Talk:Jennifer Garner/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Introduction - kids

I think it is relevant to mention Garner's motherhood in the introduction. She is photographed daily with her kids and due to this publicity in tabloids and over the internet, Garner's public image is dictated by her family life, which is always the focal topic of her interviews anyway. Angelina Jolie, whose kids are much less exposed to the cameras on a daily basis, has an introduction that mentions her role as a mother - and her article is a featured article. Garner, who says she has cut down work due to her children, has a public profile that, at present, is dominated by her own discussions of being a mother. So, I don't see why the fact that she is a mother of two should not be part of the intro when there is an entire laughably tabloid-style section on her style in this article.Hutch y2k (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie is in another category as far as children are concerned. I gave valid policy based reasons for NOT naming her children in the introduction: WP:BIO#Invalid criteria and WP:BIO#Family. Including children's names in the lead implies notability, and per definition, Garner's children are not notable. Please stop trying to dictate content without adhering to policies and guidelines. You haven't a leg to stand on. You are also bordering on violating 3RR here. Efforts have been made to curtail the "laughably tabloid-style section on her style", but they have been hampered by other editors who want to ignore clear policy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

First, I would appreciate if you would tone down your rebuke. "You haven't a leg to stand on" - you make it sound like I'm fighting a criminal case; I'm merely trying to make a contribution like the rest of the people here. I have written a lot of stuff here at Wikipedia under a different username, so I am no stranger to debate and compromises. Secondly, just stating that Angelina Jolie is "in another category as far as children are concerned" doesn't shed any light on why her article should be the exception to the rule. Regardless, I am willing to compromise and not mention the kids' name in the introduction. Instead, we can say: "She is married to actor Ben Affleck, with whom she has two daughters." Lastly, the policy you cite is about the notability of particular subjects; her kids were being mentioned not because they are notable in their own right but instead because they are incorporated in her own public persona. Anyway, couldn't care less about that as it isn't really integral. I am though going to work on the style section because it really is a shame to have something so patently un-encyclopedic and silly as part of this article.Hutch y2k (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Angelina Jolie, that it exists elsewhere doesn't mean it should exist here. The family life of the Jolie-Pitts goes beyond the bounds of normality and each of them regularly appear with one or more of the children in paparazzi photos and on television. In a sense, they seem to market their parenthood. I don't think the same argument applies to the Afflecks. That they are caught by photographers isn't necessarily something they court. The wording "with whom she has two daughters" is much more acceptable than naming them, as if they had done something notable. As for the "fashion" section, try battling it out with someone who thinks the age at which someone got their ears pierced is encyclopedic copy. Good luck on that. You'll meet heavy resistance, as we have on various articles that want to stress pierced ears, as you can see above. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

OK - at least we have the intro settled. One baby step at a time. Seriously, a lot of little details in this entire article are so gossipy that it is almost cringe-worthy. I would also say this much about the Affleck kids though - just because these stars don't court the paparazzi attention doesn't mean that they don't end up getting defined in part by their family life; most people out there might not remember the last movie Garner worked in, but they will surely know that she is that oft-pictured celebrity mother who is often hailed as a model celebrity mother. She might not court the attention, but due to the mere fact that these snaps are taken and highly circulated, her public persona is remodeled and affected. Anyway, back to the rest of the article: I think it needs to get out of the gutter ... surely, sane voices will prevail and the mind-numbing Garner trivia will have to vanish. Can I say another thing - how come you, having edited Affleck's article, haven't objected to these same kids being named in ben affleck's introduction? Peace :P Hutch y2k (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Almost all of my editing on the Affleck article has been to revert vandalism (a great deal of innuendo regarding him and Matt Damon). For the most part, I haven't read the rest of the article. That's true of likely literally thousands of articles here. It has been worked on by another primary editor and I haven't bothered to check it. However, in this one, I am completely serious, the "fashion", growing up experiences content and earrings has been heavily defended. Sheesh. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I am seeing a slow-scale edit war form here, even though there is discussion associated with the article. These constant reverts are not making this an environment conductive to successful collaborative editing. The next time I see the article reverted to a version that an editor prefers (unless it is obvious vandalism), I will not hesitate to fully protect this article to force each of you to fully work this out here. -MBK₀₀₄ 10:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems rather pointless to me to come in and threaten to "fully protect" this article after a solution was arrived at. Where were you during the issues about pierced ears and attempts to clean out the fashion section that we were discussing, anyway? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This article was not on my watchlist until I noticed a revert during WP:RC patrolling which looked slightly suspicious. That revert led me to leave the warning above, mainly because an edit war will not be allowed to continue even if there is discussion ongoing concurrently. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, please take note of a new editor coming in and completely reverting the changes made by Hutch y2k, which adhered to the discussion previous to this one that concluded the inane sections covering "fashion" and pierced ears should be removed. There is a faction around that seems to think it is valid to include when someone got their ears pierced. There has been ongoing discussion regarding that section, and that it should be removed, but POV warriors keep reverting and fighting this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the reverts and changes to this article are nearly as dramatic, extensive, or threatening as many other Wiki articles. Maybe Wildhartlivie and I could have communicated better about our little tussle over the intro, but it seems like we reached a consensus relatively conveniently. And most of the other reverts of this article are concerning people's strange desire to turn Wikipedia into the National Enquirer under the bogus claim of "complete coverage". Anyway, I feel the article as it stands now is in a decent place and can be easily improved with a little more substantive additions to the Career portion (working on it...). So, hopefully the article will gain some stability now - but as you know as well as anyone else, there is no stable article on Wikipedia; reverts are going to have to be made time and again to protect the article anyway.Hutch y2k (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Factually, Hutch y2k and I worked out our disagreement. Then he proceeded to work on the really bad "Fashion" section. That worked was reverted by Sandi saraya, who posted in support of that very bad section and other articles concerning the odd fascination with ear piercing. I'd note that editor opinion was strongly against keeping the section that Hutch y2k removed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The old version was, IMO, much better, and as for Wildhartlivie's comments above, opinion is NOT "strongly against", but actually about equal for and against. All we have here is two editors, one new to the article and trying to impose their own massive revision, and another who is a regular editor and only lets things they personally agree with stay in the article (and that, to me, is the definition of a "POV warrior"). They have not taken into account the views of any other editors, and I believe that the article should be returned to it's earlier state until such time as a more general concensus has been reached on any major revisions. DCBA-25 (talk) 10:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Why was the old version much better? The new version has a much better and substantial intro; it has more organized sections/headings. You think the following sentence belongs in an encyclopedia: "While Garner may have had a very conservative upbringing and been used to dressing simply, the same could not be said of her Alias character, Sydney Bristow." ... huh? What is the point of this? Garner is hardly a style icon and yet, even those public figures who are style icons don't have such mundane commentary included in their entries. Or, consider this morsel: "For the 75th Academy Awards ceremony in 2003, Garner wore a vintage Versace dress. Because Garner did not at the time have pierced ears, the Neil Lane diamond hoop earrings she wore to the ceremony had to be specially designed and made for her as clip-ons, and were not completed until the day of the ceremony itself." Seriously? Why not add such commentary about every single event she has attended? I am sure she did something slightly special and different for many of her appearances. I think the focus of the article should be on her career and acting work. I am researching to include more stuff on that. Please hold your horses and let the new article take shape. If you want to add things here and there, do so but there is really no point reverting the article to a sub-par entry.Hutch y2k (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)