Talk:Jodie Foster

what the heck?

in 1991 she skipped an interview with the today show and later wrote an article about it in 1982? ms. foster has a time machine?

Entire entry needs a good edit

Overhaul sorely needed on this! There are several needless repetitions as well as a few contradictions - for example, her first credited TV appearance - was it 1968? 1970? Doris Day or? It also needs a source for the Leni Riefenstahl film Foster is said to be developing. The personal life section is a bit scanty as well. The Light Frantastic (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Huh?

This article concludes: "Foster is an atheist[60] and does not follow any "traditional religion." She has discussed the god of the gaps.[61][62] Foster has "great respect for all religions" and spends "a lot of time studying divine texts, whether it's Eastern religion or Western religion."[34][63] She and her children celebrate both Christmas and Hannukah.[64] Some sources claim that Foster is a member of Mensa,[65][66] but Foster herself denied that she is a member in an interview on Italian TV network RAI.[67]" This is one messed up paragraph. The first sentence is silly - if she's an atheist, it would be redundant to further state she doesn't follow a "traditional religion" since the basic concept of any such religion would be the existence of God. This paragraph would appear to be about her religious beliefs, yet concludes discussing whether she belongs to Mensa? Is Mensa a religion now (sorry but I didn't get the memo). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.139 (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ms Foster told 'Entertainment Weekly' in 2007 that she did not believe in God, but that she and her children love religious services. Ms Foster said she loves all the worlds religions and her children engage in Christian and Jewish Festivals. So unless anyone can find another quote later than Entertainment Weekly in 2007, we can assume Ms Foster is an Atheist who is not at all hostile to Religion.Johnwrd (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Just watched an interview Jodi had with Warren Etheredge dated Aug 3, 2011: http://www.thehighbar.tv/2011/08/03/jodie-foster-on-mental-health/ She clearly states she is "agnostic" not "atheist". There is a big difference between those two stances and there is varying types or leanings or shades of gray in being agnostic. The impression I'm left with is that she is a spiritual agnostic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahleetan (talk • contribs) 14:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

~10:45: Warren: "I'm curious because, seemingly on record you're _at least_ an agnostic." Foster: "Yes, yes." This strikes me as less than "clear." Your agenda is showing. 108.236.198.139 (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Adult Career: Possible replacement?

The title Adult Career is highly reminiscent of a pornographic career; could anyone suggest a possible alternative? --Harsh ^{Mujhse baat kijiye(Talk)}(Contribs) 07:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Past tense?

why does the lede state that ms. foster "was" an actress? when did she announce her retirement? 76.9.81.43 (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Name?

Look I'm sure that Jodie is her stage name and nickname. I don't think she actually changed it. 101.165.55.71 (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal Life section

Wikipedia has a policy protecting living persons from gossip. The idea that Ms. Foster's sexual orientation has been "subject to speculation" indicates that the claim itself should be removed. Without a clear statement from Ms. Foster the claim should, by Wikipedia's standards on living persons, be removed.Catherinejarvis (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I have trimmed the personal life section in accordance with WP:BLP. It retains sources and undisputed factual material. Catherinejarvis (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The acceptance speech receiving the Cecil B. DeMille Award at this year's Golden Globes. -Mardus (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I just watched her speech, and I barely understood much of it, so I came here to read more, and I found very little. Is so little known of her personal life? Who is the father of her children? -ErinHowarth (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter who the father is, until a reputable source reports about it, or she actually says anything about it also to a reputable source. -Mardus (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Catherine, you're one of the same people who says Georgia O'Keefe was straight. She's not. Neither is Jodie Foster -- she just came out 5 minutes ago on the Golden Globes. GTFO. --98.246.156.76 (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I've watched her speech and, like most, would general accept that she's gay, and implied it during the speech. I vote to keep the statement. I've followed it up with link to YouTube. Somejeff (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

One video link has been removed, allegedly on copyright grounds. If a channel owner is a reputable news source (think CNN or something), and if it publishes an excerpt of her speech, then it would be good. -Mardus (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/2013-golden-globes/jodie-foster-golden-globes-speech-034436589.html

How's that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.120.116 (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Associated Press was not afraid to use this headline: "Foster reveals she's gay, suggests she's retiring" http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jD286_yd_urgOG3Kwrv-WYTezGdw?docId=d9a62e816d1c437698e295295080a8fe

 The Light Frantastic (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggested a clear statement was necessary and Ms. Foster has made a public statement which seems sufficient. However, it remains true that people should not be labeled on this site without evidence.Catherinejarvis (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

What evidence do you need? A sex tape? Jodie Foster IS a lesbian. Fact. NorthernThunder (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Film and tv career.

