Talk:Angelina Jolie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star Angelina Jolie is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Contents

[edit] Article location

As a person who shares the same family name as Angelina, I would like to see this article only occupy Angelina_Jolie rather than also occupying the "Jolie" space which would be more appropriately used to discuss the origin/history etc. of the name. I was hoping to research my family name but there is nothing in that space. 158.228.209.145 14:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian/American Nationality

Angelina Jolie's mother Marcheline Bertrand was Canadian which means Angelina is an American Canadian. This ought to be changed.


[edit] real age

according to government public records, in USA PEOPLE SEARCH, Angelina Jolie Voight, daughter of Marcheline and Jon Voight is 45.--Juju 18:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Methinks that's an error. Those types of sites are about as accurate as the IMDb on these sorts of things. 23skidoo 19:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
check if your age is right....it is based on public records not biographies off of fan sites. but it seems interesting...because that means her mom had her at 17...--Juju 23:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
My mom was married at 17. Chaplin's last wife was 17. That's certainly not a criteria. There is no logical reason for Angelina Jolie to claim she's 15 years younger than she is! If that's the case, then she must have been a really late bloomer because she would have been 20 when she made her first film back in 1982 and she looks like a little kid! Besides, note how many Angelina Jolies are actually listed. You only cite the first one -- forgetting that her legal name hasn't been Voight for about 5-6 years. There are several other Angelina Jolies -- including one in LA -- with the correct age. Ignore this source. It's wrong. 23skidoo 23:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
the reason why i mentioned the first one, is because it lists other aliases, as well as mentions relatives. yes there are several different people with the name 'angelina jolie' but there is only one who is related to marcheline. the first one mentions LA, and if i am correct she probably owns a variety properties within the US. so ofcourse she would have other cities listed. i dont think it could go on the wiki, without more substantial evidence, but it is an interesting tidbit of information. --Juju 01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
No argument there. I'm curious to find out where 45 figure came from. Someone must have gotten a mix-up somewhere. The fact that you click on the name and the site provides zero information/sources is one of the reasons why I discount it. 23skidoo 03:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "known for her great beauty"

This is a bit NPOV for an opening sentence. We could well say "known for her fake breasts", "known for being an emotional flake" or "known for being heavily tattooed".

Please sign your comments. Although actually adding "known for her fake breasts" was unnecessary vandalism, I do agree the line was too POV and I have changed it accordingly. 23skidoo 16:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Odd thing is, she IS considered beautiful by most people. Otherwise she wouldn't have her status as an actress today. Yeah, it's point of view as to what a person considers "beautiful" but it wouldn't POV violation at to say something like "She is considered by many possessing great beauty." 74.137.217.32 10:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early life plagiarism?

I'm very concerned about the section on Jolie's early life. Please examine this Jolie bio which is cited throughout as a source. Quite a few sections seem to be copied verbatim.

I'm taking a week or two off from Wikipedia, so I won't be able to help out. Would someone please examine the source and the section to see if the article is indeed plagiarizing? Kasreyn 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The reference to the moving "Looking to Get Out" and how she "did not" get the idea to be an actor from her father appears to cut a little close to what the website said. But we'd need to do a side-by-side comparison to catch everything. This needs further examination. 23skidoo 22:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm finally back from my wikibreak. What say we get back to this plagiarism problem? Kasreyn 22:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The section was partly rephrased. Two sentences that rely heavily on phrases from the biography have direct footnotes to the original text, therefore the source it clearly noted and I think the section is well within WP copyright policy. -- EnemyOfTheState 15:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Jolie's early life section needs to be changed. It's source is just another biography which lacks sources. Interviews would be the most accurate sources for this type of information. InformationOverload 12:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

While the bio doesn't name its sources, I'd say it's clear that it was written based on interviews and (reliable) articles. Most info can be cross-referenced with other articles listed in the reference section (especially the two Vogue articles). These Tiscali biographies seem to be an accepted source, e.g. it's mentioned as a reference on the featured article "Uma Thurman". If you on the other hand think that some info in the section is wrong and you have a reliable source for it, then just change it. -- EnemyOfTheState 15:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-article for tattoos and trivia?

It has been proposed on the peer review page to move the "Tattoos" and "Other trivia" sections to a sub-article "Angelina Jolie trivia" like it has been done with the Madonna trivia for example. I support this proposal, it would allow (a) to shorten this article, (b) to make it less "listy" and (c) to wirte a short summary about it that links directly to the new created list. I'm interested in opinions about this. -- EnemyOfTheState 11:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Any thoughts on that? EnemyOfTheState 12:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the idea. I'm actually surprised Madonna trivia has survived without being tossed by AFD. 23skidoo 14:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impressed

As an editor on a lot of actor biographies, I'd just like to say that I am very, very impressed with the article, especially compared to what it used to look like. Good job everyone. You could get a GA for sure, and aren't far aways from an FA. Mad Jack 22:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

However, "Other trivia" needs to go - all of it should/can be either deleted or inserted into the other parts of the article Mad Jack 22:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Would tend to agree with this. Things like what color truck Jolie drives are really not worth mention. Kasreyn 00:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree this really turned into an impressive article. Should it be nominated for FA any time soon? Sloan21 11:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I would be thrilled to help with that.  :) Kasreyn 00:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
It would certainly be a good idea if a native speaker could go through the text to check or if necessary improve the prose, in accordance with the FA criteria. I wrote/rewrote big parts of the article in the last months, though as a non-native speaker I can only assess the text quality to a certain extend. -- EnemyOfTheState 23:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a very good article indeed, detailed and well cited, good job. I think it would stand a good chance as FAC. The only concern might be its length, though I don't see how it could be considerably shortened without losing a lot of information, since there are no sub-articles to move details. You might want to consider nominating it rather sooner than later, because good articles tend to erode over time, unless they are closely monitored ;) 138.246.7.94 11:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
So what's the consensus on a possible FA nomination? Sloan21 12:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the user who said it's too long. Surely there are unimportant details that can be removed. Each and every small detail of her life seems to be listed and quite frankly, I couldn't read the whole thing because I got bored. Is there anything that can be done to eliminate or combine some of the unnecessary details? --Lorraine LeBeau 21:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia section

I have no objection to the removal of the present trivia section as there really wasn't a lot there ... but wasn't there a more substantial trivia section a few weeks ago? Something seems to have gone missing. 23skidoo 22:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the trivia section a few weeks ago and put everything I considered noteworthy into the new created media section, as "trivia needs to go" was a repeated suggestion to improve the quality (not just of this article). -- EnemyOfTheState 23:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks. For some reason it just snuck by me. I'm not anti-trivia like some folks but if it can be worked into the main article, that's fine. (Trivia is good for listing items that are too tangental for the main discussion) 23skidoo 21:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toronto's newspapers copying this article

This is more a random observation than a discussion about the article, though I still thought it's noteworthy.

