Talk:Halle Berry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Halle Berry article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
This article is part of WikiProject Beauty Pageants, a WikiProject related to beauty pageants, their contestants and winners.

Contents

[edit] Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame

She is expected get her "star" on the Hollywood Boulevard Walk of Fame in Hollywood, California sometime in 2004.

Did she? I can't find her on http://www.hollywoodchamber.net/ MrWeeble 14:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

She stated in an interview a while ago that she was waiting until she has a big movie out before she accepts it. Inductees can take up to 5 years to get it Dowew 23:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1966 or 1968?

1966 and 1968 are both commonly given as Berry's year of birth on the Internet. Google gives 5,870 hits for halle.berry born 1966 -1968 and 9,830 hits for halle.berry born 1968 -1966. Of the pages that mention both dates, most give 1968 as Halle's year of birth, with 1966 as year her elder sister Heidi was born.

1968 is the date given by Encyclopaedia Britannica, the New York Times, and MSN. Credible sites giving the 1966 date include CBS and IMDB.

Overall, it looks like 1968 more probably the correct date, but the article should mention the strange lack of unanimity. Pterodactyler 05:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

When it comes to ages and models/actresses, usually the older age is the correct one. The IMDb age is more likely, if there was more compelling evidence for 1968, they would have changed it there. As for something more concrete than just which websites say what, Bedford High School says that she graduated in 1984, which would mean she was born in 1966. If her sister (Heidi)'s last name is Berry, then Heidi was born Oct 6, 1964.--Fallout boy 09:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
It's 1966. She confirmed that she is turning 40 this year [1]

[edit] african american or bi-racial?

halle berry should not be refferd to as african american , her mother is white and she is bi-racial , that is not the same as african american , african american means both parents are african american , if somone has one african american parent , and one white , that does not make them african american also , they are bi-racial

~~

Where did you get the idea that both mother and father have to be african american in order to be considered an African American? If that is the case, then the overwhelming majority of African American in this country are bi-racial. How would you classify Booker T. Washington and Frederick Douglass. Both of them either had a white father. Also, Dorothy Dandridge was bi-racial as well, but is considered an African American by herself and everyone else.
But, this is why she is considered an African American. First, and most important, she (Halle Berry) has always referred to herself as an African American in nearly every interview she has given. Also, her white mother raised her as an African American. Furthermore, in nearly all of her films, she plays an African American, except in slave movies where she plays a mulatto African American. So, whats good for Booker T Washington, Frederick Douglass, and Dorothy Dandridge is also good for all African American, including Halle Berry.

~~

It's a shame that people such as Halle Berry don't embrace both sides of their heritage; both black and white. Instead of uniting us, this continues to divide us. I embrace all aspects of my heritage but first and foremost, I'm American. 67.141.72.139 20:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

~~

Well, I happend to agree with you, I am also beyond sick of the Black/White crap. I'm also bi-racial. And, I embrace both my African-American and White side of my family. But, in this world, primarily in the USA, I have yet to met a person who excepts me as a White or bi-racial person. I am branded as African American. Which is okay with me, because I love it! 65.134.208.17
If this is so why do you use these outdated terms like African-American in the same breath as White. Why don't you see African-American and European-American, or Black-American and White-American...or how about just American???


Yeah I think that that new "lineage" thing, works good enough for me. The Fascist Chicken 20:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

~~

I can't remember on the 2000 census if it listed a spot for Bi-racial. If not, they need to do that and that will be a first step in healing the racial divide. Although, I know there are many more steps to take but I am sick of the black/white schism also. It may be our ultimate downfall. By just listing African-American on this article's page, it denies her white heritage also. 65.198.140.92 22:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


If she wasn't as hot as she is you wouldn't care what she called herself. Most Black people are mixed to some degree, but no ones gunning to call us all multracial.

Figure this one out: Most all humans are mixed to some degree, or you have imbreeding...

If she identified as Caucasian, there would be a big uproar and I know that the article would not state that she is Caucasian just because she says so. NPOV Shakam 19:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC) --Vehgah 21:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)--65.188.253.47 21:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Moritani akira 07:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Halle Berry refers to herself as African-American. Are you going to argue with Halle Berry? PennyGWoods 03:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. She is not the first person of multi-racial descent to self-identify herself solely as being of one race. Take for instance, Mariah Carey who, while always willing to tell people her makeup, also is on record as saying (paraphrasing) that although she has Irish blood in her, it's not as if she is going to go down to the pub on St. Patrick's Day and start shouting about it. Halle's mother is white, and her father is black. On that basis, she is bi-racial. But she self-identifies as black (or African-American), she says that she was raised that way, and that is that. As long as she doesn't start claiming a heritage that she clearly doesn't belong to, I think she can call herself anything she wants. -- Jalabi99 00:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
So by this logic, if Oprah says tommorow she decided she is Chinese, or President Clinton decides he is African American; we just put that down?? Brilliant...

actually, halle has mentioned that she is biracial, and her mother didn't tell her that she was black, she told her that she was biracial, but everyone would see her as black. and besided, what a person identifies with doesn't change their genes. half of halle berry's genes are white, and the same amount are black. so, let's refer her that way. also, on her website, it lists her backgroud as "african american and english." Colorfulharp233 01:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

