Talk:Halle Berry/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame

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

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

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

[edit] 1966 or 1968?

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

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

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

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

[edit] african american or bi-racial?

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

~~

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

~~

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

~~

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


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

~~

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am trying to help Halle Berry and Stuart.

Akira Moritani

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] her mother's ancestry

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

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

was she in playboy?

[edit] Unsourced quote

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

[edit] Can anyone source this section?

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

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

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

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

[edit] Monster's Ball

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

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

MONSTER'S BALL IS PURE PORN! She should have left it out and put in a different section under HOLLYWOOD PORN. Monster's Ball is the reason why Halle Berry has a huge BACKLASH. Halle Berry has a backlash and has lost fans/potential ticket buyers because of Monster's Ball; just as the Dixie Chicks have a backlash because of Natalie's comment about George Bush. Mel Gibson has a backlash because of his comments about Jewish people. Michael Jackson has a backlash because of his child molestation trial. Jane Fonda has a backlash because of the Vietnam War. The list goes on and on and BACKLASHs against performers is not new and Halle Berry is not the first or last performer to be BOYCOTTED. Perhaps in a more innocent time in Hollywood, performers could get away with just being pretty and hiding the sordid details of their life and not offending movie viewers. That time has gone and past. Other black performers have also suffered a backlash, including Stepin Fetchit and Amos and Andy for portraying the shuffle/coons roles that made black people look like ignorant fools. Halle Berry is at the top of the list of Black Performers who have SOLD OUT virtures to make money. In her case it was porn, sex and nudity in Monster's Ball, in the 1930's is was the black performers who had no choice but to play a coon or maid because that was the way Hollywood wanted to portray black people. Now Hollywood and the Music Video industry want to portray black women as WHORES or in the case of Halle Berry -- SLAVE PUSSY for white men, because as we all know sex and violence sell.

Too many black people lost respect for Halle Berry because she didn't ask to have the sex scenes removed. Angela Bassett and N'Bushe both asked to have the sex scenes removed. The movie didn't have to have the sex scenes, but Halle Berry insisted on it. The movie reinforced the negative stereotype about black women merely being disposable sex objects for white men, like during slavery (SLAVE PUSSY) -- or as common whores.

Halle Berry choses to IGNORE her backlash, which is so stupid. I don't know if that is her real decision or if her publicist or handlers made that call. Chosing to ignore the backlash makes her look ARROGANT & dumb. Does she really think that potential ticket buyers don't know about her porn role in Monster's Ball? Does she ever get on the internet and read all the bad comments about the movie? She must think that ONLY black women are complaining about the movie and she is so wrong. A majority of the complaints I read were from WHITE MEN. White men are the most sought after target market group, because here in America white men earn the most money. She may have thought that if she made a movie about slave pussy that included sex and nudity that she will appeal to white men. WRONG! I read so many complaints from white men who call her a slave concubine and many who said they went to see the movie because she was nominated for an Oscar. Many went with their wives and said they were so embarrassed because it turned out to be a porn movie. They had to apologize to their wives for taking to see Monster's Ball. I've also read about so many people who LEFT THE THEATER when the porn section started. Now if you are at a bachelor's party or if a group of men go, of course, they don't mind the porn, sex and nudity. And if the porn market is her target market, then way to go Halle Berry. But on th other hand, look at all the people WHO DON'T want to see porn or see her naked having sex. Monster's Ball makes them fear that she will do the same in her next movie. That they will go to the theater to see her, but then she just ends up naked having sex with a white man. And of course, it will be her having sex with a WHITE MAN or her dating a white man (i.e. James Bond, Catwoman, Perfect Strangers, etc.), because BLACK SELLOUTS avoid a black man/black woman relationship in their movies (i.e. Will Smith).

She can ignore the BACKLASH all she wants, but what she can't ignore is her BOX OFFICE SALES. Her box office sales are okay if she is a movie like X-Men, because she is not the lead and people will see it regardless. But look at her box office sales for movies when she is the lead. They don't do so well because she makes bad movies and quite frankly -- CAN'T ACT. She is pretty and looks pretty naked and can FUCK GOOD, but SEX and ACTING are two different things.