I recently found the Fashion Monitor Toronto using an exact quote from the artile:

"Zahara's name means "flower" in Swahili, the second name "Marley" comes from late Jamaican reggae superstar Bob Marley. Zahara's nickname is "Z"." Zahara Not Shakira

And I was even more suprised today to discover that the Toronto Daily News used entire paragraphs:

"Angelina Jolie announced the founding of the Jolie/Pitt Foundation which gave initial donations to Global Action for Children and Doctors Without Borders of $1 million each. [...]
Angelina Jolie is a goodwill ambassador for the UN High Commission for Refugees. During her years as Goodwill Ambassador Jolie concentrated her efforts on field missions, visiting refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) all around the world. Asked what she hopes to accomplish, she stated, “Awareness of the plight of these people. I think they should be commended for what they have survived, not looked down upon.” In her travels, Angelina Jolie visited Tham Hin refugee camp in Thailand and Colombian refugees in Ecuador, went to various UNHCR facilities in Kosovo and paid a visit to Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya with refugees mainly from Sudan. Angelina Jolie also visited Angolan refugees while she was filming Beyond Borders in Namibia. During a private stay in Jordan in December 2003 Angelina Jolie asked to visit Ruwaished camp in Jordan's remote eastern desert, 70 km from the Iraqi border. With the humanitarian situation in Sudan worsening, Angelina Jolie flew to Chad in June 2004, paying a visit to border sites and camps for refugees who had fled fighting in western Sudan's Darfur region. In 2004 Jolie visited Afghan refugees in Thailand and on a private stay to Lebanon during the Christmas holidays she visited UNHCR's regional office in Beirut as well as some young refugees and cancer patients in the Lebanese capital. Recently, Angelina Jolie became more involved in promoting humanitarian causes on a political level. Jolie pushed for a bill to aid 70 million vulnerable children in the Third World which was signed by President Bush in November 2005, but so far no funding has been granted. In September 2005 Angelina Jolie was named the new spokesperson for the clothing line St. John, and the deal includes the start-up of a charity headed by Jolie which will focus on children's issues and causes." Jolie-Pitt Foundation Donates $2M to Children, Medical Charities

Anyway, I just thought that is quite interesting. -- EnemyOfTheState 17:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shiloh

I've uploaded three images of Shiloh (specifically the cover of People and New Idea magazines and her wax figure at Madame Tussauds). Why did you deleted it? I've cited fair use and sources of the image and if the image break any rule on uploading or tagging it, it should received warning, but until now it havent receive. Would you please give me a concrete reason on why you remove the said images? Hedwig0407 08:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Three pictures of Shiloh is excessive and totally unnecessary. There already is an external link to the People pictures and the fair use rational was questionable, since People sent out dozens of cease-and-desist orders to websites using the cover. Plus, the article has a lot of fair use pictures as it is. -- EnemyOfTheState 16:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IMDB refs

IMDB definitely is not even vaguely a reliable source. It shouldn't be used as a reference Mad Jack 22:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

IMDB (although sometimes incorrect) has a better modification system than wikipedia and the likelihood is that if you were to compare wikipedia to IMDB you would find it's more reliable. Any modifications/additions made to IMDB are confirmed by moderators before it's added to the database and any corrections (if incorrect info is found) is looked into. IMDB is indeed a reliable source for most info, but I would suggest double-checking elsewhere to make sure it's right before citing it as a source :-) SmUX 12:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] minor grammar edit

i edited the sentence containing "...situation on the ground of thousands..." to read "...situation of thousands...", as the previous version is incorrect, as it refers to the situation on the ground that belongs to thousands of refugees, not the situation of the refugees themselves. Parsecboy 14:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angelina is adopting a Indian Child.

I added a text which says:

Angelina Jolie was all-set to adopt an Indian Child.

But it was edited. I also given reference where I got that news from. Please Give me reason for deleting this news/ or otherwise i'll revert this article.

Thanks. Message is from User:Bunty02.

The original source for this information is the UK tabloid newspaper Daily Mail which is a highly unreliable source to say the least. Also, you provided a reference to some sort of blog, not acceptable per WP:RS. There is no point including random tabloid speculation. -- EnemyOfTheState 14:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability of height

I believe celebheights.com is a reliable source for celebrity heights. It is not editable by anyone, people can leave comments about heights however only the owners of the site can edit the height listed. Anyone disagree? --Bansal 23:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No. It is only reliable if it cites where the information came from. Now, most of the heights I've checked have included the specific citation. That said, it would be better to go straight to the source. That is, if celebheights says People magazine on this date, it would be better to use People magazine itself as the citation rather than celebheights. But celebheights would still be acceptable in that case. However, if they just list an uncited height or provide an unreliable citation, they are not reliable. --Yamla 23:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

This page is getting hit hard. I think it should be protected. -Yancyfry 17:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the level of vandalism is that bad; I'm afraid it's rather normal for popular topics. Usually, vandalism is reverted quickly, so I don't see a need for page protection. -- EnemyOfTheState 18:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, one of the problems created by protecting a page is that not only do we prevent vandalism, we also prevent "good" edits that might improve the article. The vandalism is manageable - it's just an annoyance. Rossrs 22:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
There are different levels of protection. The page can be protected against people who aren't registered. That's one of the incentives of registering -- to be allowed to edit pages that are protected. The vast majority of vandalism edits are by anonymous, non-registered editors, and anyone who is serious about wanting to edit this article could and should register an account. It doesn't stop 100% of the vandalism, but fully 99% of the problems. There is also a protection level where only admins can edit the page; that should only be used for the most extreme cases, or instances where legally dangerous material is being added. 23skidoo 09:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Career/Film career

This is not a big issue, I'm just interested in the general opinion. User:Lil Flip246 has repeatedly reverted the section headline "Film career" to "Career", because it "includes her modeling career". While this might be technically correct, I doubt he is really interested in accuracy, but rather wants to emphasize the importance of modeling, judging by his edit history. Anyway, I don't care too much either way, but I still prefer "Film career", because (a) the two short sentences at the beginning don't establish a modeling career, but they are basically a lead-in to her movie roles, (b) the remaining section deals with her acting work exclusively and (c) including 'film' makes it easier to distinguish it from other sections, especially humanitarian work. So hopefully we can decide on one of these two headlines, and then stick with it permanently. -- EnemyOfTheState 00:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your take on this, and I see nothing wrong with "film career". Discussion within that section doesn't have to be exclusively about the film career, but could include any relevant tangents especially events that paved the way for her acting career. Such as her modelling work from which her acting career seems to have evolved. She was not especially notable as a model, it was just something she did, so the article should not be tailored to fit around the one sentence that describes it. But as you said, it's not a big issue. Rossrs 06:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Feedback

I think that there must be a lot of people copying the article too. Maybe adding in a line that says, "Please site what you copied from this article." should work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.103.254.186 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Her lips

I was stunned to see no mention of Miss Jolie's very famous lips in the article. They are always talked about in the media as her trademark. I think her lips are at least as notable as her tattoos and definitely deserve mention. I hope you agree and like what I wrote.BHFeller 23:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe they were once mentioned but the reference was removed under NPOV. Wikipedia is becoming rather strict regarding biographical articles of living persons. Considering Jolie is an Oscar winner, has been acclaimed for her humanitarian work, and is also widely regarded for her looks (something that, in itself, would be expected to include her lips), there would need to be some reputable sources added to back up why her lips should be singled out for attention as opposed to her tattoos or any other part of her often-exposed body. 23skidoo 04:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I shortened the passage you added about her lips. I don't think her lips are worth an entire paragraph and the sources you provided basically support that; sites like the nationalledger.com or eyeballson.com are hardly acceptable per WP:RS. -- EnemyOfTheState 18:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

EnemyOfTheState:

I’m a newcomer to Wikipedia and have a couple of questions.

