abroad (so it's more specific as to not categorise her with somebody of American-originating parents). Also, to completely go against all that, 'nationality' isn't synonymous with 'citizenship'. It is the relationship of one person to a certain country either by birth, origin, or naturalization. So, based on that meaning, her nationality could be wither just American, (based on descent) Greek, Scottish, Italian, and English, or (like it shows in my version) all of those. By calling her a multiethnic American-born actress covers all the meanings of 'nationality', as Wikipedia's manual of style suggests.

To Vulturell: Yes, you are right. In fact, nobody on this earth is a pure breed of something, but surely you must agree on me saying that after so many generations difference between one person and their foreign ancestor, this 'bit of foreign descent' is forgotten, that's if it's even known! For example, if I had a Danish great-great-great-great-great-grandfather, I doubt I would consider myself one twenty eighth Danish, would I?!

Leon (P.S., when you revert this article, don't put vandalism, because it's not, and I have as much right to do that as you).

Cypriot stud, firstly, please sign your comments (with four tildes). Secondly, citizenship is a red herring. "American" is a statement of nationality, regardless of citizenship. Nationality is certainly not, as you seem to think, the same as ethnic origin. Thirdly, "American born" is not a statement of nationality, it's a statement of birthplace (it's quite possible to be American born, but not American). Fourthly, in English "American born" implies that someone was born in America but is not of American nationality, not that he is of American nationality. Fifthly, if you want to start adding ethnic origin to the leads of biographies, or deleting nationality from the leads of biographies, then you should discuss it on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies), not on Talk:Jennifer Aniston. Mark1 17:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

And sixthly, breaking the Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule is liable to get you banned from editing, even if you use anonymous IP addresses. Mark1 17:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I never said that 'nationality' is the same as 'ethnic origin'. The dictionary defines 'nationality' as follows: "The status of belonging to a particular nation by origin, birth, or naturalization", in which case her nationality is just American, Greek, Scottish, English, and Italian, or both (hence why I use 'multiethnic American-born' to be more specific). So please don't accuse me of saying things I clearly didn't.
Secondly, you are correct in saying that 'American-born' states that somebody is born in America (and does not necessarily have American citizenship or nationality). I just thought that it was the best term to describe her. Do you think 'American-raised' is better?
Thirdly, 'American-born' doesn't say whether the person has American nationality or not. You wrote that it means that they don't have American nationality. You are wrong, it simply means they were born in America, whether their parents were American or not, whether their ethnicity or nationality is American or not. It just means they were born in America.
Fourthly, I am not deleting nationalities from biographies. I am making them more specific and better fitting the actual meaning of 'nationality' which it seems you haven't bothered to check to back up what you've said. To call Jennifer Aniston (especially in a biography) American is incorrect. On saying that, this gives an equal right to call her Scottish, to call her Greek, to call her Italian, and to call her English (or all of those). I am making things simpler and better by utilising my version. It fits because it is not too in-depth (which is explained further on in the article), and it's correct.
Fifthly, adding ethnic origin to biographies is your decision. I don't mind to be honest; I am abiding by Wikipedia's rules.
Sixthly, I did not use IP addresses if that is what you are suggesting.
Leon.

You used the IP 82.8.17.228 to revert this article three times, less than 24 hours after reverting the article under your username. I haven't banned you this time because you weren't warned about the 3RR rule, but the next time you do it you will be blocked from editing. Mark1 19:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

That's strange! For some reason I obviously wasn't logged in.
Anyway back to the original topic, do you have anything to say about what I wrote in my last post here?
Leon.

This has been explained to you above at spectacular length. An American's nationality is American, regardless of his or her ethnic origin. If you can't understand that, then that's really your problem. We do things by consensus here, and you're in a minority of one. Mark1 21:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, have you taken on guard anything I've said? It seems to me you have the problem by not taking notice of what I said. A nationality is somebody's status to a country by birth, descent, or naturalization. Thus, I am not changing Aniston's nationality at all, I am correcting it and expanding it to a more satisfying and generally 'better' form.
Your attitude has been quite rude if I'm honest. Arniep and Vulturell haven't openly expressed their feelings in such an arrogant way to me and we've had this discussion for probably over a month now! I don't think you're doing your job very well.
Now, if I'd like to try and express my view to change a certain rule or make a complaint about a rule, could you please direct me to the best place?
Thank you.
Leon.

