Talk:Jodie Foster/Archive 1

Minor formatting question

Hey, new to this so didn't want to change anything, but is there a reason why in the awards section the whole of 1991 has the table cells merged, yet 1988 has them separated? Seems inconsistent to me, which is the correct layout? Thanks. TheMania 10:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Reagan assassination

"Some view Foster is partially to blame for snubbing the disturbed Hinckley yet she has never apologized for her involvment in the shooting which left James Brady paralyzed." It's pretty ridiculous to say that she owes anybody an apology; she's not responsible for Hinckley's actions. Besides, it's stupid to say that all celebrities should respond to the advances of crazy fans, and it's unfair to say Jodie Foster should have done it when she had no idea what was going to happen. I don't want to delete this until there's been a little bit of discussion, but this section is pretty biased against her. --PatadyBag 01:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

something on this should be mentioned

The only Legal mystery about the Reagan incident is why Ms Foster was never compensated for the pain and distress she suffered during that incident. Her studies at Yale were interrupted, her career disrupted, her privacy and security violated. She did try and seek compensation from the Hinkly Estate (see Foster Child by Buddy Foster), but found herself looking at a Legal Mase. It was shameful how she suffered so much and was not compensated in any way.Johnwrd (talk) 04:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Too much censorship

Wiki is supposed to be unbiased not a fawning hagiography of this women. Critics fawn over her but some see her as the hypocritical twit she is. She hides in the closet and makes commercials in Japan as to not damage her golden image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.121.110 (talk • contribs) 19:01, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Even if (for instance) she has made commercials in Japan, a) tons of American celebrities make commercials that never air in the United States (for instance, Jennifer Aniston in a Heiniken commercial that aired in Germany), so the fact that she's made commercials abroad doesn't merit mention in the article, and b) the dig about it being not to tarnish her image makes the article NPOV and hence it has no place in Wikipedia. --PatadyBag 02:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this Censorship? The fact that she did make commercials in Japan (at least 1) is relevant to her career. This is not an Aniston art. It is also reasonable to assume Foster is worried about her image since she is a Hollywood actress and has stayed in the closet for so long.

Patybag and Sciro you need to allow factual relevant info about Foster to be allowed. Will the RC patrol or someone look into this?? This is supposed to be unbiased and INFORMATIVE about the real J. Foster. Please re-insert J. commercial info.

Jodie Foster is not God, she is what she is even if she won't admit it, part of the Hollywood PR machine that turns out crap. Foster is considered by some to be a phony who hides her girlfriend and the father of her children.

Foster carefully cultivates an wholesome all american image while she hides in her closet as millions die of AIDS when her prominence could bring greater awareness. She is a public figure who rakes in millions making violent Hollywood movies such as Silence of the Lambs.

Shame on Foster and those in Hollywood who aid in her propaganda! Activists say stop watching Foster movies. Flightplan is a rip-off of Red Eye anyways.

Dude, you read like a bad tabloid. I don't know what your beef with Foster (and looking at what your "contributions" are, with Meryl Streep as well), but your information has no business being in an encyclopedic article. So she's done commercials overseas- so have tons of celebrities. Not even close to worthy of mention in the article. As for your speculation as to her reasons not for doing American ads, it's pure speculation that is propaganda at best. If you want to vilify the woman, then do it here on the talk page- not on the main article. --PatadyBag 04:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

What's your deal dude? I mean, all that crap isn't called for. She's a great actress, and personally my favorite. I agree with PatadyBag. You do read like a bad tabloid. Yes, she's done commercials overseas, who cares? She's had a tought life. Think about it. She never had a father, all the Hinckley crap, her own brother writing a tell-all book, and people calling her a lesbian. Dude, this is not cool. No she is not a God, nor does she think he is. She is a human being. PATADYBAG IS RIGHT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychiatrist 101 (talk • contribs) 10:26, July 15, 2006

Facts are Relevant- Censorship is not

Facts are facts. This should be mediated by and Admin or someone. By deleting relevant biographical facts about Foster that is totally POV censorship. I challenge anyone to disprove that J. Foster has acted in Japanese commercials for large amounts of money. If a fact is true about a public figure and it is about her career how is it biased. It is biased to delete/censor this info. If you want to include this info for other relevant celebs be my guest. Foster's article should be informative and comprehensive not a hagiography that is a total biased POV. NPOV does not mean omitting facts that can be construed as negative (there's nothing wrong with being in a commercial). People on Wiki can decide for themselves how they feel about Foster not have the FACT that she was in J. commercials be censored. This is a well documented fact as is the FACT that she has not done US commercials in decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.121.110 (talk • contribs) 23:31, August 26, 2005

If you want to include "Some critics believe this is due to her desire to maintain a certain image in the American public" in the article, you'll have to let us know WHICH critics, if they're notable, where they have made these comments, and sources to document these claims. Zoe 06:42, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thanx for the tip

However the info/fact that she has done more than one Japanese commercial while she has not done any US commercials in decades is an undisputed relevant fact about her career and NEEDS to be allowed into her bio b/c it is biographical info. There's no need to censor truthful info about Foster's career or life. It's like omitting Clinton's scandal with Lewinsky b/c some people like Clinton. Readers can decide for themselves about a person based on the facts. Wiki should be about relevant facts not omission of the relevant facts about her career. If it's relevant that she has worked in movies than it's relevant she has done (worked) in Japanese Honda commercials. Let the people decide how they feel about this FACT don't censor it. Let the 1st Amd principles and NPOV be your guide not suppression of facts. 66.248.122.177 20:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, don't put in the editorial comment. Just say that she's made commercials overseas, and let the readers make up their own minds. Zoe 07:05, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Some thoughts on Ms. Foster to help future edits

Let me start by saying I have nothing against Jodie Foster. She is obviously intelligent, but that is not the issue. She probably doesn/t know me personally even though I have worked in the movie industry (briefly). I appreciate the suggestions of the adm (Zoe and others) I just find it disturbing that certain relevant facts about J. Foster are suppressed such as her starring in Japanese commercials and that she is not open about her sexuality. Perhaps that is her right but she is a public person who could save lives if she "came out of the closet" so to speak. What bothers me about Foster is her apparent hypocrisy, shilling for the Japanese yet American commercials are not good enough for her. Its reasonable to infer that there is some PR ideas here. Once she apparently signed an autograph picture and took the fan's picture with her by giving it to her bodyguard (Celebrity Uncensored). If Ms. Foster is a mult-millionaire actress why does she have to "take" a poor fan's picture of her. Again it would be possible to infer some PR consideration on her part.