Because it seems you are designated as the authority in charge of the Angelina Jolie article, I hope you don’t mind if I direct these questions to you. In your above comments, you make the assertion that two of the sources I referred to in the contribution I originally made in the article about Angelina’ lips “are hardly acceptable per WP:RS.” I did some digging and I find this statement puzzling as the sources I used seem to be at least as reliable as http://fansites.hollywood.com/~ajolie/int34.html, http://www.joliecommunity.com/, http://www.geocities.com/jolie_web/services.htm, http://www.pickbabynames.com/Celtic/M/Maddox.html, and even two references to http://www.wutheringjolie.com along with other questionable websites which you don’t mind being used as sources; and yet you disallowed my sources per WP:RS. Can you explain to me why you consider the sources that you let stay in this article as reliable and not the two of mine that you called unreliable? The reason I am interested in this is that I’m trying to learn as much as so can so I can make good contributions in the future. I thought I was beginning to grasp the concept of what comprises an acceptable source, but now you have me all confused. No offense please, but some of the websites you apparently approve of as reliable sources for this article about Angelina Jolie seem to just post recycled secondary source information, which makes them tertiary sources that I thought are to be avoided when possible. I should mention that these sites are also covered with a lot of spam ads and have sketchy copyright issues as well. I’m sincerely trying to understand and learn from your reasoning in allowing them to remain. Do you allow links to these websites to stand as sources because the particular information from the website cited by this article is reliable in spite of other things posted on the website in question? Does your reasoning have anything to do with the stuff the editors are debating in the External Links policy arbitration board concerning links to sites like youtube.com that have a mix of copyvio material and other legitimate non-copyvio material? Are these sources “grandfathered” in or something? Are these sources left to stand because they are the only place online where the information exists? Why does there seem to be a double standard? Help me out here please. I really want to learn.

I appreciate you generously allowing the re-adding of one of the sentences I put in the article about Angelina Jolie’s lips; I too think her lips significant and specific attention in the media is notable. However, I do have one suggestion. I think the statements about her lips that you put back in should be altered just a little. Maybe something like this could be said in the article:

“As one of her most distinctive physical features, Jolie's lips have attracted notable media attention. Her lips were mentioned among the "world's sexiest things" in a 2006 FHM poll (askmen.com citation). Despite speculation that her famous lips are the product of simple genetics or from some type of cosmetic enhancement (eyeballson.com citation), they top the list of body parts most wished for by plastic surgery patients. (USAToday citation)”

In interest of NPOV, I think the statement about the positive media perception about the appearance of her lips should be tempered with at least a mention of the speculation about her unique lips origins (genetic or artificial) and is discussed with dignity in the eyeballson.com article. I think this because of the extreme ramifications such speculation has in the world in which we live. I am especially motivated on this topic being mentioned because I read a current event article located at [1] which I found interesting and troubling. You should check it out. It makes it perfectly clear to me why this addition to the Wikipedia article is timely and relevant. If you look at the topic of the article I read, and check out Angelina’s name smack in the middle of the second paragraph, maybe you’ll see why I think that the information in the eyeballson.com article is important enough to add or at least be linked to in this Wikipedia article. I think that there is a widely held media-driven perception that her lips are the model woman lips and are obviously “fake” and can be had easily by anyone for the right price and by those willing to take the risk. However, as the article about the girl who died says; “people need to do their homework” and have realistic expectations about plastic surgery. I think the eyeballson.com article handles the issue of the speculation about her lips with dignity and NPOV and serves as a “reality check” as mentioned by the doctor quoted in the article. It should be included in case people considering trying to get “Angelina Jolie lips” choose to “do their homework” here at Wikipedia.

Plus I find it interesting that you and others wanted to include this information before. See [2]. You just needed a valid reason to put it in then. Well here you go.

Now granted, maybe linking to the eyeballson.com site as a source isn’t sufficient for citation in the body of the article, (which still puzzles me because of the other sources you let stand), but maybe in lieu of a source citation, it could possibly be at least added to the External Links or References section? I know that Wikipedia is not intended to be a link-farm, but I also know that WP:EL policy does state that a small and select list of external links is appropriate when the links help expand a topic in ways not possible in the Wikipedia article. I think the article at eyeballson.com is highly relevant, informational, and certainly expands the topic. Also note, I tried to find this article or one like it at a more widely known website like Time, CNN or Newsweek, but couldn’t so I linked to it at eyeballson.com. I think it can be considered a reasonably reliable secondary source because it offers insight into the topic from an interview with a plastic surgeon that is in fact a primary source that can be easily verified. As a matter of fact, I called the office of the doctor quoted in the article and they verified that he indeed gave the interview (no original research, just source verification, right?). I looked and don’t think the topic is already sufficiently covered in any other of the external sources listed, so I think its addition to the External Links or References could be justified and useful if it’s not used as a citation within the article.

Also, if you can’t justify adding the additional reference to her lips speculation in the sentence and an accompanying external link because of article length concerns, maybe you could cut down the Tattoo section (as was suggested in the peer review) and then squeeze it in that way.

I just think that somehow it needs to be in there.

I look forward to your comments and hope you consider my input. BHFeller 07:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your criticism of some of the sources mentioned above might be valid, but they are not used to cite controversial statements, and therefore I feel it might be better to have a potentially weak source, than no source at all. You try to include a highly controversial statement though; mentioning mere speculation about plastic surgery will probably be interpreted as confirmation by some readers and WP:BLP is very strict on that matter: Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material. It is my understanding that information about possible plastic surgery is generally left out entirely, unless the person has confirmed it him or herself. The media section only tries to document major topics of her public life and I don't think there is really an ongoing debate about the genuineness of her lips, certainly not in the main stream media. Also, the plastic surgeon on eyeballson.com seems to believe her lips are real himself, as he points out to take a look at her brother and father or childhood pictures, at least he is very indifferent about it, so the article is probably not an ideal source for this alleged speculation, anyhow. -- EnemyOfTheState 16:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

EnemyOfTheState: I added the word "unconfirmed" because you are right, that may have been misunderstood. Thanks for the help. Also, no big deal, but I re-read the article with the plastic surgeon and I think in fact he doesn't give an opinion at all. He's ambiguous. He says,“If you really wanted to know, you could look at a few basic things like her genetics and the looks of her parents and any siblings. You could also look at early pictures of her from when she was a child or teenager. You could also examine close-ups of the areas in question for scars and other obvious signs of work.” I think he is making a generic statement applicable to anybody, and not necessarily an opinion about Angelina; another case of unconfirmed speculation. Anyway, I've probably spent too much time on this, but I do still think it is a valid point that deserves mention. I agree with Pulsemeat in your discussion here [3] and people do probably come to Wikipedia to escape the crap of the blogospere. I know I did. I agree that it would be highly controversial to make a poorly-cited statement that her lips are either fake or real in Wikipedia. I would never want that. I think the statement in the form it is written now qualifies as non-controversial thanks to your suggestions. It now simply acknowledges that this is a question for which a lot of writers and companies frequently state their assumption of the answer as fact, but that has not actually been reliably settled in one way or the other. I think that point is benign, non-controversial, and notable.

