Talk:Jodie Foster

GA / FA drive

Notes / questions before submitting for GA / FA:

• There are three super-huge tables at the end of the article - do we need all three?
• I'm thinking of trimming half of the second paragraph of the lede and removing the "Midas touch" statement - thoughts?
• Where are citations needed? I'm pretty good at finding them.
• Andy's book?

-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Should the controversy regarding John Hinkley, Jr. be a part of her personal life? Right now the article is separated in decades. I foresee an FA reviewer suggesting it be given thematic headings, such as "Child star", "Film career", "Oscar roles" (subheading), and "Personal life" where Hinkley and her brother's book would be addressed. --Moni3 (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm - thematic headings is probably better than time headings. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

mother supported her by being a producer or working for a producer?

I think this statement was copied wrongly from the Internet. If her mother was a producer then she would have her own entry in Wikipedia and an IMDB page. If she worked for a producer which one? --cda (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, Foster is indeed and in fact a homosexual. Openly gay actor Rupert Everett said so as he criticized her for not being out earlier and not helping other LGBT come out as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.174.137.177 (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone wrote about this at afterellen.com. Saying even if she did she could never make everyone happy anyway. --Moni3 (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Jodie Foster's command of the French language

A few weeks back, I edited out mentions that Jodie Foster dubs herself in the french-language versions of her films, as I had heard her dubbed by another actress in several movies (in "Silence of the Lambs", she was dubbed by someone else). Actually, I could see yesterday "Panic Room" on a French Channel and she definitely dubbed herself, so I guess she has been dubbing herself for a few years now (I should have checked before, as I tend to watch movies with subtitles and not dubbed) : I put back the info. I also added links to videos of her speaking French in an interview, and singing a song in French in the 1970s. Wedineinheck (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Foster's French is simply amazing, I'd even say she puts some French people to shame. She speaks the language with a peculiar, nasal, pronunciation, which often does not sound like a foreign accent at all : she only reverts to actual American accent when using English names or words. Hearing her speak, one may think that she is either Swiss, Belgian, or from the Far East of France. It is only when you hear her speak for about five minutes that you realize that she is Anglo-saxon (but she still sounds like she spent the last 25 years living in France full time). While dubbing herself in French, she manages, through acting skills, to sound even less foreign, with only occasional word pronunciations reminding you that she is not French, and that is only if you pay attention closely. In "A very long engagement", she was supposed to play a foreigner, so she did not restrain her accent; I even think that she made it sound stronger (still not sounding American, as she was playing a Polish woman, if memory helps). Wedineinheck (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a native French speaker and I completely agree: her French is almost perfect. There is indeed a slight accent that is difficult to identify and some hesitations but she speaks French better than many native speakers. I was very impressed. Ronald Reuel (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is very interesting. Does anyone have an idea how it compares to her command of German, and where/how she learned both languages? I've never heard her speak anything but English, and I know she does not dub herself in German releases of her movies. 91.33.234.196 (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Mensa

Is that really a WP:RS? It looks like an Op/Ed piece. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't take it as a reliable source since it's in an editorial, but I might be able to find another one that's better. --Moni3 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A few months

The statement that Lucius left the family "a few months" before Jodie was born is not actually a quote from the article cited. The article merely implies that the parents had already seperated or divorced. It does not imply when this occurred. Buddy Foster's book states that they divorced *in* 1959 and that Jodie's conception happened much later, during one of their mother's visits to get child-support payments.Wjhonson (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Interpreted