It's disappointing that someone who has benefited so much from America, has not done more for it. Does she contribute to charity? Probably a few but I haven't heard of any. One thing for sure she is no Cindy Sheehan. Ms. Foster stays apolitical as she rakes in the money from her Hollywood films. Maybe that's smart for her and too smart for us. Isn't FlightPlan very similar to a Twilight Zone plot about returning astronauts. I just urge people to think about who they want to have as their Movie Stars and their character should count too. 66.248.122.177 20:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert anymore since it only ends up as a pointless edit war, but I remain firm in my assertion that mention of Foster's commercial work shouldn't be included in the article. Endorsement is a typical part of being a celebrity- if mention of foreign commercials merits attention here, then by extrapolation all celebrity endorsements worldwide should be mentioned in their respective articles. It seems the only reason you are so intent on including this virtually pointless information is because you've got something against Foster. As such, keep your opinions on the talk page instead of in the article itself. --PatadyBag 19:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The Big Picture

Why does exist an article about Jodie Foster in Wikipedia? Is it beacause she speaks French, or because she made Japanese commercials or beacause she is intelligent or because she's an alleged lesbian? No! None of the above. Jodie Foster has an article in Wikipedia because she is a professional actress who has won many awards (including 2 Oscars) and because many of her films are well received both by public and by critics. The rest is non-relevant material for an encyclopedia. The main focus should be on her professional carrer. What car she drives, who is she sleeping with, and what she's advertising for are a small matter, suitable for magazines and tabloids. The goal of Wikipedia is to reach a very high standard. In order to achieve this take a look at the Jodie Foster article in Encyclopedia Britannica. There is nothing there even remotely close to the things that have been wrote recently here by an anonymous person who is not a user. Mr. or Mrs. 66.248.122... please take your beef with J. Foster elsewhere. Although I don't think you can, try to see the big picture. Tavilis 20:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I Really Have to Strongly Disagree Here

First I admit I am still learning all the nuances of Wiki-editing (what to put in a talk page). Also maybe some of my previous opinion have been colorful yet honest. I have tried to be civil and everyone has been fairly civil but it is unfair to just delete relevant info about Ms. Foster's career just b/c you don't like it. I have never made any statements on Wiki about what language she speaks or what car she drives. I did not write about her brother's bio or the initial allegation of her lesbianism. Second it is really unfair to delete an important section about her career (work) in Japan. I spent hours locating the relevant and editing the page to add some fairly innocous but relevant info about here ad work in Japan. People should have all the facts about her career and draw their own conclusion not have it suppressed. Her ad work in Japan rather than the US is relevant career info. I urge users and admin to look at the page before Mr. Tavilis deleted it. Admin Zoe has said facts about her work in Japan is acceptable. Readers get the "big picture" with more relevant info about a performer's career not less. Whatever my opinion of Ms. Foster may be I have not let it colored my most recent editing. Please revert to NPOV including Advertising Work section. I don't want to but perhap we need some objective mediation on this editing issue. 66.248.123.149

Although I appreciate your taking the more editorial aspects of your additions to the article out of your revisions, and although I accept that she has done commercial work in Japan, it simply isn't important enough relative to her entire career to be included in an article about her (much less to have its own section). The only commercial that should be included in the article is her Coppertone commercial from when she was young because it is a culturally significant and iconic commercial. (P.S.- Even when you sign now, it only shows up as your IP address- I suggest you register for an account so discussion can take place on your talk page). --PatadyBag 21:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

You've said that her commercials in Japan are a part of her career. It is true because she was promoting her image in Japan where she became very popular. More Japanese came to cinemas to see her movies and consequently more money went to America. So she did something good for US. And in the process she made some bucks for herself. Good for her! She didn't do any commercials in her adult life in US because she didn't have to. She's rich enough and she didn't have to promote her image there - she's already famous. But there are other things which are part of her career. For examples she enjoys kickboxing, yoga, karate, aerobics, and weightlifting and one might say these are very important for her career because so she stays in good shape. She also recorded some songs for the movie "Moi, fleur bleu" which was another important issue in her career. There are many facts that we could say are or were important for her career. All these are interesting trivia stuff but perhaps they better stay out of an encyclopaedic article. We better focus on her career itself than on the facts affecting her career. Again please refer to the Jodie Foster article in Encyclopaedia Britannica for a glimpse of professionalism. Tavilis 22:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Reasonable Compromise Solution

First I'd like to thank Mr. Tavisil for responding. However I do not think his comparison to her kickboxing, weightlifting hobbies is apt because these are not professional activities of her. (She is not being paid for it) I personally wouldn't mind succint bio. info. like that on the page if someone cares to insert it. What I have done is re-insert a very small paragraph on her relevant work in Japan at the very end. Factual, NPOV and some people will certainly find it interesting/relevant b/c it is part of her professional body of work. I hope this will bring consensus and we can move on. Also I will remove some of the earlier comments on this page which seem to offend people. This isn't about my opinion of her but providing relevant biographical facts of interest to the reader. Thanks for all your input. 66.248.123.149 22:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Here we go- I edited the page a little bit to what I view as an acceptable compromise. It retains mention of her commercial work, but doesn't mention that she hasn't been in commercials in the U.S. since childhood (since a) there's no way to be entirely certain of that, and b) it's a little redundant, seeing as Japan is specifically mentioned to the exclusion of the States). I also got rid of the mention of it being a lucrative deal, since that's why celebrities generally do commercials in the first place (thus, it sort of goes without saying). Hopefully this compromise works for you? --PatadyBag 23:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's just move on with consensus/comprom. and help Wiki be great

I am only trying to do my small part to put some relevant info and help Wiki grow as a great Internet reference resource I really feel we have spent enough time on this issue and can move on if everyone is reasonable. I'm not trying to upset any users/fans here. I'm just trying to add some relevant info about J. Foster. Quite frankly I found the last edit a little petty and unnecessary. To address some of Mr. PatadyBag's points: first you wrote that you "I'm not going to revert anymore since it only ends up as a pointless edit war" yet you delete some links and headings (a defacto revert). Second I'm happy to change the sentence to "any US television commercials since childhood" if that helps. There is no evidence I know of of Foster being in a consumer product TV commercial since the Coppertone. If anyone has other info, please present it. Also not all ad contracts are lucrative, some local ads may only pay a few hundred $ (scale) for local models/actors. Plus oversea ads are very lucrative that's why US celebs do them for overseas and not here (ie Dicaprio apparently got $2million for one Jp commercial). Therefore it is relevant to note that her Jp deals likely was lucrative and more importantly they have clauses which prevent them from being shown in the US. That's why Americans never see them. This applies (as PR) not only to Foster but to other celebs who do ads for Jp companies. All of this is relevant information b/c it pertains to her professional work.

Whatever honest mistakes I have made I have not delete any real info from this article. I've only tried add a little on her professional work. Why should anyone be afraid of this information about Foster's work? The heading and link citation is only to accord with Wiki style guidelines and make it easier for readers to follow. Let's remember these entries (biographical) are not just for fans of the subject but for people who might want to learn more about the topic. We shouldn't delete any relevant info on the subject unless absolutely necessary. Also these are just facts about Foster that some might find "trivial" but others might find useful and informative (or even entertaining). I might find the fact she starred in "Napoleon & Samantha" or she went to a French school trivial but I'm not certainly going to delete it. It's up to the readers to decide what facts are trivial and what facts are useful for them. If editors delete everything THEY find trivial Wiki has less info for its readers and everyone in Wiki loses!

Also NPOV doesn't mean no point of view it means multiple points of views for balance (Wiki Help) as long as its truthful, relevant and presented clearly for the encyclopedia. Don't let any comments made on the Talk page color your editing decision on the article's main page. I've already remove some of the more colorful comments on this page. There should be a presumption of inclusion for all facts pertaining to Foster's life and work. Let's all work to help add to Wiki and make it better. Thanks for listening.66.248.120.96 02:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