Just a couple of interesting conflicting examples of it being alluded to as settled fact are once again[4] that infers that her lips are fake and easily duplicated by plastic surgery; a careless assumption. Also this one is just sad [5]; poor kid got the parent's non-Angelina-DNA and it gave them boring lips. Also check this confused lady out at [6]; if the lady followed the advice given in the answer I bet she had sore lips:) None of these are citable sources obviously, I just think they are interesting in regards to this topic. Thanks again for your help and insight. BHFeller 22:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

23skidoo:

In regards to your comments about the relevance of mentioning her lips in the article, please consider the following. To find a reputable (although admittedly non-citable) source for why her lips should be singled out, one needs to look no further than the topic Physical attractiveness in Wikipedia, which has a picture of Jolie with a caption about her lips. The NPOV policy concern is why I added this information to the "Jolie in the media" section and not to her "Career" or "Humanitarian Work" sections. You can hardly read a report in the media about her humanitarian work, acting career, or anything else without seeing a mention of her lips. Her lips have been credited with carrying movies and blamed for distracting from her acting performances. Her lips are often used as the marketing bait for the multi-billion dollar lip augmentation industry. Her lips make headlines in the worldwide foreign press. Her lips are often the target of late-night comics and other satirists. Other actresses are ridiculed for trying to mimic her lips. Even the section in this very Wikipedia article titled "Breakthrough" makes reference to a Gone in Sixty Seconds movie review that mentions her lips...check this out in the last paragraph -"The role was small, and the Washington Post criticized that ‘all she does in this movie is stand around, cooling down, modeling those fleshy, pulsating muscle-tubes that nest so provocatively around her teeth.’ " Yes, she has done more important things than have notable lips, and her list of accomplishments is impressive -that's exactly why I think it noteworthy to point out that the media focuses on her lips so much in spite of all she's done.

Sadly, there is probably more press about her lips than her humanitarian work. To deny this fact violates NPOV, in my opinion, and I think the media section of this article was probably created to discuss topics like this. Besides the sources I referred to in the paragraph I submitted to the article (that you deleted and EnemyOfTheState amended), here are some other examples of her lips being singled out in the media:

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11], the last two paragraphs

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19],see "Meg Ryan, Mary-Kate Olsen, Lara Flynn Boyle and Melanie Griffith are among the most notable celebrities sporting artificially inflated lips." - and then read the last couple of paragraphs about Angelina

[20] , a news site in India has this as one of its headlines

[21], third paragraph

[22], even kids want her lips

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

...and I could list thousands more. No, none of these references are from scientific journals, or whatever else you think is a reputable source, but this section of the article is about the media. A huge section of the media industry devotes itself to allegedly frivolous topics like this. I think that a mention in the media section of this article about the disproportionate attention her lips receive, along with citations to back it up, is appropriate. No, I wouldn't devote a whole separate section to it, but to leave it out altogether would be ignoring a very obvious topic relevant in an informational article about Angelina Jolie. I agree with your point that a discussion about her lips pales in comparison to her UN work, her Oscar, etc, but it is very relevant in a discussion of her presence in the media. The reason her lips should be singled out as a topic is simply because the media singles them out very frequently. As far as I can tell they mention them far more often than her tattoos, the topic of which somehow merits a large section in this article. Her lips even seem to be mentioned even more than her beauty as a whole. A mention of the constant reference to her lips in the worldwide media just seems obvious to me, and from my reading of all the Wikipedia policies, is not even close to being considered controversial or potentially libelous...read the Dolly Parton or Mick Jagger articles if you think frankly mentioning a celebrity's trademark body part is unprecedented.

I think an article written by a publicist would probably avoid reference to her lips and their obvious attention in the media, but I think a mention here in the Wikipedia is fair and, if anything, casts only a negative image on the media's sometimes strange priorities.

In conclusion, I took seriously the invitation to “help improve this article” mentioned at the top of this discussion page. I think the information about her lip's coverage in the media: improves the article; is relevant and timely (see my comments to EnemyOfTheState for the reason); is completely NPOV when compared to other things mentioned in this and other Wikipedia articles; does not violate the policy of no original research WP:NOR simply by its inclusion in the article without citation of a source concerning the topics relevancy; and definitely merits inclusion. I hope you agree and don’t delete it back out again. I also hope that someone doesn't just read this and make a knee-jerk reaction by deleting all references to other interesting Angelina Jolie topics (i.e. tattoos, Brangelina...) not as important as her UN work and her Oscar. All of this stuff collectively is what makes her interesting and notable. BHFeller 07:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to provide a catalog of web listings to support your point. One or two will do, however as I have discovered on an unrelated issue, anything that smacks of being a blog is considered an unreliable source (rightly or wrongly) so if you are to add a citation (which should still be done if not done already), I would go with a reputable print source. There are one or two up there at first glance. Just remember this article is not just about Jolie's lips. ;-) 23skidoo 17:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ann Scott reference

An anonymous editor added an unsourced statement claiming Jolie had an affair with someone named Ann Scott. I deleted it per WP:BLP but if there happens to be a reputable source to support it, feel free to put it back. 23skidoo 17:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi. well I don't know if it can be called a reputable source as I'm not a journalist..... let's just say that I happened to witness this "thingr" if I may say... I didn't put it here to do any harm, I just thought it was funny to report it. The girls weren't hiding or anything so therefore I asume it's ok to say it ?
    • Please sign your comments. As per the note I left on your talk page, you cannot post such infomation just because it was "funny" or you saw it or whatever. Please read WP:NOR and WP:BLP. And under the rules of WP:BLP, the Three Revert Rule does not apply for removing such unsourced information. 23skidoo 21:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What I meant by funny was 'sweet'. As I said this is no secret to anyone who actually lives in Paris and happens to go to certain places. Jolie and Scott met on a TV set where they were both invited and became friends after that. The appartement Jolie and Pitt stayed in while last in Paris is owned by a close friend of Scott. There were photos in Voici Magazine and Closer Magazine of the girls together. First walking Jolie's kids in the Champ de Mars,then coming out of the Plaza Athenée where they had lunch or something like that,then there was one of them kissing in the car downstairs from the appartement. So..... Olaf750.

  • You're saying "kids" plural so that means this would have happened around the time she hooked up with Brad Pitt ... so why then has all western media apparently ignored this? I just noted that you have added a URL and yet for some reason the Wikipedia system rejected it. I'll put it back since you have added a citation. You might want to check your member preferences. 23skidoo 15:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I removed the citation. It doesn't actually lead to any article and it's not in English - English language links are required on English Wikipedia. If you can find a direct link to an article in English, then that should work. (I'm personally not that concerned if the article is in French, especially if it's mostly photos, but the link that was there simply went to a homepage for a magazine, so it wasn't very useful). As I mentioned on your talk page, you're on the right track and if an online source isn't available (presumably the article you tried to link to has been removed or is now behind a subscription firewall), a print reference is fine, too. 23skidoo 15:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed the claim, because there seems to be no source at all. You having witnessed it is no enough and your alleged source was just a link to a homepage. Also, I don't think a "brief affair" is worth mentioning anyway, even if it was true. -- EnemyOfTheState 18:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well to be honest with you, this is getting out of hand. I just wanted to add a line and it keeps being removed and or argued and really it's not worth it. If this information doesn't appeal to you guys, well then forget it, I can't spend days like you coming back and forth on this page, I'm not an Angelina Jolie fan to the point that I have to control everything that's being said about her.... No hard feelings. As for when this took place, yes it was during the time she hooked up with Brad Pitt when they stayed in Paris for quite a while, and no I don't know why the western media ignored it. May be because Ann Scott is a french person and is only wellknown in France, I don't know.

