Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Funeral Director?

Did she really dream of becomming a funeral director? I looked in the history, but it wasn't vandalism, it looked like a valid edit. Growing up with actors as parents, you'd think she'd want to be an actress. And then she attended a theater school when she was 11--not exactly the best training to become a funeral director. Whhat is the source of this factoid?

If it's valid, we should insert why she wanted to be a funeral director. Otherwise, it sounds bogus (like it does now). — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:47, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

It seems so. I've read this rumour on many places. Can't be sure though, but I wouldn't be surprised because Angelina is a bit odd, I mean, she's not exactly the girl next door if you know what I mean.
EliasAlucard Talk 16:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
I've read this in an interview with her. It was something that came out during her "goth" phase around the time she won the Oscar. Can't remember exactly where I read it. 23skidoo 00:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I've heard her say that too. Can't remember where, some arbitrary interview. Like what skidoo said, it might have been something she just "said" during her goth phase, but she definately did claim that as a child she wanted to be a funeral director. Poisonouslizzie 00:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Angeloonie 16:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)she also wanted to be a ballet dancer :)

Hi, I'm Jake. I'm not a registered user, but I thought I would try to help you guys out on this topic. She mentions it in a July 5, 2001 Rolling Stone cover story, even showing her test booklet to the interviewer. The cover of the magazine showed Jolie lying in green grass with her abdominal cross tattoo mostly visible. So, yeah, is it true that she wanted to be a funeral director. Here's the link to the story in Rolling Stone's online archive: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/5938014 Hope that helps.

Good work. I've added the link. Incidentally you don't have to be a registered user to add information to articles, though it's easy to sign up so you can have access to other features. 23skidoo 14:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

(Jake again) Thanks for letting me know that 23skidoo. I have to admit that I'm finding Wikipedia rather addicting and validating! There is something very powerful in being able to add to this incredible public resource and see what you've done instantly.

Nice job Jake! You should register an account if you plan to start any new articles btw, as of last month only registered users can do that. But registering is quick and simple. Thanks again, --Naha|(talk) 15:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

tattoo

I found a pic of the tattoo in question, i looked it up at babelfish and, so far as i can tell this is Japanese not Chinese. Actually the chariters were the same but there was a second chariter for chinese (traditional or simplified). If someone who reads chinese agrees that this is death in chinese as well, please change to Japanese Kanji/Chinese. Cavebear42 22:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I found a person who can read both Chinese and Japanese to confirm that this is the same chariter and acceptable in both. Cavebear42 23:35, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
OK, but is it the same character in both traditional and simplified chinese?
previous statement by 213.112.113.111
Please sign your comments with ~~~~ to help us make this more readable.
Yes, its the same in both traditional and simplified chinese as well as japanese Cavebear42 04:19, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Just a minor observation: The article states her new tattoo ("N11° 33' etc.) represents "the locations where she adopted" her children. Since Jolie hasn't commented on it, this is total speculation; the tattoo could also represent their birth locations for example. It think it should be rephrased. -- EnemyOfTheState 01:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

quotes

I have removed the quotes because 1. the quote given was not cited. 2. the better place for quotes would be wikiquote. 3. the link cited was likely the source of the quote and its copyright did not allow us to copy them. 4. wikipedia is not a collection of links. The best thing to do would be to find a public domain source of quotes, create a wikiquote article with them, and then come back and link the wikiquote article from here. If you could do that, I would love it because I, personally, love some of the things she says. Cavebear42 20:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The Chinese simplified and traditional character. It's pronounce si(third tone) in mandarin Chinese.

picture

maybe we can get a better picture here.

above comment by68.211.13.124
please sign your comments with ~~~~ to help us make this more readable.
we ahve tried to find a better pic that could be released under a public domain or free licence but have not yet cam up with one. in the case that you have one, please go ahead and put it up. Cavebear42 22:31, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is what fair use is for. --Sn0wflake 05:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not really. fair use is for "the Progress of Science and useful Arts". And in order to claim fair use "... one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new." While we are able to claim that we are adding something new to the world by working on this project, we must tread lightly on this matter. Using a picture because she looks much sexier in it surely has no interest in furthering science. If there was no possible way to find a pic that was free, then we might have a claim to fair use. That aside, I try to consider the spirit of this project as furthering the end goal. For instance, while the Wikipedia is obviously not 100% factual, more good editors than bad means that we are approaching truth all the time. In the same way by replacing fair use pictures with PD pics and by replacing PD pics with freely licensed pics, we are approaching a freely licensed encyclopedia. Cavebear42 23:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It is for a nonprofit cause, though. Wikipedia is simply displaying the picture, not charging money for people to see it. It is equivalent to hanging the picture on one's wall.→ JarlaxleArtemis 23:59, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
fair use does not mean that non-profit orgs can use whatever they want it means that you can use it to further science and useful arts. not wanting to get off topic but, while you would prob get away with hanging a picture on your wall, that does not make it legal to do so and you are surely not protected by the fair use clause, esp when your "wall" is visable to the entire world over the internet. Cavebear42 05:44, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Page has been restored to a photo that is not copy vio (cburnett put it back to this photo and i reverted that photo to one that was legal.) if you click on that link at the bottom of the edit page, Project:Copyrights, you will see that It is our goal to be able to freely redistribute as much of Wikipedia's material as possible, so original images and sound files licensed under the GFDL or in the public domain are greatly preferred to copyrighted media files used under fair use. Also, i don't belive that fair use applys here. for these reasons (and that the pic was never properly cited) I ask that we quit changeing this pic until we find one of equal or greater freeness. Cavebear42 19:37, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I notice a new picture has been added from a movie premiere. That one's much better. I think a better UN-related shot of her is available, too. 23skidoo 00:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


kudo's on new pic Cavebear42 17:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I dunno. It looks like she has a black eye to me. I think a better image can be found by making a fair use screen capture from one of her movies. I'm willing to go through the effort. Alternately, the cover of her book could be used.23skidoo 22:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The current picture is a bit too overtly sexual in my opinion. The point of it is clearly to make her look sexy, which is fine in some contexts of course but we are trying to present a serious encyclopaedia article about a serious actress. Maybe we could have that picture further down the page (alongside the FHM material), but the top one really ought to be something more sober I feel. Agentsoo 01:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Why not swap it for the perfectly fine premiere photo at the bottom? 23skidoo 02:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the switch. I think a headshot is a better choice for lead image anyway because you get a better look at the person, as opposed to a full- or partial-body shot as was the case with the magazine cover. 23skidoo 05:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Most beautiful woman?