Looking over Ms. Foster's film career, I noticed there was no mention of her appearing in several episodes of the 1960's television show,The Courtship of Eddie's Father! I loved that show! She is one of those people who ages beautifully, I don't care what her sexual orientation is, it's nobody's business! If I remember correctly, she also appeared in a TV movie with Leif Garrett but, I don't remember the name of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.180.78.103 (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Coming out on the Golden Globes

Are we going to pretend this didn't happen? The same assholes on here who refuse to let any mention of Georgia O'Keefe being being GLBT added to her article are the same ones keeping it out of Jodie Foster's. Time to change that. --98.246.156.76 (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, her exact quote was: "I'm single". Officially, she heavily implied that she's gay. Somejeff (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, her exact quote was: "I already did my coming out about a thousand years ago." And she described Cydney Bernard as "one of the deepest loves of my life" and "my ex-partner in love." 50.124.130.158 (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There is now a transcript :-) -Mardus (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It was obvious that she acknowledged that she is gay in this speech by saying she came out a long time ago and by acknowledging her ex-partner. Single and gay are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason not to mention that she is openly gay. --Crunch (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that revealing one past romantic relationship with a woman makes it "obvious" that she is "gay", regardless of how many newspapers make that assumption. She could consider herself bisexual for all we know. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

See the AP article: "Foster reveals she's gay..." http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jD286_yd_urgOG3Kwrv-WYTezGdw?docId=d9a62e816d1c437698e295295080a8fe The Light Frantastic (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hasn't it been openly known for ages that Foster is a lesbian? It's nearly as well-known as Boy George being LGBT. I think it was disucssed already at he time of The Silence of the Lambs, and I know I've seen it referred to as a well-known fact by many a reputable (non-U.S.) news outlet over the past dozen years at least. Is the sensation that she named her girl-friend (who had been the subject of speculation herself before) or just that she did it in this kind of gala context? Gosh, you Americans. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There are people from all over the world (not just Americans) who edit Wikipedia. However, it is not the role of Wikipedia editors to repeat "speculation". If you have "reputable sources" from the past "dozen years" then by all means, feel free to cite them here and I (or another editor) will be happy to add them to the page. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This is nonsense and seems like a fan based Wikipedia. The lesbian lover she talked about at the Globes, she broke up with in 2008. She named her Cydney Bernard and made it clear. Everyone knows that. She painted it black and white and probably fell over when reading Wikipedia with the "suggestion" that she suggested she might be gay. Her entire speech was about her being gay since she was young, telling all her friends she was gay and anyone close to her. Then she even apologized to her mother for coming out in public in such a big way on the Golden Globes since it is clear her and her mother thought it would be best not to make a public spectacle about it. Her mother now has dementia is why she is saying she'd like to get through her blue eyes and into her head so she would understand why she went public now. She even talked about how her and Cydney Bernard raised her two boys. I'm not going to make any changes but I don't know why you that have been editing her bio for so long are beating around the bush... she certainly isn't.72.198.112.191 (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hesitancy to unequivocally state that Foster is "gay" on this page should not be interpreted as anti-gay sentiment. Foster could have easily avoided all of this ambiguity herself by addressing the issue head on, but she instead chose to make her own statement in her own way. This does not give us license to conclude "A+B=C". Now, since we have numerous (what most would consider) "reliable sources" which have concluded that this was her round-about way of "coming out" as gay/lesbian, I wouldn't necessarily object to quoting Foster's EXACT words and then possibly adding something like, "Many news sources interpreted these comments as Foster coming out as gay." But, unless/until she decides to clarify her cryptic statements on the matter, we cannot engage in synthesis by stating simply "Foster is gay", since, as far as I know, she could be bisexual. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