I know it's tough, but the fact is Wikipedia has made it more difficult to add off-the-cuff information -- and even published information -- under their tightened WP:BLP policy. Wikipedia has nearly been (and possibly has been) sued for libel on numerous occasions, so they are requiring people to be diligent. Whether the piece of information is notable or not isn't the issue here. It needs to be something that, if Angelina Jolie or Ann Scott took umbrage, they could confirm on their own as being a legitimate source. Jimbo Wales (the head of Wikipedia) has taken a stand that he'd rather see zero information on a subject than risk incorrect or libellous information. While I disagree with him in terms of having to provide citations for every little bit of detail in an article about a book or movie, for example, when it comes to biographies of living persons, he's quite correct. Especially when we're talking about rumored or alleged relationships. This is quite different than the debate we were having over Angie's lips earlier. There may be debate over whether it should be part of this article, but Jolie isn't likely to sue Wikipedia if we mention that people think she has sexy lips. 23skidoo 20:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page is protected from anon/new user editing

Due to a higher-than-usual frequency of vandalism edits by anonymous editors, I'm protecting this article from edits by new and unregsitered users until further notice. 23skidoo 20:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please add io and oc

Interwiki - io:Angelina Jolie oc:Angelina Jolie . Thank you.

Done. Please confirm the interwiki coding works as I've never had to add these sorts of links before. 23skidoo 03:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotect?

It's been a few days since I put in the protection on this article. Should I unprotect the page again, or would folks be willing to leave it protected for the next while? I'll be offline from Wikipedia starting the 18th and gone till the second week of January, though of course any admin-level editor or sysop can remove the protection. Protection is generally considered a temporary measure, so we should get this article back "in the clear" as soon as possible, however if it's just going to attract those vandals again, it might be worth keeping it under "lock and key" for awhile yet until those folks get bored and move their attention to more worthwhile endeavors such as watching Teletubbies. 23skidoo 17:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The protection seems to be very effective. The increased vandalism might be a result of her (even) higher media presence as she is promoting her newest film anh this will probably remain a problem for some time, so it might be reasonable to keep the protection up for now. Though I would suggest to change the tag to {{sprotected2}} to avoid this ugly banner. Sloan21 18:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather we keep the current version. It offers more options to users -- including a "request unprotection" link, also encourages people to request changes on the talk page, which has already occurred. I also noticed that sprotect2 for some reason is also triggering a "This article is too long, please split it" notice which to be honest is even uglier than the padlock graphic. 23skidoo 18:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Sprotect2 doesn't trigger a "This article is too long, please split it" notice, very long articles like this do. :) semper fi — Moe 03:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
For some reason it was doing it on a much shorter page as well, though ... maybe it was some bug. 23skidoo 03:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Filmography

I agree with Enemy of the State's reversion of the change in the filmography. There is no need to use a truncated filmography. All films in which she appears should be listed rather than picking-and-choosing. 23skidoo 19:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Profile Image

I do not believe that the picture of Angelina Jolie which is part of the profile box on the right hand side of the article depicts the high level of beauty which is commonly associated with this celebrity. There are many pictures available which clearly demonstrate her beauty, perhaps one of these images should replace the existing image. As I am a newly registered user, I cannot change this semi-protected article. Jason Agrona 00:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that your replacement image is freely-licensed? If so, please point out where it is and we can add it. Or you can wait. But do check out WP:FU if you are unsure. Almost all images you find online are inappropriate. --Yamla 00:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Angelina Jolie finances 'A Moment in the World'

[edit] Filmography

London, Jun 8 (ANI): Hollywood actress Angelina Jolie has financed a documentary titled 'A Moment in the World', which captures events as they occur all over the world during the same random three-minute time frame.

Jolie, who came up with the idea after realising how contrasting her travels have been in recent years, said: "I kept going between Mad's country and refugee camps or war zones to Hollywood and all these odd places and then seeing the world at all these different times." "Then it became this kind of crazy adventure of organising a lot of people and gathering over 30 crews of people and sending them across the world to all these places. On January 11th (05) we all opened up our cameras at the exact same time, coordinated across the world for three minutes," femalefirst quoted her as saying. (ANI)


I think this should be added.

The documentary was announced back in early 2005, but so far it has not been released and I'm not aware of any plans to release it in the foreseeable future. With this uncertain status, I don't think it should be included in the filmography, since there is probably a good chance it won't be released at all. -- EnemyOfTheState 14:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


Whether or not you it was released, it was still a part of her work. Unless we think she was lying when she stated it was, on "Inside the Actors Studio". Just because we have not seen it doesnt mean it wasnt something she accomplished. Yes she stated it was COMPLETED on "Inside the actors studio"... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pelomixa (talk • contribs) 14:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Secondary filmography

OK, we obviously have the makings of an edit war here. I invite the user who insists on placing the incomplete "main filmography" on this article to state his case and for those oppsed to state theirs. 23skidoo 03:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's time for discussion. I think to have two filmographies is redundant - we only need one and in choosing one it should be the one that is most complete. The shortened list is POV so I don't like it. Who decides what goes on the short list? I disagree that it looks "cool". I think it looks random and confusing. I prefer the full list that is not skewed by anyone's POV, and I also think the complete chronological listing is more logical and easier to refer to, than the abbreviated list. Rossrs 12:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Rossrs, it's redundant and POV. Also, the template doesn't list the role names or any additional comments, so it's totally unnecessary. The only reason to include it seems to be "it looks cool", and that isn't a reason at all really. -- EnemyOfTheState 14:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • ok, fellows, let´s talk about it.
  • "It looks cool" is a big reason, a great reason, but it's not the one. Wikipedia was made to be upgraded including its layout. Is a mutant one. The standard filmography is visually atrocious and too long. Main filmography is easier to navigate, and isn't complete, for god's sake, it is MAIN. The films placed there are not POV, but common sense to people who watch films, not just angelina fans. The other ones are irrelevants. But if it bores you, what about add all films to the template? Two filmographies are redundant? Well, it isn't, is one main filmography to users who just want acess most popular films and one complete filmography. But, if it bores, let´s place all of it inside the template.Machocarioca 19:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Machocarioca
Jolie has made 30+ films. The "Main" list contains 13. Who decided which films were selected for the list? You? If so, the list is a product of your POV, and no matter how many people might work on creating a short list, it would still be POV and would conflict with one of Wikipedia's key intents. Even your comments above suggest a POV that is out of step with Wikipedia's aims, when you talk about "common sense" and "irrelevants". These are inherently POV terms and you are applying them as a rationale for something that should be devoid of POV. Also, it is not appropriate to continue adding the navigation box while we are still discussing this. It's ok to be bold and add things that nobody objects to, but a few editors have now objected to this inclusion and the navigation box should not be added unless we reach a consensus. Rossrs 07:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
For what it is worth, Machocarioca (apparently operating on other names and IP addresses such as 201.37.247.93, Films addicted and perhaps others) has been adding such truncated "main filmographies" to a number of actor and director pages. A number of users have asked him to refrain, giving various reasons. I agree with the comments made here that a "main" filmography is by definition a judgment call, and is inappropriate in the context of Wikipedia. The "main" filmography removes additional information about particular films also. — Grstain | Talk 14:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Grstain, I'm not you who reverts the templates using your username and your IP. I'm just Machocarioca, period. I'm not film addicteds or sometihng or IPs, ok? You're the vandal here. You didn't like the templates and i can't wonder why, (they are a big upgrade in the layout and shorts the size of the article) and only you didn't like it, until this discussion here about Angelina filmography. You tried impose me a WK policy that there isn't about theses templares, right? Those estandard ones are suggestions. Atrocious ones.

