Talk:Jane Fonda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jane Fonda article.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articles Jane Fonda has been listed as a good article on an actor, model or celebrity for meeting the criteria for this category of articles. If you can expand or improve it further, please do so!
If it does not meet the criteria, or has ceased to since its inclusion, you can delist it or ask for a review.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
Wikipedia CD Selection Jane Fonda is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL images. However, if you can improve the article, please do so!
Peer review Jane Fonda has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Arts article has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Good Job
"Enjoyable, well-linked biography" — Sunday Times (London), May 22, 2005
News This article has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details.

The citation is in: "Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems" (October 18, 2005). The Register. [1].

Contents

[edit] Anti-War

Here's my contribution;

Recently, Vietnamese historians have suggested that Fonda's and other activists' anti-war efforts after the Tet Offensive, which devastated the North Vietnamese forces, literally turned the tide against the American invading forces. The North Vietnamese realized that, while they were losing the war on the battlefield, they had the potential to achieve victory in the political arena within the United States itself. Thus, Fonda's trip to Hanoi is seen by many veterans of the Vietnam War as emblematic of the internal defeat experienced by the American pro-war factions. The American casualties during Fonda's activist period exceded 20,000 deaths.

It's appropriate because it's real. I have no doubt it will be deleted soon. If you are concerned about legitimate citations I suggest you go through the article with a fine-tooth comb and discover ALL the undocumentated citatations here and virtually everywhere throughout Wikipedia. Double standards are a wonderful tool of propaganda. I'm just curious, AndreaParton, how it was that within minutes of my contribution to this article you came along to question its veracity. I smell a Wikipedia conspiracy here, though I'm sure you're a very nice person after all. 69.109.124.102 16:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not doubt that many supporters of the Vietnam War feel this way about Jane Fonda's actions. I just feel like this article already says a lot about the criticism of Fonda's anti-war activism. Now that I think about it, I can think of several places on the internet where there are statements that many Americans believe we could have won the war if it had not been for the protests of Fonda and other anti-war activists. But on the other hand, Fonda was only one of many war protesters. I agree, there are probably other statements in this article that are not cited and should be. I have this page on my watchlist and when I saw your edits, I felt like your goal was to smear Fonda's reputation. But I know that an encyclopedic and neutral article often needs to include criticisms like these, if they are verifiable. Just be glad I didn't revert your contributions immediately.

Andrea Parton 15:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Additionally, you might be interested to read what Jimbo Wales has to say about unsourced material, especially negative biographical information on living persons. [2]

Andrea Parton 15:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, and thank you. Perhaps someone with greater ability than mine will come along and provide proper citations. However, don't forget that JF not only purposefully inserted herself into the eye of the storm, she actively profited and benefited from her role as war protester. She would not be nearly so famous today without this feather in her cap, and the assertion that some of those boys would be alive today with wife and kids is not so far-fetched. 69.109.124.102 16:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lebanon

Could some please contribute some information re: her record in Lebanon during the civil war - particularly her support for Israel/the US over the PLO regarding the PLO's evacuation and the subsequent massacres committed at Sabra and Chatila after the PLO was evacuated.

[edit] Winter Soldier Investigation

Removed from the article:

It is not apparent how much the anti-soldier efforts and rhetoric of VVAW before recorded participation by Fonda influenced her, nor her influence on the organization. Although Kerry participated in the discredited Winter Soldier Investigation, it is not known when VVAW participants became aware of the quantity of false testimony and soldier impostors.

Winter Soldier is hardly "discredited". One member of VVAW (Al Hubbard) admitted that he overstated his credentials (he was not a "soldier impostor") and repeated what he heard other people say as if it happened to himself. However, Winter Soldier involved many, many soldiers. This is an exaggeration at the least. Also, I'm a bit confused as to what that first sentence is supposed to mean; if you would care to elaborate, it would be helpful. Lets work constructively on this one. Rei 20:53, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

