Talk:Angelina Jolie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
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. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Angelina Jolie article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Marriage

She is gaight (half gay and half straight.) Can anyone find the interview where Angelina stated she would not get married till "people who should be able to get married, can" (in reference to gay marriage? 76.112.102.98 23:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"Gaight"?!? Um, bisexual, which isn't necessarily a half and half thing. --Melty girl 19:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request/ suggestion

I think Shiloh Jolie-Pitt should have her own article. She's starring in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and isn't only Angelina Jolie's daughter but also Brad Pitt's. -- Jolie has got a tattoo which reads "know your rights" on the back of her neck. This information may be included in the section regarding this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.1.116 (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this [1] and other humanitarian work should be included but I cannot add it because of WP:COI --BozMo talk 08:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I added on sentence. -- EnemyOfTheState 18:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I am amused that when we upload content from our website onto Alertnet (which executes no editorial control) you link to that rather than directly to our website but only amused its all the same to me. --BozMo talk 20:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)There should be a reference to Jolie trying to ban Fox news and others from her press conference for the "A Mighty Heart".

This picture is freely allowed to add to the article. --Z33t4h 12:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Nice drawing, but we really should try to use photographs whenever possible in biographical articles. 23skidoo 13:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I just worked with her on movie Changeling, she has tatoo on her back just below neck line which says "know your rights". Not sure how long she has had it but page should list all of her tatooes as it lists some and to list them all would be a sentence or two.

[edit] Box Office Gross

Hi there,

I was going through some Hollywood bios and came across Diane Keaton, another FA. In the lead theres a line stating her total box office gross - Keaton's films have earned a cumulative gross of over USD 1.1 billion in North America.[2]. Shouldn't there be a similar line in this article as well? Is there any particular set of guidelines for actors/actresses which could be followed while writing the leads of their articles?

Thanks,xC | ☎ 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The problem with including such a line is that it would need to be continually updated since Jolie is still a working actress. (So is Keaton, too -- I personally disagree with including that information in her article). One would also need a reputable source for citing such a number, of course. There's probably one out there, but every time Jolie makes a movie someone would have to update the number. A better approach rather than adding all the films up would be to cite her most successful films (in terms of box office gross) to date. My guess is it would be the first Tomb Raider film. That way the list would only need to be updated whenever she makes a hugely successful film. 23skidoo 16:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • True - I disagree with the addition of that line as well, but since its in an FA, I figured maybe theres some guideline about such things that I didn't know about. Also, are all films of the actress supposed to be mentioned in the article, or only notable movies/roles? xC | ☎ 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions?

  • Jolie's role in Love Is All There Is is given a one line mention in her article. But neither the article Angelina Jolie nor Love Is All There Is asserts why her role in the movie was notable.
  • Further, the film Playing God (film) in Jolie is a commercial and critical failure (as noted in its own article). Yet it is mentioned in the article. Why is it notable then?
  • In the section International Success, there is a line referring to Life or Something Like It stating - The film was poorly received by critics, though Jolie's performance received positive reviews. The thing is, nothing is mentioned there about how well the film did commercially, nor does the film's article have any details. The reader is left to imagine whether the film did well inspite of being critically trashed (example Lara Croft) or was the film unsuccessful on both counts? Shouldn't an article related to an FA contain the bare essential details at the minimum?
  • Just a few doubts I had, would appreciate any feedback on this. regards,xC | ☎ 08:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The text mentions all her theatrical releases, assuming they are all notable as biographical facts, regardless what more can be said about the film; with about two dozen movies to cover, this seems still practical. If an actor has done many more films, it becomes necessary to limit the number of movies mentioned, of course. I don't think there are any clear WP guidelines how to handle this in detail.
    • There is no policy demanding a certain quality from articles linked to a FA. Regarding Life or Something Like It, how about "poorly received by critics and the audience"? -- EnemyOfTheState 14:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the quick response. True, there is a lack of guidelines regarding the filmbios and it does get confusing at times. I've put together some of the issues in one page, that I feel might deserve some discussion and creation of relevant policies/guidelines. Here's the link. Please do have a look if you're not too busy. I'd appreciate all feedback on it, before I post to the wikiproject talk pages for Hollywood and Bollywood. Having a set of guidelines related to filmbios would definitely help out editors working on these pages.
      • About Life or something like that, well honestly I don't know how the movie was received... I was wondering, so I thought I'd ask here :)
      • Regards,xC | ☎ 14:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This says that Shiloh's birth was a scheduled caesarian but Jolie has said that Shiloh was breach and that was the reason that she delivered this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.240.217 (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ancestry