We should certainly avoid making assumptions about whether she identifies as "lesbian" or "bisexual" in the absence of her own words on that question, but the speech left absolutely no room for any rational doubt that she identifies herself with some branch of the LGBT community. We don't need to completely bury the whole thing just because she wasn't explicit enough about whether she identifies as L or B; the current situation, which acknowledges the statement but avoids pinning down whether she specifically identifies as L or B, is perfectly satisfactory. We should indeed avoid the specific word "lesbian", unless and until she clarifies that better than she did last night — but her words were more than clear enough about being somewhere in the LGBT spectrum that we do not need to pretend the whole thing just didn't happen at all. And those two things are not in contradiction with each other. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There are numerous threads about this subject on this page today, so it's hard to keep track, but as I previously stated in one of them, I don't have any problem with the quote on the page as it is now. I simply don't see any room to draw any conclusions other than citing what she, herself, has said. It would have been nice if she had been more clear, but for now all we have is her statement and we cannot draw any inferences beyond it. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't care about classifying her as LGBT or not, but there are facts. She had a relationship with Cydney Bernard. It started in 1993 and ended in 2008. There are multiple sources. Cydney adopted the their two children. They share custody. Please stop reverting these well-sourced facts. If anything the GG speech confirmed the relationship. Fight all you want about labels and cat's, but don't revert factual information that's been reported in many established sources. --DHeyward (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I found the problem with the Huffington Post link. It was broken and kept returning a 404 message. Daily Mail and AcesShowbiz didn't seem enough on their own, but I fixed Huffington Post link so I'm leaving the edit for now. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I have the other page being whitelisted for reference if necessary. The other information about her children being adopted by her former partner and joint custody has debateable encyclopedic value unless/until they become notable themselves but references to that arrangement supports a co-parenting arrangement as well as the previous relationship as parents. Just including the relationship covers the topic. --DHeyward (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit dispute?

User:Tbhotch has been removing category additions on the topic of Foster's sexuality, because she didn't say that she's a lesbian using the word 'lesbian'.

I admit that she might not have made gay or lesbian films, but I understand she just came out, so the categories should apply nevertheless. -Mardus (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No, sexuality is not black or white, be lesbian or straight. She might be lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, queer, asexual, etc., and there is no reference which proves she has said it. See Lindsay Lohan as well. BLP applies. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Likewise the LGBT portal for Sally Ride kencf0618 (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Ernestsewell removed the 2013 material with no explanation. What to do about it? -Mardus (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

MS asked him about it. He hasn't explained himself. He should be probably reverted considering Mail Online is not the definition of reliable. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The 2013 and 2007 paras were connected and while I had doubts about Daily Mail, then the source for the 2013 proclamation was The Guardian itself. -Mardus (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I recall, there were paragraphs about Foster's 2007 speech, with, what I believe were sources more reliable than Daily Mail, but these have been removed, so now there's the Daily Mail source for her 2007 speech. -Mardus (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

MS explained it very well in my talk page "[The] Guardian apparently relies on her vague Golden Globe speach, yet they went ahead with stating she is lesbian." (italics mine). She never say that, how the Guardian implied that? Is something we should ask the author. This article can't be compared to Sally Ride, because Ride has died. This is more like what happened with Jim Parsons. Right now, we cannot decide what happened at her speech. She, right now, might be interviewed by multiple sources and this might be resolved later, but now we can't choose arbitrarily one side. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm removing all mentions of homosexuality. What I figure from the news sources, they are all rumors without any firm statement (either from her or from authoritative sources), basically chit-chat on a topic that some tabloids can't miss. Take this [1] for example. It states firmly "girlfriend" in the title, yet right below adds "reportedly", "it is believed", and so forth. This might be added in proper phrasing, e.g., saying that she acknowledged relations, yet never said what kind of relations. Materialscientist (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I remember raeding about Foster's 2007 speech, where in a small awards ceremony she only thanked "Cydney" and that was that, while LGBT and gossip publications took that as a hint. The current speech is much more. Looks like news publications are not sure either. -Mardus (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I added a BLPN report while MS removal was done. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Only saw all this chat after adding edit re birth of her children and years of relationship with Cydney Bernard per this [2]. Should I revert ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 05:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That source adds every now and then "has reportedly ended", "it is believed", "Their alleged split" - I would seek something better or not add it at all. Materialscientist (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Google "Jodie Foster Gay" and you will find more than enough credible citations from mainstream media to warrant listing her as gay in this article. --Crunch (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure I did, and found that (i) they are not many and are not major news agencies (it seems that major US sources are silent on this), (ii) those of them that might be treated as reliable do read as speculations drawn from her vague speeches and a few paparazzi photos. Materialscientist (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Is AP major enough? Sounds like they got the retirement part wrong, are not hesitant about her sexuality: "Foster reveals she's gay, suggests she's retiring" http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jD286_yd_urgOG3Kwrv-WYTezGdw?docId=d9a62e816d1c437698e295295080a8fe (talk) The Light Frantastic (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