She considers herself African-American so that's what she needs to be classified as. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Citations?
It's in the racial identification section. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

not quite so, my friend. [2]. she is veiwed as black, and doesn't have a problem with it, but she identifies with both. i think. --Colorfulharp233 18:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont think what you identify with really counts. What if you have someone who is 90 Mexican and has 10 percent japanese blood in them and refers to themselves as Ethiopian because they really relate to the culture? Or what if that person refered to themselves as japanese who has very little japanese ethnicity and doesnt look japanese or speak japanese but likes the culture? I think it is more important to go direct by blood line so in this case I would refer to halle as bi racial. Also, this could be problematic for many blacks as it is said that a wide majority of blacks in america have some white blood in them (due to thier ancestors being raped by whites) so in this case almost any african american can claim to be bi-racial. --Scapone 02:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but the admixture of other blood is diluted in most of them. But this is not the case with Halle Berry, Barack Obama, Craig David, Shemar Moore, etc. I do agree with you though, it doesn't matter what a person classifies themself, because it doesn't make it true. If she classified herself as white, I could almost guarantee it wouldn't be accepted in the article that blatantly. Shakam 02:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Then add a section about her racial identification and her comments on what she considers herself and any controversies about it. But other than that, I just don't feel like her race needs to be mentioned in the opening paragraph. And if a section on it is to be added, we need to follow WP:BLP and WP:NOT and flesh it out instead of just placing a quote in the article. --Woohookitty(meow) 03:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

When I have some free time I'll try to draft a possible sub-section. Someone else can start it if they like and we can see what happens. Shakam 04:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HALLE BERRY AND HER ROMANTIC LIFE AS OF 2006 & HER ACTUAL BIRTH DATE

First off, I have spoken to Halle Berry and the year, in which she was born, is 1966. She turns 40 this year on August 14.

Secondly, many have made more of Halle Berry's association with Gabriel Aubry more than it really was and some are still trying to make it look as though these two are still associating. Halle Berry is actually in love with another Canadian man, named Stuart. He is 5'7", too. I know Stuart and he has spoken to Halle. A person, who has been harrassing Stuart, framed him and made him look bad to Halle. Halle did not know the truth about Stuart for 6 weeks. During this time, Halle Berry was confused about Stuart's feelings for her and she nearly had a real 'fling' with Gabriel Aubry. According to Halle Berry, Gabriel and she did not really do anything. When she saw Gabriel at the Perfect Strangers party, to which he just showed up, she was confused and depressed about the situation concerning Stuart and she got friendlier than she would have, had she known the truth about Stuart. This will become verifiable soon.

I am trying to help Halle Berry and Stuart.

Akira Moritani

Moritani akira 07:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You spoke to Halle Berry? Excuse me if I don't believe you, WP:AGF aside. Mike H. That's hot 08:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
And there's WP:NOR to consider too. --Chris (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I spoke to Halle Berry directly on about February 12 or 13, 2006. She is a really nice and very sweet person. More on this later, if I am permitted to. Otherwise, everyone shall know just by the visual impact of seeing her with Stuart.

Moritani akira 07:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not about whether or not you spoke with her, it's that that is original research, something that does not belong on Wikipedia. If you had an interview with her that was later published, that would be a different story. --Chris (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Why do I feel that this particular "no original research" slam is partly motivated by jealousy (he talked to Halle, and you didn't)? ;) Yo, Moritani, hook up a brother with her digits, yo! -- Jalabi99 00:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Berry has undoubtedly been filmed innumerable times, during her relatively long career, fully clothed. Is there any reason she must be portrayed half-nude here, especially insofar as she is not an obscure person who has never been seen by average movie fans in such a state? Thanks. --198.59.190.204 00:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't censor. Actually, given that she is known for her beauty as much as anything else, I think it's appropriate. --Woohookitty(meow) 02:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
That's irrelevant when you consider that this picture is not used to discuss the film it was taken from, and is therefore not covered by fair use. The pictures used on this article have been removed countless times; can anyone find a picture of her that is not from a movie, like a PR photo or something? --Chris (talk) 06:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh come on. Again, look at Katie Holmes. Featured article. Batman picture right up front. I think we need to cool down on picture fascism. Mad Jack O'Lantern 07:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The fact that this error occurs lots of time in Wikipedia doesn't make it right. The {{film-screenshot}} template says cleary that the image can be used solely "for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents". Are we going to change that? The same misconception always occurs with {{Magazinecover}}.
The Katie Holmes image is a {{promophoto}}, that may (in some cases) be used to "the person, product, event, or subject in question". --Abu Badali 17:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There's now a freely-licensed image in this article: Image:Halle Berry,San Diego Comic-Con 2003.jpg. Jkelly 23:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This is great news. Misusing a 'fair use' image is just the lazy man's path. Removing such images from the articles always end up with great peolple finding usable picture to replace them. Kudos to the photographer (for taking the picture and for realising under a free license) and to the uploader. --Abu Badali 01:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The image of Halle Berry is un-encyclopedic. Just because she is beautiful is not an excuse to post a naked image of her. I vote for an image change right away. --Vince 04:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The image currently on the article is a public domain image from the Fleet week, and has been there since about June 5, 2006. This discussion is from May. Gimmetrow 23:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
For some reason, some anons are obsessed with putting a nude picture of Halle in the article. Why I don't know. If the only pictures of her were nude pictures, I can see. But she's one of the most photographed humans in the world. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] her mother's ancestry