A hearty amen to the quest of making the Wiki better- and that's what argument like this ultimately does (once a solution is reached, anyways). Here's why I made the edits I did- I took out the header for advertising work because advertising is not a significant part of her career- she is known most for making movies, and that is what the primary focus of the article should be. I'm not averse to leaving in mention of the Japanese commercials, but at the moment the amount of space dedicated to this work is a bit disproportionate to the rest of her career. Second- I got rid of the setence regarding how lucrative the deals are because it's obvious without being stated that celebrities do commercials to make money; although I concede you point that not all people in commercials make a lot of money, Jodie Foster is an international celebrity, and hence any commercial she would be in is bound to be lucrative. Third, I got rid of the mention of clauses preventing airing in the U.S. because it really isn't important to the gist of the article and is at best fluff. Finally, I got rid of the mention of not having done U.S. commercials since childhood because you don't provide any proof for it. If you can find credible documentation that she's limited her commercial work to overseas, I'd be more than happy to include it. --PatadyBag 04:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess we have to agree to disagree. I just feel you are being unfair with these edits/reverts. Facts about Ms. Foster's work are pertinent and can be helpful to learn more about Ms. Foster for readers. Encyclopedias should inform. You still did not explain why you erased the cite link. Also her Ad Work was under a small Subheading under Life and Career not a heading. It is interesting information at the very end of a fairly comprehensive article which readers can interpret as they wish. Also there is no evidence based on multiple media watchers that she has been in any US consumer TV commercial in years, based on this it's reasonable to assume that she has not done any US TV commercials since Coppertone. The burden of proof is on those who want to show she has done US TV commercials to provide the evidence. Absent that there is a reasonable presumption she has not since she is primarily a movie and not a commercial actress (except for overseas commercials as I've tried to note). I've asked for mediation help but I don't know how long it will take. Again this is not about my feelings about Ms. Foster or trying to anger anyone, only to include information that is useful for readers based on unbiased facts. 66.248.121.159 13:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Capitalisation for how capitalisation in section headers are done, so "Advertising work" not "Advertising Work"; not that I agree with adding this section header. Note also that the japander link is in the "References" section, as we prefer not to have external links above that and the "External link(s)" sections. As for the misspelling, don't worry — it's a tricky name :) — Jeandré, 2005-08-28t22:15z

FINAL VOTE- INCLUDE/DON'T INCLUDE ADVERTISING INFO

Obviously this isn't going to get anywhere- the edits I made reflect the absolute maximum about the advertising that deserves mention in the article (just for comparison, at the moment you have as much space dedicated to the ads as is already dedicated to her two Best Actress Oscar wins). I call for a final vote on whether this ought to be in the article.

Oppose inclusion in the article, for all the reasons I've listed above. --PatadyBag 18:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose including in the article the info regarding the Japan commercials beacuse of many reasons discussed above.Tavilis 18:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

For inclusion as relevant info. and reasons listed above. However I take it this is a non-binding survey for info only per Wiki policy. Also this survey has not been listed in the appropriate dispute resolution page as far as I see. 66.248.121.66 18:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• I think we should consider this binding- you've already listed this conflict on the dispute page (in a rather biased way against me, might I add), and nothing has happened, so it seems like the fastest and easiest way to resolve this once and for all is to do what the results of this survey say. --PatadyBag 20:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose all votes. Zoe 20:51, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Ultimately, I'm not completely opposed to having the commercials mentioned briefly- but right now, there are 4 lines and a subsection dedicated to obscure commercials overseas and 2.5 lines dedicated to her two Oscar wins. It's extremely disproportionate, and should be left with only a brief mention of her ad work. --PatadyBag 22:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose - rather pointless info, to put it mildly, and highly disproportional. -- AlexR 16:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose - One liner about it in filmography maybe, otherwise nothing Mbisanz 00:05, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose While I am all for including as much information as possible on Wikipedia, advertising in Japan is pretty trivial compared to some other things which could be discussed in this article. For one, how about a source on her atheism (I have seen the quote, maybe I can find it). Unless we're really going all out with every bit of info possible, Japanese commericals are meaningless. Captain Jackson 05:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Why does the article still have the neutrality tag?

Yep, I have read right through this talk page, and have just finished reading the current version of the article. Seems to me to be just an ordinary run of the mill Wiki article about an interesting celeb. Seems to me to contain known information we would need to include to fully cover the subject. Doesn't seem to me to contain extreme POV. Remove the tag anyone? 23:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree and removed it when it was inserted recently. --PhilipO 23:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Have taken it down again. --Spartaz 22:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Nutcases

This woman appears to be a magnet for nutcases. Captain Jackson 03:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not Ms Foster who is a 'Magnet for nutcases' it was the character she played in Taxi Driver. If you think Ms Foster atracts 'Odd Balls' have a look at the News Stories about Jane Fonda or Linda Blair.Johnwrd (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"Another Deluded Fan"

I don't know if the tale of another deluded fan was a joke or just far-fetched and unsubstantiated, but if whoever put it up can back it up... Johndodd 23:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Academy Award Dates

According to Academy Award for Best Actress, the Academy's practice is to list films by release year: for example, the Oscar for "Best Actress in 1999" was announced during the award ceremony held in 2000. I have changed the dates associated with "The Accused" and "Silence of the Lambs" accordingly. Do other dates need changing? (I don't have time to check them all now.) Perhaps there are similar inconsistencies on other actor pages as well. RayGates 02:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

How good CONTACT was

And how Jodie absolutely carried the movie. She struck just the right balance between energy/argumentativeness and vulnerability.

I did not really enjoy the movie the first time, I think because the ending was kind of a let-down and kind of sad. The very last scene is Ellie sitting alone in the great outdoors and thinking. Well, this was a thoughtful movie. Her character Dr. Ellie Arroway almost had a need to spend a lot of time by herself thinking. And she did not connect with the Palmer Joss character (Matthew McConaughey) at the end. He was also a thoughtful character. But they just each thought in such different realms. They probably should not have slept together at the beginning, probably should have just had a make-out session and appreciated each other, appreciated another intense person who has a different world view. But that's life, too. Sometimes you go too quick with someone you have some things in common with, but not others. FriendlyRiverOtter 01:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I don't know if anybody keeps an eye on this page, but the infobox that is being used for Ms. Foster is typically reserved for female porn stars. Just thought I'd let the editors know in case they wanted to revert it. I would myself, but this is my first time on this page and did not know if this was intentional or not.--NMajdan•talk 21:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I Cant Believe It!

What a goddamn sellout!! IMHO I can't believe she did Japanese commercials!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.172.69 (talk • contribs) .

Question about Chikopi in a Jodie movie

Anyone have any trivia insights into a Jodie F film that mentions "Chikopi?" What was the film? What was the context. Any pointers to scripts or video would be welcomed too. Rauterkus 20:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This was in the movie "Nell". Her character was raised in isolation and never developed the ability to enunciate clearly. "Chikopi" or "chikobee" was a phrase that she would repeat, it sounded like she was addressing someone or something dear, and it seemed to comfort her. To me it sounded like she was saying a version of "Chickadee", which would be a reference to the Carolina Chickadee which is a small, common, charismatic songbird common in the Appalachian forests in which the movie was set. Dgscofield 21:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw that movie. It seemed pretty clear that what was intended was that the old woman who was raising Foster's character Nell suffered a stroke and as Nell learned to talk, she acquired the speech defects of the old woman. I think "Chikopi" was a term of endearment; probably "chick pea". You also hear her say (phonetic approximation) "poaneil" which was probably "Poor Nell." The cool thing was that the more you heard Nell talk, the more you were able to "decipher" her "dialect." Just my opinion.

Ethnicity and Original Name

What's her maternal and paternal ancestry? Who knows?

According to "information" found during a Google search, her parents are Latvian. Also found online various places, and more notably in the "Absolutely Absorbing" 12th Uncle John's Bathroom Reader (page 122 footer factoid), her original name was "Ariane Munker".

I have been trying to track this through Google searches, but I can't find a reliable source. The closest I can find is a bunch of mentions of this in trivia books. At first, it sounds like trivia that has been copied time and again from unknown sources.

However, an Ariane Munker was the second actor to play Amanda Kirkland on soap opera Ryan's Hope. A Google Image search turned up a couple of pictures of the actress, and one looks suspiciously like her on this page. More recent pictures of Jodie Foster show a sharper nose and higher forehead, though, so I'd say it's not her.