<Indent>Sure, AP is major enough, but. This article repeats the pattern: clear title and very vague body (maybe because news titles must be focused). Just read the first sentence, "Jodie Foster came out without really coming out, and suggested she was retiring from acting without exactly saying so". The rest basically repeats her speech and rambling from other sources - poor journalism for AP, which is supposed to set the standards. Materialscientist (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

How's this:

• Fox News: "Jodie Foster reveals she's gay, suggests she's retiring" http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/01/14/jodie-foster-reveals-gay-suggests-retiring/
• US Weekly: "Jodie Foster Gay: Actress Comes Out at Golden Globes 2013" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/13/jodie-foster-gay-golden-globes_n_2469439.html
• UPI.com "Actress-director Jodie Foster publicly comes out as gay at Globes" http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/Movies/2013/01/13/Actress-director-Jodie-Foster-comes-out-as-gay-at-Globes/UPI-22611358133629/
• Reuters: "Jodie Foster comes out as gay at Golden Globes" http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-rt-us-goldenglobes-fosterbre90d0by-20130114,0,3943596.story
  
• Newark Star-Ledger: "Jodie Foster makes most public coming out at 2013 Golden Globes" http://www.nj.com/entertainment/celebrities/index.ssf/2013/01/jodie_foster_makes_most_public.html
  

These are a few of the better known mainstream media reports. This clearly fits Wikipedia standards. --Crunch (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the addition as it appears on the page now. I think, because she didn't explicitly say "I am a lesbian" or "I am gay" (which is what some people will want to wait for before any mention of it here), it's best to use her exact quotes rather than synthesis summarizing them. I personally feel describing Cydney as her "ex-partner in love" is clear enough for the reader to interpret for themselves. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The statement as it currently appears is satisfactory. We can acknowledge that she identifies herself with the LGBT community and categorize her as such; the only thing we can't do, given the somewhat vague nature of her speech last night, is to make an extra assumption about which particular quadrant, "lesbian" or "bisexual", she actually identifies herself with. But there's no contradiction between those two things; there are plenty of notable people out there who are openly LGBT yet retain some ambiguity about which particular letter they fall under, but we still describe and categorize them as being LGBT. (To name just two examples that come to mind, Michael Urie and Libby Davies.) We just don't get more specific than that until better sources can be found, that's all — note, for example, the way she's been categorized at present: instead of Category:Lesbian actors, which would entail an original research assumption as to whether she more properly belonged there or in Category:Bisexual actors, we've applied Category:LBT women and Category:LGBT actors, both categories that are fully supported by her speech as delivered, and are thus wholly valid. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

According to our [[WP:BLP] policy, we cannot categorize her as anything unless and until she herself comes out and states it directly. If she had said, in so many words, "I am a member of the LGBT community", I would not be arguing the point, but she did not, nor did she self-identify as a lesbian or as bisexual. The policy is unambiguous. Please do not re-add the categories. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Her words were entirely unambiguous. Talking about her female ex-partner, in a speech that specifically invoked her process of "coming out a thousand years ago", cannot possibly be interpreted to mean anything else no matter how far you stretch the boundaries of semantic logic. The categories most certainly are supported by her speech, and WP:BLP does not preclude their use — it precludes filtering her into "lesbian" or "bisexual" subcategories, given that she failed to clarify that question, but she most certainly did not fail to make it unequivocally clear that she is LGBT. She just failed to dwell on the subject excessively, which ain't the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCAT we do not add categories based on what we think people are, we add them based on what they themselves say they are. So until and unless Foster identifies herself as lesbian or bisexual, the LGBT categories cannot be added. I am removing them as a violation of WP:BLP. Please do not re-add them until the situation changes. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The categories in question were based on her own statements. Foster has said, in a statement which left absolutely no room for any rational doubt, that she is a member of the LGBT community — the only thing she failed to do was to specifically clarify whether "lesbian" or "bisexual" would be the more appropriate subgroup for her, but she was quite clear and unmistakable that she falls somewhere in that identity spectrum. And by virtue of using general "LGBT" groupings and avoiding any speculation about which particular letter she identifies with, the categories that were chosen were correctly reflective of the actual situation and were fully in accordance with her own statement. Your move was inappropriate; the categories that were chosen were, and are, wholly valid and correct and in full accordance with WP:BLP as applied. Recatting her in Category:Lesbian actors or Category:Bisexual actors instead of Category:LGBT actors would be a BLP violation; filing her in the label-nonspecific Category:LGBT actors category is not. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

