Talk:Halle Berry/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Protection of the page

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

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


[edit] Sissy Spacek and the Oscar

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

[edit] The Matthew Barnard Show Movie

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

[edit] hearing?

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

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

this is also mentioned on wesley snipes page

[edit] Marriage to Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[edit] self- contradicting on race

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

[edit] Hoax album

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

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

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

[edit] Diabetes type 1 or type 2?

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

[edit] Name of her character in The Flintstones

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

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

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

[edit] Wesley Snipes/Christopher Somebody

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

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

[edit] New External Link

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

http://www.razzipapa.com/halle_berry

Alderkline 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

No copyright laws seem to be violated.

"Is it accessible to the reader?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The site is quite small in size and not complex.

Links normally to be avoided

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

The index can't be integrated into the article.

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

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

"Links mainly intended to promote a website."

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

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

There's nothing for sale on the site.

"Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising."

There's no advertising on the site.

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

The site is free.

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

I tried the site on IE and Firefox.

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

I see nothing like that.

"Links to search engine and aggregated results pages."

No

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

No

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

No

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

I'm not sure what this means.

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

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

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

I am not the owner of this site.

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

I would not know how to write a spambot!

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

It's a free site.

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

It's in English!

"Do not use URL redirection sites in external links"

I don't think the site does this.

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

I think it's pretty plain.

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

Hello everyone, it looks like the page has been updated. If there are no objections, I will add the following to the external link list: http://www.razzipapa.com/halle_berry
Thanks everyoneAlderkline 06:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't object. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't object.Tycom 15:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, April fools. I get it. So will you be adding an external link to the Darwin page saying that his historical importance rating is 62.53? I just hope these links get deleted after today, since they provide no information, say absolutely nothing whatsoever about Darwin, and don't belong in an encyclopedia. Gimmetrow 15:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a joke. Being the target of the paparazzi, and a celebrity's exposure is a big part of their career. Darwin's historical importance is determined entirely by the merit of his work. In other words, Paris Hilton may not be an exceptional actress or singer, but she consistently ranks high on a site like this. I don’t mean to get melodramatic, but it could be argued that a few of the other external links on Halle Berry do not meet the guidelines of EL. I think this websites does. I will add the link again, I hope you will not delete it. Thanks again for you inputsAlderkline 16:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
According to my formula, Paris Hilton has a "pop culture rating" of 340.17. If I put up a site saying this, do you honestly think such a link should be included in an encyclopedia article on Paris Hilton, even though this tells you absolutely nothing whatsoever about her? Halle Berry has a "pop culture rating" of 272.96, by the way. Do my pages get linked here too? Note, I will not disclose how I determined this number, nor what statistics it is based on, but it includes things like forum posts and recent news articles. Gimmetrow 20:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we should appreciate that some websites can't disclose their methods in great detail, that's the nature of many websites. May I ask you what the encyclopedic benefit of a fan forum is? There are a few such external links on Halle Berry right now. Why do fan discussions about Halle Berry meet the requirements of EL, and what do they tell us about her? Would you not agree that a website that measures internet fan activity, including forum activity, to be more encyclopedic? I respect your opinions, but in reading your arguments I feel like you should be compelled to delete the forum external links before consider deleting this site I added. Nonetheless, thank you for not deleting it. In keeping with the sprit of wikipedia and the guidelines of EL, I think that’s the right thing to do. Alderkline 00:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't answer my question - should a page giving *my* rating code also exist on pages? Gimmetrow 00:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that would be redundant. As long as this website applies its "proprietary" formula to each celebrity, meaning the same algorithm is executed for each person, then the ranking is valid. Paris Hilton *will* rank higher than Halle Berry because of higher internet and news activity. The number itself is not important, the rank is. Please let me know why linking a fan forum is encyclopedic and how it meets the requirements of EL. Thank you.Alderkline 02:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
External links are *supplementary reading* to an encyclopedia article. A large fansite that is informative and factual makes reasonable supplementary reading. Fan forums alone are generally not useful supplementary reading. A page with a meaningless number is a meaningless page, and is not supplementary reading. If you are serious, you're not getting my point about made up ratings - my example is not ranking celebrity exposure, I'm rating pop culture influence, which is different. In this formula Anna Nicole Smith only gets 318.42, so it's a different ranking. If your argument about this razzipapa rating were true, then why should it not equally apply to any other made up rating? Gimmetrow 02:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Reading the website, I don't believe the rating is made up, per se. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It's made up in the sense that the formula and the number are arbitrary (or at least appear so, since the formula is not actually disclosed). I see nothing to make it any different than the numbers I've given, which were calculated by a fomula based on generally-available statistics. Gimmetrow 05:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Sir, consensus is the cornerstone of wikipedia. If you feel that this website ranking "pop culture influence", should it ever exist, to be useful then feel free to post it here for discussion. In the meantime, three of the four members discussing razzipapa do not believe it should be deleted, or at least think it shows enough merit to be included. Please reinstate the link immediately. Also, fan or discussion forums are listed on WP:EL as links that should be avoided.Alderkline 11:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no desire to create a page with my arbitrary "pop culture influence"; I created the idea to illustrate a point here. It provides no information about Halle Berry, is not supplementary reading, and is not notable in itself. Neither is the razzi link. Gimmetrow 00:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Though I'm following this discussion with interest, I've got to say that the number that the website generates is problematic (web hits are manipulable, to cite just one example), and I can't really see how a link to this number actually enhances the entry. (Especially since it takes some clicking to find out what the number means, how it's derived, and the context in which it makes sense.)--Galliaz 13:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • OK, I was away from this discussion for a while, but I've just read through the whole thing. In my opinion, this link has no business on the article. When I search for razzipapa using either Yahoo or Google, I get absolutely zero reputable English language links. This link provides absolutely no value to the article and does not meet WP:EL. I have no belief that this link is remotely factual and there is no assurance that it meets WP:RS. This link should be removed. --After Midnight 0001 23:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, didn't realize it was back. See also Talk:Jessica Simpson#New External Link. Gimmetrow 00:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
So, can it be removed? --After Midnight 0001 01:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