{{editprotected}} Angelina Jolie's ancestry is inaccurate. Jon Voight's paternal grandfather was Czech, his paternal grandmother was English, his maternal grandfather was German, and his maternal grandmother was German. Thus, Jon Voight is 1/4 Czech, 1/4 English, and 1/2 German. Therefore, Angelina Jolie is 1/8 Czech, 1/8 English, 1/4 German, and 1/2 French Canadian with the "disputed" tiny droplet of "supposed" Iroquois blood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by

Beautifulxlife (talk • contribs).

The article is clear enough, and your comment will stay here on the talk page for reference. Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes - ~~~~ - so readers know who left these comments. KrakatoaKatie 23:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that angelinajoliepics.com should be included as an external reference. Jolieweb 02:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

French Canadians are almost all part Indian so this is not a surprise. The early settlers mixed with the Indians but later as more European women arrived that became less and less common. Possibly this could be more than a "sliver" even if she has no recent Indian ancestors there could be multiple Indian ancestors from 300-400 years ago. Clearly, Jon Voight knows nothing about Canadian history. French Canadians are not all French either. There were many Italians in the colony early on as part of Italy was then under French control. Jolie looks more Italian then French.

[edit] Ancestry

If you take a look at the 1910 federal census of Yonkers, NY, you will see that Jon Voight's paternal grandmother, Mrs. Helen Voytko, was U.S.-born, but her parents were born in another country, listed as Hun-Slovak, as was her husband George Voytko. According to Wikipedia, Slovakia was a part of the Kingdom of Hungary until 1918, when it became Czechoslovakia. Census information is not absolutely reliable, but there is nothing here to indicate English heritage. Kayqueue 20:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC) As for Angelina's mom being French Canadian, perhaps she had French Canadian ancestry, but she was born in Illinois. See <http://marchelinebertrand.blogspot.com/>, where a cousin says she was born in a small town in Illinois. Kayqueue 00:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC) French-Canadian refers to people from Quebec or Arcadia which at one time included Illinois. Since they've been there a long time and were for two hundred years cut off from France they are distinguished from more recent French immigrants. French Canadians typically have some Indian blood because there were not many French women in the colony early on. Morocco also has ties to France as well. She has morocan blood too since her grandmother was born in Morocco. --Unsigned content added by User:71.59.237.189

Interjection: this is addressed to IP user 71.59.237.189 who has been editing the above paragraph: please sign your comments and please do not add to old paragraphs. The above was first posted in January, but you added a few words in March. I nearly deleted your recent additions as IP vandalism. If you have something new to add, please start a new paragraph or a new thread. Thanks. 23skidoo (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I personally think her ancestry shouldn't be examined deeper as it already is. There is no need to have a full family tree in the text, imho. EnemyOfTheState

[edit] New Yorker description

Movie critic Anthony Lane of the New Yorker offers some choice observations about Jolie that I found insightful and may be worth incorporating. One amusing line in his description of her different aspects was, "2. The sexpot. In this she is unchallenged, and yet her timing is off by fifty years. When it comes to channelling her carnal appeal, no current film director has a clue; the guy she needs is Frank Tashlin, who guided Jayne Mansfield through “The Girl Can't Help It” (1956) and “Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?” (1957), and whose eyeballs, if confronted with Jolie in the flesh, would pop out on cartoon springs and bob around." - BanyanTree 05:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article length

The article currently reads in at over 70kb. Perhaps its time to split into relevant sections?xC | ☎ 20:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be unusual to have sub-articles for an actor/celebrity biography, and since the article became featured in its current state, it might be best not to split it. Also, the mere text is 'only' 40 kb, a lot of it are the references. EnemyOfTheState 10:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Humanitarian/charitable recognition Awards