I put back one part where we had previously said that the press "reacted to it as if she had come out", and now I've stated it that the press "interpreted" it as if she had come out. I didn't really like the "reacted" word as it seemed sort of stand-offish. "Interpreted" seems much more direct and explicit regarding the press' reaction to her comments. Wjhonson (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

foster's sexuality

as the article states, she is intensely private, and has not "come out". until she comes out, it's inappropriate to add her to the categories "Lesbian Actresses" and "LGBT people from the United States". her sexuality is her business, not yours, or ours. show respect for her choice not to share the intimate details of her life with the public. it is for her to state "i am a lesbian" if and when she should choose to do so. until that time - and until a WP:RS publishes that statement - it's inappropraite to push one's assumptions onto the article, and list her as something she has not chosen to identify herself as. there's no value judgement in it on my part, i'd be just as delighted if she were listed in those categories as not - but only on the basis of whether she has chosen to make that identification. on the other hand, if user AMK1211 has a WP:RS to back up the claim that she's come out - please provide it. until then, please stop. Anastrophe (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

To follow up on that, to say that "the press" interpreted her statement as coming out is vague at best. Are there references or examples of "the press" making this assumption? Was it the blogosphere, the tabloids, the NY Post?? Makes a difference. -Jmh123 (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Brother Buddy:

As a huge "Mayberry RFD" fan who likes Buddy Foster from my youth, I wish her stayed mute on ultra private matters such as his mom and sister's sexual appetites. I am sure that had he omitted the headline-making pronouncements, sales would have been smaller. Other public figures have spoken about their parents' homosexuality, including Patrick MacNee ("Avengers") who was raised by his mum and her female lover. Money is a primary reason for stars who don't discuss their sexuality. Baryy Manilow has a hugh female base, began his career at a gay bath house, and remain nebulous about his sexuality. MOST FOLKS AGREE, WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO KNOW. MOST OF US COULD NOT CARE LESS. -SL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.185.36 (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to know who you are, Anastrophe, to determine what is and is not a "reliable source." New York Times? Washington Post? Reuters? They rarely cover the personal lives of celebrities. And if I come in here and cite a thousand sources like The Guardian or AfterEllen or Times Online or Daily Mail you'll just shoot them down saying they're too gossippy or not mainstream enough or have a "gay bias" or something absurd. My next point is, why must she use the words "I am a lesbian" in public for it to "count," why can't she say something like, oh I don't know, "I'm not sure I've managed to deserve the family of friends that surrounds me...my beautiful Cydney who sticks with me through all the rotten and the bliss, here we all are, after so many years, getting older together, staying young together; thank you all for holding me and being in this together." [1] She's a private person and this is her way of saying "I am a lesbian." Also, why doesn't, say, Nicole Kidman need to say "I am a heterosexual" before anyone else is allowed to acknowledge it? Additionally, it's not as if this is a case of alleging someone like Tom Cruise (for example) is gay, when it's pretty obvious he likes women because he lives with a woman and has a kid with her. Oh wait, Jodie lives with a woman (for 14 years) and raises two kids with her... — AMK1211^talk! 04:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

AMK, before you get too upset at one editor, you might want to review the talk page here. We've been over this several times already. Consensus (and WP:BLP) says that she's not a lesbian until she says she is. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I get what you're saying and I respect that, but things have changed since consensus was reached on this issue. She has said it.

Also, the Guardian article was used as a reference before I started pissing y'all off yesterday. It says she lives with Bernard, and it says she came out. Why can you use the article to verify one fact but not the other?  — AMK1211^talk! 04:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? Can you point out to me where in the Guardian article, or in fact any other article, there's a quote from Foster where she says "I'm a lesbian"? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you point out to me where in the Guardian article there's a quote from her saying she lives with Bernard? There's not one, yet the article is used to verify it. Anyway, I'm done. You win. You have my permission to continue to suppress LGBT visibility on Wikipedia. Congratulations.  — AMK1211^talk! 05:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian article by Hankins is used in two places - to verify that she paid tribute to Bernard and to verify that the press interpreted that as coming out. It isn't used to verify that she lives with Bernard, though that is in the same sentence.