Gotta love trivia book and game makers who copy other trivia books and games. --BlueNight 08:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: Apparently the Ariane Munker in Ryan's Hope regularly acted in soap operas under the name "Ariana Chase". So much for oddball trivia. --BlueNight 09:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, her father is Lucius Foster III (English descendant, * 16. April 1922) and her mother is Evelyn Schmidt (German, * 21. September 1928). This disposes definitely. 84.153.92.129 08:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get "Schmidt"? On the California Birth Records, Foster's mother's maiden name is listed as "Almond." It's the same for her siblings. Unless you have a source for Schmidt, it's time to let it go. Swango 06:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

When Flightplan was shot in Berlin, Foster herself claimed at last, that her mother is German (and her name was Schmidt) and in the German wikipedia-article it is also mentioned. 91.12.112.153 10:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look at her official website. There is also declared, that her mother is German and her surname was Schmidt and even that her father was a son of German immigrants (not English). 91.12.112.153 11:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Citing the German Wikipedia is a circular reference. Give us an outside link or verifiable reference -- like the California Birth Records. Swango 18:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have taken down the information again - this time there was a link to a freepages website that then linked to another site that had a membership log-in preventing access to the source. I'm sorry but we really need something much better then this as a source. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Filmography and List of Awards

Why is the filmography in descending chronologicl order, while the list of awards is in ascending order? Is this a Wikipedia standard of which I am unaware? If so, please disregard the question.

Why is there no mention of John Hinkley?

I understand that she was in no way involved with him or his assination attempt, but there should be some mention of his obsession in this article: right or wrong it's still history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyinMN (talk • contribs) 00:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I did see a reference that she spoke with him on the phone at least once. Wjhonson (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is information about her Japanese commercials censored?

This is totally inappropriate and probably illegal!!

A registered user, fix the word millenium in the 1980-present section. Correct spelling is millennium.

Done.--Tom 14:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Jodie Foster is a lesbian?

I believe that Jodie Foster is a lesbian. I think that she is married to a woman producer of some sort, but that she is quite about it.

Have removed unverifiable comments regarding Miss Foster's sexuality. The comments are based upon gossip and are in no way encyclopedic. Please see the following article regarding possibly libelous comments: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046726.html

I don't know if she's a lesbian and it wouldn't change my opinion of her, but while it would be wrong for us to include the unsupported claim, it would be just as wrong for us to fail to report the frequent allegation as an allegation, without endorsing it. It doesn't take more than 10 second of googling to find articles like this one, and I'm sure we could find a reliable source that confirms the status of the allegation. We could write something like "There is a persistent but unsupported rumor that she is in a long-term relationship with producer Cydney Bernard." Would this violation Wikipedia rules? 24.44.99.211 00:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Cydney Bernard is back in the article AGAIN. Does it remain unsourced? 68.239.20.77 04:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello I'd just like to ask why Jodie Foster is included in the list of LGBT actors. It seemes to me that despite the fact that she has often been alleged to be in a relationship with Cydney Bernard, she's never stated this to be the case. In my opinion her sexuality has not been sufficiently proven for to be in a list for "actors who are or are known to have been gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.if someone wanted to create a list of actors who have been alleged to have been any one of these things then I suppose i'd support putting her in that list (though I'd imagine such a list would be rather lengthy and lead to many arguements about the credibility of the allegations). But since the LGBT actors list is clearly for people who have been proven to belong to that category I disagree with her inclusion in it and thus I am removing it from this article. if you disagree with me, please feel free to respond. thank you for your time. The elephant in the room 21:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

She's on the cover of Out Magazine [[1]], fyi. That's probably grounds to say there are rumours she is not straight.66.45.138.197 01:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Its still speculation so it should stay out. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's speculation to say she's a lesbian, but it's not speculation to say there's speculation. Out Magazine is a legitimate source, so some reference should be made to it. —Chowbok ☠ 16:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say that if we could find five reliable sources (IE: not "The National Enquirer") which have made allegations that Jodie Foster is a closeted lesbian, that would be sufficient cause to put, at the least, a blurb in the article stating that controversy around her sexual orientation has permeated her career. It is pretty much common knowledge, but common knowledge isn't enough to put it in the article. For reference, see Clay Aiken - there is an entire section discussing the unending allegations of his homosexuality, and it is referenced/sourced and very encyclopedic. Midnightguinea 19:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've inserted the fact that she's been in a long-term relationship with Cydney Bernard, but I do not refer to her as a lesbian. That terminology should be up to her. As to the relationship, this is well known and documented (see citation) and available from many sources other than the Enquirer (NNDB,Wordpress, Blacknews,AfterEllen, et al). As this fact has a citation, I believe it should stand unless citations are available which state otherwise. Вasil | talk 23:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

So...NNDB calls Bernard her "special friend" which makes me think 'Hmm, not a great source' to be citing Bernard as her partner. Wordpress appears to be a blog and cites Wikipedia, which doesn't seem to meet WP:Reliable source criteria. However, Blacknews might be okay, but I'd like to see others give feedback on this... AfterEllen.com, that's a good one, cute take on the situation. ZueJay (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys but this is a WP:BLP issue. Speculation is still speculation no matter how many people speculate. Something like this needs absolutely solid soDurcing and ideally this should be a quote. Until then it must stay out of the article.Spartaz ^Humbug! 14

36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I try to be very respectful about BLPs. All that was stated was the name of her partner; it did not claim any preference or orientation, which she has not stated. Could you be a little more specific? Are all the sources previously brought forth stating the name of her partner unreliable? On what grounds? Does it have to be NYT or WP before its okay? ZueJay (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can claim that by just mentioning the name of the partner you are not making any statements. You simply need a reliable source. I think something better than unchecked web source is required. I'd say any reputable published source would probably do although like all these things we probably need to review the source at the time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I was leaning toward considering BlackNews and AfterEllen legitimate sources. We can add to that The Biography Channel. But man, this is a toughie - the most stringent Google search conducted states things such as "companion" and "friend." Certainly, not enough for a BLP. Blllttttt! Oh well - out it goes. PS - it looks like the Portuguese (pt) Wiki makes mention of their relationship but my translation is not perfect (I'm better at Spanish). ZueJay (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, them's the breaks and its why the information is still not in the article. We haven't been able to source it properly... Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, Spartaz! The removal of my edits are without merit. To say it is not sourced properly is disingenuous, at best. I agree with the earlier removals which lacked citations, but I provided well written, non-inflammatory and fully cited information which does not violate BLP. Just because the NY Times doesn't say it, doesn't make it false. We've got multiple sources which ALL report the same thing: she is and has been a long-term relationship with Cydney Bernard - No judgement, just a fact. As a public figure, there are multitudes of pictures available of the two walking about holding hands and showing public affection. Why should we accord her any more or less latitude than, say Tom Cruise or Colin Farrell and their relationships? Why do you find it libelous, offensive or pejorative? It is simply a fact and should be in the article. Вasil | talk 17:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is the implication of the phrasing of the sentence that is the problem? ZueJay (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Way to go to discuss the article Basil. Comment on the edits not the editor. I'm not the only one who doesn't accept your sources. Blogs are not reliable sources and NNDB is absolutely not acceptable - its got no attributation and uses weasel words. As for Blacknews, the statement comes out of the blue and isn't related to the interview. I'm not really prepared to accept that one either. I'm sorry if my removinging your edit offended you but we have to have thoroughly reliable sources to include information about living people that may cause a problem. Find me a citation in a reputable published source and you may well have your problem solved. Cheers Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