the article states that her mother is of "English ancestry", but i was under the impression that her mother was born (and raised?) in Liverpool. In which case she would be English (and who knows of what "ancestry"...). It's not incredibly important, but if she was born in england, then i think it's worth changing it. Amo 11:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a common mistake that her mother was born in England - it was her grandma.[3] Mad Jack O'Lantern 13:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I just added a link to a recent interview she did with the BBC, in which she clearly stated that her mother is "blonde-haired, blue-eyed", and from Liverpool. That should settle the issue, I think. -- Jalabi99 00:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

was she in playboy?

[edit] Unsourced quote

"Her personality, as described by a co-worker, was expressed in these terms..."I can hardly believe how sweet and nice she had been to everyone. People who weren't half as beautiful as she did not display the kind of inner beauty she exhibited."" Mad Jack O'Lantern 13:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can anyone source this section?

"*There is also some objection from certain X-Men fans, upset that Halle's light complection and only slightly above average height onscreen make her unfit to star as the X-Men character Storm. Storm is written as being a 5'11" half African American half Kenyan. Some fans have requested that someone else such as Angela Bassett or Nona Gaye replace her in the role." Mad Jack O'Lantern 20:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It can sourced, but I'm not sure that message boards and film critics count as "sources". I was the one who originally brought up the Halle/Storm controversy, but it's been so mangled and POVed that I don't even recognize it anymore. What I was pointing out was the notable differences in height, age, skin tone, etc., while mentioning that hardly any of the X-Men in the movies were "right" for their roles and the entire movies series was written out of order, and so on. The poster who deleted that portion (User:ToGoodToGiveAName), felt the need to delete it w/o stating why. Aw, poor widdle angry fanboy.
There IS a big controversy about Halle (who is half white) playing Storm (who was 1/2 Kenyan and 1/2 black). The argument is that Halle was chosen merely because she is the top black actress in Hollywood, despite looking nothing like the character (not even a little bit). Seeing that racial politics in Hollywood is a pretty big deal - especially in terms of black actresses and their absence from the silver screen - I don't see why bringing up the facts without taking any particular side would constitute as POV. It's not just a "fanboy" issue or a "God she sucks" issue. It's much deeper than that, especially since Storm is easily the most recognizable black superhero, and one of the most prominent female characters in Marvel comics.
As for Bassett and Gaye, they simply seem to be fan favorites (again, message boards) - Bassett since the beginning of time; Gaye since her Matrix performances. Nothing particularly noteworthy. PennyGWoods 04:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Fine, but what you put in there is commentary. We need to make it more encyclopedic and not sound like a fan essay, which is what it reads like. And it is POV in spots. Many consider Berry to be curvaceous, so making a statement that she is petite would be a POV. I'll edit it a bit. It's too long too. We don't need 3 paragraphs on this. It should match the rest of the section. --Woohookitty(meow) 05:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I trimmed it quite a bit. I removed the part about criticism of the director of X-Men. If someone can come up with a citation for that, great. Otherwise, it's not needed. PennyGWoods, you said that the only source we could use for some of this stuff are fan sites or movie review sites. Then. We shouldn't mention it. verifiaibility and citing sources is very important. If it's not cited, then it's generally considered unusable for our purposes. --Woohookitty(meow) 05:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It's funny how you claim I wrote a "fan essay" but can't seem to tell me which side I'm on. That makes me chuckle. Nonetheless, while I couldn't care less about your opinion, I have no problem with the edit.
Furthermore, I don't think I was the person who brought up Bassett/Gaye (I may have; don't remember), and I certainly didn't add it back when I did the martial revert. In fact, I specifically noted that those additions were merely fan opinion and nothing more. PennyGWoods 06:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Please try to be civil. I said it reads like a fan essay. I didn't say you wrote a fan essay. And even if I said you did, it's not required that I say what "side" you are on. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
You would've, had you been able to...which you can't, since...y'know. NPOV. Strange how you toss up all those Wiki policy tags when they never seem to apply. PennyGWoods 07:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I think I'd call saying you don't care what I think being incivil. And putting up unsourced material would be a violation of both WP:CITE and Verifiability. They all apply. I'm an admin with 25,000 edits. I'm not making this stuff up, Penny. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't care if you're the queen of bloody England. If there is unsourced material, point it out to me and let's get it corrected. If there's not, you're just rambling for kicks and showing off your status. Now, which one is it? PennyGWoods 07:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I already removed the most blatantly unsourced material. I'd like to see a citation for her saying that she's reduced to playing a comic book character. What was there was a citation from a movie review. Not really appropriate. Has to be something else out there. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
(typing very slowly) Halle Berry herself had to come out and correct this rumor in an interview, which was linked to. RUMORS tend to start on places like message boards and word of mouth. The reason why there is no direct link to any reputable sources is because...still with me?...it was a rumor. Yet it was a big enough rumor for Halle to have to defend. PennyGWoods 20:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Not sure why you are so condescending with me but I kind of wish you'd stop. It's incivil as heck. And it doesn't matter if it's a rumor or not. You should be able to find an article from a good source that mentions the rumor. That's good enough. Hopefully it's not the same article as the one where she denies the rumor, but if it is, so be it. --Woohookitty(meow) 00:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Last I checked, you're the one taking potshots at me and trolling on my user page. This would stop if you'd cut it out, but then you couldn't flash your shiny admin badge, could you? So go into your admin panel and all of its shiny buttons and just ban me instead, because that's the only way you're going to get me to NOT take your crap. Of course, you could also just...y'know...leave me the hell alone, but that would take common sense.
And just to help you out, it's "uncivil", not "incivil". (You're welcome.) PennyGWoods 00:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)PennyGWoods 00:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
If you can cite a source that mentions the source of this rumor or whatever, go ahead. --Woohookitty(meow) 00:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • typing even slower* THERE IS NO EFFING SOURCE. How many sources can you find to RUMORS? However, there is PROOF that the rumor bothered Halle so much that she chose to speak out on it, hence the linked interview in the article. You think Halle Berry would make that up herself? If you want a better source than an interview straight from Halle Berry, find it yourself. Google works just as well on your computer as it does mine. PennyGWoods 00:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Okey doke. --Woohookitty(meow) 02:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, you two need to cool the hell off! This is not only very unhelpful and hostile, but is way off topic. This is supposed to be a discussion section about the third X-Men film and not your petty squabbling and insults to one another. Please get back on topic! Vgamer101 01:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction it's about Halle Berry and how she relates to the movie. My bad! Vgamer101 15:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monster's Ball