At what point do we pull our dicks out to see whose is the largest? It's her life and if she makes a statement regarding her sexuality, we respect it. Hence she confirms being gay, WE POST IT. End of fucking story. RAP (talk) 7:07 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article for 3 days because of the edit warring. Work it out here, and/or at the BLP noticeboard, folks. LadyofShalott 05:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I wholly agree with Bearcat. Categorizing her as "LGBT" is unquestionably within reason; this is the second time she has publicly "came out", and both times (in 2007 and 2013) came years after she had denied her sexuality (in 1997). It is completely understandable that this is a sensitive subject (as is evidenced by the fact that Jodie Foster was so hesitant to reveal this about herself). The fact is, however, she has very publicly discussed her sexuality twice now, and there exist numerous reliable sources who have reported that she "came out" (sources both in 2007 and in 2013). The continued attempt to keep this information out of this article would make sense (and I would agree with it) if she had not so publicly discussed it herself; that means it is not something which can be argued as being somehow inconsequential to her public life, so there is no reasonable argument for "privacy". In my opinion, there exists no valid reason to not have this article fully recognize that Jodie Foster has firmly acknowledged her sexuality.  Chickenmonkey  08:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no attempt whatsoever to keep information out of the article - it would be extremely odd if the article did not discuss press speculation about her sexuality and even her past statements. The issue with the categories is not whether people think Foster is a lesbian, it is what label Foster herself chooses to adopt. She has not made any clear statement and the categories cannot be added until she does. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, adding those LGBT categories is not saying she's a lesbian. It is an acronym for four different terms for a reason. No one is adding the category "Lesbian actors" (if there is one). Because she herself has come out as nonheterosexual, which no is arguing she hasn't, adding the very inclusive and nonspecific "LGBT" category should be a nonissue. Considering the article itself states (quoting Foster at first): "...I already did my coming out about 1,000 years ago back in the stone age, those very quaint days when a fragile young girl would open up to trusted friends and family and co-workers, and then gradually and proudly to everyone who knew her, to everyone she actually met." She thanked her former partner of 20 years, production manager Cydney Bernard, calling her "my heroic co-parent, my ex-partner in love...," it's odd not to have this article in an inclusive nonheterosexual category. (Not to mention the unambiguous sentence "Foster broke up with her long-time girlfriend, Cydney Bernard, in 2008.") Those statements are non-controversial to you (i.e., you agree they're well sourced enough to be in the article), but adding a category that indicates she's not heterosexual, based on information in the article from her own words, is? I don't get it. I guess we'll see what happens in Request for Comment. Moncrief (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the "Foster broke up with her girlfriend" bit numerous times, but an editor determined to find a way to put it into the article kept insisting on adding it, so I finally got tired and gave up hoping someone else would step up, which is when the article was placed on "lock down" over the editing dispute regarding cats. The subject of reports of her sexuality was better written (and better sourced) previously, but was "scrubbed" from the page a few weeks ago prior to her Golden Globes speech. When the lock expires I plan on restoring some of the previous wording (and sources) that was in the article (as much of it clearly met the WP:NPOV criteria better), but for now the page is essentially frozen in the middle of several editing disputes unless someone feels an urgent need to bug an admin about it (which I don't). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Can I also point out that ignoring Foster's statements and insisting that she use some magic words, is, in effect, labelling her straight by default. That's pretty disrespectful.--Ibis3 (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Look guys, we're all adults here and we all know what she was trying to say, but the bottom line is she did not come right out and just say it. Yes, most reasonable people have interpreted Foster's convoluted little "speech" as acknowledging that she is not heterosexual (as demonstrated in the numerous mainstream media sources cited here proclaiming that she announced that she is "gay"), but until she specifically states what she considers herself to be, it's open for interpretation. She could categorize herself as lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, or any number of other ways (hell, some people "experiment" all though college and later insist that they still consider themselves to be heterosexual). Yes, she referred to "coming out", but the term has almost become a pop-culture colloquialism (e.g., I've heard people "come out" as a "closet" fan of "Honey-Boo-Boo"). It's sad that in 2013 we live in a world where someone's sexuality is still such a touchy subject, but that's the way it is. Foster could have put an end to this Sunday night and just stated unequivocally whatever it was she was trying to say, but her cryptic "coded" language/inferences aren't going to be enough (maybe enough for the mainstream press to jump to their own conclusions, but it will never be enough for editors to reach consensus here). The lock is going to expire in two days and since it's clear we're never going to reach a consensus about this, I think it's best to agree to just leave any LGBT cats out for now. Foster wants to have it both ways, claiming that she's "come out" without ever actually "coming out". You can't really get frustrated with the editors here for the ambiguity that Foster herself continues to perpetuate with her convoluted little non-declaration declarations. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ibis3, the lack of LGBT categories indicates that the person has not identified themselves as LGBT, nothing more. I would object just as strongly to labelling someone heterosexual who had not chosen to adopt that label for themselves. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how one can be a woman who has had a self-described romantic relationship with another woman for 20 years and not be either L or B in GLBT. Do you? Where in BLP does it say someone has to use programmatic coming-out language in order to be identified as GLBT? Moncrief (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If she has referred to herself as LGBT, I would be fine with those categories. Has she? If not, we wait until she chooses to apply a label to herself. Anything else violates the policy. Foster's words are included in the article and readers can draw their own conclusions without the categories. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You are inventing a litmus test for sexual orientation, that someone must declare it in a programmatic way, in words that are suitable for you, that does not exist in BLP. By no means, and I hope this is obvious, do I think Wikipedia should ever in any way "out" anyone -- people who go to even the most minimal effort to hide or never discuss their sexual orientation in the public sphere must always be respected Wiki-wise -- but Foster has come out, not in the programmatic three-word-declaration way, but she didn't do it that way precisely to make a point that it needn't be done that way. In her own words, she tells us that she came out to everyone who matters to her personally long ago. I'm not going to expend much more mental energy on this, because at one level it's absurd, as categories aren't exactly what people gravitate to when they read an article, but I hope you reconsider your narrow views about there being only one way to come out of the closet, and I hope you reconsider your application of a non-stated-in-BLP litmus test to sexual orientation and sexual orientation only. Moncrief (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit: I really wish I hadn't just now noticed your edit summary, which says "That dog won't hunt." That's dismissive and uncivil and assumes bad faith. It's entirely possible to perceive this topic from a number of angles. Your insistence that one must say the specific words "I am [X]" (and no variation thereof, certainly not talking about having come out a "thousand years ago" or discussing one's multidecade romantic relationship with a woman) in order for one to be X is in fact a minority position here. Moncrief (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Coming out is (as the article makes clear) all about the LGBT. But for some people "I am a confirmed muff diver" wouldn't be sufficient. C'est la vie (at least in les Etats Unis). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Moncrief, you seem to be confusing real life with Wikipedia. We are talking about Wikipedia categories, not my belief about Foster's sexuality or anyone's choice to come out. The policy says (in part) "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question". It does not matter if I am in the minority - consensus cannot override policy. I'm not sure what you think "that dog won't hunt" means, but it is not uncivil or assuming bad faith. That said, unless you have a new argument, perhaps we can stop going in circles. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Er, Wikipedia isn't a multilevel role playing game. It is meant to document real life. I have no interest in what you personally think of Foster's sexual orientation. She has come out. She has identified her orientation as being LGBT. Your perception seems to be that she hasn't because she hasn't done it in a way that I guess is most familiar to you. I am not going in circles. You seem to restate the same position without appreciating that others are intelligent enough to understand Wikipedia's policies without having them repeated. Clearly, for whatever reason, you think Foster has not sufficiently self-identified as nonheterosexual. I and others get that and disagree. Rather than articulating why you believe she hasn't, you fall back on a policy we already understand and rely on cliches like "that dog won't hunt" and "going in circles." Not particularly convincing. Moncrief (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Can't consensus change policy? NYSMy talk page 00:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, the disagreement is not whether or not the subject of an article has to publicly self-identify; the disagreement is about whether or not the subject of this article has already publicly self-identified. Some people believe she has, and some people believe she has not.  Chickenmonkey  01:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that's the problem. Self-identified as what? If she really had "come out" then there wouldn't be any room for disagreement as to whether she had come out or not. I personally feel she's made it reasonably clear that she's not traditionally heterosexual, but she hasn't stated exactly what she is. Lesbian? Bisexual? Pansexual? Heterosexual who was formerly involved in a homosexual relationship? Asexual who was formerly involved in a homosexual relationship? Foster consistently insists upon perpetuating this ambiguity herself. I'm know she thought she was being "poetic" with her rambling 6½ minute "song", but the whole thing reads to me as being approximately too cute by half. As far as I'm concerned, the Wikipedia LGBT categories are a badge of honor she hasn't earned. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