That first sentence is a connection back to the reference to Kerry as being influenced by Fonda. I don't know how much Fonda influenced VVAW nor how much VVAW influenced Fonda. And the "VVAW participants" was used so as to blanket VVAW, Kerry, and Fonda with a haze of innocence about their involvement. If you know something more definite about who knew what when and what they then did, speak up. Preferably with fewer pronouns than in my preceding sentence. SEWilco 07:24, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
If you'd follow the links back to VVAW and the Winter Soldier Investigation page, you'd find more elaboration. Or search the web for some of the terms mentioned here. SEWilco 07:24, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Have you ever read some of the Winter Soldier Investigation text? It brings back memories because it is very indicative of a lot of the thinking of the times. Let's just say it was very flawed, and questions of the authenticity of some of the "testifiers" is, shall we say, an open question. But it reflects its times; it is quirky and, at the least unbalanced and overblown. My friend and I wanted to join, but there was no one to sign us up where we were, but we did get "Friends of VVAW" badges or buttons, I forget which. Now I'm just as happy we didn't. I didn't know about Fonda's involvement at the time, and I didn't know the details of Winter Soldier. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:59, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I have. I've seen many cases where people question the authenticy of "some" of the testifiers, but when asked for names, the only one I've ever seen presented is Hubbard. Also, he is often referred to as being a "fake soldier", when in reality, he simply overstated his rank and repeated what he heard from others as being his own. Certainly, it speaks poorly for their vetting process - Hubbard was a fairly major figure. And indeed, the whole thing was overblown - from reading it, you'd think that everyone who went to Vietnam took part in war crimes, that all of the officers were racist, etc.  ;) Really though, most of it seems to be little more than the selection process - people who went to Vietnam and saw nothing bad weren't exactly likely to end up as part of Winter Soldier.
On the other hand, they did raise some serious issues - they talked about Free Fire zones, combat in Cambodia and Laos, etc. I mainly have a problem with reference to it as "discredited", and the nameless generalization of the people involved in it as "fakes". Rei 22:47, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Rei, this was 1971. Free fire zones, combat in Cambodia and Laos were old news. When I was in the Army (1967-69) we were talking about the "Parrot's Beak" in Cambodia. And Laos? The talk in the early '60s in the US wasn't Viet Nam. It was Laos, with the Pathet Lao, who were around since the '50s. One of the things that made the "domino theory" so compelling to the hawks was that Laos was the first, Viet Nam the second ...
The only "new" thing that I saw come out of Winter Soldier were charges of rampant racism and the charges that Kerry made before the Senate, alleging war atrocities as every day events. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:03, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this discussion about Winter Soldier be in Talk:Winter_Soldier_Investigation, and here talk about Fonda? There have been links there and in Winter Soldier Investigation. And I'll put details in those pages and the VVAW pages. Someone want to clean up this page and move paragraphs over there? SEWilco 07:24, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] POV edits?

Could somebody look into the edits by [User:Calstan]. He appears to have done a series of deletions which skew the bias of the article, both by removing the second point of view and adjusting the language used. However I'm not familiar enough with the Wikipedia position on reverting and NPOV to be comfortable acting. (unsigned by User:Lod 26 October)

I looked at the Calstan edits from 21 October. Most of the comments that were removed appear to have been mentioned by the contributor in a derisive tone (i.e. "vegetable oil-powered bus"). Further, several of the comments contained disputed interpretations, such as the distribution of FTA, described variously as abruptly pulled or suppressed.
If you have specific passages you'd like to discuss for inclusion, please add them here. Jokestress 17:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photograph

An anon deleted the reference to the faked Fonda/Kerry photo, thus leaving the impression that any such photo people see is genuine. In the paragraph mentioning Kerry, the second sentence should be replaced with something like:

Republicans circulated a photograph showing Fonda and Kerry in the same large crowd at a 1970 anti-war rally, although they were sitting several rows apart. [3] Some also circulated a faked composite photograph to give the impression that the two had shared a speaker's platform. [4]

The fake achieved wide enough currency to merit correction here. JamesMLane 19:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] In the news

Ms. Fonda is in the news currently because of the incident in which a man spit in her face at a book signing. I realize everyone loves to add up to the second information and the wiki facilitates that nicely, but I'm wondering if that's really relevant material for a person's biography. I tend to be of the philosophy that people who do things like this don't deserve to have their actions glorified, especially given that nothing came of this event other than having to wipe the mess off her face (therefore it's both irrelevant and unimportant). Before removing it I'll see what you people think. 130.207.77.64 03:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree - Danny Beardsley 08:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about glorifying (or not glorifying) people's actions. It's about recording knowledge. The event happened. It is a graphic and powerful indication that some people still consider Ms Fonda a traitor for what she did. I think it is significant. Logophile 10:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Planet and the Planeteers