As I said before, try Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies). But if you seriously think that "multiracial American-born" is a statement of nationality, then your issue may be with the English language rather than with our policies. Mark1 22:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again. If you cared to read through my posts properly, you'd know that's not what I said, as I clearly responded to your question on it.
Leon.
Two words: Holy Shit.--Hazzlehoff 23:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know the parents are jewish, but she was "christianised" when she was a baby, of course this is religon not ethnics, but interesting.

Really? As far as you know through your relationships with her family? As far as I know Aniston is a Chinese..oh and a buddhist...Come on guys with all these about her origin or culture. - Sthenel 11:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Jennifer Aniston's last name is not Anassastakis. John Aniston moved to the United States as a child, not after she was born. Mike H 06:34, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Given how common this mistake is, the full story should be told in the article. Recent edits have obliterated the Greek name entirely rather than mentioned it correctly. Pcb21| Pete 10:32, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
1965 marriage certificate of her parents lists her father as John Aniston and as John Anastassakis. Jennifer's CA birth certificate lists her name as Jennifer Aniston. Questors 00:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

the last sentence of "early life" is... completely out of place. pauli 04:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) Jennifer anistom rocks!


[anonym] My opinion: "Aniston.. is an american actress.. of english-greek descent.." She IS an american actress because she has the U.S. passport! Some people in here do not know the difference between ethnicity and nation! [anonym]

Multi-Ethnic

If she is Multi-ethnic and not Multi-racial, why is she on List of multiracial people? --User:Carie 18:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Because this same person, Leon, added her there. I guess no one had the chance to remove her (yet). Vulturell 18:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I put her name on that list, but then I was told that she was not multiracial because she is of only Caucasian descent, to which I responded the vast majority of people on the list are of only Caucasian descent, so I said that it wasn't fair and that their conceptions of what a race is (for that list, at least) was mixed up (I mean it isn't fair to omit Aniston and keep all the others based on the same reasons), so I re-addd her and made a post asking to sort out what we would consider a race for that list only.
P.S. it is possible to be both multiethnic and multiracial (the majority, if not all, multiracial people are multiethnic too).
Leon.

It says in Jennifer Aniston's passport that she is American and that is what she is. BRIGHTON

Direct descendant from the Scottish "House of Stuart"???

I think that claim should be removed unless the contributor can supply a verification link that supports it. If she is a "direct descendant" wouldn't she be eligible for a Title?