As for suppressing LGBT visibility, maybe you should take a look at my user page? Or my contributions? Or the fact that I and my bot tagged ~5,000 articles with the LGBTProject's banner? I'm one of the last people to suppress LGBT visibility - when it's justified. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

AMK1211 wrote: "First of all, I would like to know who you are, Anastrophe, to determine what is and is not a "reliable source." who am i? an anonymous editor, just like you, and i determine what reliable sources are based upon the generously provided guidelines WP makes available. you, me, and the rest of the world can interpret her words howsoever we like; it is for ms. foster to identify herself howsoever she chooses. it is for wikipedia to not speculate or draw conclusions of its own. particularly in WP:BLPs.Anastrophe (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have stated this numerous times, I will say it again. She has not suggested the nature of teh relationship, it might be plutonic, she might consider herself pansexual, she might be bisexual, or she might be asexual and just has an emotional relationship with this woman. We can't call someone a lesbian until they do. LessThanClippers 01:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus (and WP:BLP) says that she's not a lesbian until she says she is." So, Wikipedia is what determines one's sexual orientation? I know this was probably a grammar mistake, and what you probably meant was to say was something like, ""By refering to consensus (and WP:BLP), we should probably leave out a reference to whether she's a lesbian or not unless she says she is," instead of stating that consensus on wikipedia and BLP both decided that she can't be a lesbian unless she has declared it publicly, (and probably referenced in a reliable third-party source). Fredsmith2 (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't you people get angry, she is a lesbian. Admit it and move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.191.192 (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought - but when did Rock Hudson ever come out and say he was homosexual? If he hasn't (which he can't now he's dead), why have we marked his article as if he's a gay actor? Much like Hudson, there is much speculation around Foster's sexuality - the question is: what does the evidence in balance say? I don't think it was the press who mentioned "my beautiful Cydney" - the words came from Foster in a very public event, they just reported it. On the balance of evidence at present, I'm with not marking the article as "lesbian" at present, although it would seem worthy of inclusion in the Wki LGBT project. This subject needs further debate if and when other evidence appears either way. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I put this comment here (responding to comments about Ms. Foster's sexual orientation in the relationship section below. The BLP Policy simply states that you need a reputable source to make a potentially contraversial statement about a Person's life. BLP further does suggest that if you avoid categorizing the person as a sexual orientation unless you have an explicit statement from the person as to their sexual identify or it that is a central focus of that person's life. Curiously, as noted above, this criteria is never applied to heterosexuals. Thus, the Critical Test is simply one of having reliable sources, not of having Ms. Foster explicit state "I am Lesbian". This is so that Wikipedia avoids any legal liability.

Per the BLP: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers."

Below are four mainstream News Sources each with millions of subcribers and a fat revenue stream to attack. There is also one Book that state Jodi Foster is a Lesbian. All these publications are listed as reputable sources and are all subject to Libel Laws. Thus, Ms. Foster could take them to court and get a multi-million dollar payday if they are untruthful. If I look further, I can come up with three or four more published articles that also make this statement. We do not have to parse the details of these articles so that the meet some personal criteria, we simply have to accept that published newspapers state she is Lesbian. Just as published sources will state that Hitler was a mass murderer. I have only to cite the sources; I do not have to list the names of all of his victums. Per the BLP, we meet the basic criteria of people able to state that she is a Lesbian.

Daily Mail States Ms. Foster is Lesbian: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-501256/Jodie-Foster-comes-emotional-tribute-girlfriend-14-years.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-502414/Is-man-inspired-Jodie-Foster-come-secret-father-children.html

Times Online States Ms. Foster is a Lesbian: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article3040426.ece

Australian Daily Telegraph states that Ms. Foster is a Lesbian http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22885177-5001026,00.html

CNN States that Ms. Foster is a Lesbian CNN.com ran a video entitled, "Jodie Foster thanks gay partner," in which entertainment correspondent Kiki King goes on at length about the Oscar-winning (and 2008 Golden Globe nominee!) actress's recent decision to boldly throw open the closet doors, all gleaned from the three little words, "my beautiful Cydney?" In any case, Kiki King says it's official now, people: Jodie Foster is a lesbian.