Hey, whatever. I have seen maids in my country who are a million times prettier than this Angelina Jolie... thing.

On regards of the gay pride thing: Personally, I wouldn't feel any pride on talentless people like Angelina "pig liver lips" Jolie being gay.

Oh, by the way boys, I'm male and heterosexual. So, I'm not biased, just stating what her marketing team wont allow you to think.

Hey - to each their own, but it's a matter of public record that she usually tops magazine polls in these categories, so her marketing team doesn't really have much say in those matters. Her good works with the UN will remain long after her looks begin to fade, and I think she knows this. Personally I expect her to retire from acting to go full-time into humanitarian work one of these days, although as she herself has said the money she makes from movies has made it possible for her to do her work, so one compliments the other. 23skidoo 12:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I know everyone has their own taste, and I personally find Angelina Jolie to be the most beautiful woman I have ever seen; but I think it is worth mentioning that, as the article says, she has been voted in the most beautiful women list of many magazines, and has been named 'First Perfect Woman' by Vogue Magazine. And I think it's fairly safe to say that, as far as taste goes, it doesn't get much better than Vogue. Yanington
I think that's fair, just as numerous actors have been named "Sexiest Man Alive" by various magazines. If you can cite a magazine and year, please go ahead. 23skidoo 19:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Is there any positive reason for the inclusion of this pointless section on the talk page? It adds nothing to the discussion and wastes space. -Kasreyn 10:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, as an actor, Angelina's looks are an important part in her career. Sadly the entertainment industry is very superficial and appearances play a significant part in the work an actor recieves; it's just part of the trade. So I personally feel that her beauty (or lack of it, according to some) is a tolerable subject. In my opinion, Angelina is the most gorgeous woman I've ever had the pleasure to lay eyes on; but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so obviously not everyone is going to agree with me. There's no need to start an argument about it. However, I would like to ask those of you who don't think Miss Jolie is beautiful: what actresses do you find attractive? I'm not trying to fuel a possible spat, I'm just curious. Thanks in advance. 04:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Lola

Well, personally I do feel she's one of the loveliest women I've ever laid eyes on (though it's a tossup with Audrey Hepburn!). But the claim is very subjective and unless it were sourced by a very broadly-distributed survey I'd be against including it in the article. In any case, the article has pictures of her; the readers can see how beautiful she is on their own. Kasreyn 16:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's too difficult to find a third party source referencing her in this way. 23skidoo 16:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think it’s rather ridiculous to reference “beauty” in the first sentence of the article. The introduction should offer a non-controversial summary of the topic where no references are needed. Just take out the “great” and return to the phrase that was used a few days ago. EnemyOfTheState 01:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? Don't we have to justify the inclusion of the article on grounds of notability? What could be better justification than the widespread belief that Angelina Jolie is very beautiful? Her humanitarian work and acting talent are also notable, but in general, in terms of people's awareness of her, she is an icon of beauty and sex appeal. Shouldn't we portray that? Kasreyn 03:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Adopted or Pregnant??

I heard she was pregnant with both kids. But others say no. I can't find any info on a google search either way. 212.0.138.94 00:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is substantial media coverage of the fact that she adopted Maddox and is in the process of adopting a second child (I don't believe this process has been completed yet). Jolie says she has no desire to become pregnant as long as there are orphans out there. 23skidoo 15:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


In response to the question 'Why the hell is it here?'

Part of what a continually updated encyclopedia like Wikipedia does is we include current events. Several major media outlets including the New York Post are reporting the rumors that Angelina is pregnant. Although her publicists deny this - just as they deny the romance with Pitt - the fact major media reports this makes it notable and worth mentioning; if it had been a single source, or originating from a blog or whatever, I wouldn't have added it. But once it's in major newspapers it becomes notable. I certainly do not support the deletion of the tattoos section so I put that back (and what was with that edit summary "Can't you see I'm not proud of these tattoos"? Is the editor trying to claim to be Angelina Jolie? If so, I'm available! ;-) 23skidoo 1 July 2005 12:11 (UTC)

Dual citizenship

I often see that when people either become an American citizen or an American citizen becomes a citizen of another country that it is always stated that the person will retain both citizenships. This seems redundant to me as most of the time (from what I know) people will retain their former citizenship.SD6-Agent 17:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

This is actually not true. You can only maintain dual citizenship with a few countries. I am a British citizen living in Canada and will be able to have dual British and Canadian citizenship. If I decided instead to go for U.S. citizenship, I would have to give up my British citizenship. I could, however, hold both Canadian and U.S. citizenship. Alternatively, I could hold British, Canadian, and Australian citizenship if I emigrated to Australia. --Yamla 18:09, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
The fact Angelina didn't request the Cambodian citizenship means that, in the eyes of the US, it would only be honorary, so that's why she's expected to remain an American citizen. Of course she could decide to go for full citizenship whenever she wants to. Similarly she also has a home in England, yet to my knowledge she hasn't applied for UK citizenship. 23skidoo 19:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


Cambodian people category

A couple of times now attempts have been made to list Jolie under a Cambodian People category. These categories should only be used based upon country of birth. Just because Pierce Brosnan is now an American citizen, he shouldn't be listed under American people, should he? If someone makes an article on Maddox, that's another story. Let's not get carried away. 23skidoo 21:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Jolie should not be added to the list of Cambodian people but I don't think it is fair to ALWAYS follow this rule. I'm British, as previously mentioned, but have spent almost two thirds of my life in Canada. I'm probably more Canadian than British. Such is not the case for Jolie, however. --Yamla 22:12, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
That's very fair, but Jolie could tomorrow be given honorary citizenship by Sierra Leone, Ethiopia or any of the other countries she has helped -- that wouldn't justify her being listed in categories related to those countries. Maybe a solution would be to create a category for "Honorary Cambodian citizens" though I would imagine Jolie would be the only entry. 23skidoo 14:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Random unsigned comments

this article is one of the most hilariously non-neutral things I've seen on here.


GO GET A LIFE PEOPLE!!!!