All I can find on Google are Wikipedia mirrors. But the fact that she doesn't call herself a duchess isn't conclusive; the descent of titles is, I gather, quite complex, and certainly more complex than "every direct descendant gets a title". Mark1 20:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I can answer this one for you. Nancy Dow, Aniston's mother, wrote this in her book bio (searchable online) [1]: "They [Dow's paternal grandparents] gave birth to my father, Gordon Dow. Grandfather was a direct descendant of the Stuarts, which made Mary, Queen of Scots, our relative. A fierce, cranky man known as a strict disciplinarian, Grandfather Dow insisted" This book is where I got the info on her mother's ancestry. Not a single - and I do mean not a single site online - has this info (i.e. Aniston's Italian/Scottish ancestry), probably because the media is so pleased with themselves in calling Aniston "Greek" or "half Greek" and never bother reporting on her mother's ancestry. Another reason why Wikipedia is becoming a more accurate site in these types of matters. Vulturell 20:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
So, Aniston's mother's book is the source? I guess that's good enough to site as a source, but where does Mrs. Dow verify this lineage? I also don't know how you conclude the "the media" is content with her Greek/half Greek lineage and ignore her Royal Scottish roots. I do recall that Aniston is currently disassociated from her Mother (unfortunately only through Gossip Rags) and that she discounts a lot of personal details from this same book. I'm not so sure about the previous replier's statement. It sounds a wee bit sarcastic. --Bourbon King 21:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
?? Mark1 21:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
The "previous" commentator doesn't have a name stamp but replied to your comment above.--Bourbon King 21:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, about the media/Greek thing - what I meant is sometimes a celebrity makes an offhand comment about their backround or part of it, and then it gets copied onto sites like the IMDB and reposted over, and over, and over, and over the net. A large amount of the time the information isn't even correct or complete, but after getting reposted for so long people believe it to be. I.e. Kate Beckinsale is mentioned as having a "Burmese maternal grandfather" on about 100 sites, 99 of which no doubt copied it from the IMDB, where it originated. In reality, Kate Beckinsale has a Burmese great -grandfather on her father's side, and it is in fact his maternal grandfather who is Burmese. This is stated in a couple of good interviews with Beckinsale herself, but I guess whoever copied it to the IMDB made a mistake, and now this misinformation has spread to source after source. Here at Wikipedia, we have the correct version and we are one of the few sites that do, which we can all take pride in, I think. Same for Aniston - I'm sure she mentioned her father being Greek somewhere, and now it's basically on every site that she's "Greek" or "half Greek" and no note on her mother's ancestry, which is certainly interesting (even the most in-depth Italian-American celebrity sites don't seem to know about her Italian roots). Why? Because people often just copy the IMDB's trivia and don't look further, at first hand-sources. And that's why I like the concept of Wikipedia - some annoying misinformation may start at the IMDB, but it stops here, and the half-dozen sites that mirror us will have the verified info. Anyway - I guess it's possible Dow could be fibbing about her royal connections, but unless we have a really good reason to doubt it I think we should go by her book. It's a first-hand source, the kind I like. Vulturell 07:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I suppose you're right about Dow's "fibbing", but because of the nature of her relationship with Jennifer being on persona non grata status and the fact that her book has been panned by many critics (and consumer reviewers), I'll take the "Royal House of Stuart" claim with the minutest grain of salt and not consider it valid, especially since Aniston herself has disassociated from her Mother "before" the book was released.--Bourbon King 18:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
What is silly about the royalty claim is that there are millions of descendants of the Stuart line. [2] [3] The question is not "is she descended?" but "so what?" Questors 19:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is a direct descendant? Can you be an indirect descendant? Mark1 19:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. But "direct descendant" are the words Aniston's mother uses in her book on Aniston (she is talking about Aniston's maternal great-grandfather) JackO'Lantern 19:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a direct descendant is a descendant through the male line, or some such, which would make the claim less silly. It would also explain why the mother said that her grandfather was a direct descendant, rather than saying that she was. Mark1 20:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Direct ancestors are those that appear on a basic family tree. Collateral or indirect ancestors are those we are not descended from but who are related to a direct ancestor. For instance, George Washington has no direct descendants, having had no children. But he would be my collateral ancestor if I was descended from his brother. In the case of descent from a whole royal line, I'd consider direct to be unnecessary and most likely used for emphasis. Questors 21:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
It should probably be reworded as her mother merely claimed her father was descended from Stuarts. There are a huge number of Stuart families who probably if you go back far enough are related in some way to the Royal Stuarts. Arniep 21:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Nancy Dow's family tree is online. It shows Italian, Scots, and English ancestry. A link to the Stuart line is not shown.

Are you sure that website is correct? Because in her book, Nancy Dow says "The story begins with my paternal grandparents, Francis Dow and Ellen Mclean, who emigrated from Scotland and settled in the coldest part of Maine." Which seems to indicate her grandparents were both immigrants, but that tree lists them as being born in the US and having American ancestors. JackO'Lantern 19:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The online tree says Dow's grandpa is from Canada and her grandma is from Maine. That is also what it says in the 1910 census which also indicates that grandpa Dow's parents were from Scotland and Canada and grandma's parents were from Canada and Maine. Questors 19:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Does that mean that Nancy Dow lied when she said her grandparents were Scottish immigrants? JackO'Lantern 19:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't say "lie." Most people's understanding of their ancestry is based on family stories and these can get embellished or simplified as the years go on. Looking at the actual records can often bring surprises. Questors 21:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Cretan-Greek

Who on earth came up with this term?Crete is a territory(island) of Greece, it doesn't have a separate nationality/ethnicity/citizenship.Thats like calling someone from Texas a Texan-American or someone from Bavaria a Bavarian-German.Padem 06:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

External link to what I suspect is a nonoffical website

Sorry folks I'm new at this so I didn't want to make an edit error.

the external link to AJ Source website made me think it was an "offical site". I'd bet my paycheck that is isn't, but there is no disclaimers on that site. IMDB categorizes websites as "Offical" or not. Since you are trying to be accurate and you don't have a lot of control over other sites you may want to make the same distinction as IMDB does.