Is there a reason why Monster's Ball isn't mentioned in the "Hollywood Career" section? Also, the note about the movie in the "Controversy" section seems to imply that she won the Academy award because she appeared nude in the movie. At the least the wording is clumsy.

Fixed. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

I added a note that Hugh Jackman, who played Wolverine in the movies, is nearly a foot taller than his character and this hardly seems to draw controversy. Let me know if you have any objections.

--Amynewyork4248 04:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess that's ok. I'm still leery of that whole section just because it starts to veer into rumor territory which I'm always uneasy about. --Woohookitty(meow) 06:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't really like the section either, but I think deleting the whole thing may raise an unneccesary hailstorm.

--Amynewyork4248 07:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pfff

why don't famous peopol ,simply edit ther won articles and send a disent photo?

Pretty. --So Fresh and So Clean_Wish U Was Me 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be called an autobiography, and they are greedy bastards who leave their parents behind. --75.21.141.181 14:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed much of the Controversy section

I pared down the section on the X-Men movies because it was generally unsourced and a detailed description of why comics fans took issue with Berry isn't at all necessary for an encyclopedia article on her. I'm not even sure if that much content would be fitting for the articles on the X-Men movies themselves, honestly. I removed the paragraph on her comments regarding racial equality because the entire quote was unsourced and there was no indication of who regarded what she as controvercial or why. It struck me as fairly bland and uncontrovercial considering the issue she was discussing. Croctotheface 09:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the nudity section because it was also unsourced and I fail to see the controversy, which is not explained. I reworked the sentence on Berry's feelings on playing Storm because there was an unsourced "quote" from her that, when I searched Google for it, only returned Wikipedia, mirrors, and maybe a half dozen forum posts, which seemed to get it from here as well. I wouldn't mind a citation from a REPUTABLE source that takes the opposite side from the hollywood.com page, but I'm not willing to go search it out. Croctotheface 09:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy POV

Berry received much criticism from some African American's for her having received an Academy Award for her performance in Monster's Ball. Some claimed she had demeaned African American's by portraying a black woman having sex with a redneck racist. Berry paid little attention to the criticism, as did most critics. Given the success of Monster's Ball, the majority of the public seemed to have ignored the criticism also.

Waaaaaay too butt-kissy and weasel-wordish. The whole section is. The "controversy" has been completely eliminated and whitewashed, and that's ridiculous. Needs work. MagentaThompson 05:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

And I think it's way overblown and given too much space in the article as it is. This is not a fan site. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the entire paragraph quoting Angela Basset in controversy should be deleted. It consists mainly of a quote from Angela Basset that could easily be taken out of context and could be about anything, much less about Halle Berry winning the oscar which is what the paragraph starts off about. If it's supposed to be about Halle's controversial oscar win, shouldn't there be more citation than just her winning less critic's awards than Sissy Spacek and a vague quote from Angela Basset about the permanence of film?