First, I want to say I think the article is great. Some sections might be trimmed up a bit, but otherwise, it is well-written and informative. Besides that it could be more concise, it is a good article. But I have one other suggestion! Her humanitarian work is so important that I think there should be a list of awards she has in that area in the Info Box! You have her entertainment industry awards, but what about her UNHCR and related awards? --Ashley Rovira 15:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the article uses the actor infobox template, there is no way to include non-acting awards. EnemyOfTheState 10:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence

Minor copyedit: Under "Early life and family" - this is not a sentence as it has no subject: Because my son’s adopted, and families are earned. I think it needs to be merged either with the sentence before or after. Can someone more knowledgable help? Thanks. ♫ Cricket02 16:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a direct quote, so I don't think it should be changed. EnemyOfTheState 10:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Often cited?

From the lead:

She is often cited by popular media as one of the world's most beautiful women[1]

The footnote leads to this BBC News article which mentions one internet poll that placed Jolie top. That is in no way enough to justify the phrase "often cited". As it happens I agree that she is often cited as such... but the referencing here is clearly inadequate for the claim. 86.132.138.229 02:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There is another 'source' with the link to People magazines most beautiful issue in the media section, but you are right of course, a direct statement in a reliable article would be much better. EnemyOfTheState 10:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main image

Does anyone else find this image better for the top than the current one? --thedemonhog talk • edits 17:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the other one is better than the one we have right now...xC | ☎ 18:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, it might be the better picture, but it is less suited as a lead image. It's not a portrait image and it's only 186px wide, so it can't be cropped to 200px, the default width for the infobox. EnemyOfTheState 10:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I changed the main image to Image:Angelina Jolie 2007.jpg FANSTAR 17:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I cropped this image to Image:Jolietop2.png, I think it's better for the infobox. I also cropped this image of her back, Image:Jolietattoo.png; it could be used in the tattoo section - in the past several people tried to include copyrighted images of her tattoos in the article. -- EnemyOfTheState 10:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone find a more suitable image? Her face is hardly visible in the current image. Myoutbackshed 10:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I second this. She's way to beautfiul to not be seen in full. --Notorious Walt 04:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The crop and Photoshop job on the current image is horrible. Since she just visited Iraq recently, we should have some better government photos than this. thedemonhog's suggestion would fit better as well. ⇔ EntChickie 18:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

At least let's get an image that's properly exposed. I keep fighting the urge to up the gamma on my monitor. Is there a particular reason why the far superior photo used in the "Jolie in the media" section isn't the lead? 23skidoo (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The current main image appears to be Image:Jolietop2.png with the background darkened. You're welcome to switch them around. Gimmetrow 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Switched them up. If a better photo from her Iraq trip emerges, I'll put that up. ⇔ EntChickie 19:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to use the current picture as the lead image, wouldn't it be preferable cropping it a little bit to make it more of a portrait photograph? Something like that ? EnemyOfTheState (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jolie's black ancestry

Could anyone confirm whether or not she has some black ancestry as there are several articles floating around claiming that her mom had an affair with a black or mulatto guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.152.214 (talk) 20:15, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

She has no black/mulatto ancestry. Her father's side of Czech is well documented. Her mother's side of Canadian-Frech blood is well documented.Ruth E 22:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Filmography move: premature?

Jolie seems seems like a young film actor to have her Filmography moved off her main page already. It doesn't seem like it did all that much to shorten the page, and it seems like such primary information to move. Wouldn't it be better to edit down other sections that veer into trivia in order to shorten the page, or move something else, then move the filmography back to this page? For example, does the Tattoos section need to be so long? Or could it be moved? I think readers come to the Angelina Jolie page to read about her films (and many other topics) more so than to read about her tattoos. --Melty girl 04:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Unless Wikipedia's MOS has been changed to require filmographies to have their own articles, I don't see the point in doing so here. It's just going to be an AFD magnet, and AFD will likely result in a decision to remerge it to the main article. I give it a month. 23skidoo 15:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Wow, interesting. Yeah, I think it was not the right move. Should we put it back and save people the trouble of AFD? --Melty girl 16:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I put the filmography table back in and proposed deletion of the filmography article. --Melty girl 19:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ancestry

is she of slovak or czech ancestry? 60.242.48.18 13:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Mother's ancestry

It should be noted that if Marcheline Bertrand had Iroquois ancestry, the article must not then read 'Native American'. The native peoples of Canada (regarding Bertrand's French Canadian roots) are not referred to as 'Native American', they are primarily called 'First Nations'. I guess though the main question should be if she did indeed have Iroquois roots, were they based out of Canada? If the ancestry section is to stand, this should be rectified in the article. Sorry to bring up yet another ancestry section here. Bentonia School 13:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Iroquois also lived in what is now the United States. --Melty girl 22:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on Controversies?