Marijuana use

I don’t see why Aniston’s marijuana use keeps getting reverted while other personal facts such as who she is currently dating etc. Other celebs and people in the news, political etc have drug use on their pages, and I think posting on her drug use does contribute to the article in showing who she really is and not a clean cut image projected on her title role on 'Friends'.

I agree and will add to it, since no one has given any explanation of why it should not be in the article, and other 'fact' such as her dating life and lawsuits should be.--David Foster 19:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no real reliable source to support this rumor. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Do you want me to "allege" that a couple of joyriding teenage aliens caused the fall of the Berlin Wall? I'm removing it until I am shown something more substantial. Neutronium 01:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

pictures

Don't want to come across as prudish, but is there a particular reason why all three pictures in this article features Aniston in a state of undress? One maybe, but all of them? sheridan 02:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

:: shrug :: She's a sex symbol. A screenshot from Friends would probably be more than appropriate, though. JDoorjam Talk 03:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
We need fewer pictures, not more. She may be lovely to look at, but fair use does not mean we can use pictures just to make our articles pretty. More than one picture really has no educational value. Markyour words 09:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Totally agree. I'm no prude but more than one magazine pic in this article is unnecessary and unencylopaedic. I'm being bold and removing the GQ & Vanity Fair ones. If someone wants to put them back, no doubt they'll do so, but I'd like to hear their justification. -- Ian ≡ talk 10:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I too was bold and put the GQ cover back. Jennifer Aniston was the first woman named "man of the year" by GQ (in that issue), so it's more than simply another half-naked photo of Aniston. But on the whole, I agree with y'all that this should be an encyclopedia, and not a repository of nakedjenniferanistoncruft. JDoorjam Talk 13:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - having two out of three as sexy nude pics makes her out to be more of a glamour model than an actress. It's not as if she particularly goes for that sort of role in her acting career. I think you should keep the GQ one, and scrap the Rolling Stone, or vice versa. One "sexy" pic is enough.

If some see the GQ cover as having value because of the "man of the year" bit, then so be it. But the first picture on the page should be an everyday one, like a Friends screenshot as it has already been suggested. The GQ one should only be listed if there is a mention of that "man of the year" award in text, which doesn't seem to be the case at the moment. I suggest putting the picture to the right of the Awards section. Xibe 15:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Went ahead and made the switch. Opinions ? Xibe 15:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

There are now zero pictures at all. How did that happen? I for one vote that the GQ one go back (although I haven't seen it) and the picture at the top be a headshot from Friends if we can find one. Papercrab 03:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Both would be a violation of Wikipedia's fair-use criteria. --Yamla 03:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Middle name

Does anyone have a (good) source that she actually has one? Her birth certificate at Ancestry.com does not list a middle name, which usually means there wasn't one. Mad Jack O'Lantern 05:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I recall an article in People Magazine saying a few years after she married Pitt, that she changed her name to "Jennifer Joanne Pitt" on her drivers license. It was in the "Passages" section. I'll see if I can find a copy of it and I'll post it.

Here is a Yahoo search indicating several different sources of the name change: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22jennifer+joanne+pitt%22&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

Birth name

Do we have any information about when and why she changed her name? It seems odd to mention her birth name without transitioning into the name-change. - Dudesleeper Talk 11:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the proof that Jennifer Aniston's birthname was Jennifer Anastassakis? The link (1) that traces her ancestry is no longer working. The only report I can see is that her father, John Anastassakis became John Aniston in 1947 - 22 years before Jennifer was born. [[4]]. However, this doesn't indicate whether the name was changed officially, or not. It would be good to confirm the situation with a reference to Jennifer's birth certificate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David T Tokyo (talk • contribs) 01:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Politics

I think it is worth mentioning her political leanings. This looks like a good source [5] Eiler7 17:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A-Class article?