Jane Fonda co-produced Captain Planet and the Planeteers?! OMFG! --Abdull 21:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I read this bio. It is hugely biased. I read it because I thought maybe after all these years, she'd done something to make up for the hurt she contributed to. She does, to her credit, continue to be outspoken. She has marginally contributed to other human rights causes but has not made, as far as I can see, much with her potential. Probably because of her extremeism and inability to appreciate subtlety. THE defining picture of Jane is not her in a business suit at age 60+. We all know what the defining picture is, and it is not cropped to eliminate the context (i.e. the weapon she straddles aimed to kill american servicemen). Until you put it in, this really is incomplete. I wish Jane well, hopefully I will never be in the same room as her. DNE 9-11-2005

[edit] This page has a critic

This page has a critic in the blogosphere ... see http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2005/10/the_amorality_o.php . Pcb21| Pete 15:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This article is crap

"Fonda objected to being called a sex symbol, as a feminist she didn't want to be objectified" Cmon, we are talking about Barbarella ! She loved it !

Jimbo sez so. Lets get cleaning~! Sam Spade 21:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Which sections need the most work? You put a cleanup tag on the article but you haven't listed any problems with the article. You just link to another page that makes a few negative comments about the article. --JamesB3 22:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I have you read the article? 3 people are saying it is crap right now. 1. is me. another is some blog writer guy cited above. A third is Jimbo, our sites founder! Lets just see if theres anything we can do, eh? Sam Spade 22:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, God. Reading the "early years" section was so painful, I couldn't go on. Practically every sentence has nothing to do with the ones preceding and following it. And suddenly at the end, we jump to her 2005 memoirs. Crap, indeed. Johnleemk | Talk 17:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if the entire thing is crap, but I did notice that the "Jane's regrets" section repeated the same information over and over. --Jacquelyn Marie 18:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

If people have an objection to the article then they should edit what they feel is poorly done, instead of just complaining about what bothers them. The article is not perfect, but if people don't want to make any changes to reflect the complaints they have, I wonder how many people really think the article is such "crap". --JamesB3 19:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Sheesh. I specifically said that "crap" might not be the best word to define it. Plus, maybe I should have made it more clear, but I'm not sure which sections to reduce, and I was looking for community input. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
If you think there is a problem then you should edit what concerns you and then if someone else disagrees they will revert the edit. I do agree that the regrets area is a bit repetitive. I suppose I was bothered because people in the talk area have said the article is awful but never offer any suggestions or edits of their own. If you have some ideas then more power to you. I should also point out to the people who think the article is awful that most of the time (up until recently) this article has been heavily vandalized over and over and over. So much time has been spent reverting the article from repeated vandalism that there hasn't been as much time or focus to clean up anything. --JamesB3 06:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations. This article was one of two even discussed in german press for being a radiant example of crap in english wikipedia. The articles were founded on Nicolas Carrs critic and is said to be backed up by Jimmy Wales in this particular case! They even start to doubt the theory of "collective intelligence" here. And I thought only the germans would fxxx up at "Freimaurerei" etc. Clean it fast, plz! ANd take the job a little more serious - writing is a craftmanship. MAdayar, --80.171.188.153 21:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is it that most of the people who complain about the article never actually want to work on the article themselves? There isn't a glass wall separating the talk page and the article itself. --JamesB3 22:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps because complaining about the article and being told "fix it yourself" is like going to a restraunt, complaining about the food, and being told "cook it yourself"? -unsigned
"Fix it yourself", huh? Consider this: If I would know enugh about Jane Fonda to write a complete online dictionary entry about her, do you REALLY think I would look her up in wikipedia? Not EVERYBODY can fix an article, especially not a biographical one. So, JamesB3, if you think anybody can fix just anything, maybe I know now why so many articles are so crappy. I would never DARE write about a topic I haven't the slightest idea what it's all about. Many people seem to ignore their lack of knowledge quite successfully. I addition I'm not a native english speaking member of the worldwide humanity. I don't think it would be senseful to correct an english text, although I'm a writer in my country. Many people consultate Wikipedia to achieve knowledge about something they haven't heared about ever before. And it is extremely important to deliver that information clearly and understand<able. Whoever tried that here, failed miserably. That's my two cents, keep the change. Madayar, --80.171.192.235 21:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
But several of the people who came into the talk section not only said the article was poor, they pointed out specific sections that were poor. So when they point out specific areas, then yes, I do think that maybe they could edit what they don't like. As for 'failing miserably', the article is not perfect but does an adequate job of detailing her life and career. If someone has no idea who Jane Fonda is, then they will get a pretty good idea from the page. I've seen much worse, especially when you consider that for months the article was vandalized time and time again and people were concerned with cleaning that up. As for "fix it yourself", that is a quote from one of the articles. I never used such a harsh term. I said that people could edit what they didn't like since this is a collaborative process. And it is. If someone goes to the page to learn about Jane Fonda, they will. If they know enough about her, or about grammar or structure, that they are outraged by the article, then they have the option of making changes. --JamesB3 00:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
The problems with that are that you pay for your food and you pay to have trained professionals cook your food. You can't just go cook the food yourself. You CAN edit Wikipedia if you object to the content. --JamesB3 06:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Telling someone "fix it yourself" is juvenile and unhelpful. Your average Internet viewer will just ignore the article and instead head off to Google if it is not useful. -unsigned