[edit] Reverted section on Storm

This article is on Halle Berry. It is not about how tall Storm is in the comics. It is not about the relative heights of Storm, Berry, Wolverine, and Hugh Jackman. There's no need for Storm fanboy crticism to take up so much space in the article, especially as there isn't a source that shows that Berry's height or accent were even controvercial. As far as the "reduced to playing a comic book character" quote, I googled it when I initially pared down the section, and the only hits I got for the quoted phrase were Wikipedia, mirrors of Wikipedia, and one or two other sites that were discussing the matter based on the Wikipedia article. If there's no SOURCE, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Croctotheface 02:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm with ya. I've been battling people over the controversy section (it's been a slow burn) for several months now. Just simply state the controversy and leave it at that. And yes, if it doesn't have a source, it shouldn't be here. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Reverted back. It's always the same Halle fawners who want to ignore these things. But the fact is that a short, half-white woman playing a tall, fully African woman IS quite the issue. It's more about racial politics than anything else. The fact that nearly all the X-Men were so bastardized but Halle was the one raked over the flames is clear proof of that. It is not a mere "fans thought she wasn't quite Storm" issue. It is not a "fanboy" thing.
As for sources, the sheer laziness of some people is appalling. Just because you don't feel like looking doesn't mean they don't exist. The fact that Halle Berry had to clear the issue up herself is more than enough proof. It's been said before: the reason why you can't find the quote in question is because...still with me?...HALLE BERRY NEVER SAID IT. SHE NEVER SAID SHE WAS REDUCED TO PLAYING A COMIC BOOK CHARACTER. But she had to turn around and tell the press that because some people said she did, even swearing the saw it on (talk show of your choice). That's already been sourced in this article. What, exactly, is the conflict?
We have fanboys here, all right, but they're not the comic crowd. MagentaThompson 09:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Gee look, it's User:PennyGWoods again! You got blocked several months ago for personal attacks and other violations of policy and I'm 100% certain that this is you again since you speak in the exact same tone and you are readding the exact same material. And you are going to blocked just like Penny was. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I semi protected the talk and article pages. It'll just be for a day or so. I know it's unusual to SP the talk page but we don't need death threats here. And she's done this before. --Woohookitty(meow) 12:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
And now she's threatening to revert the second the page is unprotected. Sigh. --Woohookitty(meow) 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Gotta love unhinged editors. Not that it'll make any difference, but I'm probably more of a comics fan than a Halle Berry fan. I came across this page (I think) when I was watching a _Die Another Day_ on cable. Regardless, I fail to see why a Halle Berry biographical article should include the idea that her height is somehow "controvercial." Maybe all of that information would be relevant to a section of the X-Men movie article dealing with differences between the comics and the movies. It would still need to be sourced. Croctotheface 06:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I pared down the recent edits expanding the section. If we're going to include the "reduced to playing a comic book character" business, then it needs to be called a rumor. The previous version gave the impression that she probably said it and it was her word against the fans'. I also removed the height and racial background/skin tone business. It's just not relevant to an article on Halle Berry. Again, it might be relevant to an article on differences between the X-Men as depicted in the films vs. the comics, which we could then link to from here. Croctotheface 00:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the section should be called "rumors and controversy". The part that was included that was later removed stated that Berry "allegedly" made a statement, and that she denied that she ever said it.

::The problem with this whole section is that one-two people seem to be able to dictate what the entire section is going to say. Anything that is added gets removed. If that's the case, then why make it able to be edited, since Wikipedia apparently already knows what they want it to say? Croctotheface states that height/racial part is "not relevant", but that's one use's opinion. Seeing that this edit war has been going on for a while, there are people who do not agree, and I'm one of those people. I don't see why we can't work to a general consensus, rather than saying "Nuh-UH! It's not relevant because I say so! Locked! Banned! Reverted!" HannahGrace 02:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Never mind. The more I read through the edits and the ban logs, the more I see that I don't want any part of this project. I'll roll back my edits.

HannahGrace 03:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
"I'm going to take my toys and go home!". Don't do that. If you want a change, discuss it calmly, including why you think it belongs. The reason why we kept reverting Penny's edits is because what she was putting in wasn't sourced properly according to the Biography of Living People guidelines. Otherwise, every time the text has been added, it's sounded like fansite fodder and nothing more. We don't need a full pragraph on this. 2-3 sentences suffice. Just need a brief summary. I mean, I don't see how the section on the X-men should possibly be longer or as long as the section on the hit and run accident. It's important to comic book fans and movie fans, yes, but that's limited. With the hit and run accident, Berry made national headlines. But don't just say "screw this" and leave. --Woohookitty(meow) 03:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
And btw, Penny was reverted and blocked because of her attacks on others, not what she said about the article. I mean, she's referring to me as a racist (and female despite the fact that my name and picture were in full view when she was blocked the first time) when there is absolutely 0 evidence of that anywhere. The locking and banning and reverting were due to her behavior. The current reverting is due to what I said above. --Woohookitty(meow) 03:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Woohookitty, I'm not Penny. You're not going to poke and prod at me and get me to blow up like you did that other user. You better believe I'm taking my toys and going home. As long as people like you are King of the Schoolyard, there's no other option. It's especially funny, seeing that you do the exact same thing. How many of Penny's posts have you deleted, especially when s/he asks for proof that she threatened you? That's why I'm walking away. Go ahead, tag me as a sockpuppet, or ban me, or delete my posts. But you have a serious superiority complex, and I don't want to be bothered with you at all. HannahGrace 04:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Um. I never said you were Penny. In fact, I was assuming you weren't or else I wouldn't have spent time writing my post. I was assuming good faith and I suggest that you do the same. And I"m still assuming good faith. I don't see any evidence that you are Penny. Her posts since her blocking have been reverted (by others as well as me) because she's a banned user trying to get around the ban by using sockpuppets. That's against policy and it's revertable. --Woohookitty(meow) 05:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
That's nice. HannahGrace 05:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birth year