My humblest aplogies, Sartaz. My intentions are being misunderstood and I cannot see any personal attacks in my previous post. I applaud your efforts to avoid violating the canons of BLB and I certainly understand your reticence to avoid heresay. I happen to be a big JF admirer and believe this information to be germane to her life, personality and talent. I've found multiple other sources which illustrate her relationship with Cydney, (Canada.com, Film.com, Pink News, Fridae.com and (rm link causing spam filter problems)). In particular, I find the Canada.com article to be well written, succinct and noteworthy. Вasil | talk 18:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you have the sites in the correct order of precedence and personally Canada.com is the only one I would consider the slightest bit reliable because there is a named writer, its part of a reputable company and has a clear editorial policy that suggests that information published will be properly fact checked. Its also not written in weasel words and not subject to interpretation. Hmm. I'd like some time to think this through. I think so extra eyes would also be useful to garner a clear consensus on the validity of this source. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

<deindent> OK, I asked the good folks on the BLP Noticeboard to give us a hand with this as I do agree that the Canada.com article is the best source we have been given on this so far. I'd like to see some further views before we decide this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think taking this to the BLP noticeboard is a very good idea. The Canada.com article seems like a borderline case and I'd certainly like other opinions about it. Gwernol 20:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to use the IMDb Biography for some of the information in this article, under the theory that it is acceptable for general information but not for potentially libelous statements per BLP. --Wasted Sapience 20:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw Spartaz's comments on the BLP board. It seems to me that if Out magazine has called her the 50 most etc., then that is ok to include. Very carefully of course. It's clear that the magazine is trying to raise some controversy by purposefully "out"-ing celebrities, so one would need to add the appropriate qualifiers to make clear that Foster neither supported nor denied the magazine's remarks (which seems to be the case). It's important for people to actually get the article and see what it says. For example, some people mistakenly think she's on the cover, when she isn't (her face is on a mask on a model). The canada.com story seems to just be a summary of the magazine article, so I don't think whether Canada.com qualifies as a good RS is too relevant. Out magazine's wide circulation would pretty much ensure that some others would report about the article. --C S (Talk) 22:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the Candada.com article again and noted the author was very careful in quoting the Out magazine article where it was used as a source. Please note the part about Cydney and Jodie was not quoted and is stated as a fact, not as a quote from the article. Вasil | talk 22:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

After reading the report/question on the BLP Noticeboard I reviewed the arguments above. I waited a couple of days before responding here since this is indeed not an easy one to answer. But I came to the conclusion that I view this as right on the edge of what we can/can't do in view of WP:NOR and just beyond that line in view of WP:BLP. I think it would be best to follow the lead of reliable sources that would risk to lose a lot in terms of lawsuits, damages and reputation if they published this without a very good source. Another aspect which I personally find more important is how this would affect Foster's reputation, career opportunities, etc. It's her life. Perhaps a good guide would be one of size/reach/audience: Wikipedia is much larger than Out magazine or Canada.com. And Out is the first and only reliable-looking source that has said the l-word about Foster so far. A special word of caution here: it has recently been emphasized on the WikiEN-L e-mail list that individual editors have full responsibility for their own edits. Which means that the Foundation is not responsible and will not take the blame or provide legal protection to editors who post this anywhere in Wikipedia if Foster decides to hit back. For that reason I'm changing the title of my edit summary. It can be that serious. AvB ÷ talk 11:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

PS The more notable the subject, the more reliable and numerous the sources need to be to prevent undue weight. AvB ÷ talk 12:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

She is a lesbian, that's all : this is useless to discuss that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.218.95.207 (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone checked the newspapers recently? [2] [3] [4] and many ohers -- SteveCrook (talk) 08:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

she still hasn't self-identified as a lesbian. thanking "beautiful Cydney who sticks with me through all the rotten and the bliss" still is not the equivalent of stating "i am a lesbian". Anastrophe (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

She might not have self-identified, but someone above in this same section said that if there were 5 reputable sources that said she was a lesbian (not just that there were rumours or questions about her sexuality) then that should be recorded here -- SteveCrook (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

it may be recorded here. whether it should be recorded here is debateable. she has chosen not to self-identify as a lesbian. she has chosen to acknowledge her partner, whatever the relationship. this is a WP:BLP. i think at best what could be added would be her above quote. that tabloids jump to the conclusion that she has 'come out' isn't really material. why not let her do the identification herself, in her own time? it's her life, her business. Anastrophe (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Part 2

I'm putting the relationship with Ms. Bernard back in. Again. You've all seen the quote before, and it hasn't been refuted with any cited evidence: "[Jodie Foster] Has been in a serious relationship with Cydney Bernard since they met in 1993 on the set of the movie Sommersby (1993)."--IMDB http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000149/bio (On a side note, IMDB does not technically acknowledge same-sex couples (whether married or not) on their website (see Elton John) so "serious relationship" is as straightforward--no pun intended--as they get) Regardless, she has never denied her relationship with Ms. Bernard, never openly had boyfriends or husbands, and has never claimed she's straight. Thus, any claim that she IS straight (or any implication of straightness by omission of lesbian evidence) is not only unverifiable, but it's also irresponsible. I think that if some wikipedians think it's appropriate to imply that she isn't a lesbian, they ought to find some evidence to back up that claim.--Erin1983 00:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

"I'd say any reputable published source would probably do [...] something better than unchecked web source" (Spartaz)--I agree, here are a few more sources:

"As the mother of Charlie, 7, and Kit, 4, Foster, like all parents, would have had her share of troublesome journeys. Foster and the boys - who are biological products of Foster and an unknown father - presumably live with her partner of 12 years, producer Cydney Bernard. But that kind of speculation always runs into virtual brick walls of privacy that surround Foster's life." – Ferguson, S. (2005) "Strong? I guess I am": Daily Telegraph

“She has long been wary of discussing her children, Charles, seven, and Kit, four, both rumoured to be the offspring of anonymous sperm donors. She is said to be currently living with producer Cydney Bernard.” – Shzr Ee, T. (2006) "I’m Just an Actor for Hire": The Straights Times

Also interesting--the "Panic Room" premier guest list:

"GUESTS: Jodie Foster, Cydney Bernard, Felicity Drake, John Waters, Jeremy Sims, John Symonds, Angela Bishop, James Valentine, Chloe Maxwell, Chelsea Gibb." - Byrnes, H. (2002) [Newswire] The Sun Herald --Erin1983 18:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC) I would like to add: "She is currently in a relationship with Cydney Bernard, her partner for over a decade, though Foster has been reluctant to openly discuss any aspect of their relationship with the media."

I would like to reference two sources (Spartaz: I will not have internet links in the citation because they are not internet sources, they are from published news texts which can be obtained via LexisNexis.) The sources are:

1. Todd Hill. Newhouse News Service. 2006 March. Retrieved 08 July 2007.

2. "US: Jodie Foster on Oscars, Takeaway and the Big Boys." Peter Mitchell. AAP Newsfeed. 2006 March. Retrieved 08 July 2007.