Inspirational

I came on here, prepared to make an essay about how brilliant Angelina Jolie is. But, instead, I'll just simply say that anyone, who has the ability to help the world, live comfortably, change someone's life without knowing it [as she did with mine], and still maintain a family is unbelievable. She is the only person in the world who has every inspired me, and I know that anyone who reads about her, but is willing to accept the slighty 'unorthodox' life she lives, will be inspired too. I think she is wonderful, and hope she continues her humanitarian work with the United Nations and helping other randomers [like me!] for a long time. Yanington

Atheist?

A trivia item was added recently stating that Jolie is an atheist. I deleted it for now because it seems to contradict other statements that have been made in Notes from My Travels and elsewhere. If anyone can provide a source - an interview, a book - that can support this statement, please feel free to put it back (with the source cited, of course). 23skidoo 19:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Your admiration for her does not make the article impartial Curphey 18:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm uncertain what that has to do with my question about the athiest trivia item. In any event, I removed "controversial" from your edit which is POV, plus I put back the award-winning actress part because that's a statement of verifiable fact. 23skidoo 19:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
http://www.nndb.com/people/493/000023424/
nndb is not generally considered a particularly reliable source. Certainly, given that Notes from My Travels contradicts statements made in nndb means that I do not believe this is sufficient. --Yamla 20:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
NNDB has been cited numerous times in other Wikipedianin subjects. I'd also like to know what these "statements" made in Notes From My Travels actually say.
I would like to add that back, as Jolie stated in an interview with the Onion AV Club: "Hmm... For some people. I hope so, for them. For the people who believe in it, I hope so. There doesn't need to be a God for me. There's something in people that's spiritual, that's godlike. I don't feel like doing things just because people say things, but I also don't really know if it's better to just not believe in anything, either."
The source is cited as http://avclub.theonion.com/avclub3631/avfeature_3631.html but that page is now gone. --TMC1221 09:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Let's not go making errors of miscategorization, now. Jolie's viewpoint fits the category of agnosticism better than it does atheism. An atheist denies god and/or expresses a lesser or greater certainty of disbelief, while an agnostic feels that certainty is not really possible and that the issue is better left as a mystery. I can hardly think of a more beautiful summation of the agnostic philosophy than Jolie's quote. Kudos to Angelina for saying it better than I. -Kasreyn 11:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course, I should point out that the issue is largely moot anyway, unless another source can be found. The Onion, hilarious and beloved staple of my existence notwithstanding, definitely does not qualify as a reliable source under Wikipedia policy. More's the pity, but how is a disinterested third party to tell which articles are fictional satire and which are legitimate? They've run fictional interviews in the past. -Kasreyn 10:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your agnostic comment, but The Onion AV Club is not The Onion. The Onion is 100% satire. The Onion AV Club is 100% fluffy entertainment interviews (ie not fake). --TMC1221 01:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Someone has added that she is agnostic to the trivia (in place of the Buddhist comment from earlier. But if all we have as a source is the Onion, then I don't consider that to be a good source, either. 23skidoo 03:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. It's not our place at wikipedia to try to guess what religion someone belongs to by their words and deeds. We merely state what they are described by others as, or what they self-identify as. Anything else is original research. -Kasreyn 18:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
23skidoo, you are falling for the same mistake that labels The Onion's news as real. The Onion AV Club is not satire. --TMC1221 03:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Categories

I added the category "Cambodian people", as I read in a magazine about a month ago that she had a Cambodia state membership approved. I also removed the category "Gay, lesbian or bisexual people", as it is covered by the category Bisexual actors and Gay icons. However, I must say that I find these gay categories to be very biased – there is no heterosexual (normal, only about 1 % is gay/bisexual) counterpart. Jon Harald Søby \ no na 10:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

…And checking the talk page first is a good idea. Bah. Jon Harald Søby \ no na 10:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I removed the Gay Icons category as it's meaningless. We know she's bisexual because she has said so and I believe it's a subcategory of "Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual" anyway, so good call there. But "Gay icons" could apply to anyone and it's POV to place her there. It appears the category itself stands a good chance of being deleted, anyway. 23skidoo 15:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Way too many images

This article is starting to become a gallery. Can we pick three fair use images, maximum, to illustrate? I suggest one magazine cover, the book cover, and if we can get a public domain image of her that everyone agrees on, that's fine. It's debatable whether we really need an image of one of her tattoos, and am uncertain whether it qualifies as fair use. I'll let others hash out whether it should stay. 23skidoo 21:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with too many images. I agree, gallery status would be a bit to much, but as they are now is nothing really wrong. Myrockstar 11:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the recent addition of photos of Jolie in many of her major roles bother me. WP's fair use policy says that we can only use copyrighted images if we have a need to. We already had enough images of Jolie; where is the need to show what she looked like in Hackers, Girl Interrupted, and Tomb Raider? I say we should remove the images of her specific roles. Kasreyn 20:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
She is an actress by trade, so therefore I think there is an obligation to have at least one image of her from a movie role. Fair use isn't really a case of "only if we need to" it's more a case of using images with purpose. IMO the images did serve a purpose but I agree that there were too many. I suggest keeping either the Girl Interrupted image (as this was her Oscar-award role) or the Tomb Raider image (as her best-known role). We don't need the one from Hackers. If necessary we can lose the image of the book cover, or one of the extraneous shots of her standing against a wall. I hope we can keep the one with Maddox because it's cute, though a shot of her with her other children and/or Pitt might be better.23skidoo 22:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I strongly object. Most featured articles about actors (Henry Fonda, Uma Thurman, Lindsay Lohan, etc.) include more than one screencap to illustrate his or her career. Some featured artiles about movies have even more than a dozen screencaps, therefore this WP policy shouldn't be taken this literally, especially since WP policy also states that pictures increase the quality of an article.
I agree that there is definitely a contradiction between different Wikipedia policies (a matter for debate in another forum). For example WP:NOT also states that articles shouldn't become photo galleries. So the question is how many images must be added before it becomes a photo gallery? I still stand by my agreement that there are too many images, although if push came to shove I'd rather see more images taken from her films than from publicity shots ... except that as established as images were removed as copyvio in recent months, it's easier to justify press and publicity shots as fair use. With Wikipedia tightening the rules on uses of images, it's becoming harder to find images that are allowed by the increasingly draconian rules. Note, for example, that despite Jolie being an international model we are not allowed (by Wikipedia policy, not guidelines) to upload magazine cover images. It's tempting sometimes to just go without images altogether.23skidoo 23:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Editing out these pictures does nothing but hurt the overall quality of this article. Of course movie images benefit an article about an actor - they elucidate past career steps and illustrate former roles; the main reason for an actor's celebrity - therefore there is a certain "need" to use them. As stated above it is common practise in many featured articles to use serveral movie screen shots to exemplify the topic at hand. Since these articles went through the featured article approval process, using these kind of images is obviously tolerated and lies within the general understanding of WP policy. The pictures should be put back. -- EnemyOfTheState 23:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Unless there is a solid argument why this article should be treated any different concerning screen shots than hundreds of others (many of them "featured" and "good" articles), I will put the three pictures in question back in — with a lower resolution if demanded. This is not the place to debate general Wikipedia policies. -- EnemyOfTheState 18:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Russian son

She had plans of adopting a Russian boy(mosnews.com)7 month old Gleb from baby house 13 but gave up on this. Later adopting Zahara from Ethiopia.