Personally I think that saying the article has problems and then doing nothing about those problems is more unhelpful. I'm not trying to tell people that they shouldn't criticize the article. What I am saying is - if you think the article is "crap", then you have the power to change the article as you wish. That's the good thing about Wikipedia. I would imagine that the average person who reads Wikipedia would know how to edit an article if they feel the article is horrible. --JamesB3 06:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Pay attention and don't ask again who is calling it crap and why doesn't he just fix it himself. At Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source 2005 we read "Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems, by Andrew Orlowski in The Register, 18 October 2005. [5] refers to Bill Gates, Jane Fonda and Jeanette Washington. The article refers to this email by Jimmy Wales dated Thu Oct 6 21:01:29 UTC 2005 stating "But the two examples he puts forward are, quite frankly, a horrific embarassment. Bill Gates and Jane Fonda are nearly unreadable crap". WAS 4.250 04:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to fix it up, but I don't know much of anything about Jane Fonda. I do know, though, that this writeup is a horribly muddled, random bit of work with no clear focus and no notion of what's important and unimportant in Fonda's life. In short, yes, it is crap, and it doesn't take a biographer to see that. Koyaanis Qatsi 05:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I apologize if you think I'm not paying attention. I know who called the article crap, because the original article has been mentioned several times on this page. At first I wasn't sure who said what but then I realized who the comments were from, and sure, there is some validity in the comments. I never asked the original author of the postings or the article to edit the article himself, because he has never posted on this page as far as I know. If one of the Wikipedia people thinks the article is crap, that's fine. The page can be locked. Or the page can be deleted. Instead it seems to just sit there and a few people come to reference the same article a few different times. I just think that if people object to the content or wording of the article, they should edit what they don't like. That's the point of Wikipedia. I'm sorry if that seems rude, because it isn't intended to be rude. It just seems like common sense to me. The article you link to is basically objecting to any format that involves readers contributing to a Wikipedia entry, as far as I can tell, since an edit-based format is the equivalent of "doing it yourself". Even the many fine or acceptable entries on the site are based on people doing it themselves. The whole site is built on people contributing. The resturant analogy is flawed - it's more of a potluck supper, for lack of a better description. --JamesB3 06:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I know this debate seems to have ended a while ago, but I do agree with JamesB3 about the point of Wikipedia. That being, if you see a problem with an article, it is your responsibility to fix it as much as it is within your power. Yes, this article has some quality problems, and no, I know nothing about Jane Fonda, but that won't stop me from working on the grammar, syntax, structural, and POV errors that can be found within. Wikipedia is about the users coming together to create a collective knowledge base, not about pointing fingers at articles that need work and complaining without doing something productive about it. Gnosis1185 21:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is skewed heavily towards favoring what she did in Vietnam, etc. There a parenthetical statements that heavily influence the POV and hold no encyclopedic value. 70.162.112.213 00:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded Youknowthatoneguy 00:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC). Sorry I didn't log in for that last statement :D.

[edit] Watch for Copyvio

I was just editing the "Acting career" section and came across huge chunks of text that had been copied were suspect. I think I got most of it in that section, but it is something to look out for in other sections. Sunray 08:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC).

From where? Be careful it isn't a mirror copying from us. Pcb21| Pete 09:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
The site was adoption.com. It fooled me, as it is not a mirror and the article on Fonda was significantly different from our article, but on looking more closely I note that it does use material from Wikipedia so I guess it wasn't a copyvio. Oh well, it probably got a better revision that way as I re-wrote it rather than just edited. Sunray 02:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] When did she announce that she wanted to make worthy films?

Fonda announced that she would only make films that focused on important issues, and she generally stuck to her word. She turned down An Unmarried Woman because she felt the part was not relevant.

Anyone know when she announced this? The para sticks out a bit without a date... e.g.