Her brother in his Family Biography states that she is a Lesbian or Bi-Sexual: — Preceding unsigned comment added by ITBlair (talk • contribs) 04:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm... how #%&(*# many sources do we need before this thing is official? --24.21.149.124 (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Foster's Relationships

Minor nite, I noted the Thirty Something lover of the woman who is now Ms. Foster's primary partner. This was zapped as not being directly related to Ms. Foster. However, it is typical to not this information in any Wiki biography. For example. Angelia Jolie's bio notes both her Husband Brad Pitt and his prior wife Jennifer Aniston as well as extensive biographical details. This information should be a no-brainer for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ITBlair (talk • contribs) 00:42, 2008 September 2 (UTC)

I don't think that info belongs on Jolie's article, either. This is an encyclopedia article about Foster. That info might belong in Cynthia Mort's article, or Cydney Bernard's article, but building some sort of relationship tree is too tabloid for an encyclopedia. Furthermore, please don't add that Daily Mail article again - it's totally tabloid, full of weasel words, and not a reliable source. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. As noted (See Angelia Jolie wiki article) it is very common to note the details of people's relationships and how they affect others in Wikipedia articles. This is a standard you are attempting to enforce on this one article it is not a standard used by most biographical Wiki Articles. It is also a small element of contravery in Ms. Foster's life, which should not be avoided, just because it might show her in a bad light.

I Googled the Daily Mail and checked its Wiki Article. There is no evidence that it is any more or less reliable than other newspapers (e.g., NY Post, Washington Posts, etc.). It has a 2.4M person subscription base and is subject to all the english Libel Laws. If it prints something that is factually incorrect, it would be libel under the law. Ms. Foster can get millions of dollars from them if they lie. Given that she has not sued (as others have), I see not reason to exclude the Fact that her lesbian lover of 14 years is also the adoptive parent of her two sons. We could note as reported by the Daily Mail...

The other point is that is will probably have to pay $25M in a property settlement is well sourced from multiple sources. Again, I can explicitly list the sources involved in the text. I do not understand why this and the above reported facts were removed. They all are relatively minor points and Each of the above statements was well referenced. ITBlair (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The exact quotes from the Daily Mail are as follows:

"The couple have two children - both of whom Foster gave birth to, and 54-year-old Bernard adopted.

For several years, the two women have worn matching Tiffany eternity rings on their wedding fingers and Miss Bernard was with the actress throughout both her labours."

There are no Weasel words here and they (the Daily Mail) are completely subject to the the English Libel laws. ITBlair (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No weasel words!? One of the sentences you added says "Her lesbian lover of 14 years Cydney Bernard formally adopted Foster's biological children". That right there is weasely - Is Foster the lesbian? Bernard? As has been discussed many times on this page, Foster has never stated she was a lesbian, so including this sentence violates BLP. Furthermore, that article starts off with "Jodie Foster has reportedly ended her long-time love affair" - reported by who? Her hair dresser? The milk man? That whole (short) article is full of weasel words.

See my comment above on BLP. The BLP policy is to have reputable sources, we do not need Ms. Foster's direct statement on her sexual orientation. The key is to avoid any liability by Wikipedia. If she has a problem there are at least five sources she can go sue. We do not do original research. ITBlair (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actally, read WP:BLP a little further:

The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question

It doesn't matter how many sources you find. She has never self-identified as anything but straight. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The second sentence you added says "It is estimated that this change in partners will cost her $25,000,000 to $50,000,000 of her $100,000,000 property." Who's doing that estimating? And that ref is from Defamer.com - which is, I think, a blog? Let's try to stick to highly accurate information - and well sourced info at that. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The source for the blog post is the The National Enquirer, which is not always reliable. On the other hand, the have dug up a lot of truthful information about public figures (Clinton, John Edwards, etc.) This could be formated as the National Enquirer states... Again, assuming there is a reliable source, I do not have to do the estimating. This is up to source. I only have to cite it. Wikipedia does not do Original Research. I will see, if I can locate an non-Enquirer source. ITBlair (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If Ms. Foster's sexual preferences are so vigorously denied as lesbian, why has this article been tagged for LGBTProject? It would seem this is a violation of the spirit of this article's consensus.