I changed it to 1966 or 68 since the sources I've seen can't agree and Berry has never confirmed nor denied the birth year. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Try scrolling up a bit on this page. She confirmed 1966 on an Oprah appearance earlier this year. Here are a few more where she confirms 1966: [4] [5] --Fallout boy 10:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page is unprotected

I actually only kept it protected for a couple of hours. --Woohookitty(meow) 02:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection of the page

The page was semi protected due to PennyGWoods and her socks. Only an admin (such as myself) can remove the protection. So removing the tag doesn't do anything. I'm going to keep it protected for another 2-3 days just to make sure that Penny isn't going to hit us again, especially since she threatened to revert as soon as the article is unprotected. And by the way Santorummm, a banned user editing a page is considered by most to be vandalism. --Woohookitty(meow) 02:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you need evidence as to why this page needs to be protected for awhile, look here. Penny just posted that to this very talk page but it was reverted because she's a banned user. So. I know it's an inconvenience, but it has to be done. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
And another one. Time to SP the talk page for a spell. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Unprotected. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
And reprotected. My goodness gracious this is a joy. Oi. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sissy Spacek and the Oscar

Wouldn't you say that Nicole Kidman was the main competition that year? I remember a lot more buzz about Kidman than Spacek.Basel88 17:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Matthew Barnard Show Movie

"The Matthew Barnard Show Movie" is listed among her credits. I can find no information on the web to support that this is an actual show or movie. This seems to be vandalism since dozens of big stars are listed as being on a show that doesn't seem to exist.

[edit] hearing?

I know when doing just a simple google search (probably not at all valid sources, but I'm not exactly looking right now) that Halle Berry has an 80% hearing loss in one ear? If sources can be found I think this merits inclusion into the article (actually I'm puzzled as to why it's not already in there). Quite honestly I'm swamped IRL or I'd look it up and do it, but since I can't I thought I would at least mention it on the talk page. --ImmortalGoddezz 04:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have also heard that she's deaf in one ear.I read that it was because of being beaten by an ex boyfriend? I think this would warrant being included more than the stuff about what x-men fans think of her.

this is also mentioned on wesley snipes page

[edit] Marriage to Justice

The line that reads: Her first marriage in 1992 to pro baseball player David Justice ended in a 1996 divorce due to alleged infidelity and incompatibility." needs to be changed. There was no alleged infidelity. While several bio sites cite infidelity as the cause of the breakup of their marriage, neither parties have said that was the case. The only notion supporting this is found, among other places, in the February 5-11 1997 USA Today Baseball Weekly, which notes:

"The news broke in late February - just days after he was questioned by Riviera Beach, Fla., police when they saw him parked in an area that a police spokesman said was "know for drugs and prostitution". No charges were filed."

He was in a parked car, alone, with no one else nearby. Hardly an indictment. The event is recalled in the May 13, 1996 issue of People magazine, where Justice was asked whether he had ever cheated on his wife, and answered:

"Absolutely not." Says Berry: "If anything was going on, I didn't know anything about it."

As for the abuse item, in the same article Berry states that a person "well-known in Hollywood hit her" and she lost a significant amount of her hearing permanently as a result. She refuses to name this attacker, but around the time she was dating actor Wesley Snipes and actor Christopher Williams. This was in 1991, prior to her relationship with Justice.

142.177.126.225 23:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Blaze

I just made this change myself after four weeks with no objections. All of the information in the revision is accurate, but please let me know if there are any problems. 207.107.246.142 14:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Blaze

[edit] The Self-Identification as African-American section

Well it's not great, but it's workable. I'd really rather that it be less of a "here's a quote" type thing but we can tweak it. Like I said, it's workable. Good job, Shakam. --Woohookitty(meow) 18:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Well thank you, I must say you're one of the most optimistic people I've seen on Wikipedia so far. Well, you or someone else can tweak it a little bit and we'll see how it turns out. Shakam 20:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Well the thing is, it is something that should be in there somewhere. Her race is discussed alot, fairly or no. --Woohookitty(meow) 05:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] self- contradicting on race

according to the self-identification section she is biracial and identifies as such, while she is categorized as only african-american. she should be categorized as biracial. it's unfair and unfactual that only one side of her heritage is represented. Joeyramoney 01:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoax album

Not without some more reliable sources, thanks. We are not here to propagate memes or hoaxes. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we have this, along with this Rolling Stone Rock Daily blurb, and this New Zealand Herald story. It'd be nice to get a confirmation in whatever issue of Ebony this was in, but sourcing doesn't seem to be the problem here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
...and then I find this. So I dunno. i think the best move is for an actual Wikipedia editor to find a copy of Ebony and at least confirm that part. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's my thing. Amazon doesn't have it. I know that we can't use them as a reference, but generally, if they don't have it for sale, it doesn't exist. Especially in this case where we have an A list celebrity releasing a CD. It should be all over the place on amazon and other sites. It isn't. --Woohookitty(meow) 17:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Just in the matter of historic significance - an edits by User:Ciii (User talk:Ciii) --Yuriy Lapitskiy 09:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diabetes type 1 or type 2?