Mr. Ross, you're right. Then, my point is: i'm improving the layout and trying to ease the search. Templates are, by far, a more civilized way to search films here. The selected filmography is not a POV, but a common sense by who works in films, as i said. But, if it bores you, why not a selected filmography along with the complete one? Is it bad? I don't think so, we have to improve here over and over. All the particular informaion you say is in the complete filmography is in the articles. Having it in the standard box is a POV, right? Or a suggestion.... Let's discuss the whole thing? Everybody here wants to make a better wiki, the discussion is the better way to do that, ok? Machocarioca 20:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Machocarioca

Machocarioca, I agree with your aim of trying to make a better Wiki. That's what I try to do and what I hope others will always try to do. I think improvement is a very good thing, and there is no problem with trying new things and seeing how other editors feel about it. It's just in this particular situation, I don't think the "main films" template is an improvement for the reasons I've stated above. I think it creates a problem rather than solves a problem - ie it creates POV. Even if it makes it easier to navigate, that's a secondary issue, because presenting a neutral point of view is one of the most fundamental principles of Wikipedia, and a shortened filmography, no matter how well reasoned or no matter how many experts contribute to the list, it provides a judgement and a point of view, which we should do everything possible to avoid. The use of a full filmography may not necessarily be policy, but I think it better complies with aspects of Wikipedia that are in fact policy, in relation to POV. I don't think it's perfect, I just think it's preferable. Rossrs 11:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Rossrs, my intention in creating theses templates are: coolest layout improving the shape of the article, easing the navigation and the search to common users and short the articles. We don't need all these bytes. Also, the reason to the MAIN filmography is that in many full filmographies just a half have links, because there are many irrelevant films that stay red there for years. But in this special subject here, where all the films are in blue (except one) I think I could do a template with the full filmography (including this red one). If what bores you and the others are, mainly, the main filmography, do you agree with a template with the full one? Thanks. Machocarioca 07:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Machocarioca

"Agree" would be too strong a word, but it would not contradict WP:NPOV, therefore I would not oppose. It would not be my first choice, but I accept that not everyone has the same taste as me. Rossrs 14:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that ,let's see how it's going to upgrade the layout and how people will accept it. Machocarioca 22:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Machocarioca

I just like to say that I still greatly prefer the list, as it includes more information (role names and awards). It seems to me that Machocarioca tries to force his or her personal preference on everyone, but still remains the only one who is in favor of the template. I'm not interested in endless debate about this and I can live with the template, but apparently Machocarioca's tenacity defeated any real arguments. -- EnemyOfTheState 14:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I also prefer the list - as stated above. I said I wouldn't disagree with the template on the basis of POV, as a full listing removes the POV problem, but Machocarioca, I think you have misunderstood my comments as agreement to change to the template. There is no consensus for changing and you have not addressed the comments made by other editors regarding the additional comments in the table being lost because of the template. I noticed that another user changed back to the table and was reverted again, so that makes another person who disagrees. I am going to change it back to the table. I think at this point, we've discussed it enough unless there are new arguments to put forward. It's ok to make a change such as this, but if other editors object to it, you should respect that there is no consensus to change and leave it as it was. Thanks Rossrs 21:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys, just both of you do not like the template. Hundreds enter there day by day and just you revert it. There are three people who does not like it? well, there are dozens that like or doesn't matter. They do other things there than revert the template. C'mon. The template is complete, all informations are inside the articles. You are by loosing 50 X 3. :-) Machocarioca 22:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Machocarioca


[edit] Roman Catholic

Is she roman catholic?, his father, Jon Voight is roman catholic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Domingo Portales (talk • contribs) 21:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Protection status

Another editor has unprotected the page in hopes it can return to normal. Unfortunately there's already been an anonymous idiot who decided to post nonsense. If further vandalism occurs over the next day or so we'll have to protect it again. 23skidoo 21:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid the level of vandalism hasn't gone away; it might be a good idea to protect the page again. -- EnemyOfTheState 19:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I'm reinstating the protection. 23skidoo 16:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Part "Iroquois" rumor direct citation needed

Since Wikipedia is a great place to dispell rumors, I thought it would be good to add the information that the "1/4 Iroquois" rumor is in question.

The first thing that made me curious about this rumor that Jolie's (besides the fact that M. Bertrand does not look half aboriginal) is that you can't really be "fullblood Iroquois," as "Iroquois" isn't a tribe or ethnicity, but rather refers to the Six Nations Confederacy. The fact that the press calls Jolie's mother Iroquois seems to show that they don't know her actual First Nations heritage as there is never any mention of whether Marcheline Bertrand's mother was specifically Mohawk or Oneida, etc. I've never heard another Native person say "I'm Iroquois;" that's something one hears non-indigenous people say. Even if someone was mixed Oneida-Cayuga-Onondoga, you most likely wouldn't call yourself "Iroquois."

However, while the fansite's webmaster I've cited for the information about the rumor being overturned seems to be reputable, I realize it would be good to have the actual source of the Jon Voight 2001 statement, so I'll try to track it down unless someone else can find it first. Efrafra 04:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the original source for this, because I never heard the rumor that her Native American background might be made up. On Inside the Actors Studio Jolie said herself that her mother is "part Iroquois Indian"; I don't know whether that means her grandmother was "fullblood Iroquois" as you described it, but she was definitely serious about it. Back in 2000 there was even a news story that Jolie was trying to "reclaim her native American roots" [30]. Would that suggest her parents left her in the dark as well about their little in-joke? I doubt it. -- EnemyOfTheState 15:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
According to the webmaster of the fansite I cited, she read this 2001 interview with Jon Voight online but didn't keep a copy of it. I found another online reference from another person who was looking for the interview as well wanting to verify this piece of information. I hate to say it, but just because someone is "definitely serious" about trying to "reclaim her Native American roots" doesn't prove anything; many people hear from their parents lore about some Cherokee princess great-grandmother (i.e. doesn't exist--I hear this all the time) and then assume they are Cherokee. My point about the sketchiness of saying you're "part-Iroquois" isn't about the blood quantum of her grandmother, but that you really can't be "part-Iroquois" as Iroquois does not refer to an ethnicity. The 2001 Jon Voight quote I've read about twice didn't call it an "in-joke" as much as something they made up in fun--to make Marcheline's image seem more exotic for the media. That certainly doesn't sound improbable--lots of people love to do this--"part-Indian" is oh-so-chic. All I'm suggesting is that unless there's some proof other than someone's "serious" sweat-going in 2000, this seems to count as more rumor than fact. It may very well be true, but there has been no supporting evidence, and it's now 2007. Not only that, but the newsshort you've cited sounds totally Hollywood--I mean, "shamanic healing"? Ask most Native people--we don't do shamans. "Multi-ethnic" sweats are quite hip and abound everywhere, as do fake medicine people calling themselves shamans. And wow-- "I just felt so connected to those people but then, at the same time, I'm dark, you know." Huh? Hopefully I can find some better info that will be able to cut the main page. Efrafra 03:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


== Here is a link to that 10/2001 online interview with Jon Voight with UK's Telegraph. ==

 This is where he mentions:

"Voight is reluctant to dampen any of her enthusiasms. She recently claimed that she is part Iroquois Indian and campaigned for the tribe to allow her to join them in their "sweat lodge". Voight is quick to say that Angelina is "not seriously Iroquois" and that this is just a little fancy he and Marcheline developed to enhance his ex-wife's exotic background. Still, he insists, "We always liked the idea of her as an Iroquois, and I love that my kids have picked up on that."