Incidents happened in india could be worth mentioning. Article states all positive and no negative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool kanks (talk • contribs) 18:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

  • It would be helpful if you specified what you're talking about. (And provided sources). 23skidoo 19:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straight?

I read in an article on afterellen.com that she no longer identifies as bisexual. Does anyone know if this has been confirmed? 199.126.166.13 22:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think it's something you just turn off at will; more likely she possibly no longer pursues bisexual relationships due to her current family situation. In any event, such discussion can't be added to the article unless there's a verifiable source. I don't know of any. 23skidoo 04:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Plenty of people stop identifying as bisexual, or state that they don't feel like a "true bisexual", thus they start to identify by their majority sexual preference (heterosexual or homosexual) due to their lack of sexual/romantic interest in the sex they do not favor. Angelina Jolie may identify as heterosexual, but like 23skidoo stated, we need a valid source stating that she does not identify as bisexual...but rather as heterosexual (straight). Flyer22 05:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Children in infobox

I reverted the edit that removed the children from the Infobox. Why else do you think a "children" field was included? Of course they need to be listed there. I do agree wikilinking them was unnecessary as, for now at least, the links just redirect back here anyway, so I took those out. 23skidoo 04:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

  • OK, looks like we might have the makings of an edit war here. Here is my rationale and I invite the editor to state his/her's and then let's get third parties chiming in. 1. Picking and choosing what children should be listed under the "Children" field of the Biographical infobox is a violation of WP:NPOV. 2. It is not "gossip" to list children for whom there is voluminous evidence that they exist (you're not supposed to list rumored children, etc.). 3. Information in infoboxes is expected to repeat information in the article; that's why they were created. Otherwise it could be argued that every infobox can be removed since the articles should contain all this information. If the editor has an issue with the listing of children in the infobox, I recommend lobbying with the creators of the infobox to have that field removed. 3. In the case of these children all have been mentioned repeatedly in the media, and therefore are considered public figures. That does not justify giving them their own articles, in which I am in full agreement, but if someone can prove that a life is being ruined by listing them in an infobox, then I'll be quite interested. 23skidoo 14:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think her children should be included really. Template:Infobox actor states that only "especially notable children" should be mentioned, which is hardly the case here, as none of her children are even notable enough to have their own article. I suppose it is intended for someone like Kirk Douglas -> Michael Douglas? I'm not a fan of lengthy infoboxes anyway, so I wouldn't include the fields "Occupation" and "Years active" here either. EnemyOfTheState 15:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
EnemyOfTheState gets it right: Template:Infobox actor contradicts 23skidoo's rationale for putting the Jolie-Pitt kids in the infobox. It's not for any children, it's for "especially notable children." These children have done nothing notable on their own. Yes, they are famous names, but only because of celebrity gossip magazines that obsessively follow every celeb's baby, not because they've actually done anything notable as people. Should Wikipedia follow that ridiculous gossip trend and consider them notable on that basis? No -- they don't have their own WP pages, because they're not notable. And sure, the infobox is going to echo info from the article, but that still doesn't override the intention of the children field in this particular infobox, which was thoroughly discussed and thought through. It is not meant for non-notable children. Angelina Jolie herself is an example of a notable child of notable parents, but her own children are not.
And about the occupation and yearsactive fields, I think those fields are far more important than the fields like parents and children. That's the kind of crucial information about a person that an infobox can present more immediately than prose. What's more important that what a person does and how long they've been doing it? That's the whole reason they're in WP in the first place.
Last, I'll just mention that if children are kept in the infobox (which still remains to be seen) I think it is highly distasteful to note who's adopted and who's biological in a simple list like that. I'm going to delete that much for now. --Melty girl 17:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Given the discussion in this section and the next, I think we're now ready to go back to a children-free infobox, right? --Melty girl 20:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. All Hallow's Wraith 08:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