Poor kid!!! He's still only 3 and he does not still realize what a great life he missed with such a famous celebrity for a mum and the she flirts with famous guys like Pitt,he has narrowly missed a life of luxury. Shouldn't someone tell her about this,I mean what she did was wrong right,one day he's supposed to be the son of one of the most famous women of all (besides Oprah,Rowling and Britney) the next day he doesn't know if he will be adopted at all. Current sources state that he's still at the orphanage awaiting adoption.

If you really want to discuss this sort of thing here, feel free. Just remember that to do so in the article itself without citing reputable sources and using personal language violates Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. And don't tell me she's any different than any of the other people who adopt -- you can't adopt everyone. What, for example, is your proof that "she wanted Zahara more". I know people who have adopted children from out of country -- hell, I've written newspaper articles on this very subject. And there are so many factors involved it's not even funny. Again, unless there is a reputable source (forget tabloids) to provide detail, for all we know there was a lack of compatibility with the Russian boy, or the orphanage made unreasonable demands or (and this happens all the time) the government just said "No." 23skidoo 05:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Given that she adopted her oldest child with Billy Bob Thornton and now Brad Pitt is adopting the same child, will her next husband get to adopt all three or will Brad be allowed to remain father of the biological one? Jtmichcock 00:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Why do you assume there will be a next husband? Just curious. I wasn't aware that she had some sort of "love em and leave em" reputation. -Kasreyn 11:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Iroquois

She has Iroqooise blood and should be put in the category Native Americans

Done. Michael 05:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
For the record, it's "Iroquois". Hope this helped. Kasreyn 09:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I know...I could decipher what the original poster said.
Having "Iroquis blood" does not a Native American make. Being described as a "Native American" in a reliable source does a Native American make. So speak the elders of Wikipedia..... Mad Jack 06:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree... most of the categories for bio articles are very subjective and should go, but I just don't have the energy to fight that battle. Kasreyn 20:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, the category isn't here now, so I guess we win. Mad Jack 23:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Snake

I do not know if Jolie owned a pet rat snake or a pet rattlesnake. There's been a number of changes back and forth on the page today, however, changing between the two. I hope people know that it is entirely possible she owns a rat snake as this is a real type of snake. Also, imdb's page, although notoriously unreliable, states that she has a pet rat snake, NOT a rattlesnake. A google search seemed to indicate a lot of sites think she has a rat snake but they may all be using this very article as their source. --Yamla 17:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Actually I think this trivia item should be deleted unless someone can provide a non-IMDb source like a newspaper interview. I can't find any reference beyond IMDb and Wiki-mirrors to Jolie ever owning a snake - rat or rattle. Closest I could find was an article on womensfirst.co.uk in which Jolie states she spent time with a bunch of snakes to become comfortable with them before shooting the scene. I'm going to delete it now; if someone can provide a source they're welcome to put it back. 23skidoo 18:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)



Much of this article reads little better than "Hello" magazine and does not really demonstrate the impartiality demanded for it to be a good Wikipedia article. "renowned for her acting talent" is, I dare say, somewhat subjective Curphey 18:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Bisexuality

Is The National Enquirer really a reliable source? I'd like to have that confirmed before we label her bisexual. I've never heard that elsewhere. --BDD 07:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The National Enquirer is most certainly not a reliable source. Feel free to revert unless someone can come up with a decent source for this claim. --Yamla 16:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Check her interviews for other magazines. I believe she has made this statement elsewhere. Also I believe the biography that was published on her a few years back also made this statement. I'd remove the Enquirer citation however I do believe if someone were to do some research they could easily find an alternate. 23skidoo 16:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the recently-added Barbara Walters quote should fit the bill, though it didn't need to be in the lead paragraph so I moved it down. There was a follow-up quote added that I removed because it wasn't sourced (the one about falling in love with a woman). If someone can find the source for that quote, please feel free to put it back. 23skidoo 17:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

She and Christina Aguilera are probably the hottest bisexuals out there Batzarro 10:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Pregnancy

Along with comments about being bisexual and wanting to be a funeral director, somewhere in the Jolie archive there should be a quote from her stating outright that she had no desire to ever become pregnant, preferring the adoption route. Obviously she's changed her tune, but I think it might be interesting to mention this remark, but only if it can be cited properly. 23skidoo 17:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Angelina said this to Barbara Walters during an interview circa 2003. I wish I could tell you exactly when! If I find out, I'll post it here. (Jake)

I'm pretty certain there was also a newspaper interview or maybe a magazine article (Vanity Fair comes to mind) where this was discussed, too. 23skidoo 08:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, she did say something to that effect. Hope she has a safe pregnancy. "If I have a baby that would be one less child that I was taking out of an orphanage, and that would haunt me." - Angelina Jolie Source: Contact Music Anonymous

Mind you, when she said that she wasn't attached to anyone. I seem to recall her stating that she had no plans to marry ever again after Billy Bob. But that was before she met Brad Pitt who, famously, has had no children of his own yet. 23skidoo 02:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point. It's about Pitt. While she is beautiful, I think she couldn't pass up the chance to be Mrs. Brad Pitt and being the first to have his kids. - Anonymous.

Killer

Is it true that she had ordered a hitman to kill her?

I think you have her confused with Phyllis Diller. 23skidoo 03:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
She's stated she considered it. Emo.

Angelina Jolie's Lips

Does anyone have any definitive information as to whether Jolie's lips are real? All I find are some fan comments saying that they are, but with no authoritative first-hand information. Anyone know the truth of the matter, and where we can find documentation to this effect?