He has nothing but praise for her in this interview. His intent in the article is not to argue against her claim, it is just a passing sentence among praise for his children who he calls "the loves of my life" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2001/10/02/fmjoli02.xml Yvette 10:54 5 February 2007

I'm not sure he tried to imply here that Jolie and her mother had no Native American ancestors at all. I would read it more like they are so minor (1/8, 1/16, ...) that she can't be considered "seriously Iroquois". On top of that, Jolie's mother was apparently working on a documentary about a Native American activist before her death [31], which would also seem surprising, if her ancestry was indeed made up entirely. Jaqu 02:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
No, this would not be "surprising." Why would someone need Native blood to be working on a documentary about a Native activist? (Why would it be surprising for someone without Cambodian blood to do a documentary on a Cambodian activist?) Lots of white people are interested in Native activists; lots of white people are interested in Native Americans, period. I also don't understand interpreting this statement by Jon Voight--that she is not "seriously Iroquois"--as meaning she's just part-Native? Last I checked, "serious" is not a word used to describe blood quantum. If we used this word, how would that fit the sentence in the article? "and on her mother's side, she is French-Canadian and not seriously Iroquois." (I love it!) I feel that this interview is plenty of back up to remove the "Iroquois" part from the page completely. This article is supposed to be a model article, so why would we want info on here that is not proven fact? Wouldn't it make more sense to leave out something without proof till it's proved? As it is, this rumor continues to abound on the web; wikipedia should be the last place to endorse that. But because I'm sure people will freak out if this detail was completely removed, I propose that when this article reverts out of its protected status, we change the sentence to merely state:
...on her mother's side, she is French-Canadian and claims to be "part-Iroquois." (w/ citation of Telegraph article)
Again, this statement from Jolie's father in such a matter carries a ton more weight than any of her statements, which so far have been the only cited sources. Efrafra 18:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cambodian citizenship

Angelina Jolie is a Cambodian citizen. She was granted citizenship by the King of Cambodia for her enviromental work and generosity.

Please sign your comments. It was only honorary citizenship. She remains an American citizen. 23skidoo 00:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Info deleted per BLP

Per WP:BLP,

Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages. These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.

and

Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked.

From WP:RS

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, anonymous websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

I've deleted information from the following personal websites or otherwise unreliable sources:

I left some text with cite tags, because it can be referenced to a recent Vogue magazine feature. There are other sources which look marginal, but aren't as glaring as these, so I haven't deleted thembut at minimum, the information sourced to IMDb should be reviewed, as it is not a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems a bit excessive to me. WP:BLP is referring to "controversial material" specifically; I'm not sure if much of the things you removed could be considered controversial. For instance, you removed the source for her pilot license, only to replace it with a citation needed tag - a potentially weak source is still better than no source at all IMHO. The IMDb sources refer to the site's news which are provided by WENN, an agency with editorial oversight just as reliable as any other source for celebrity news. Also, I think when evaluating a source the content needs to be considered. Wutheringjolie.com is certainly not a reliable source per se, but it was used as a reference for her various tattoos providing pictures of each of them; being able to look at pictures makes this source just as reliable as a NY Times article for me. EnemyOfTheState 13:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
As you noted, I removed the unreliable source about her pilot license, but left the info, since it is easily verifiable to reliable sources. I read it in Vogue somewhere last week, in case you can't track down a good source. I could go back to the Dr.'s office and find it again if you don't come up with something. Per WP:EL, we're also never supposed to link to copyright violations, so you might want to review the sources with that in mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
No need to go back to your Dr.'s office, all three of her Vogue articles are listed in the References section. None of them mentions what type of pilot license she has though. EnemyOfTheState 11:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Left handed?

According to a few sites, Jolie is left-handed...has this ever been discussed/dismissed? IMDB states that she had to have guns specially made for her for the Tomb Raider movie because of this fact, and I also found http://www.indiana.edu/~primate/left.html which has a long list of left-handed actors/actresses. There's quite a few other sources citeable although I'm not too sure about which ones are acceptable as citeable sources so haven't actually added this snippet :-) SmUX 12:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If a reputable source can be found regarding the Tomb Raider item (Wikipedia does not consider IMDb trivia to be reliable as it's not verified and is often incorrect), that's worth noting. The fact she's left-handed in and of itself is not particularly notable, but if special consideration needed to be taken as a result for one of her projects, then that is notable. I'm a little skeptical about it, though, since Lara Croft is depicted as shooting twin guns most of the time, and I've never really considered pistols to be "left-hand/right-hand" weapons; someone should be able to shoot the same weapon just as well with either hand. 23skidoo 15:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protected again

As soon as the protection was removed, anonymous IP users with no lives started vandalising the article again, so I have put protection back onto the article, with no expiry date. Obviously people who aren't bothering to register aren't going to play nice, so we may as well kick them out of the playground. 23skidoo 12:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits by Lilkunta

I reverted the edits of user Lilkunta several times now, because I believe they compromise the quality of this article - Lilkunta insists on these changes though. I have little interest in an edit war, but I do think these extensive edits are not helpful for a number of reasons:

  1. The lead section should not be cut down; per WP:LEAD an article with more than 30,000 characters should have a lead of three or four paragraphs. If anything the lead needs to be extended.
    I replied to you that it does not have to be 3-4 paragraphs. Wikimedia say 1-4. I gave you the citation but you choose toignore. Lilkunta.
  2. Highlighting quotes that are especially interesting for the tabloid media (relationship with her father, Jolie-Aniston controversy) is not advisable.
    This isnt tabloid. These are words AJ said herself. It is imp't bc many come here looking 4 info on aj-bp-ja relationship.Lilkunta
  3. The formatting is very careless ("Brad Pitt ( while he is filming The Curious Case of Benjamin Button)").
    A mistake which I corrected.Lilkunta
  4. Facts are changed (Making her best know after Mr. & Mrs. Smith, instead of Tomb Raider, as it originally read) or wrong facts are included (Pitt is no longer filming in New Orleans).
    I did not change that. Look again. I deleted the info on her 1st movie. TR is what made her well know. Smith got her her biggest $.Lilkunta
  5. Wrong formatting is used for the awards in the infobox.
    I tried to correct the awards. I checked the years. Instead of just deleting them, why not correct?Lilkunta
  6. Wikilinks are removed from dates which should be linked per WP:DATE.