In 1977, Fonda announced...

chocolateboy 22:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

This was referenced in the second edition of The Great Movie Stars (I think that was the name of David Shipman's book). He didn't give an exact date, but listed the quote from around that time. --JamesB3 22:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Aha! Ta.

chocolateboy 22:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carr criticism???

Forgive me for such a silly question, but I was reading through a Wikinews article about Wikipedia's mix reviews which uses Nicholas Carr's critique as an example. After visiting Carr's blog, I decided to look up the two articles in Question Jane Fonda and Bill Gates; he gave a verbatim excerpt of those articles; I have gone back through our edits and unfortunately I can not find where that article is; Even our first edit on Jane Fonda had more info than he states, His article says it was written on Oct. 3, 2005 yet in November of 2004 the content looked like this. Can someone please explain this to me -- I must be missing something here, my bad. ~ RoboAction 06:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the article as it was in 2004? It reads like a poorly written fanzine, with incomplete sentences and numerous gramatical errors. The article remained bad until a week or two after Carr's article. Since then, it has improved somewhat. Sunray 06:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

In "Hanoi Jane" it says "she expressed some regret for her actions sixteen years later, but never apologized to Vietnam veterans and their families." But four paragraphs down in "Fonda's regrets" she says "I want to apologize to them and their families." That's kind of confusing, but I think there might be a reason for it so I don't want to make the edit. --Foofy 07:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I aggree. I'm not sure why the article double talks this way. Could someone please clear this up? --Gogabego 21:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About Jane being a sex symbol

"Fonda objected to being called a sex symbol, as a feminist she didn't want to be objectified"

Cmon, we are talking about Barbarella ! She loved it an it showed ! Somebody get a pic of her in Barbarella wardrobe ! Every woman would love to be as beautiful as Jane Fonda. I heard her on Larry King lately, saying that sometimes she looks in the mirror and thinks to herself "I am the luckiest woman in the world"


[edit] Religious Journey

Should there be something in this article about Jane Fonda's spritual views, throughout her life, and her recent statements that she is a Christian? Mokwella 23:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Go ahead and add something on that to the article. Sunray 08:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations edit war

"these allegations have been dismissed as an urban myth" vs. "these allegations have not been confirmed" is at least on the verge of being an edit war. One side claims "it is easy to prove something happened, it is nearly impossible to prove something never ever happened". It seems, though, that "the allegations have not been confirmed" implies that there are some who still support the discounted allegations. Since the Snopes article referenced immediately after the statement discounts the rumors, it seems more accurate to say that the allegations have been dismissed as an urban myth. Do some claim that the Snopes article is inaccurate? The Rod 21:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Quite right. Also see negative proof. chocolateboy 10:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I only say that Snopes jumped to a conclusion. Again, it is quite possible to prove something happened, but it is nearly impossible to prove something never happened. Perhaps a tweak to the wording is in order. Inconclusive perhaps? Ordrestjean 05:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. How about we excerpt a little from the Snopes article? I suggest this revision:
Although e-mail messages allegedly from former POWs state that Fonda handed over information from U.S. prisoners of war to NLF insurgents (better known in the U.S. as the "Viet Cong"), the POWs named in the e-mail messages "have repeatedly and categorically denied the events they supposedly were part of."
Does that sound neutral? The Rod 16:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
---
Again, it is quite possible to prove something happened, but it is nearly impossible to prove something never happened.
"Again", see the negative proof fallacy.
I only say that Snopes jumped to a conclusion.
And you are?
Does that sound neutral?
No. Kicking up a fuss doesn't make it so. Snopes is a reputable source, and manifestly has dismissed the allegation as an urban myth. Reword the sentence when the Snopes article has been debunked by another reliable source.
chocolateboy 17:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prospective featured article?

I previously added a section to Fonda's article with quotes which affirmed her support for communism in the 1970's. Although I cited the source of the quotes, it was not long before someone added a sentence stating that the quotes were never confirmed to have come from Fonda, and not long after that before someone deleted them altogether.

I mentioned this on the talk page to establish consensus. If you think it is best not to include these quotes, we will not include them. I added them only to try to make the article more complete, not as an insult to Jane Fonda. In fact, I am a communist myself, but I know that communism has historically been very unpopular, and that many people still have not forgiven Fonda for her role in the Vietnam War, and so I think it may be preferable not to include these quotes. I don't know whether Fonda still considers herself a communist, or if she ever truly did for that matter. If anyone knows, say something here.

Additionally, I would like for this to be a featured article. I think we have cleaned it up enormously since last October when Jimbo told us it was nearly unreadable, and I want to thank everyone who has helped. If anyone reading this has any disputes, complaints, suggested improvements, or other concerns or ideas regarding this article, please post them here. After all of our issues are resolved, I plan to nominate this article for peer review.