I've seen video of her in her early teens before fame and she had large lips then, too.Crumbsucker 07:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I, too, had a hard time believing they could be natural. I did some looking around and found some photos of Angelina in her teens, and eventually managed to find one of her as a child. From them I was able to deduce that if she got collagen implants, she would have had to do it at about age eight.  :P Not very likely. So it seems that Angelina's extraordinary oral labia are indeed the real deal. -Kasreyn 11:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you would really need a source to say they were NOT real, otherwise no mention or passing mention that they are frequently referred to as a notable part of her beauty, with a reference.

I knew her before she was famous and I can tell you that they are real. Olayak

Those Lips

Pictures aside, is there any hard documentation that the lips are real?

You've made a simple logical error. The onus of proof is upon those who wish to state that the lips are fake. The natural state of lips is to be real. Wikipedia needs no proof since it doesn't even need to make an assertion: unaltered lips can be assumed. Now, making the statement that they are not real - that's what would require hard documentation. -Kasreyn 11:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I knew her before she was famous and I can assure you that they are real. Olayak

"Affectionate Behavior" Toward her Brother

that language is deceitful. didn't she tongue-kiss her brother? Streamless 15:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Source? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't recall anything about her tongue-kissing anyone. All I remember is her being all huggy towards him at the Oscars and making that "I'm so in love with my brother" comment during her acceptance speech for Girl Interrupted. I think unless there's a source it's just another rumor. 23skidoo 18:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
i thought it was live, on tape for everyone to see - ? Streamless 14:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure it would be all over the internet if it were. You can find the "I'm so in love" comment and the hugging, but that's all I've been able to find. Incidentally, I believe the word you meant to use was "misleading" not deceitful. That's an entirely different meaning. 23skidoo 15:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
fair enough. Streamless 16:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

20 million?Or not?

See [|Jack son channel] .

Can someone confirm her salary for mr and mrs smith. I doubt she was paid so much as shes paid 15 mill for her next film.

I think the rumour arose because of some entries in uncyclopedia.

See http://uncyclopedia.org/index.php?title=Angelina_Jolie&action=edit&section=5.

We all know that uncyclopedia is crap. This page on uncyclopedia is loaded with lies and is probably the leak of the rumour that she is paid 25 million dollars per film after mr and mrs smith and cannot be trusted. Pojojo 11:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It did not originate on the uncyclopedia page. I remember reading an article in a few months before the release of Mr. and Mrs. Smith that she made $20 million for it.--Fallout boy 07:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

category Articles Lacking Sources

This is odd. I attempted to edit the article to remove this category, but could not find anywhere in the article text the "unreferenced" or "primary sources" tag that results in the article appearing with the category link. And yet, the article does show the category, even though the required code appears to not be present! How is this phantom category working?? Frustrating. -Kasreyn 11:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Weird. My understanding is the category listing only occurs when the {{fact}} or similar tag is added. Have you checked the category page itself to make sure no one manually added the page? I don't know if you can actually do that or not. Another alternative is to go back in the history to the edit that added the category and see what was done. Maybe there's a hidden bit of coding that isn't showing up on the page... 23skidoo 16:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC
Or it could be the {{unreferenced}}.--KrossTalk 03:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism

I'm uncertain whether it is correct to say Jolie is "a practising Buddhist". She has stated that her son Maddox is Buddhist - but only he is. And reports of her and Pitt being married in a Buddhist ceremony are purely rumor. If someone can provide a source indicating that she is indeed Buddhist, please do so, otherwise the statement should be deleted. 23skidoo 03:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Already did so. Buddhist143 is a single-issue editor. S/he goes around adding "X is a practising Buddhist" to celebrity articles. Never gives any sources. I'm wondering whether that merits a user talk page vandalism warning. Perhaps it's well-intentioned, but Buddhist143 seems uninterested in providing anything to back up his/her claims. -Kasreyn 06:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I added the Please-cite template to that user's talk page. --Yamla 15:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I've seen a few of those types of editors around. I'm not disputing whether she's a buddhist or not -- though I thought this article had already established she was an athiest -- but given the lack of reputable sources on this subject, I think it's just a case of reporting rumor. And if it's based upon tabloid rumor regarding the nature of a wedding that may not actually occur, that makes it even more dubious. 23skidoo 22:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Relationships with Angelina Jolie

Hello,

Relationships with Angelina Jolie is meant to give the visitor a wide angle view of how Angelina Jolie handles her relationships in essence and in practice. It also allows the visitor to examine the characteristics of his own relationships with Angelina Jolie.

Both content and test are based on sound astrological knowledge and research which gained vast popularity among web surfers.

I believe that even though Astrology is not considered a mainstream science, these knowledge and compatibility tool should be made available to whomever wishes to study Angelina Jolie as broadly as possible.

I have no desire to be considered a spammer and I don't want to force Top Synergy on the founders of Angelina Jolie's article.

However, I ask you - chief editors of Angelina Jolie - to publish a link to Relationships with Angelina Jolie if you feel that it may be a valid resource for some of Angelina Jolie's fans and researchers.

With appreciation, Midas touch 05:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you for being so polite about it, Midas Touch, but since astrology websites like that are, as they so often say, for entertainment purposes only, I think it's clear that they cannot be considered serious resource tools. I have nothing against your interest, and wish you the best of luck with it, but wikipedia is intended as a serious encyclopedia. We do not publish things simply because they are popular. Also, astrology is not just "not a mainstream science" but is not any kind of science at all, since it lacks a methodology for experimental testing and falsification. Therefore, astrology is a belief system or philosophy. Maybe you could include your link on the page for Astrology, under its modern popular uses. Cheers, -Kasreyn 17:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Kasreyn for taking the time to rend me such an elaborate answer. I couldn't find the "modern popular uses" you were referring to and I would hesitate to start a new section. However, I appreciate your educated response. Midas touch 05:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The Lips Again