Leaving a note on Lilkunta's talk page was not very useful, so I'm interested in others' opinions. -- EnemyOfTheState 17:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed this edit conflict and am considering placing the article under full lock-down until these issues are resolved. I strongly recommend Lilkunta and others involved in the issue discuss it here before making further substantive edits of the type that have created the current conflict. It should be strongly noted that the current instability in the article will result in it losing Featured Article status. 23skidoo 17:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Lock it down, the edits by Likunta, despite EnemyOfTheState's best efforts to explain, are unhelpful and contentious. Suggest protecting the article and an admin-based discourse with Lilkunta. Anything I can do to help..... The Rambling Man 17:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Did you also tell this message to enemy?I feel s/he acts as if he owns the page. The history shows he repeatedly changes what others add, as if s/he only knows what should be added.S/he repeatedly added uncited info( pax's DOB). Did you look at the edits I made? I did not add a whole bunch of stuff. The intro/lead paragraph should be a good synopsis of Aj right? She isnt known for her 1st role nor for her marriage to John. Her 1st role because it was not significant. Her marriages to John and Bob are also not significant, yet you put them back in the intro paragraph. Also, Pax's DOB as 29 NOV hasnt been released. I checked both the ref and they say Nov 03 , his day of birth is not given. Please check that.Lilkunta

I have locked the page from all non-admin edits until a consensus has been reached. Once again I invite Lilkunta and any other interested parties to please discuss the issues here. Requested changes can be made by admins until such time as this article is unlocked. This decision was reached when I saw that Lilkunta had reinstated several of the edits without any apparent attempt to seek consensus, as he was requested to do by me on the user's talk page. 23skidoo 20:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC) You posted to me after you locked the page so you did not give me a chance. Did you also tell this message to EnemyOfTheState? I feel s/he acts as if he owns the page. The history shows he repeatedly changes what others add, as if s/he only knows what should be added.Lilkunta

[edit] Repeated edits/Enemyofstate DOMINATION of this AJ wiki page.

1) I feel EnemyOfTheState, s/he acts as if he owns the page. The history shows he repeatedly changes what others add, as if s/he only knows what should be added.S/he repeatedly added uncited info( pax's DOB). Pax's DOB as 29 NOV hasnt been released. I checked both the ref and they say Nov 03 , his day of birth is not given. Please check that.

2)I tried to correct the awards. I checked the years. Instead of just deleting them, why not correct?Lilkunta

Firstly, I would respectfully ask you to use the normal font; it is almost impossible for me to read your text. In response to your statements:

  • I am not trying to "dominate" this page. Yes, I do revert edits occasionally, but not to show domination, but to preserve the quality and the article's featured status. The very reason I started this discussion here is to bring others into it, and not to act on my own.
  • Again, on the lead issue: WP:LEAD#Length; this is really as obvious as I can make it.
  • On your response regarding careless formatting and changing facts: I took all my examples form your latest edit [32]. Your claims that you corrected them or that they were not put in by you are not correct.
  • For his birthday, see below.

-- EnemyOfTheState 18:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I am using normal font.
  • U rv'd alot, not occasionally; that's why I feel like u were dominating.
  • Again, u reread WP:LEAD#Length. It says 1-4 paragraphs. I even quoted it.
< 15,000 characters medium size > 30,000 characters
one or two paragraphs two or three paragraphs three or four paragraphs
  • I made 1 mistake where I didnt finish the sentence about the film BO was recording. The rest of my edits were fine.
  • Where is this "scan" from? Why doesnt it have his adopted name? I remembr u commented about unreliable sources, but you believe a scan? Lilkunta 22:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this discussion goes nowhere, as Lilkunta is persistently ignoring the lengthy guidelines on WP:LEAD. I'm not sure what to do here, but I have no intentions to debate this obvious issue indefinitely. -- EnemyOfTheState 16:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pax's birthday is UNKNOWN! Take the info off.

Pax's DOB has not been released. Change the info. EnemyOfTheState added this erroneous info as part of his continued domination of this AJ wiki page. The ref all say Nov 03, that is all we know at this time. I think this is good 4/as the last 2 paragraphs of that section:

On March 15,2007, Jolie adopted a three-year-old boy from Vietnam. Pax Thien Jolie was born in November 2003 as Pham Quang Sang and abandoned at birth at a local hospital [1]. His new name means "peaceful sky" in two languages: Pax means "peace" in Latin and Thien is Vietnamese for "sky"[2]. She collected the boy from the Tam Binh orphanage in Ho Chi Minh City [3].
Jolie told Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh City Law newspaper: "I will stay at home to help Pax adjust to his new life. I have four children and caring for them is the most important thing for me at the moment. I'm very proud and happy to be their mother." [4] [5].Lilkunta 16:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birthdate

I have removed the DOB as the BBC News source that was cited does not support it anyway. 23skidoo 16:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The source for his birthday was his passport, I wasn't aware no news agency picked it up yet. -- EnemyOfTheState 18:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there a source for this "scan" of Pax's passport? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilkunta (talk • contribs) 21:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
I have to agree with Likunta on this one. Presumably the passport image originates from an online news source. So all we need to do is cite this source and the birthdate can go back into the article (obviously PhotoBucket isn't a reliable source). It's very possible such a source was originally noted but got lost in the edits. 23skidoo 15:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I was not suggesting that the image should be used as a source, I was merely pointing out where I picked up his birthday; I initially thought the BBC story already included his birthday. A reliable source for the date would be here for instance. In any case, his birthday probably isn't the biggest problem at the moment. -- EnemyOfTheState 15:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll split the difference, including the November 2003 as the announced date (per a USA Today link I just found) and acknowledge that some media have a more exact date, citing the Australian link. 23skidoo 02:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to full biography and articles

Hello, I'm from People Magazine. Can you please add a link in the external links section to our Celebrity Central Database at People.com ? It has a full biography of Jolie (including a professionally researched timeline), the photo archive from People, and full-text links to all the articles about her which have appeared in People. The link is http://www.people.com/people/angelina_jolie. Thank you.

I'm opposed to this suggestion. There's nothing wrong with People, but Wikipedia should not be endorsing/advertising commercial sites, nor should Wikipedia be used in such a manner. How does Wikipedia benefit from this? If we link Angelina then we could link virtually any celebrity article (the same question is raised at Talk:Britney Spears) and before we know it Wikipedia becomes a vehicle by which People is advertised. Then, we'd have to fairly link to any other rival sites... I think it would be a huge mistake, and I also think it would contradict Wikipedia:External links#Links to be avoided - numbers 3 and 4, and also Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest. Rossrs 14:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
In addition, we have no way of knowing whether or not the message posted above is actually from someone from People magazine. Personally I doubt it because People doesn't need to advertise in this way. In any event, I agree with Rossrs that such a link would go against WP:LINKS. 23skidoo 15:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that an organization like People, who certainly know how to market their product professionally, would take a more direct approach if they wanted to get Wikipedia on board, rather than the haphazard approach of leaving messages on a couple of talk pages. Rossrs 21:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If it was people, I'm sure they would contact wales or wikimedia. They wouldnt post on the discussion page. & y didnt they leave a name, some contact info @ People Mag 2 verify?Lilkunta 15:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nv8200p deleted pic of Maddox/AJ; pls restore

Why was the pic of Mad & Aj deleted? I clicked on it too send a message to the person who added it, but User:Nv8200p deleted the info about the person who loaded it. Pls help.Lilkunta 12:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The image should not be re-uploaded, because it was deleted for a wrong fair-use claim, per WP:IFD. -- EnemyOfTheState 16:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should the article remain locked?

The article has been locked for several days now and I haven't seen too much additional discussion regarding the edit-war issues from previous. We're not supposed to leave articles locked for extensive periods of time, so what should we do -- unlock it or leave the lock in place awhile longer? 23skidoo 23:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Keeping the page locked won't do much good, I suppose. I'd like to know whether Lilkunta plans to implement his/her changes again right after the protection ends though; apparently Lilkunta still hasn't recognized the length recommendation for the lead section for example. -- EnemyOfTheState 23:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait to see if anyone else chimes in on this. Incidentally it will only go back to semi-protection; for whatever reason this article is a vandalism magnet and as such it should remain locked to unregistered users. Everytime it's unprotected we immediately have to deal with IP vandalism. 23skidoo 03:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/g/Talk%7EAngelina_Jolie_928c.html"