The quotes I'm referencing from the sources are:

1. "[...]Foster purposely avoids working too much, however. She prefers to do one movie every three years rather than three movies every year, and not just because she's raising two young children (with Cydney Bernard, her companion since 1993)." (Hill 2007)

2. "My kids are at the age now where they are both in school," Foster, who reportedly has been in a long-term relationship with producer Cydney Bernard, explained." (Mitchell 2006)

On a side note: It's pretty much common knowledge that Ms Foster is gay and in a relationship with Cydney Bernard, but she doesn't talk about it, so it's difficult to pin down the details without making speculations. I don't think that means that it ought to stay out of the entry altogether. It think we can include it with the caveat that she doesn't talk about it or deny it. --Erin1983 17:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Erin, I'm sorry I didn't pick up on the fact that you had used the talk page but this was because you had placed your comments at the top of the section and usually they go at the bottom. Can you provide the full text of the of the sources you have cited here? If you have read the previous comments you will see we have to take living persons policies very carefully and we need to carefully evaluate the value of the links before deciding whether to use the information. I'm afraid I don't have Lexis nexis whatever that is, but I do have e-mail enabled if you can scan and email them. The second source isn't acdeptable by the way because its ""reportedly" we need something that is absolutely specific. The first one might do but we need to know the exact context and where it was published. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My mistake about the discussion postings, Spartaz. Thanks for informing me. I can provide the articles if you would like, because you cannot access them without paying for a LexisNexis account. I'm pretty sure it's not legal for me to reproduce them, but I can definitely email them to you if you would like. Also, I know that the passive voice "said to be living with...", "reportedly in a relationship with..." is problematic, but it also seems strange to leave any mention of Ms Bernard out of the entry. To negate Bernard is to err on the side of assuming Foster isn't in a relationship with her, and to include Bernard is to err on the side of assuming she is in a relationship with her. I tend to think that there is more evidence for the latter, but perhaps there can be a compromise on the terms by which the relationship is defined in the article?--Erin1983 23:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Erin. I have your e-mail but I'm a bit tied up at the moment and won't be able to come back to this quickly. In terms of compromise we need to either include or not include and this still depends on sourcing. If you need a quicker response you are very welcome to visit the kind people at the living persons noticeboard for a more informed answer. Sorry but this needs some really careful thought and I have too much going on to be able to do this right now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested to see where this ends up. I am quite glad that this page now includes brief mention of the fact Foster's sexuality has been the source of speculation, because the failure to include this did I think get quite glaring in the end. In this respect, she is the most speculated-about actress out there. However I think that is as far as it can go in the absence of public statements from Foster (or Bernard). Although, I see that on the pages for Saffron Burrows and Fiona Shaw their rumoured relationship is acknowledged with the caveat that neither actress has confirmed it, though neither has denied the rumours, either. Is it possible to do something like that here? Unlikelyheroine 05:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I should point out having used the articles as examples that I am one of the people who has edited Saffron Burrows and Fiona Shaw - I can't remember if I originally added details of their relationship but I did add references where mainstream UK papers have commented on the rumours that they are together, and no objections have been raised to this content so far. I have also changed it back a couple of times when people took out the "rumoured" and so on qualifications, bearing in mind the lack of confirmation from the actresses themselves. Unlikelyheroine 05:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that Ms. Foster has not declared because she doesn't want to be part of the strong political activism scene -- i.e. she doesn't think sex should be political nor that her decision should influence anyone else. You got to respect that stand and viewpoint. A lot of activists seem more offensive than the bashers. On the other hand I personally was suspicious of her as early as Foxes. By that time there was a certain edge to her acting with men. Doesn't change the fact that she is smart, talented and beautiful to both sexes. Men might just want to be a bit cautious how they interact with her or hear her opinions at loud volume. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation

Have removed unverifiable comments regarding Miss Foster's sexuality AGAIN. The comments are based upon gossip and are in no way encyclopedic. Please see the following article regarding possibly libelous comments:

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046726.html

--Blumby 10:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed that one website states she is an atheist (in addition to lesbian). I think they may just be assuming due to lack of released info, as we also know she doesn't like to release personal info, and she probably wouldn't release her religion. Remember, as stated from Silence of the Lambs: when you assume (a**|u|me), you make an a** out of u and me.71.243.165.144 00:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You're the one making an equal ass by assuming she does have a religion. She might not want to release info that she doesn't have a religion - ever thought of that? 86.136.195.8 09:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

--I just reput the info on her with a source - IMDB, which names her same-sex partner. I'd never heard this before, but a friend told me earlier today, and since IMDB has the info, I figured it's worth sticking back in. But yeah, it was good to remove it pre-source. --texasmusician 18 November 2006

Sorry, we are particularly careful to only include well-sourced facts about living people - please see WP:BLP. Particularly when the facts are potentially controversial. Its Ms. Foster's perogative to keep this aspect of her life private if she wishes to, and Wikipedia is not the place to give currency to rumors. IMDB is not a reliable enough source. Sorry, Gwernol 21:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Now she's been listed as one of "Out" magazine's 50 most powerful homosexuals in the US. (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/04/out_ranks_the_top_50_gays_ande.html). Don't know if that's a reliable source, but it might prompt a public reaction... ShaleZero 05:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that she's going to jeopardize her career by declaring herself a lesbian. The only reliable source about Jodie Foster's sexuality is Jodie Foster. Anyone or anything else's opinion is only speculation and heresay, and is therefore not a reliable source for Wikipedia. --Wasted Sapience 21:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeopardise her career? What are you, a homophobe? Look at Rosie O'Donnell, look at Ellen DeGeneres. Their careers aren't suffering because of their sexual orientation. How utterly offensive. 82.163.182.91 23:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely that is worthy of mention, whether she's "out" or not, she's been ranked as powerful, and by a reputable source for that, regardless if she's in, out, or whatever. It does seem as though some people here are regarding homosexuality as a slur. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Concretecow (talk • contribs) 07:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

This article about an Out magazine article comes right out and says she's a Lesbian. At the very least we can say she's been living with the same woman for umpteen years. --Gbleem 13:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between stating sexual orientation and stating that someone has been in a long term relationship with a certain individual. The thread above "Jodie Foster is a lesbian?" is currently discoursing the debate about how and what to say, and who/how to attribute the info. ZueJay (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Then we can agree to put in something like: She has been living with whatshername for umpteen years. (canada.now) In another statement we can say something like: she was listed by Out magazine as a powerful lesbian yet she herself has never publicly stated she is a lesbian. (Out Magazine)--Gbleem 03:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Including something like She has been living with whatshername for umpteen years.[reliable source] --> Yes, why not. But why Canada.com? Aren't there much better sources?

Including something like: she was listed by Out magazine as a powerful lesbian yet she herself has never publicly stated she is a lesbian. (Out Magazine) --> Listed... not quite when seen in context. I think Out (wisely) presented it as speculation rather than researched fact. Anyway, I'd say this is insufficiently sourced if not repeated in more mainstream sources (the gay magazine called "Out" is pretty partisan in this respect). This Google search will give you an indication of how other sources are picking up the Out article (example). Or perhaps there are sufficient sources to say something about her being often described as "in the closet"?

I've never read the Out article. If that's what it says then say Out put her on the list but that Out admitted she has never stated she is a lesbian. My point is report what the article said and leave any speculation to the reader.--Gbleem 09:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, anyone here ever read this delightful article on the subject? AvB ÷ talk 09:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I see there is no implication of lesbianism in this article while there are plenty of gay implications regarding other celebrities in their bios! Biased? Someone in Wikipedia is favourable to Jodie Foster? Foster lives with a woman. Why is that not stated. Why are there no gay 'rumours' printed here about her when there is gay 'rumour's printed about other celebrities on the Wikepedia?!!!????????? MRMAGOO3 02:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)MRMAGOO3MRMAGOO3 02:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

See above. For the rest, if a rumor is well-sourced (see WP:V, WP:RS) it still needs to be assessed separately by the editors involved (see WP:consensus). Some rumors make the grade while others don't. One problem with sexual orientation is that it's not something you can measure objectively. People are gay when they say they are. Foster doesn't say. Yet it looks like she is. So we have a rumor. AvB ÷ talk 09:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

By the same token, should we remove all references to sexuality in the articles on Noel Coward or Liberace . . ? Mule Man 20:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of people's positions on whether to mention sexual orientation in the article, the language of the discussion seems unintentionally hurtful and sometimes misguided. Ostensibly trying to protect the subject from "rumors" that she is a lesbian, some have used words like "libelous" and "allegation." Saying she is a lesbian is not an allegation, for two reasons: there is nothing wrong with being a lesbian, and WP's policy against original research would prohibit trying to prove she is ;) Reliable sources (e.g. Out magazine) report that the statement is true, and truth is a complete defense to libel, so the statement is not libelous either. So, if you want to protect the subject's privacy, I suggest choosing words that do not inadvertently insult her, or her reported partner, or their relationship.