I totally disagree with the idea that because Jolie's lips appear to be natural, there should be no statement about them on the page. I'm sure there are many people who, like myself, came to the Angelina Jolie page for the express purpose of finding out if her lips are real or not, and were sadly disappointed to find no mention of them whatsoever. This is an encyclopedia, so people use it to find answers to their curiosity about given subjects. I think it's Wikipedia's duty to answer this oft-asked question and present some evidence. Anybody got some good evidence that can be presented in the actual article? Pulsemeat 02:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we can find a reputable third party source that has addressed the issue, we could quote them, but for us to say "they're real" is original research, which is not allowed at Wikipedia. If you can find a website that addresses the evidence - and more importantly, addresses the controversy, ie., why it's worthy of inclusion on wikipedia - then we can include it. We can't simply dump it on the article, though. We must show why it's noteworthy to be included, which means we need a quote from some other source saying something like "Angelina Jolie's lips have been the subject of much rumor and controversy." Unless we can provide a quote like that, then the section will be original research. -Kasreyn 17:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I support Kasreyn. If a third-party source can be found that has made this an issue, then so be it. But otherwise I don't really see the point. I need to be sold on what would make it encyclopaedic. Let's use an example from someone else. Let's say Anna Nicole Smith was claiming her breasts were natural, but a newspaper printed that they were not, and Smith sued the newspaper. That would lend notability to the discussion. If someone wants to go hunting, I'm sure there's an interview quote around somewhere in which Jolie either states her lips are natural or she states that they aren't... 23skidoo 18:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
This might be a little weak, but Antonio Banderas has been quoted as saying that her lips are real. The link is to a Jolie fansite though. Perhaps a picture of her in her youth might be in order as well? What do you think? There's no mention of her lips in any fashion in the article, which seems to me about as ridiculous as an article about J-Lo not mentioning her butt. Pulsemeat 05:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know whether the following has to be considered "original research", but since this subject is of such importance for some of you, I might be able to contribute:
Her lips are definitely real – although there can hardly be a 100% irrefutable proof in this matter of course, the evidence suggesting her lips are natural is overwhelming: There are numerous photos of her as a child [1] [2], a teenager [3] [4] and a young model [5] [6], all showing her already uncommon big, characteristic lips. Moreover, if you compare early close-ups (at the age of 16) with a recent photo shoot [7] you can clearly see her trademark ridge and two small humps on the right and left side of her lower lip and a little notch at the bottom upper lip on both pictures; these kind of details would be impossible to preserve during plastic surgery. And just take a look at her father and especially her brother [8]. He has big, dominant lips himself that are actually quite similar to his sister's. - EnemyOfTheState 23:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutriality

"her exotic looks, her tumultuous off-screen life" - This certainly doesn't seem neutral to me. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Her Hispanic appearance vs. pale appearance of her parents

Before reading this article I always thought she was of hispanic descent. She has always looked very Hispanic, although she has died her hair blonde in several movies and it hid this somewhat. As she has aged recently she looked more hispanic. But I read here and looked at her parents. First her mother vs. beside her and it's hard to see any resemblance. Her father basically looks so pale his skin is red. Both parents have brown to very light colored hair. Angie has black hair and very dark skin. Her eyes are more slanted and her nose is different. So I wonder about that. I'd like the article to explain this. DyslexicEditor 12:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I google searched and lots of pages claim her as Hispanic. DyslexicEditor 12:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Obviously they are incorrect, as (as stated in the article) her roots are Iroquois, Czech, and French. It's the Iroquois that makes her look slightly Hispanic. I've been a fan of her's for years and I've never thought of her as Hispanic. Another "false Hispanic" is Carla Gugino -- who even played an Hispanic in the Spy Kids films, but who is in fact Italian and I believe Irish. 23skidoo 14:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, it cannot be included here. Making unsourced claims about her ethnicity would be original research, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Kasreyn 22:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Ingrid Cortez was a hispanic. In the 2nd film, her parents weren't hispanic. The angie jolie question was more for my curiousity than the article. Odd, though how the Iroquois genetics really came out in her and made her look not like her parents. DyslexicEditor 04:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I think she has her mom's lips or something like that. I agree that Ingrid Cortez is probably not Hispanic but that hasn't stopped the character from being described as such. I do believe Gugino plays an Hispanic in Juda's Kiss ... and isn't Karen Sisco also supposed to be Hispanic? I don't know the character well enough although J-Lo did play her as well...but that's neither here nor there. 23skidoo 05:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

NNDB on atheism

I've removed the atheist cat, whose source was nndb, because it doesn't seem very reliable to me. It cites no sources for its information. It takes an editorial voice and derides her marriage to Thornton. And its "summary", like those of other celebrities on nndb, is a whimsical put-down. The site's just not serious. For all I know, calling her an atheist is another one of their little jokes. Kasreyn 11:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I support this. I've yet to come across any reference to her actually stating that she's an athiest. It's very possible that she isn't religious, but that's not the same thing. If anyone can find a magazine article, newspaper interview, etc. in which she actually outright states that she's athiest, by all means put it back in (and perhaps include a source within the trivia section). I don't recall her making such a statement in Notes from My Travels, either. 23skidoo 13:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm the one who added the category. I thought NNDB would be a reliable source. Sorry. --Tuspm 17:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories

This article went completely category happy for awhile. Another user removed a number of the unsourced racial categories and I deleted a couple of others that I felt were either inaccurate ("Ex-patriates living in the United Kingdom") or POV ("Eccentrics"). 23skidoo 12:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If she is described (or of course, describes herself) as an "eccentric" or an "ex-patriate" in a reliable source, then we can put her in those categories. Same for the ethnicity ones, really. Mad Jack O'Lantern 23:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
This is true. I'm troubled by the whole Eccentrics category. I think it's a bit too POV so might nominate it for CFD. As for "ex-patriate" I agree if a source can be found I have no objection to the category being reinstated, although to specify UK would be inaccurate because Jolie also lives in Cambodia, Malibu, and (if the latest rumors are correct) might be about to set up shop in Namibia. And then there's the rumor about moving to Italy. And up until about 10 months ago people were convinced she was moving to Alberta ... the mind reels! 23skidoo 00:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget stuff like this...[9] :) Also, the eccentrics category is interesting. I mean, if all the people included have been describing as "eccentric" in good sources I guess it works - but it's still kind of iffy... Mad Jack O'Lantern 03:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record an anonymous editor tried to add the category back in today and I reverted it. As it stands now, according to its CFD vote which I instigated here the votes are clearly in favor of deleting the category in any event, although I do not know whether it will actually be deleted or not. I guess the 'Bot that is set up to handle these things is running a few days behind. 23skidoo 07:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Merging with Maddox