Its not tagged anymore -- I removed it. If we're not going to list her in GLBT categories in the article, then we're not going to in the discussion page, either. Its all or nothing -- you're not going to have it both ways. --24.21.149.124 (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Jodie Foster says she is not a member of Mensa

She said this when whe was interviewed on Italian television a couple of days ago, promoting her new film. The video is here (at 4:23 circa). The journalist tells her he read she's a member of Mensa and then he explains what the organization is. Foster says it's not true, adding that she tried to take some Mensa online tests but she wasn't able to answer any questions. --Absinthe88 (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

excellent find. since someone will probably add it back in if it's simply removed, it's probably best to find some way of citing the above that she says she's not a member. a bit stilted, but it'll prevent repeated return of the bogus claim. Anastrophe (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

there just wasn't a way of adding it without it sounding ridiculous. so i hid the existing cite and gave as reference within it the video, so hopefully if someone tries adding it back they'll see it's not correct. Anastrophe (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So our readers can't tell it's there or not? The situation should be explained a bit, not just in meta.Wjhonson (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

but what do you suggest? it's mere trivia to begin with - whether she is or isn't. "Foster is not a member of mensa" may be true, but it's also probably true that "Foster is not a member of the NRA". "Foster is not a member of the Cleveland Metropolitan Welders Union Local #373". i'd be just as happy to remove even the meta in that case. her denial is not notable, nor was her alleged membership. Anastrophe (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, her denial is not notable but let's keep the source here in the talk page since there'll be somebody who will add "Foster is a member of Mensa" again, given that there are many sources reporting this false fact. They're all written sources which are defenitely less reliable than a video of the person in question denying the fact. Plus it should be considered that the fact that was reported here on wiki may have spread over many articles on the internet. Anyway if somebody starts a sort of an edit war about this I suggest to write something like this in the article: "Often thought to be a member of Mensa, Foster recently denied the rumor - or simply denied it".

If you need a literal translation I can do it, even though with the interpreter who speaks over her I can barely understand some words she says. Another useful piece of information: in the interview she says she understands and speaks Italian but she wasn't feeling like doing the interview in Italian, so she listens directly to the interviewer and then she answers in English (the interpreter translates to the audience), but she doesn't use any kind of earphone to listen to the questions in English. Obviously she says she speaks French too, as correctly stated in the article. --Absinthe88 (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: She also says she's an avid Guitar Hero fan :D but it might sound like trivia here. --Absinthe88 (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

right, i think the specifics here in talk will probably serve adequately to document it, and a literal translation may be useful. i suspect that the interviewer probably was looking at wikipedia before doing the interview, and thats how he heard it! she's a fascinating person, incredibly gifted. she may not be a member of mensa but she's obviously more than intelligent enough to be a member if she chose to. thankfully, she chooses not to (mensa always struck me as a fairly silly organization, but i'm digressing). Anastrophe (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I'm a member of Cleveland Metropolitan Welders Union Local #373! What's wrong with that? Just kidding. I have nothing to add to this, except it's pretty funny. (And I don't know why someone would admit to being a member of mensa anyway.) --Moni3 (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So here's exactly what she says:

Int: I've read that you're a member of an association called Mensa...
JF:  No, no, people say that but it's not true.
Int: Thank goodness, because I had read that...and I was terrified. I had read there was (literally: there would be) this 
organization that gathers people with a very special, a very high IQ, of which Mrs. Foster was a member. So I was terrified
 and I was like "how do I meet her"...so it's not true?!
JF:  No, it's not true, I know...me too. I would look on the tests online for Mensa and I couldn't answer one question.