I'm curious how this aricle is A-Class. The text is rather biased, with not one critical comment at all, e.g. failures like "Rock Star" are concealed all together and Derailed "earned her much praise" allegedly, while the RT consensus says "With miscast stars, a ludicrous plot and an obvious twist, Derailed embodies its name all too aptly". There are quite a few totally unsourced statements like "her obvious good looks and sex appeal" or "Aniston's status as a style icon and sex symbol has been constant", while other things cite such reliable sources as a celebrity blog and The National Ledger. On top of that there are different styles of citation and the article lacks a picture. -- Sloan21 22:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Image

This section needs to be heavily sourced, etc. in order to be (re-)included. It is heavily POV: "Due to the success of Friends and her obvious good looks and sex appeal, Aniston quickly became a household name and the primary image that developed of her was through her on screen character Rachel, which was that of a sexy "girl next door" type. Her good girl image on and off the screen led to her being frequently labeled as "America's Sweetheart". This is an image which Aniston has seemed to want to keep, as many of the roles she has taken in movies since Friends portray a similar "good girl" image rather than anything darker or risque, which has led to Aniston also being perceived as quite prudish.

Aniston's status as a style icon and sex symbol has been constant, with her haircuts and fashion quickly becoming popular and emulated, and her name being constantly featured in many "Sexiest Women" lists. She has also appeared in countless photoshoots for many of the top magazines in the world, amassing a large number of male and female admirers. " Mad Jack 23:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree with your edits, though this section is hardly the only one with NPOV problems. The entire film career is presented rather one-sided and lacks any kind of critcal commentary, as I tried to point out above. -- Sloan21 11:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

huh?

Talk:Jennifer Aniston From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search SP This article is part of WikiProject South Park, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles related to South Park —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.12.200.49 (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2016

2003:57:E663:53E9:2141:6426:F610:6152 (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC) real name "jennifer linn anastassakis"

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that explain how her family name was changed by her parents from Anastassakis to Aniston as suggested by Jennifer's godfather Tony "Kojak" Savalas.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2016

156.204.63.116 (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2016 (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. Cannolis (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

kenardoorlando pattie

h face book me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.43.180.98 (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


Adding photographer's credit to a photo caption

Hi NicoScribe! I see no problems or harm with giving credit to photographers of any image on any Wikipedia article page. Of course I know that all copyright licence agreements and authors name is on archive at Wikimedia Commons, but that is a different section from Wikipedia articles. I think adding a photographer's credit to photo captions provides acknowledgement, recognition and exposure to the photographer's work upfront and may encourage more professional photographers to give permission to use their work on Wikipedia. Most fan photos are often poor in quality but great in quantity yet most uploaders choose not to use fan photos. It is clear that Wikipedia article pages with images have more page views that ones that do not. If you are a professional photographer would you not want your name displayed on a Wikipedia page especially after you gave permission to use it on Wikipedia? Cheers! (KittyLover (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC))

Hello KittyLover: I think that there is no photographer's credit in the WP articles due to the Image use policy, in the part WP:WATERMARK. Regards --NicoScribe (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2017

yes Sloppoperking (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sloppoperking: 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. Murph9000 (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jennifer Aniston. 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) 13:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jennifer Aniston. 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) 22:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent cuts and what to cut

I reverted Hillbillyholiday on these removals because they should be assessed on a WP:DUE and WP:PRESERVE basis, not on an WP:IDON'TLIKEIT basis. For example, the idea that Aniston and Pitt divorced because she did not want to have children is very widely believed, which is why Aniston gave that interview with Vanity Fair to clear up the matter. That interview is very much WP:DUE; so it should be retained.

When it comes to past relationships that Aniston had, I did make some cuts, such as this "temporarily dated" stuff, but we include past relationships in some cases, especially when they were significant. Past relationships should not automatically be removed simply because they are in the past. Aniston's relationship with Vince Vaughn, for example, was widely reported and may be something we should retain.