All I can say in response to Melty Girl is that in order to determine "especially notable children" you must violate WP:NPOV. If you're willing to accept that by not listing the children that NPOV has been violated, allowing therefore any POV statements to be added to the article, then I'm fine with the change. 23skidoo (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Just as a followup to my above comment I have made the recommendation that this problematic criteria be removed as determining notability requires violating NPOV. My compromise suggestion is to only allow individuals with Wikipedia articles to be listed; since survival of such articles indicates consensus that the subject is notable, that solves the NPOV issue right there. It also handles the issue of whether spouses and parents are notable, or that matter. 23skidoo (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
If determining whether children are "especially notable" violates WP:NPOV, then Wiki editors must violate that policy every time they determine whether a subject is notable enough to deserve an article or not. I think your logic simply falls down on that score. At the same time, I agree that whether a child has its own article is one good indication of whether that person is notable enough to merit mention in the parent's infobox—but I think that has nothing to do with your original argument about WP:NPOV, and it's not the only indication possible. Finally, I'll just comment that there seems to be a consensus here (above and below, it's not just me) that at present, the Jolie-Pitt kids are not notable enough to merit mention in the infobox, though they clearly merit mention in the article (not everything should go in the infobox!). As for your suggestion about policy for the infobox in general, this is not the correct forum to decide matters that extend beyond this article; let's restrict that discussion to Template_talk:Infobox_actor. --Melty girl (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

The English articles have always a lot of trivia, especially in this article. why don´t you care more about the quality of the articles? its more gossip than information who are necessary for an encyclopedia. La Lovely 18:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)--

It's not trivia that she is often cited as one of the most beautiful women in the world. It's instead a notable fact about her, which is included in this article in a non-trivial way. The other detail you removed...I don't consider trivial either, except for exactly what she wore one day. Second, this article is a featured article, so of course we care about the quality of this article, as well as other articles that aren't featured. This article has been formatted like that for a while, without any objections...until now. You replaced the heading Children with Trivia, and moved information that was not presented in a trivial way to the top, while having the information about her children underneath that in that same section. The information about her children certainly is not trivial, but rather a part of her personal life, which is not considered trivial in any such way. Flyer22 19:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I am in complete agreement with Flyer22, except that I think that the detail about her exes and children might not need to be in the lead section -- it could probably be summarized, with the exes' names and childrens' names perhaps left out of the lead. But this detail is crucial to the Personal life section of the article, and the fact that she's considered one of the most beautiful women in the world is absolutely not trivia. She's a famous actor, and her physical attributes are a critical part of her craft and career opportunities. It's an undeniable social reality that Jolie's perceived beauty is a huge money-maker and a cultural force, whether we like it or not. Would you remove the mentions of Elizabeth Taylor or Marilyn Monroe's being famous for their beauty? --Melty girl 19:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I´m sorry but I didn´t understand everything that you said because I am no native speaker but I will try to explain you why I did it as good as I can.

In the German Wikipedia is said that the names of the children of celebrities and other information about them are only necessary when there is a concrete interest of the children, I think the information about the children are too detailed and it needn´t to be mentioned how there full names are, where they were borned, etc. I think it´s enough to mention that they have 4 children and that 3 of them are adopted from a poor country. La Lovely 19:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)--

La Lovely, there is a lot of interest in her children, whether it's that notable or not, I suppose can be debated and has been before. But having the detail about them in her Personal life section is not trivial. They are her children, a part of her personal life and the article gives insight into the matter in what I feel is not a trivial way. Also, I agree with what Melty girl has stated about the lead section of this article. Perhaps, we can come to an agreement on that. 20:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


SOUTH PARK REFERENCE?