I proposed the merger of this article and this one. Her son isn't at all notable in his own right, since he's currently five there's little chance of him becoming so, and his article is an unwikified stub. However, there is a smidge of useful information in it (e.g. his birth date) that could go into the Adoptions section here. --Gatta 23:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I have a hard time believing anyone would find issue with this. Be bold; go for it. Kasreyn 23:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
If no one has nominated the article for AFD yet, someone's asleep at the switch. Merge by all means. 23skidoo 00:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. For reasons stated. Godheval 5:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it was rather pointless to delete/merge the Maddox article, since it will just pop up again pretty soon. The Shiloh article has been deleted several times now, but as of this moment it exists again. Maddox, just like her two other children, are actually notable on their own by considerable parts of the general public (both US and worldwide) and Maddox in particular is probably going to be a star a few years from now - some might even argue he already is. Whether you like it or not, Jolie’s three children are more famous than the majority of people described in this encyclopedia and the fact that new articles about her children are being created constantly just shows the apparent interest for them. Therefore I would suggest to allow short articles for Jolie's children which refer to the Angelina Jolie article - otherwise moderators will just be forced to delete newly created articles every other week (or day lately). (138.246.7.73 13:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

Third child

See the external links to conflicting reports on places of birth 30 km apart... Is it going to be Walvis Bay or Swakopmund? Gregorydavid 18:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


And another thing: 0140 local time would mean 28th of May, wouldn't it?!? -- Jokes Free4Me 12:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Shiloh Nouvel means "New Messiah". Interesting, isnt it? Olayak

They joke that this baby is as big as Jesus. New messiah...Jesus.... hmmmm

Hmm. Child of the two prettiest people on Earth? Sounds more like an evolutionary leap than a messiah. In my opinion, if Jesus ever returns, it will be as a homeless gay black woman. And we'll kill her all over again. Kasreyn 00:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


Why is Shiloh's birthhday listed as May 27? According to news reports she was born on Sun May 28 1:40am local (Namibian) time. US time should not be used here IMHO -- EnemyOfTheState 02:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Loves Haute Couture clothing

This trivia entry should be deleted. While she certainly enjoys dressing up occasionally, Jolie seems to dress extremely casual by Hollywood standards; therefore this claim appears very unfounded. Plus there is no source whatsoever.

Done. I also took out several other pieces of trivia along the same lines. --Yamla 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Propose removal of link to image of Shiloh

According to that site, the image was taken before the first officially "allowed" image. The only explanation I can think of is a papparazzi with a zoom lens. This is an invasion of Jolie's and Pitt's privacy against their repeatedly expressed wishes. Wikipedia should not condone or endorse such behavior.

Alternatively, the photo could be a photoshop job. That is the only "legal" way it could have been taken.

We should wait on including any photo purporting to be of Shiloh until the official photo allowed by the parents has been published. We should not aid and abet whoever violated their privacy and intruded upon them. Kasreyn 08:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I will wait a few hours for commentary. I think the "be bold" principle applies here. Kasreyn 08:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the link was changed, because if you're talking about the link labelled "Baby Brangelina pictures" it leads to a reputable newsite reporting on the first official photo being published by People Magazine. I don't see any paparazzi shots on the linked page. My only concern is this page will probably become outdated or go behind a subscription wall in a few days. If there's another link that I'm somehow missing, it should go now that the official pictures are out. 23skidoo 12:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The one you deleted was the one I was referring to. Thanks! Kasreyn 22:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

WCBS link

As a followup to the above thread, I'm not sure why the link to the WCBS page would be deleted yet a blog page with unauthorized copies of the pictures (i.e. "copyvio") would be kept. While my concern that the WCBS link might become outdated remains, at the present time I see no reason why it can't be here since it's a legitimate news outlet covering the authorized photos. 23skidoo 14:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because the person who added it spammed this site to many articles. I'm quite happy for it to stick around in this particular article if it is relevant (WP:EL but you are well aware of the criteria). I didn't remove the other link because I was reverting spam, not specifically checking this article for valid external links. --Yamla 14:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
No worries. I did delete the second WCBS link as I thought that was extraneous. I wasn't aware it was being spammed. In this case the link was applicable, though it may need to be replaced if as I indicated earlier the page goes out-of-date. 23skidoo 17:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I think there should be a general discussion which links should be included at all. First of all, the IMDb link should definitaly be at the top, "Angelina Jolie Pictures" has to be removed, totally pointless IMHO. Then, if there is a sentiment that recent news stories should be linked (there is obviously), it's probably a reasonable idea to include the blog JustJared.com, since it offers the most up to date info about Jolie on the net right now. Plus the two biggest worldwide fansites SoulieJolie.com and WutheringJolie.com should possibly be included as well. -- EnemyOfTheState 02:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Is JustJared a Jolie-specific site or just a blog that happens to mention her a lot? If it's the latter, I wouldn't be in favor of including it. We should stick to Jolie-specific sites. Agreed regarding IMDb (in fact I'll fix that right now). If the other fansites aren't included, perhaps they should be however I'd recommend checking the Wikipolicy on that. I've seen some major fansite links removed from other articles as they didn't match up with the policy or whatever. IIRC SoulieJolie was listed here up until fairly recently; you might want to check the history log to see if anyone stated why it needed to be deleted.23skidoo 07:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. I checked that Just Jared site. Some of the photos there were depressing... Jolie and Pitt on the beach with their kids... in sunglasses, hands shoved in their pockets, trying to hide their faces... The world's prettiest couple, who probably live every day feeling like they're in a cage with a million eyeballs on the outside. It's indecent. Kasreyn 07:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
That might be worth considering when we decide what links to use. I'd rather use a link that features legitimate news coverage of the baby pictures than one giving coverage to paparazzi who forced a couple to flee to Africa in order to find a little privacy. (Though as an aside I'm surprised the two went to Namibia, considering the king of Cambodia made Jolie an honorary citizen of that country and probably could have done an even better job of keeping the press out than Namibia did. Then again, Namibia will probably make a mint from the extra publicity.) 23skidoo 07:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. There are plenty of legit photos of them we can use without giving the paparazzi any credit. Besides, the higher quality paparazzi images are very unlikely to be free for use under Wikipedia's copyright policies. Kasreyn 08:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


Self absorbed...

Has anyone every sat down and considered adding some notes about how self-absorbed this woman is and how irrelevant she is to the rest of the people on the planet... I mean really... Who cares if/when/how she had a baby??? Women have been having babies for many years...why the big deal...because she's rich? Because she was in a movie? Gimme a break!!! Why doesn't she sell the $17000 diamond pacifier and help some people who are hungry... I guarantee, they are far more worried about tonight's supper than her latest escapades...