As for Aniston's wealth, I feel that the Wealth section is pretty much nothing but a list and should be redesigned to put Aniston's wealth in better context. If not, the entire section should be removed.

SNUGGUMS, I see that this is yet another celebrity article you watch. Any thoughts on what should be cut or retained?

And so that Hillbillyholiday is aware that I did not follow him to this article, I want to point out that I've had a sporadic history with this article for years. It is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I've cut some more short-term relationships, but I might re-add one or two later, after seeing how significant they were to Aniston. And by that, I mean if she commented on them and what impact they apparently had on her life. I know that she commented on her relationship with Vince Vaughn, and it was reported on a lot; so I left that in. Similar goes for John Mayer, but, to my recollection, it was mainly Mayer speaking out about his relationship with Aniston. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

While this isn't an article I watch all that often, I will say this: Any engagement (even if broken off before the wedding) is clearly worth noting as it stresses how serious a couple is/was involved with one another. It could however use better sourcing. We shouldn't use godawful gossip rags like Us Weekly in articles, especially for contentious/personal claims in a BLP. Not sure what to say about other relationships you restored. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
SNUGGUMS, looking at the Personal life section, I see that all of the Us Weekly sources are removed. I personally don't have much of an issue with Us Weekly since I don't see it as much different than People magazine and since it seems that celebrities trust Us Weekly like they trust People magazine, but I do think it is best to use better sources when available. I'm really not seeing the Wealth section as nothing but a list. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Of course other sources should be used when possible. Regarding wealth, a section being a list isn't necessarily a bad thing, plus things like her net worth and being among the year's highest-paid actresses are definitely worth noting. If you can think of any better ways to include it, though, then feel free to mention them. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Going back to Us Weekly, I see that this The New York Times source is included in the Us Weekly article and reports that Jann Wenner stated his intention to keep the magazine "celebrity-friendly" in contrast to the more gossipy character of its competitors. So I'm thinking that this (among things) is why celebrities trust the magazine. As for a Wealth section, I know that such a section is not automatically a bad thing, but the one in this article is simply a list at the moment. A prose list, but a list nevertheless. It needs work -- prose work -- to not focus so much on the rankings. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

However, Jennifer Aniston who's childless wants to have a kid for some reason. This year, she decided to adopt a teenager instead of a baby.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jennifer Aniston. 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) 05:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jennifer Aniston. 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) 01:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2018

Change "MyEyeLove Campaign" to "eyelove Campaign" because the campaign is actually titled eyelove as you can see on their website https://www.myeyelove.com/chronic-dry-eye-diagnosis and in the Jen Anniston's video located here https://www.myeyelove.com/ Cjb234 (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Nihlus 21:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Remove other actors?

In the section "2012–present", in the third paragraph about the movie "Life of Crime", I’d like to delete the last sentence mentioning the other authors in that movie. You know, if they were people Aniston has worked with often, it might be relevant to this article (and then that fact should be mentioned here). But just as a loose add-on sentence, it’s not really adding anything to the article, I think.

The same in the next paragraph about the film Cake.

And maybe in the last paragraph – but there the other actors are mentioned more concisely, so it doesn’t seem as necessary there.

Any thoughts are welcome about why the above would not be a good idea!Geke (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Filmography

SNUGGUMS, who is one of my most respected colleagues, and I are having a difference of opinion and I would like other editors to weigh in.

When we have a "main article" link, as we do to List of Jennifer Aniston performances, then the editing guideline at Wikipedia:Summary style states that, "The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it." I don't believe that having her entire filmography here is a "summary," which by definition is less than entire. A summary would be a prose paragraph saying, in context, what her most objectively notable films would be (i.e., first films, critically acclaimed role, box-office hits). Indeed, we do this very thing with "Accolades" — we don't list her awards there. Placing her entire filmography here is not summarizing, and it's redundant with the main article. Thoughts? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to having a paragraph or two talking about her roles or even moving the link to "Career" section, though the summary style guideline would advise against having a blank section with only "main article:_____" link. MOS:PARAGRAPHS states Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points. It therefore would be ridiculously short to have a blank section only consist of "main article:_____". Such a link by itself wouldn't exactly be informative. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
So it sounds like we're of like mind. I actually had misconstrued our practice with main-article links, so you were right that my initial edit was in error. If you want to take a whack at a prose paragraph or two, or I could give it a go when I have more time, that sounds like a plan! --Tenebrae (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we add one more movie which is missed in the list 'Friends with Money' in 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archana7490 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image