I would also like to address MRMAGOO3's question about a favourable bias to Jodie Foster compared to other celebrities, because the issue is more complicated than that. Consider Anderson Cooper's biography, where there has been much discussion and I provided links to numerous sources reporting that he is gay, and added that back into his biography. (It had been there before, then got deleted, and the cycle has repeated.) Although Anderson does not discuss the issue publicly and deflects questions about it, he himself asked a country singer's sexual orientation during a TV interview. So, he does not apparently view the matter as a secret, he just doesn't discuss it himself, i.e. he doesn't make himself the story. Searching for news reports about a news reporter seems like fair play to me, especially since he talks to interviewers about so many other aspects of his personal life. Likewise David Bowie has made many public statements on the subject, sometimes contradictory. In contrast, Jodie Foster has always guarded her privacy about almost everything, and respects everyone else's privacy also.

I disagree with Midnightguinea's statement that this particular fact requires five sources (why five?), compared to other facts that require only one. I did provide several for Anderson Cooper, but it felt frustrating that some people insist on treating this one fact so differently from all other facts. Stalking the web for information on Jodie Foster would just feel awkward, since she is not a reporter and tries to keep as much distance from news media as a successful actor can.

I really don't have an opinion as to whether the article should mention the Out cover story, or the other reports, although I do think the context of this article differs legitimately from some others. Mainly I wish people would choose more neutral language, and I suggest that those who might have a favourable bias towards her would do well to choose language that shows more respect for her personally, including her family. Considering that so many female celebrities have endured bad heterosexual relationships (e.g., Tina Turner's marriage to Ike), the life that Jodie Foster has built for herself and her family deserves respect. Perhaps if her fellow actor Arnold Schwarzenegger had not vetoed same-sex marriage in California, the relationship would be a matter of public record and that part of the article would write itself.TVC 15 01:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mensa membership

I couldn't find a single reliable source stating that she's a member of Mensa. Could you please specify "citation neeeded" or something?

How about http://scam.us.mensa.org/WhyBother.html? It's on the mensa website. Wikipedia brown 05:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I never saw Foster mentioned in the other reference, but I did find this -http://www.thefreeman.com/lifestyle/story-20030815-8575.html I don't know what The Freedman is since it's homepage won't load for me. If it's a reliable source, use it. --Wasted Sapience 20:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion?

An anon editor put in a reference for the claim that she's an atheist - url=http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Jodie_Foster The link states: "She also described her beliefs as similar to those of her character in the movie and that she can certainly never have proof of god's existence or non-existence." Nowhere in the text does it say that she claimed to be an atheist. Never having proof (a belief) of existence or non-existence would lead me to think that she's either an agnostic or an atheist. It doesn't necessarily mean that she is absolutely one or the other. Dismas|^(talk) 11:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, she seems to be agnostic. Other online sources (which are all much more reliable than CelebAtheists, see my statement at Talk:Julianne Moore) quote her as professing agnostic beliefs yet loving religion anyway, stating that she loves to read religious texts. Dr. Hannibal Lecter 16:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the following: "Foster does not follow any "traditional religion," but has "great respect for all religions" and enjoys reading religous texts.Q and A with Jodie Foster Jeanne Wolf. E! Online. July 1997. Sourced, not controversial, in line with BLP. Who's a better source on Jodie Foster than Foster herself? --Wasted Sapience 21:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Image

The other image looked so much better. --Wasted Sapience 23:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that current picture is so not encyclopedic. __________

Even if it is less encyclopaedic, can we find one which doesn't look so... insane? 58.175.136.68 07:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Template

I just created that template, modeled after Template:Jim Carrey. I'll leave it up to someone else to decide what to do with it. Don't know why my text is appearing in the template itself in the 'show preview' mode. --Wasted Sapience 15:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There we go. --Wasted Sapience 15:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That template is probably going to be deleted soon. Enjoy while you can. --Wasted Sapience 23:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Top 10 Jodie Foster Movies

I have a fancy little trivia book, The Top Ten of Everything 2000, by Russell Ash, DK Publishing, Inc. 1999. On page 182, it gives Foster's top ten movies by gross income, listed below. Should it be of any use in this article, perhaps someone could include it. --Wasted Sapience 20:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

1. The Silence of the Lambs
2. Maverick
3. Contact
4. Sommersby
5. Nell
6. The Accused
7. Taxi Driver
8. Freaky Friday
9. Little Man Tate
10. Home for the Holidays (directed only)

Weight post-Yale

I'd like to remove the following: "She gained significant weight while at Yale." That would be very difficult to reference with a reliable source, and I think we may have a potential good article on our hands. That is, if we can all get over the speculation about her sexuality... --Wasted Sapience 23:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Good decision to remove - it's awfully tabloid. ZueJay (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.celebheights.com/s/Jodie-Foster-117.htm not accessible.

taxi driver plot

why is the plot for taxi driver included - there's already an article about that. Should it not at least have a spoiler warning - im sure there's someone out there who hasn't seen it--Roece 22:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead sentence

I removed the part about the media believing her to be the greatest actress ever or whatever that was. The lead is now a little redundant/chunky sorry, but that line was questionable. --Tom 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Why the tabloid photo?

I am curious to know why this supposedly serious article is headed by an embarassing, and obviously caught off guard, photo such as used by tabloid newspapers to take cheap shots at high achieving public figures. Not only does it distort her face but it creates an impression at odds with the actors demonstrated character. Surely there's a more relevant and characteristic photo availble.tobalwin 08:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We have rather strict copyright policies here on Wikipedia, and we can't use press photos in general. This is one of only two photos of Foster (that I know of) that are licensed under terms that we can use. That said, I don't see what's so "embarrassing" about this photo. I think it's rather cute. —Chowbok ☠ 19:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The picture is rather candid, but in order to comply with Wikipedia's image policies, it's about all that can be used. Unless, of course, you can get her to pose for a personal image ;-). Sadly, due to her secretive nature and the hands off approach by Mass media towards Foster, we really don't know what she's like. Вasil | talk 21:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

She's going to be "local" soon shooting "Nim's Island" [I live in North Queensland,Australia] so i'll try and ask her for a Wikipedia pic. tobalwin 14:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Lots of luck! Вasil | talk 14:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Pity we can't use the Forbes top 100 celebrities photo of Jodie. [www.forbes.com/lists/2006/53/WSFG.html] Now that's what I call a good pic! [but i'll still try when she's here]. tobalwin 14:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Need to edit one of the films that she was in

{{editprotected}} Please edit the film Abby Singer the she had a cameo in for the link is pointed to Abby Singer (the person) and not Abby Singer (film) Thanks for you help.Wembly Hall Theatre Company 20:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Include Siblings

• Sister is Connie Foster (Constance Elizabeth Foster (born 1955-09-30, Los Angeles, California, USA))

Connie Foster at iMdb

• Brother is Buddy Foster (Lucius Fisher Foster IV (born 1957-07-12, Los Angeles, California, USA))

Buddy Foster at iMdb

• Thanks --Trekphiler 01:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Info cited to IMDb removed

I've just removed from the article a WP:BLP-violating statement about Foster's personal life that was cited to her IMDb.com biography. Please note that IMDb, like Wikipedia, is user-edited and so is not a reliable source. Extraordinary Machine 19:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

WIFE and children

do you people really need more than this?: http://www.afterellen.com/sites/www.afterellen.com/files/images/sabanhands7207.jpeg

18 year old photo not relevant

Would it be possible to get a relative photo of Jodie Foster on the web page? A photo which is 18 years old is misleading to her current age. 121.50.202.71 04:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

New photo is horrible

Please replace. SauronTheFair 18:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that photo sucks. CyberRaptor 03:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sexuality - again..