As the admin who protected the article, I have no intention of entering this argument, but "badge of honor"??? LadyofShalott 02:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely you didn't think this was just about categories? These kinds of vigorous debates about which labels to attach to BLP subjects almost always have political underpinnings. That's why I defend the hard line of the policy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

LadyofShallott - I was referring to the people who actually do step up and say what they mean without making long confusing speeches and using "code" words. Since Sunday there have been implications that anyone who doesn't feel comfortable drawing our own conclusions that Foster is "gay" or "lesbian", etc, is somehow harboring anti-gay sentiment, when the problem is with Foster's own convoluted rationalizations. I respect anyone's right to not want to disclose details of their personal life, but as I've previously stated, Foster appears to want to have it both ways, which doesn't work for the purposes Wikipedia. A person has either "come out" or they haven't. When someone's alleged "coming out" creates more questions than answers (we can cite just as many reliable news sources that expressed confusion with regards to her speech as we can those that interpreted it as a "coming out"), then we can't blame other editors for not being comfortable placing her in a category that she herself appears to be uncomfortable talking about. If that speech was the best she could do, then she probably would have been better off not saying anything at all. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Delicious - Anyone who wants can glance at the edit history and see that I had no problem keeping the LGBT categories when the only disagreement appeared to be between LGBT or "lesbian". I personally wasn't looking to make a big issue of it as long as everyone else was in agreement. However, after you expressed problems with adding the categories (and began edit warring) I basically came in and said that as long as there was someone who objected it would be best to leave the cats out altogether. It's all right there in the edit history, so don't try and accuse me of having "political underpinnings" when I've been the one trying to diffuse the situation. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Crakkerjakk, it was a general observation not directed at you specifically or limited to sexuality categories. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I can see how "badge of honor" would appear to be a poor choice of words to someone just jumping into the thread. I was just trying to address the presumed "anti-gay" motives for keeping the cats out, but it probably made more sense in my own mind. I'm honestly a lot less concerned with categories than I am with the text passage(s) addressing the issue within the article proper. I'm going to try and combine the best of what was there a few weeks ago (and its sources) with the Golden Globes news to get it closer to a WP:NPOV. I just hope I get a chance to shoe-horn the edit in before the page goes into "lock down" again. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Nowyouseeme, consensus to change a policy can change a policy, consensus here will not change the policy. I don't think there is any chance of getting consensus to make such a change to the policy on biographies of living people, but I could be wrong. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I found a way to jump in! Nice little device to get out of "infinite indent".

My reason for coming (back) to JFoster was the "father" article in Ext. links led me to another article of interest. "Jodie Foster Blasts Kristen Stewart–Robert Pattinson Break-Up Spectacle" Daily Beast, Aug 15, 2012, a first-person JF reflection on challenges of growing up as a child star and a reach-out to Stewart, JF's then-11-y'r-old co-star in Panic Room. I was going to be lazy and just add it, too, to the Ext. links. I don't know if you all are doing interim editing but I'd encourage adding this one one way or another. While I'm here: I don't know how ABC is on maintaining transcript archives but the LATimes also has the Globes one.