I recently tried replacing the infobox image to a more recent and IMO more flattering photo of Aniston but was reverted for having not gained consensus on the talk page. So, which image do other users prefer? In the existing photo, she has a blank stare in her face and isn't smiling. The proposed photo is more recent, has good lighting, and she's smiling. Appreciate the feedback in advance. Meatsgains(talk) 19:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

CURRENT Aniston during a tour of the Inova Breast Care Center in Alexandria, Va. in October 2011
PROPOSED Aniston at a ceremony to receive a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in February 2012

RfC on infobox image

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was reached to change the photo. Meatsgains(talk) 02:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

As discussed above, which photo of Aniston should be included in the infobox? Meatsgains(talk) 02:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

CURRENT
PROPOSED

Survey

  • Proposed - The proposed photo is more recent, maintains good lighting, and she's smiling. She has a strange look on her face in the current photo. Meatsgains(talk) 02:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Proposed - (summoned by bot) Just a better image. NickCT (talk) 13:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Proposed a better image IMHO Atlantic306 (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Proposed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
And it was the lead image until recently changed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Proposed The current image doesn't even look like her, the proposed one does. BTW, regarding the editing history on this, the "proposed" version is the long standing version. It was taken out November 5th with no discussion and then when someone reverted to the long standing version on November 17th they were reverted saying that there was no discussion. This is sort of in reverse. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Discuss what ? See edit summary - FlightTime (open channel) 22:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Based upon the response I suggest just changing it right now. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jennifer Aniston's NET WORTH IS $240 MILLION ? Riggggght !!!

Share Jennifer Aniston American Actress Jennifer Joanna Aniston is an American actress, film producer, and businesswoman. The daughter of actors John Aniston and Nancy Dow, she began working as an actress at an early age with an uncredited role in the 1987 film Mac and Me. After her career grew successfully in the 1990s, Aniston has remained a well-known public figure and established hers…

Wikipedia

IMDb Born: Feb 11, 1969 (age 50) · Sherman Oaks, CA Height: 5' 5"


Net worth: $240 million USD (2018) --> WHAT ?


I've never done this before (add a comment to Wikipedia) BUT THERE IS NO WAY ON EARTH THAT SHE IS WORTH QUOTE " $240 MILLION DOLLARS " If you saw the cover spread in a recent "tired" ARCHITECTURAL DIGEST MAGAZINE, her skimpy living room furniture, not to mention the "obvious to anyone" SPARSE FURNISHINGS IN HER NEW BEL-AIR MANSION, HIGH UP IN THE HILLS, ALONE TELLS YOU THAT SHE IS NOT WORTH THAT KIND OF MONEY.

Don't get me wrong - I like her, but her day really ended back with the cancellation of "Friends". She is just as television actress, and NO WAY DO THEY MAKE THAT KIND OF MONEY.

She is NOT - NOT - NOT WORTH EVEN CLOSER TO AN 'ESTIMATED $240 MILLION DOLLARS" That previous quote is from the "downwardly mobile " BING " REWARDS QUIZ ".

They get most so-called "Star BIOS COMPLETELY WRONG - ESPECIALLY THEIR INFLATED (if not BLOATED) " Net Worth ".

She's pretty, she can be funny, but I've also heard she can be a "real one". Hollywood drains any given actress, especially now, with HDTV and constant shows going on about their "lifestyles".

Frankly, I don't know how she keeps her sanity in such a CRUEL BUSINESS. There are too-many actresses (and actors) too.

And most of them DO NOT MAKE ASTRONOMICAL SALARIES - they make a good living, certainly, but not in the multi-millions.