Early on in the article, it states that she has type 2 diabetes. Towards the end of the article, it states that she has type 1. Which is it? 69.12.240.184 02:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC) She has type 1. The linked article is wrong. A google search shows the consensus is she has type 1, with a few news articles claiming type 2, probably all from the same incorrect press release. I'm going to change this article now and provide a new reference.--Eirinn 08:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of her character in The Flintstones

Yes in imdb, one page has Rosetta. Another has Sharon. On this page and this page and this page and finally this page has it as Rosetta. And I am sure there are others. These were just from the first page of a google search I did. I think we should be safe and just do "Miss Stone". --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hollywood.com, yahoo movies, moviegoods.com don't strike me as overly reliable in comparision to BBC and this character name seems to have a story behind it. I suppose someone could just reference the DVD for the correct name, no? Gimmetrow 06:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess so. I also found tvguide. And her own website references the imdb list. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
IMDB is incorrect, and not even consistent. Their quotes page uses Sharon. A correction on IMDB has been submitted. Part of the inconsistancy was that both names were used until late in production. The final name ended up being Sharon Stone. It's as easy to confirm as a trip to Blockbuster. Also, any review listed on RottenTomatoes.com that actually names the character uses Sharon and not Rosetta. ---Caligulathegod 07:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's the proof. Here's a screen capture with caption. Here's also a Google video link for the one reference in the film to her name.Caligulathegod 01:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wesley Snipes/Christopher Somebody

So is there no one with definitive information about Halle Berry alleged total loss of hearing in one ear due to a physical attack from then-boyfriend Wesley Snipes in the early nineties?

And the R&B singer that started it all by naming Wesley as the one who did it?--146.145.75.106 19:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New External Link

I would like to contribute this website to Halle's External Links. It's a method to rank her celebrity status, or how popular she is. The site does not seem to be selling anything, and there's no advertising on it...I don't consider posting this site to be spam. What do you guys think? Can I post this site? The way I see it is, we're all Halle fans because she became famous....her sustained popularity will win over new fans.

http://www.razzipapa.com/halle_berry

Alderkline 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with this link...I think her popularity is a big part of her "notability"Tycom 00:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not. I don't think it meets WP:EL in the least. Nothing is given on the site as to how these rankings are reached. To me it looks like a fan made site. Which. Is fine, but not really appropriate. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, but I'm surprised that you feel this way. It looks like some other links here are fan-made sites, why should this site be treated differently? I'm new to wikipedia, but I feel like I should have a fair chance to contribute to articles; I understand that this is the foundation of wiki. I did read WP:EL. Thank you for the link. I would like to quote these lines, and respond to how they would apply to this site:

"Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked."

No copyright laws seem to be violated.

"Is it accessible to the reader?"

Yes, the site is in plain language and easy to access.

"Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?"

Yes, the site seems to be a mathematical measure of Halle's popularity. Mrs. Berry is notable because she is a famous actress. This site measures her ability to reach fans and audiences alike, and ultimately contribute to popular culture. This is her notability, and the encyclopedic validity of this link.

"Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?"

Yes, the link works and is hosted by Yahoo...a reputable and sustainable company.

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons."

The site says that the index is generated from several sources. The site is being "rebuilt" right now. The last time I saw it, there was an explanation on how the number is calculated. The author states that this will be reposted soon. Since this is a dynamic index that changes quite often, it can't be integrated into the wiki article itself.

"Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such."

The site is quite small in size and not complex.

Links normally to be avoided

"Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."

The index can't be integrated into the article.

"Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable sources."

An explanation of how the index is calculated will be posted, according to the site.

"Links mainly intended to promote a website."

I don't see an overt promotion of any product or service

"Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources."

There's nothing for sale on the site.

"Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising."

There's no advertising on the site.

"Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content."

The site is free.

"Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser."

I tried the site on IE and Firefox.

"Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required."

I see nothing like that.

"Links to search engine and aggregated results pages."

No

"Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET."

No

"Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority."

No

"Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."

I'm not sure what this means.

"Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked."

This site is very specific in ranking Halle's "notability" to pop culture.

"Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote links. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines."

I am not the owner of this site.

"A few parties now appear to have a spambot capable of spamming wikis from several different wiki engines, analogous to the submitter scripts for guestbooks and blogs. If you see a bot inserting external links, please consider checking the other language wikis to see if the attack is widespread. If it is, please contact a sysop on the meta-wiki; they can put in a Wikimedia-wide text filter. Sysops should block unauthorised bots on sight."

I would not know how to write a spambot!

"Sites that require registration or a paid subscription should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers. Many online newspapers require registration to access some or all of their content, while some require a subscription. Online magazines frequently require subscriptions to access their sites or for premium content. If old newspaper and magazines articles are archived, there is usually a fee for accessing them."