IS ANYONE GOING TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE SOUTH PARK EPISODE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.42.211.4 (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • What South Park reference? 23skidoo (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

I'm curious why the page protection was lifted recently. The article has already been vandalized half a dozen times, and there is no reason to expect it will get better. I don't think ending the protection was a very good idea. Sloan21 (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I unprotected the page because it is not Wikipedia policy to leave articles semi-protected forever. Every now and again, protection is lifted to see if it remains necessary. At the moment I think vandalism is within acceptable levels - only a few vandal edits a day and some positive IP edits. I would also point out that this editor [2] would not have been able to edit the page had it still been semi protected. That seems a good faith edit. If you think the article should be reprotected, you can request that at any time at WP:RFPP. WjBscribe 12:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Well given the edits since my previous post, I have decided to restore semi-protection. WjBscribe 07:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Good call. For whatever reason cetain articles are simply vandalism magnets for people with too much time on their hands. I agree that it's good to unprotect the page from time to time, if only to justify why it should be protected. 23skidoo (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest to put this page under semi-protection again. This ongoing reverting orgy really serves no purpose; there was hardly any meaningful edit form an unregistered user since this this article was unprotected. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some suggestions

  • If there is a separate Awards section, there should be a proper awards table (like Jake Gyllenhaal), not this rather confusing list of succession boxes. Also, I don't see the usefulness of these succession boxes with award shows anyway - unlike a political office for example, the predecessor has no relevance or connection to the incumbent. One succession box for the Academy Award would be more than sufficient, imho.
  • Whether she should be introduced as "a former fashion model" in the lead might be debatable. She never gained any particular notability as a model and her previous modeling work hasn't come to prominence in retrospect either. Since she was never well know as a fashion model (and also currently is not), this might be best removed.
  • Is the disambiguation link on top of the page really necessary? Seems a bit like advertising to me, as the character in question doesn't even have its own article.

EnemyOfTheState (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on all three counts! --Melty girl (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The latter is probably because of the redirect from Jolie. There was a disambiguation page which I've moved to the correct spot; this page can link to that. To some people the most famous "Jolie" would be Mama Jolie. Gimmetrow 21:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I included a table in the awards section and changed the first sentence. I don't know whether it is unnecessary for 'Jolie' to redirect here, it could be a disambiguation page. I doubt many people type in "Jolie" if they are looking for this article (unless they already know about the redirecting). EnemyOfTheState (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree the award list is better than the succession boxes. Would it help if the categories linked to the appropriate article, for those who want to know "who won the year before"? Gimmetrow 00:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The 12 Days of Angelina Jolie

  • Bauer Griffin online has a pretty extensive daily feature on Angelina Jolie,which features her during a different month of '07 every day. I am new to this page, so I can't put up a link, but you can see it here: The 12 Days of Angelina Jolie Langosta (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tattoos

For those who know about the topic, I'd like a better list of her tattoos. It says that she has 13 and more than three can be listed. I saw a photograph with "13 5 1960" in Roman numerals on her left arm, and I have no idea what it represents. Reywas92Talk 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • We gotta be careful of WP:NOR, though. Unless there is an actual article or book giving an up-to-date account of what she has and what they mean, it might be a challenge passing this through WP:BLP. 23skidoo (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • She has "XIII V MCMXL" (13 May 1940) on her left forearm, the date of Churchill's Blood, toil, tears, and sweat speech - however, as with many of her tattoos, I don't think she ever actually commented on this, so the meaning is more or less media speculation and not a definite fact. Initially, there was a full list of her tattoos, but it was removed during the peer review I think. Also, during the featured article nomination, there was an understanding that only a handful of her tattoos should be mentioned (ideally those that offer some insight about her personality), while a full list of 'body art' is not desirable and unencyclopedic trivia. For example, a list of her tattoos can be found here [3], more pictures and explanations [4]. At one point, there was an external link to a website listing and explaining all of her tattoos, but I think it was removed per WP:EL, because these sites normally violate copyright. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If a good source can be found, though (one which either she or a good third party like a bioigrapher gives an accounting) I think it would be notable to have a more detailed account of her tattoos, because it is considered a major part of her persona. But it can't just be a willy nilly list and guesswork. And it would have to be updated from time to time as she has been known to revise her tattoos (such as replacing the Billy Bob one). 23skidoo (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism on Adoption

http://www.moono.com/news/news00160.html http://www.nypost.com/seven/01112007/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm http://kadnexus.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/return-of-the-brangelina/ http://www.languageofblood.com/whywrite.html