It's a corrupt business, people. Thank you. The End Italic text(more than you know)Bold text Peterwhite94928 (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The article cites Forbes for the estimate, which is certainly a reliable source.
If you think Forbes is wrong, you will need to supply a reliable source directly contradicting it. This would allow us to cite both figures. (To remove the Forbes info, you would need to locate a reliable source that directly challenges this specific information and casts substantial doubt on the figure, or a published correction from Forbes. That seems unlikely to me.)
If you feel that Forbes is not a reliable source for this figure, you should probably familiarize yourself with their established reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and compare that with Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. If, after doing so, you still feel it is not a reliable source, you will need to take the issue to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Forbes is widely used as a source and you will need more than the local consensus you would be trying to build here.
The rest of your comments are irrelevant. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Attribution

Text and references copied from Daniella van Graas to Jennifer Aniston, See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Main image

I would prefer this image over this one to be the image in her infobox as I feel it shows her face more clearly — Preceding unsigned comment added by MuchAdoA (talk • contribs) 06:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The existing one is fine. - FlightTime (open channel) 07:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2019

Jennifer Anniston also plays in Murder Mistery (2019) 2001:1C00:2504:5500:B28B:A3D4:1334:BE94 (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Please make a precise request and provide reliable sources for any information. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

L'Oreal

change ((L'Oreal)) to ((L'Oréal)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4500:1760:91d2:8010:7815:f6a6 (talk • contribs)

 Done: see Special:Diff/922867255. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 20:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2020

Adjust her relationship status to its complicated with Brad Pitt Acngirl1010 (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

We don't include that sort if information in infoboxes. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Justin Theroux

On Justin Theroux's page it says divorced, on Jennifer's article it still reads separated. Status? --LS (talk) 07:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

They are divorced it has been updated. Mr. Awesome, PhD (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)— Datamaster1 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Mmoates (talk • contribs).

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2020

Jennifer Aniston is Greek-American. That’s it. Change every instance of her being called an “American” to “Greek-American.” Thank you. 73.137.131.34 (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (CC) Tbhotch™ 23:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Repetitive information

Isn't it redundant to mention that she is divorced from Pitt and Theroux in the opening paragraphs, as this is clearly stated in the box under her profile picture? --Iggy Ax (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2021

Chronologically (before the start of this para: "She starred in the independent dramedy The Good Girl (2002) as an unglamorous cashier…") Jennifer Aniston's portrayal of Emily Poule in the 2001 movie Rock Star should be added, as she got top billing with Mark Wahlberg and Dominic West, and played a lovely, supportive character in this movie. 74.215.96.12 (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

All done! Thank you for your contributions. In the future, please remember to list edit requests in a "change X to Y" format. Thanks, TGHL ↗ 14:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2021

David Schwimmer and Jennifer Aniston admitted to having crushes on each other early on while filming Friends during HBO Max’s Friends: The Reunion[1] Hacker8679 (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

This should be added in Personal Life section Hacker8679 (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: While it looks to be true, I don't think gossipy stuff like who had a crush on who is noteworthy, important information that needs to be placed in the personal life section of a BLP. Maybe if they were in a relationship or something, but googling around at sources, this seems to be just picked up by gossip mags at the moment, I'm not sure it should find its way into the article. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Jennifer Aniston and David Schwimmer Admit They Used to 'Crush' on Each Other". May 27, 2021. Retrieved May 27, 2021.

Semi-protected minor edit request on 20 July 2021

Change witten to written in the sentence "Nancy had talked about her daughter on a television show and witten From Mother and Daughter to Friends: A Memoir (1999)." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Aniston#Relationships) --ParallelPark (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Additional information in 5 Other Ventures

On September 8, 2021, Jennifer Aniston launched her hair care line LolaVie. https://www.allure.com/story/jennifer-aniston-lolavie-hair-care-brand-interview

In 2021, she is named Chief Creative Officer for Leading Wellness Brand Vital Proteins. https://www.byrdie.com/jennifer-aniston-vital-proteins-collagen-partnership-5087995 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antaeusguy (talk • contribs) 13:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jennifer_Aniston/Archive_1&oldid=1185659572"