After Midnight, I ask you to reconsider my arguments regarding this link. Thank you.Alderkline 22:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, I read your comments very carefully as well as the other comments and the relevant guidelines before I made my statement. I believe that my interpretation is correct and stand by my statement above. --After Midnight 0001 01:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The index is compiled using data from many recognized and reputable websites and other sources. I strongly believe the site complies with the guidelines of WP:EL, and I think I've demonstrated that affect. Nonetheless, if the link is removed I will not repost it. Thank you for your inputs.Alderkline 15:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the discussion. Unfortunately, this website is just nor verifiable. Without disclosure or some other reputable reference, this appears to be nothing more than a smokescreen. I'm going to go ahead and remove the link now. --After Midnight 0001 15:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Hudson (African American) also won an Academy Award.

So Halle Berry is the first African American to have won the award, and not the only one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.216.210.200 (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Jennifer Hudson won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar; Halle Berry is indeed the only African American woman to win the Best Actress award.--Galliaz 01:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goddess of the Sun

There is another film where Halle Berry will have a major role, Goddess of the Sun[1], as Egyptian Queen Nefertiti. Not much has been published about this film. The film is being made by Kermit Blackwood. Kermit Blackwood (Wikipedia accounts are User:Pinudjem, User:Amoun-Pinudjem and Milad A.P. Sourial) has not made many films, but he is such an amazing guy. He was the one who had suggested that the Green Peafowl is actually a complex of several distinct species. Frankyboy5 15:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Halle Berry's genealogy states her mother Judith Hawkins was NOT British born but was according to FACTS born in Ohio in the year 1939. Her maternal grandmother was British born only as her father was born in Ohio also. Her family tree can be found on genealogy.com with factual documentation. 24.25.172.80 16:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)marjorier@nc.rr.com

[edit] Holly Bailey

There is a "Holly Bailey", Newsweek, & msnbc. Today, Chris Matthews said "Halle Be----,... Holly Bailey!,..."

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 00:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misinformation in citation 17 about the threats to her unborn baby.

Citation 17 links to an article that claims Halle Berry has a 'white father and an Afro-American mother' -- her mother was English and her father was African-American. Perhaps articles that have such a poor standard of research shouldn't be used as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.113.229 (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images

There was/is a dispute over the fair use images in the recent FA Cillian Murphy. In light of that, I would like to review the two fair use screenshots recently added to this article. Are they necessary? I tend to think no, since the article was fine for ages without them. There are actor FAs without a single fair use image: Angelina Jolie and Katie Holmes. If an article on an actor uses a screenshot, I think the screenshot needs to be distinctive in a way difficult to describe in words; it should involve unusual costuming or makeup, or show some stuntwork, or be the first or defining role. The X-Men shot might work due to the costuming, but still we should be reluctant to use fair use images. Gimmetrow 00:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

But even her entry in Die Another Day is distinctive. Isn't it? Vikrant 14:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Is it? I'm not so convinced, but in any event I see at least two featured articles without any fair use images. While it might be nice to have one or two screenshots, they don't appear that necessary. Gimmetrow 22:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


There were plenty of free images here. I've removed the unfree ones, I think they fail the WP:FUC anyway.--Docg 18:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removals

Just to explain what I've removed and why:

  1. Non-free images - these are unjustifiable, particularly since we've got two excellent free images
  2. "Aubry, who lived ... presumably open to being an adoptive parent as well" - pure speculation per WP:BLP
  3. "After initially denying rumors that she was pregnant..." links 404'd for me. Can be replaced if/when citations are good.
  4. http://www.hollywoodchamber.net - 404d
  5. The accident thing, I removed by mistake. However, is it really encyclopaedic that someone got a driving violation? I suppose that's debatable - replace it if you disagree.

--Docg 18:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I readded the pregnancy thing. The MSNBC works for me as of right now. The second ABC4 cite was dead and archive.org did not have a replacement. Agreed with Aubry and images. I am iffy about the accident thing as well. However, hit-and-run is a felony and she is a notable person not known for committing such acts. I leave it up to someone else to put it back in. spryde | talk 18:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious - what part of WP:BLP requires you to immediately remove without notice a complete reference with author/title but a broken url, and without apparently even trying to find a working url? Gimmetrow 19:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't think I mentioned BLP in this regard, but any statement that starts with "denying rumors that she was pregnant" is best removed for a few minutes until we are sure.--Docg 21:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I was asking in regard to the star referenced to hollywoodchamber.net. It was trivial to find the correct URL because the citation was adequate. Then, for some inexplicable reason, it was removed a second time. At the very minimum I would have expected the URL to be commented out so someone else could find the appropriate url if you were unable after a few minutes of trying. Almost no editors look through history for removed citations, so removing it entirely is bad. As for the pregnancy section, one of the cites was MSNBC and it worked fine. Gimmetrow 21:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed material with the intention of coming back to it - others however fixed it first.--Docg 21:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)