A section about adoption should be in the article. The positive and negatives on both sides. Otherwise it's POV. Right now it has a tinge of "Adoption saves children" so this should directly be addressed.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Since no one added anything, I did. I'll take it if someone takes that part off even with the citations, that this article is POV, and I'll report it as such. However, you are welcome to add counterarguments.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm reverting your additions because the sources used are questionable to say the very least. One is a blog which is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Another is what appears to be a gossip site (Moono.com). That source also does NOT state that Maddox was sold or bought, it clearly states that he may have been bought. That's hardly an admission. That article also has no author and has a great deal of tabloid phrasing including Jolie has told a friend., and that such & such told a source. Adding parody videos to support your claim also seems questionable. Celebrities get made fun of constantly so that is not a barometer for scandal or wrongdoing, that's just plain criticism. Other celebrities have adopted foreign children for years so I think this attack on Jolie is more personal than anything else. This is a featured article so it has been put through the motions by several editors to get rid of POV and the like. If you still feel this topic needs to be addressed, I suggest you find more reliable sources than gossip sites and parody videos to back up this claim. This article is about Jolie, her life, and what makes her notable, not the pros and cons of international adoption. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
My response is basically: take the removal however you want and report away. As Pinkadelica said, to become a featured article, it goes through a rigorous examination regarding reliable sourcing, neutrality editing, and fairly intense criticism. The only really nearly viable thing you seemed to add to this article was a 4 year old one time item about a question raised regarding the adoption agency Jolie went through having problems with questionable adoptions. I did a thorough search trying to find any follow-up legitimate news items that found that her adoption of Maddox was tainted or illegal and guess what? Nothing. Nowhere. The question was raised when the agency she used first came under scrutiny, and had the adoption turned out to be questionable, it most certainly would have had more press than one item. The item says she was going to be facing a huge legal battle to keep Maddox, but even when the agency's owner faced legal problems, no question surfaced regarding Jolie. Another source you used is based on a gossip item originally from the Daily Mirror from January of this year, saying Jolie and Pitt were travelling to Africa to adopt another child, with a supposed statement from her brother confirming a trip that was planned for this very past weekend. It's a gossip rag, with an item run before the news regarding her very apparent pregnancy hit the press. Given the announcement that she was using fertility drugs to increase the chance of conception, I have to wonder why this gossip blurp sounds suspect? The languageoftheblood site is a self-published blog. Cited or not, it's not been subjected to independent objective fact-checking, and is essentially, at best, original research. Not acceptable. Pagesix and the New York Post are just unvalidated gossip and would never be acceptable as reliable sources. If you want to open a critical analysis of the pros and cons of international adoption, then write an article elsewhere and don't attempt to play it in the midst of other articles, especially one that has passed featured article status, based on some obscure website charges that Jolie hasn't done enough for the author's favorite cause. She doesn't owe anyone that. But it will have to pass WP:BLP, which this addition to Jolie's article calls into question. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New lead picture

Just for my 2 cents, the current lead picture is a much better choice than some of the ones used previously. 23skidoo (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really like it. Only shows the face. Image:Angelina jolie lugar.jpg was better. Gimmetrow 02:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with just showing the face? Hayden Panettiere's lead image is just the face and is actually quite striking (and one of the few exceptions I've seen to the "Commons images are lame" rule. And the one used here is pretty good, too. 23skidoo (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
At some point after I posted that last comment someone went and changed the lead image at the article, replacing it with what they thought was a "better" Commons image, though IMO it is exceedingly poor. So please ignore my above comment as it seems to no longer apply to the article in question. (I refer to the Hayden Panettiere image; the current lead image for Jolie is still a very good one. [User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Summary Paragraph

I hate to sound TOO pedantic, but the introductory sentence of this page states that Angelina Jolie is an American film actor and UN Goodwill Ambassador. She is neither. She is, surely, an American film actress and and UN Goodwill Ambassadress . . .82.214.225.237 (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • "Ambassadress"? Where does that come from? That term is never used. As for "actress" that term is no longer used in the gender-neutral media. Actor refers to both male and female in the media and my understanding is Wikipedia follows this standard in its MOS. 23skidoo (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • "Actress" is still used in a lot of Wikipedia articles, though, and in valid news sources, not to mention for award nominations/wins. But I never had a problem with this article using it for Jolie/being applied to any girl/woman. It has become a gender-neutral term after all. Flyer22 (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no word such as "Ambassadress". And the word "Actor" is regardless of gender. --::semper fidelis:: 18:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurbutterfly (talk • contribs)