Andrea Parton 02:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just modified this section's heading, and I went ahead and nominated this article for peer review, but I still would like feedback on whether others think this article should include something on Fonda's support for communism? Also, I know that Fonda dealt with bulimia for much of her early life, but I don't know whether that should be mentioned in her article. What do you think? Andrea Parton 23:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I also wonder whether the section on Fonda's romantic relationships should be restructured, perhaps putting details regarding her three marriages in paragraph form rather than as a bulleted list. Andrea Parton 19:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] liberal "christians"??

The two words are almost mutually exclusive. If she considers herself born again, then it's very hard to believe that she's also liberal, in the way it's defined nowadays. It's possible she really did repent and receive Christ into her heart by faith, and is simply very naive about what Christianity teaches and practices. Sadly, it's also possible that she's a "nominal" Christian, and hence, not actually saved.Jlujan69

I'm not at all certain where you're coming from. Many dedicated Christians are also liberal people and be aware that there are many more ways to be "liberal" than to subscribe a political view or movement. As to Ms. Fonda, I have no idea what "born again" and "liberal" mean to her if a personal sense, or as a matter of faith. -- Cecropia 06:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the term "liberal" has changed over the years. In times past, abolotionists and civil rights (in the Martin Luther King vein)activists were considered liberal. Now, their views are mainstream. These causes were morally justified and completely biblical. However, some of the issues that today's liberals typically support are immoral and simply not biblical--less restrictive abortion and homosexual marriage, for example. While I believe there are Christians who do support these latter causes, I believe that they are misguided in their notions.Jlujan69 07:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually know many liberal Christians. They support feminism, LGBT rights, etc. In my opinion, this does not make them any less "true" Christians than their conservative counterparts. Even though I'm not a Christian, I know that the bible says that greed and bigotry are sins, and that seems to be something that many (possibly most) religious conservatives have forgotten. Andrea Parton 20:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jane's earliest years

The main article could be improved if a word or two were added on her early years. Which high school did she graduate from? Did she go to her senior prom?

Where did she pick up her French? Can she speak Spanish and German as well? Did she study those languages in high school, or did she pick them up travelling around the world?

  • Actually, I have wanted to add such a section myself. I think this article should say something about Jane's early life. Andrea Parton 20:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Jane Fonda hates America"

"Jane Fonda hates America"?

That is a pretty subjective statement. I think it should be taken out.

[edit] Table

As you know, this article includes a table which lists Fonda's most notable films, both alphabetically and by year. The problem with the table is that many editors do not know how to edit HTML tables and just end up messing it up. I just reverted the edits of someone who messed up this table and I have messed it up myself before. Maybe someone could look at this and see if something could be done. Andrea Parton 02:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced material

Recently, Vietnamese historians have suggested that after the Tet Offensive, which ended with a superior and devastating victory against the Viet Cong forces, Fonda's and other activists' anti-war efforts literally turned the tide back against the American forces. [citation needed] The North Vietnamese realized that, while they were losing the war on the battlefield, they had the potential to achieve victory in the political arena within the United States itself. Thus, Fonda's trip to Hanoi is seen by many veterans of the Vietnam War as emblematic of the internal defeat experienced by the American pro-war factions. [citation needed] The American casualties during Fonda's activist period exceeded 20,000 deaths. [citation needed]

Until we can get some reliable sources for this opinion, I am removing this material from the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What kind of an AA gun was it?

I would guess it was a 57 mm S-60 anti-aircraft gun or a M1939 37 mm anti-aircraft gun. Does anybody have acces to some good pictures of that ant-aircaraft cannon? Mieciu K 13:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need more References

i like that she support Newton et al but you need the references. It not that i disagree but i want to use it and i need to learn more, but we all need the source---Halaqah 12:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links Removed??

64.162.197.70 18:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Why were four perfectly good external links at the bottom of this article removed this morning?

Jonathan Harvey

[edit] Romantic Relationships

"L.A Rapper Mickey Avalon released a sond titled Jane Fonda in late 2006 notweworthy due to the fact that it is one of the first songs released on MySpace records." -- What does this have to do with Romantic Relationships? Isn't this more like trivia? --Mikala Arteaga 21:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this should not be mentioned in the Romantic Relationships section. I really don't know if it's notable at all. Andrea Parton 01:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/n/Talk%7EJane_Fonda_4cb1.html"