Sorry, nothing big on the main topic: I think the way it is in the article now pretty well captures as far as JF went at the Globes. As to categories, I'd say "Don't push it" and allow the principal -- JF -- to set the pace, FWIW. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: She shouldn't be categorized as gay, lesbian or bisexual until she is more explicit. Everyone knows—for some well over a decade—what it is that she said she was at the Golden Globes; what is worth fleshing out for our purpose in this regard is how obtuse she has been about her sexuality and the role it has played in the fiber of her life. The New York Times focused its story about her speech in that light: "But even her speech on Sunday was too elliptical for many gay activists and bloggers...[who] were irked that Ms. Foster didn’t more clearly indicate that she was gay.... Ms. Foster has not discussed her love life in interviews or made a political point of being a lesbian. At the Golden Globes, of all places, she changed her mind. Several times." --David Shankbone 06:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources: WP:PRIMARY, by my reading, says we shouldn't be doing our own analysis on her speech. Wikipedia reports what is said by reliable secondary sources and relies upon them for analysis. It seems to me that trying to say she hasn't self-identified or similar is applying our own personal analysis to the primary source - the speech. To me, the headlines and the secondary analysis are as clear as day. Elizium23 (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Leni Riefenstahl?

The article needs some kind of source for the statement that Foster is developing a film on Leni Riefenstahl. The Light Frantastic (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The content regarding the film could probably be removed as it appears that the plans were first reported in 2000. If a film hasn't materialized in 13 years, I think it's safe to say it probably won't happen. If you want to keep it in, however, I suggest finding a more recent source for it (all I could find was a report from '07). Pinkadelica^♣ 08:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction

This entry says, in different spots, that her debut on TV was in the Doris Day Show, Gunsmoke, and Mayberry. Which is it? 50.141.191.220 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I didn't notice that before, but there is a contradiction as to whether her first appearance was on the Doris Day Show or Mayberry R.F.D. (I don't see where it says Gunsmoke was her "debut", but I guess I could be overlooking it). It appears to be a problem with people misinterpreting IMDb's formatting (I won't bother to explain), but the first appearance (according to IMDb and Allmovie) was Mayberry. I'll go in and fix it. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 January 2013

In re Jodie Foster article, please
+Category:Gay actors
Note Dead links, I think 1st one in Ext Lks, and another one in domain .nu
Thx, AndersW 18:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC) AndersW 18:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC) AndersW 18:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 January 2013

Personal Jodie Foster conceived her children through InVitro Fertilization. http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/424041/20130115/2013-golden-globes-awards-jodie-foster-acknowledges.htm#.UPXKBSc81_Q. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Kennymanna 21:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

So I see there is an edit war going on regarding her being placed into LGBT categories. After a search, I've found endless reports in reliable third party publications indicating she "came out", so I think it warrants her being placed into the general LGBT categories, just not the specific ones because we don't know if she is specifically bisexual or lesbian. NYSMy talk page 20:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is a detailed discussion on this subject in the above Edit dispute? section. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Pending changes?

I suspect that well-meaning newcomers will continue to add inappropriate categories and text to this biography - would some clued-in admin please place it under pending changes? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Examples:

• addition of "Category:Lesbian actors"
• addition of "Category: LGBT people from the United States"

But she is a lesbian, so where's problem? --Sternax (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

See the discussion a few sections up the page. Pending changes have now been applied, so the problems should be somewhat reduced. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction in Personal Life section

In the Personal Life section, it states that she was with her former partner from 1993 to 2008, but in the next paragraph it states that she was her "partner of 20 years". Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.240.144 (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've revised the section. What Foster actually said in her Golden Globes speech was that Bernard was (among other things) her "most beloved BFF of 20 years", presumably from ~1993 to now. The AP misreported it. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Pending revisions

Is there some special tool needed for this? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Redo consensus

This consensus is bullshit. We are making the decision of what orienation she is for her. It is also incorrect to not have any categories regards to LGBT as she essentially made one at the Golden Globes. So, are we gonna get our thumbs out of our asses and get this right? RAP (talk) 15:48 31 January 2013 (UTC)