If somebody wants to check what she says and/or wants to correct something please do so :D --Absinthe88 (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that transcript! A user keeps adding her name to the List of Mensans article. I even made the compromise of keeping her listed as long as her denial was added, but the user just keeps removing her denial. Can anyone help over there? Thanks. ☆ CieloEstrellado 07:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The main photo of her

Anyway we can get a photo where she dosn't look like a crazed muppet? (198.53.44.115 (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

File:Torontofilmfestival2007.jpg

current picture: horrible quality, artefacts, blurry, you name it

previous picture: it's Jodie, but apparently not what her fans want her to look like

The current photo is a catastrophe. The old photo was of better quality, but apparently some of the die-hard Jodie fans didn't like her hairstyle or something. Maybe we should do a straw poll? — ^PDD 14:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Children?

There's no mention of her children under personal life. Am I missing something, I thought she had two...OwenSaunders (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right - I put something in. It's my first ever edit (go me), so let me know if it's not done correctly! Jules1316 (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

She also has a female partner whom she's been with for years now, and is frequently seen with in public. --208.65.188.23 (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

My Pal Jodie

Was this a reference to an actual event?

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.55.42 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 2008 September 5 (UTC)

Oscar / Academy Award

2 issues.
I added "Oscar for Best Actress" for both films on the Filmography section.
Shouldn't "Academy Award" be used instead of "Oscar"? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What the hell??

Why is there an LGBT Project banner at the top of this page? If Foster is a lesbian (which she is-- she has a partner she is frequently seen with, who she's been with for years now) then the article needs to be included in various LGBT categories. Period. --208.65.188.23 (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and so do all of the other editors here. It is the stupid and stubborn administrators that won't let me nor allow it. Ask them! 20yearoldboyfromNY (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless and until she comes out publically as lesbian, we can not say she is. Find a WP:RS where she says it, and we can (and will) add it. Until then, we can not. Aleta ^Sing 19:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright then, I'm removing the giant GLBT banner from the top of the discussion page. Its going to be one way or the other, not both. --24.21.149.124 (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you understand the meaning of the GLBT banner. It only means that the article is of interest to the GLBT project. It makes no implication regarding her sexuality. Adding her to a category such as "lesbian actresses" however, explicitly claims that she is a lesbian. An admin has already readded the banner and so long as this topic is genuinely of interest to the project, which I have no reason to doubt, I support it remaining. -Verdatum (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to have the GLBT project banner at the top of the discussion page, then she's going to be added to GLBT categories. That's how its going to be. You're not going to have it both ways -- it sends mixed signals and creates confusion. What part of that don't you understand? Quit playing games. --24.21.148.155 (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Resetting Perceptions. The banner on the talk page simply means that the LGBT project has taken an interest in the page. It does not mean that the subject of the article is gay. It can mean they are an "ally" or public supporter; hence, the project has an interest in watching the page.
Whether or not she is described as lesbian in the article depends on her coming out publicly. -- Mjquin_id (talk) 05:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Jodie Foster's main picture

Is there anyway you people can get a better picture of Jodie Foster? I don't mean to sound rude or mean (I love Jodie Foster btw, and she is a great actress!), but I and I don't think she would like the current main picture of her that is on her page. She looks like a muppet, in way, with really big hair. Does anyone agree? Also, can anyone find a picture that is better. I think Jodie Foster would be happier if she ever read her article and saw a better picture of her.

File:Torontofilmfestival2007.jpg

previous current picture: low, not very good color brightness, blurry, she's not looking her best in this photo.

previous picture: It's Jodie, but apparently not what her fans want her to look like. She looks like a muppet!

This current photo of Jodie Foster is simply a catastrophe!!!!! Could Somebody please find another picture of Jodie Foster? 01:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC) 20yearoldboyfromNY (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There ought to be a better photo. This one isn't terrible, but its certainly peculiar. --24.21.149.124 (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Also agree; not the best picture of her. We should be able to contact her agent and get a current headshot, right? I will look into wiki-policy and the process... -- Mjquin_id (talk) 06:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)