What in blue blazes are you talking about? Jolie has arguably done more for charitable causes than any other Hollywood actress of her generation. She is the Goodwill Ambassador for the UNHCR - do you think they hand that out for nothing but a pretty face? She has not only talked the talk, she has walked the walk. Somehow I get the feeling, whoever you are, that even if you gave every cent you earn for the rest of your life to charity, you won't match Jolie's contributions to helping the needy. Kasreyn 06:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, right... All she cares about is getting her face on another tv show or magazine... and if you believe otherwise then you've just bought the hype... Open your eyes!
Please sign your comments otherwise it's really hard to take you seriously. It's quite easy to troll behind the wall of anonymity. As with everything else on Wikipedia, if you can find a reputable source that suggests Angelina Jolie is a rip-off artist or an anti-Christ (I suppose next you'll be saying Audrey Hepburn had similar motives when she literally killed herself for UNICEF), please feel free to add this to the article, but bear in mind that anything less than an air-tight, verifiable source (no yellow journalistic tabloids or paranoid-delusional websites) won't last 2 minutes. 23skidoo 15:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Child #4

Geez...she's adopting ANOTHER one?! I added the "Fourth Child" info to her page (with appopriate source) Vikramsidhu 01:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is very misleading. As long as she hasn't adopted again, there shouldn't be an entire section for a child that is hypothetical at the moment. This info could very well be put into the trivia section anyway, especially since the "next week" part seems to appear solely in the source mentioned which is very suspicious.. -- EnemyOfTheState 09:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...well you might be right. But a) I don't think she'd make such a HUGE statement if she wasn't going to go through with the adoption, b) the source is very credible (considering CNN has already been playing parts of the interview and a full transcript has been leaked), and c) "next week" seems reasonable because its hard to say "Oh I'm going to adopt a kid on June XX" -- a week seems to give the sense of yes, it will be done immediately, but it's not pinpoint exact either. Vikramsidhu 12:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Reading other reports about this CNN interview (http://people.aol.com/people/articles/0,19736,1205441,00.html), I certainly don't get the feeling that an adoption is imminent, this "next week" remark is included nowhere (it definitely would be mentioned, if she actually said it). Therefore I still suggest to delete the entire section unless you can offer a transcript with her implying that she is about to adopt another child in the next few days. -- EnemyOfTheState 16:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well let's just wait until tonight when the interview airs.

And there are 400+ articles in Google News regarding this story (not all just AP reports or anything either) [10]Vikramsidhu 16:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Childhood picture

I'm a new editor, and I just added the picture of Angelina Jolie, age 12. I found it on http://www.galeon.com/guarderiadefamosos/jolie.htm I'm pretty sure it doesn't have copyright on it, it was a picture taken at the 1988 Oscars. I got a link to it from imdb. But I don't know how to change the copyright status to "no copyright". -IO —The preceding unsigned comment was added by InformationOverload (talk • contribs) .

Hey IO... welcome to Wikipedia!  :) I'm not too big an image contributor myself, so I don't know the processes for dealing with images and copyright. Maybe Wp:images would be a good place to start. The image you provided has a copyright warning tag on it, which means it's going to be auto-deleted by a bot in 7 days if the appropriate information showing we have a right to use the image isn't found. Good luck, and ask me if you need any more help.  :) Oh, and by the way, you can add a signature to your talk page comments by typing ~~~~. Cheers, Kasreyn 06:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This picture is definitely protected by some sort of copyright - is was propably taken by professional photographers at the red carpet - and should be removed. -- EnemyOfTheState 12:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you... the image will be removed by the end of the week anyways. InformationOverload 21:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Cat Creep

I've removed the following categories for the following reasons. Discuss as needed.

  • Adoptive parents: Not notable. Millions of people adopt. Jolie is notable because she's Jolie, not because she adopts.
  • Children of famous people: Really, what's the point? How vague is it possible to be? This would lump Jolie in with Uday Hussein. I don't think I've ever seen a more useless, information-free category on Wikipedia.
  • College dropouts: The article says she did not choose to complete her studies. "College dropout" implies a person who couldn't make the grades, ie., a failure at college. Like it or not, that is what it implies. I call structural bias, unless a source is provided that Jolie left college due to poor grades.
  • Worst Actress Razzie nominees: I don't see a source in the article.

I would also make a case that "multiracial entertainers" is also a pointless category that conveys very little information, but I've probably already bitten off as much as I can chew. Kasreyn 11:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Myspace

Does Angelina Jolie have an official MySpace profile? If so it should be an external link. 69.232.110.28 20:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if she had one, why would it be noteworthy here? How could we prove that it was Jolie who was actually running it, rather than an imposter a la Perfect Blue? Kasreyn 22:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
If she has an official MySpace profile it would be worth having it as an external link. But it would have to be verified by her or her people: for example, if she has an official website, and on this website a link is provided to her official myspace page, etc., it can be considered legitimate. Rock bands do this for instance. 69.232.110.28 22:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
This one looks somewhat convincing but it is not verified as far as I know: [http://www.myspace.com/angelina_jolie75 69.232.110.28 22:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
This next one looks like a joke but I like it:[http://www.myspace.com/the_real_angelina_jolie . There are so many...69.232.110.28 12:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think any of this serves any purpose unless you can find some sort of proof that Jolie actually is a MySpace subscriber. I have a hard time believing anyone as rich as Jolie would even want to use MySpace, when they can hire a professional web designer to make their own webpage. Kasreyn 16:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless Jolie herself comes out and announces it, all alleged Angelina Jolie MySpace accounts are bogus unless proven genuine and have no place being listed in the External Links. 23skidoo 17:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Shiloh

If Shiloh's notable engough to have her own Tussauds waxwork (and is described by Tussauds as ""already an iconic figure in world popular culture"), is she notable enough to have her own article? 86.134.40.13 19:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have always believed that all of her children are notable enough to have their own articles, since a good part of the general public could identify them on pictures or assign their names to her mother. New articles for them are created and then deleted on a regular basis anyway. There have been debates about this in the past and the majority doesn't want seperate articles apparently. Articles for the children would also shorten this article which would be recommendable. -- EnemyOfTheState 21:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)