It's a free site.

"English language links are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia."

It's in English!

"Do not use URL redirection sites in external links"

I don't think the site does this.

"It is acceptable to link to pages rendered in normal HTML or plain text."

I think it's pretty plain.

"On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view—in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight."

The site offers no point of view. Just a calculated value or index.

I hope after reading this, you will see how this link is relevant and does meet most of the guidelines of WP:EL. I don't this it's fair to say that is does not meet EL "at the least". I think that's a little offensive. I hope you can assume good faith, as that seem to be a big thing in this community. Please allow the link to be added. I took the trouble of making my case, since you felt it was not a relevant link. Also, I would like to know that wiki is not controlled by a few selected administrators, but by society as a whole. Thank you for your consideration!Alderkline 13:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


This is a refreshing approach - asking if a link is appropriate. If only this happened more often. I think the problem with the suggested link is that it's not particularly informative about the subject of this article. What exactly does this page tell us about Halle Berry? And is this number itself notable? Gimmetrow 05:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


As I was trying to say, this article is just as much about Halle Berry’s rise from humble beginnings to A-list Oscar winner, and a contributor to the arts and popular culture—than it is about her current work. Her popularity is her notability; this number is notable because it is a representation of that. This index is an objective measure of just how far she has risen in the entertainment realm. In fact, I would say that this number is MORE objective than some of the statements on the article itself! Granted, I do appreciate that the site does not explain its methodology at the moment, and it seems to be going through some changes. I will continue to monitor this link and repost it when it seems to be more stable. I only ask that the authorities on Wikipedia be fair in applying their powers. I laid out my argument as best as I could, and clearly showed how this could qualify under EL. I hope the wiki community hasn’t lost its spirit of making the articles accessible to all. I do also appreciate that some level of control is required on certain sites to prevent spamming, but I think I’ve demonstrated that I am not a spammer. Please let me know if I can repost this link when the site appears more complete.Alderkline 14:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think some compelling arguments have been made here. I don't think it would be right of us to deny this link.Tycom 16:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem with the suggested link is that it's not particularly informative about the subject of this article. What exactly does this page tell us about Halle Berry? And is this number itself notable? Gimmetrow 16:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
From my point of view, this page tells us about Halle Berry's success in the form of a ranking. How could we not say that her popularity is the result of her success? Her success is the reason she has a Wiki article in the first place. Is the number itself notable? I would like to wait to see the site's explanation on coming up with this index before the link is allowed.Tycom 16:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
If a page reported statistics, such as sales and attendance figures, it would be informative. A non-notable combination of these is not informative. Gimmetrow 17:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You used the term "notable" and "non-notable" a few times. Sorry for not understanding, but what do you mean exactly in this context when referring to the number itselfTycom 17:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Is the number described and reported by multiple third party sources, and is it used or considered useful within some field? Compare the passer rating or the Gini coefficient. Gimmetrow 17:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for you comments. I would like to say at this time that WP:EL makes no mention that linked site must be notable, or used by third parties. It would not be fair to say that all links on Wiki are notable. I think that's the standard for article references. Well, I hope the decision to delete this link will be reversed. I believe it has met all the requirements for EL. Please, I ask you to reconsider. Let me know if there are any objections to reposting the link once the site is "rebuilt", as they say. I only ask to be treated like everyone else.Alderkline 02:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Question to ask. If I put up a new website and gave Halle Berry a ranking with absolutely nothing given that shows how I came up with it, could I put it up as a link? That's what we're looking at here. External links must be informative about the article and must have some sort of factual basis. This one doesn't. It's as if someone just made up numbers and put it up on a web page. Once the site is rebuilt and there is some indication as to what the numbers mean and where they come from, then I say include it. Until then, it's almost a random number. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 02:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
If I put up a site with some random formula of my own choosing, it would not merit inclusion whether or not there is a FAQ page describing the formula. My random made-up formula is not informative. If it is based on actual statistics, the statistics are informative, and a page with those statistics might be worth linking per EL, if it doesn't overlap with other external links, etc. If some experts start using my formula because they consider it useful, and my formula gets written about in multiple third-party sources, then my formula might even be mentioned in articles. Compare passer rating and Gini coefficient. Gimmetrow 03:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I can understand that. Btw Alderkline, we work on consensus. And in the end, you are my equal and everyone else's equal. Generally, the rule of thumb is that putting x up is ok until someone objects. :) And then it's up to the consensus. There is no "rank". And you are being treated just like anyone else. In fact, I'm impressed that you opened this to debate. Many users would've just reverted me and not discussed it. Unfortunately, discussion isn't always the norm around here even when it should be. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your inputs. I was just reading some of my comments. To be honest, I am a little embarrassed by the tone of some of my remarks. I should assume good faith. I hope I was not too personal in my remarks, I did not mean to offend anyone. I will continue to monitor the site. When it becomes more useful, I will repost it...with a note on this Talk page before I do that. How is that? Thanks again. I am really impressed with wikipedia so far!Alderkline 05:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/l/Talk%7EHalle_Berry_908d.html"