If someone with high acting standing like LENA HORNE was the first black to win a lead Oscar, her BOX OFFICE SALES would go through the roof, because we know that she can really act and that she not's going to ambush us with sex and nudity for lack of acting. But with Halle Berry lead movies, people go to see them at first and then word of mouth gets out that it is a STINKER -- i.e. Catwoman, Perfect Strangers, etc.

The BACKLASH contributes directly to the money an actor or singer makes on Box Office or word of mouth about their movie or new CD. When your box office sales stink, then the amount you can command per picture lowers, now she is down to 14 million, but as she keeps putting out stinkers that will go lower and lower. She is not alone, the Dixie Chicks, Mel Gibson and others are going through the same thing for similar reasons.

But at least they don't IGNORE their backlash. Mel Gibson did apologize and Michael Jackson moved away. But not Halle, she simply IGNORES the backlash for Monster's Ball as though it doesn't exist. My daughter suggested a long time ago that she needs to APOLOGIZE for Monster' Ball. At least she should acknowledge that the backlash exists and the reasons why.

Monster's Ball is actually a CIVIL RIGHTS issue. The meaning of Civil Rights means EQUALITY. That means that whites and blacks are being treated equally. Some people are simple enough to think that she got an award just as the white actresses are. But the problem is that the first white woman to win did not have a porn role with sex and nudity. It took over 50 years and over 50 white actresses doing mostly G roles winning Oscars. But to give the first award to a black for porn is simply RACIST! If the Oscars hadn't been racist from the get-go by not giving awards to black actresses who REALLY COULD ACT AND DESERVED IT (Lena Horne, etc.), instead of not giving them an award because of racism; and then finally giving an award to black actress for PORN, then Halle Berry wouldn't have a BACKLASH. ShalimaraliShalimarali 18:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for these very serious and libelous allegations? JasonPresyl 20:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

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

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

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

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

[edit] pfff

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

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

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

[edit] Removed much of the Controversy section

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

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

[edit] Controversy POV

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

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

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

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

The criticsm is well-deserved! Black women have had to fight to change the image of disposable sex objects since slavery for 200 years. And then someone has a bright idea of capitalizing on the whole white master/black slave concubine theme. As though black people are so SIMPLE and STUPID that we won't realize that the first black women to win a lead Oscar, won for a porn role that included nudity and sex. By comparison the first white woman to win (Janet Gaynor) had no sex and nudity in her role. By comparison, there are no Oscars given to any white actress for having a comparable sex scene with a black man like in Monster's Ball and probably never will be, at least not for another 100 years. Monster's Ball was an insult to every black actress (Lena Horne, Cicely Tyson, Diana Ross, etc.) who made DECENT roles but didn't win due to racism. Leave to the Oscars to award the first black with a role that mirrors slavery meaning superior white man/master with subordinate black female/slave. Boycotts are in order for this film. Racism is still alive in this country and Monter's Ball is proof that when it comes to blacks, the standards have been lowered to base sex and nudity, something that any animal or human can do that does not require real ACTING talent. The real shame is that the NAACP dropped their boycott of the Oscars and did not work to BAN this film like they did Song of the South. I'm not proud of a black person for winning any prize, just for the sake of winning. They need to win on the same standards -- or else it's just SELLING OUT like Stephin Fetchit, Amos & Andy est. The High Standards of Acting should apply to all actors, black or not. Too many blacks go along with the okie doke and accept any LOW form of entertainment that insults (look at rap videos for an example). The first white woman to win an Oscar, Janet Gaynor can show her film to her children and white girls can look up to her as a role model. But can Halle Berry show this film to her children and as black mothers do we really want to have a slave concubine role as a role model for black girls as the first black to win an Oscar. I think not. With Russell Simmon's announcement to delete cuss words from music videos as least we have a start to bring back high standard for black women on film. Don Imus and many others have earned a right to call black women hoes, simply based on what's out there in the media today. Look at the first black women to win a lead Oscar, look at most black music videos or listen to the songs. It's up to Black women to boycott and protest the continuing WHORIFICATION of black women that is certainly justified in movies like Monster's Ball.Shalimarali 04:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted section on Storm

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

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

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

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

[edit] Birth year

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

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

[edit] Talk page is unprotected

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