[edit] Can I Just Say

That i posted on here that Angelina was expecting twins and some stupid gay moderator called enamyofthestate kept deleting it, so i actually was right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.46.24 (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2008

Hopefully, you'll realise calling someone gay doesn't get you anywhere. If you couldn't back up your claims beforehand, thats your problem. Now its been confirmed, it can be sourced, and therefore should be on Wikipedia. Matt (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relation to Hilary Clinton

I heard on Google's website that Angelina Jolie is distantly related to Hilary Clinton they are 9th cousins once removed and that Angelina is related to her on her mother`s side and Hilary is related to her on her mother`s side meaning that they are maternal cousins to each other which also means that Hilary`s daughter who is an only child is Angelina`s 10th cousin and Angelina `s children are Hilary's daughter`s 10th cousins once removed and if Hilary's daughter has children of her own then Hilary`s grandchildren and Angelina`s children would be 11th cousins to each other right or wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.106.105 (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Animal Abuse

I see the Controversy section I put up was deleted. That's fine. I just didn't want to mess with the flow of the text elsewhere. Though it is old news I couldn't find one word about personal drug use in the article other than for a character of hers. My primary reason was of course the mention of animal abuse in her youth. I think this could be a line under the early life section. I couldn't find any mention of animal abuse by her earlier than yesterday. Synchaser (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of a bio article is not to detail every stupid thing someone has done in their youth. Nar Matteru (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how much detail can fit in one line on the page. The 5 paragraphs on her Humanitarian work might not be enough to balance it out. :-) Synchaser (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I can see how her past drug use should be included (the first paragraph of the media section, following sentence about her 'wild girl' image might be a good place for that), however, I fail to see the encyclopedic value of the fact that she caused the deaths of several animals as a child. This might be seen as cruel, but to me, this has more the quality of tabloid trivia than relevant biographical information. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the line in there portrays her as being cruel. I think there is a real honesty about it that I found refreshing, even if it was on video in a private setting. I'm uncomfortable with even calling the topic in this discussion "Animal Abuse" but couldn't think of anything else off hand. And she certainly didn't come off as bragging about it like the Sun article said. On the other hand she seems to have a real fascination with death as a youngster and a lot of kids do - then a lot of kids don't. With the cutting stuff and funeral director thing (might have been said in jest), I can't help but wonder if that isn't in some way connected perhaps on a subconcious level with her pets. Quite a bit of valid information originates from tabloids and then gets carried by the main stream media. If you feel strongly that it has no relevancy in her biography or think it treats her unfairly go ahead and edit or delete it. I just wanted to see a tad bit of balance and thought it would go in well for that section. Synchaser (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
People do stupid things as kids, and wikipedia isn't really the authority to hold them accountable for it. I can see including it for example if she were a child actress, or if it were something that were still occurring now that shes an adult. But in this case, I just don't feel that every stupid thing someone has done as a child is notable for a biographical article. That, and there's really not any ways of including it that don't sound like a tabloid smear. Nar Matteru (talk) 05:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing in Awards section

Following a message of "section lacking citations", the award section now states as its source the list of Jolie's awards from IMDb. I asked in WikiProject Film's discussion regarding reliability of IMDb in this regard. The reply is IMDb is not exactly a reliable source for such info. Indeed, Wikipedia:Citing IMDb also (probably) tells the same thing (probably, because I could not make out if "hard data" includes awards). So, the editors are requested to include reliable sources in the awards section. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the awards information, aside from the filmography listing, the quintessential IMDb "hard data"? This information is not included by members, like biographical details or future projects, but by employed editors, following award shows. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not aware of who compiles the IMDb awards dta, so asked the question there in the WikiProject Films' discussion board. According to one editor says, "using IMDb as a stepping stone. Sometimes non-notable awards are listed, so you can take the keywords from a film's award page and search for the main website (like the Academy Awards, as TheBlazikenMaster suggested). If you can't find a main website or if you find a website that seems too bloggish, then it is probably not worth inclusion. Another way is to check to see if an award has a Wikipedia article and review its references to see how prominent it is."--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
So I don't think there is a problem then, because the table only includes major awards, far from everything the IMDb lists on their site. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)