I know Foster's a lesbian, *you* know she's a lesbian, she's living with a woman. BUT - she's never said she's a lesbian. She's never said she's in a relationship with Bernard. I challenge anyone to find a reliable source where she says either of those things is true. Until and unless she does, per the policy on Biographies of Living People the paragraph (and categories) cannot say she's a lesbian. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Whilst not being a direct acknowledgement, what she says in this article does imply her having a relationship with Bernard (being a quite reliable source at the same time): Daily Telegraph "Jodie Foster reveals her lesbian lover" (83.144.116.134 (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

Yeah but implied doesn't mean true. More to the point, is this really encyclopedic? She's made an effort to keep her sexuality private, and so until a body of referenceable sources appears to confirm it and demonstrate if it is notable, we probably ought to err on the side of privacy. WP:BLP says we should hold off until it is notable, relevant and well documented, and I'd say it is none of these atm. Wellspring (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

End of speculation

According to both newspaper and television news sources she has admitted her relationship during a Women in Entertainment breakfast during an award acceptance speech. This should end the pointless speculation that has plagued this article. Someone please update the article appropriately - perhaps the page needs to be locked to prevent childish vandalism that has been going on. FatDaks (talk) 07:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the news reports by the *one* reporter that was there, Greg Hernandez of Los Angeles Daily News (see [5]), she still never says she's a lesbian or in a relationship with Bernard. She thanked "my beautiful Cydney who sticks with me through all the rotten and the bliss." That's all we can report, too - we still can't label her as a lesbian. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Jodie's first press mention of her partner in this article in September in The Denver Post. --Moni3 (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry? I see the interview with Foster, but there's no mention of Bernard. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's subtle: " I need to have something that doesn't belong to my mom, doesn't belong to my kids (she has two sons, a 9-year-old and 6-year-old), doesn't belong to my partner." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Having a partner does not consider her a lesbian

Please people. She has never given us a definition of her sexuality. She may be bisexual. She may be pansexual. She may be in a completely platonic a-sexual relationship for all we know. We need to be careful that we arn't doing the speculation.LessThanClippers (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well said, LessThanClippers. Aleta (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I can agree...one would certainly (and logically) conclude that she would be of homosexual orientation considering the news of late, that of a "partner" close to her heart, but this is an encyclopedia of facts, there is no room for assumption. Vil51J (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the "please people" comment. It's applicable to every side in this discussion. Everyone knows Jodie Foster is a lesbian. What we're missing is video of her sleeping with a woman, and the quote from her mouth saying that she is one of perhaps four labels that would satisfy us in this dilemma. She has a partner, whom she addressed affectionately in a public forum, and with whom she is raising two children who share her partner's name.

Editors at Wikipedia also use what printed sources there are. And there are now several that state Jodie Foster came out, including stories in: {http://www.gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19111764&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=568857&rfi=6 Gay City News], The Times, The Guardian, The Daily Express, and reported on video on CNN and by Joan Rivers. I understand that the LA Times reporter was the first to break this story, but Jodie's not an idiot. In fact, she's very sharp and media savvy, having been in this business since age 3. She knows how to assert her privacy, clearly. She had to have known what her remarks would have done in the news. How does an editor at Wikipedia control a story when the story is being reported in reputable, diverse, and widespread sources? To what truth do we have responsibility? --Moni3 (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

She thanked her partner. That's it. We can't be responsible for what other papers make of that. In fact, almost all of them fall short of calling Foster a lesbian - they say "She thanked her lesbian partner", which is not the same thing. Besides, BLP is clear - we can't label someone something they don't label themselves. See Little Richard and Larry Craig. We can say that many sources have debated her sexuality - but that's already in the article. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is like the shirt - I'm not gay but my girlfriend is. "She thanked her lesbian partner" doesn't mean she's...please acknowledge that this seems a bit silly to you. I understand the integrity we must keep - I'm right with you thinking Keeley Hawes isn't being represented as she is. And if Little Richard says he's not gay, and there are no reports that he's being a hypocrite about it, then go nuts, Little Richard - you're not gay. However, it would be censorship to keep information from the article that is being printed. I'm not saying it's being censored now, and I'm not for calling to declare her a lesbian. What can be done in the article so far, is being done: this is what is being reported. But it's a precarious precedent to hold: not until she strictly uses one of four terms should the personal life section be altered to discuss her personal life. --Moni3 (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Since when does anyone refer to someone as 'my lesbian partner?' Like introducing 'my straight wife,' it just isn't the way that people talk. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) It totally is precarious - and silly. I've said before, I (along with most of the rest of the world) would probably use the word "lesbian" to describe Foster. But Wikipedia can't use the word and can't put her in Category:Lesbian actors until/unless she actually says she has a female lover, is a lesbian, or words to that effect.

She didn't say lesbian partner - the newspapers are. She said partner.

The article as it stands is pretty darn good and could probably be put up for GA. Or do you want to try FA buddying it? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it can go up for GA at least. At one point there was a discussion about the book her brother wrote, with a quote from Foster responding to it. Is there a reason why that's no longer here? Otherwise, I think it would be a good GA candidate. FA will take a lot more sources, I think. --Moni3 (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood, but on CNN a few days ago, Foster 'came out of the closet'. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The CNN video I think you're referring to started with her thanking her partner, and went into what it is like for actors to come out in the media. They might have declared Foster out in the CNN video, but our discussion here is about the fine line between the statements of "Thanks, darlin'!" and "I'm a big ol' homo." Despite the fact that several reputable news outlets have declared her out, they did so on the strength of her thanking her partner in public venue. Is it the same thing? That's what we're fussing about. --Moni3 (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I know we shouldn't make assumptions (as Foster hasn't directly said she wasn't straight), but her partner is a female (like Foster). A 'same gender' couple is a homosexual couple, aren't they? GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good assumption. And were you seeing any two women on the street raising kids together calling each other partner, that would probably be the idea you take in. However, the standards of Biography of Living Persons rules are very strict. Because Foster is a public figure, we can only report what has been reported in other sources, and right now, Foster seems to be coming out in tiny degrees in different sources once a month. She may not ever call herself a lesbian or gay in the media - some people don't label themselves. It is bewildering, indeed. --Moni3 (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it our job to put in only what others report, it is not our job to tell the truth or decide what is the truth. And it is being widely reported as fact that she is lesbian. If you can find a source that says she is not a lesbian then that would be taken into account, but otherwise this whole thing seems pretty straight forward to me. JayKeaton (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It is also not our job to deduce or do original research. The fact of the matter is she has not actually come out. We can say that news organizations are claimign she came out, btu my earlier arguement still stands, she has not actually come out.LessThanClippers (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There are degrees of coming out. What she hasn't done is say the words "I am homosexual/lesbian/gay/bisexual." in the mass media. Maybe she feels like she doesn't have to, or she doesn't like the labels. Those words would be really convenient for our purposes, but she is reported as being out in some very reputable sources. --Moni3 (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to a label, I personally can't see us using it, unless she doesLessThanClippers (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If & when she fully comes out of the closet, I wonder who'll break the news to John Hinckley, Jr.? GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)