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?

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)

Gimme a fucking break, dipshit. --98.246.156.76 (talk) 16:01, 9 February 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)

Meaning she is OUT. --98.246.156.76 (talk) 16:01, 9 February 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)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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? I did my coming out ages ago. I honestly do not believe you think this doesn't mean she's LGBT. RAP (talk) 15:48 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per the consensus at the BLP notice board. She has not stated at all that she is LGBT. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I did my coming out ages ago. Right.... RAP (talk) 15:59 31 January 2013 (UTC)

[1] Having given you this link already I propose you actually read it. Then read WP:BLPCAT Darkness Shines (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I refuse to allow you to say what she is for her. The acceptance speech failed qualifications for a lesbian category. No where does it disallow LGBT. I did my coming out ages ago. I will not let this drop. If the consensus once again is bullshit, i'll start another. Nad another. Because we do not have the power to decide what she means. RAP (talk) 16:06 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I find your argument very confusing. Adding those categories would be labelling Foster's sexual orientation. Omitting them does not mean that she is heterosexual, simply that she has not stated her sexual orientation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Support adding Category:LGBT actors There are reliable sources that state she did her coming out ages ago, either as a lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, queer etc. whatever, enough to put her in the catch all LGBT category. At BLPCAT it says "each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources" which can be done, she made it clear she is something LGBT. Coming out doesn't mean anything else. NYSMy talk page 18:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support adding the category: she has self-identified according to reliable secondary sources. Also, it is worth noting that the people reverting and citing a "BLP violation" are incorrect. There is no BLP violation to say that she is lesbian or LGBT. In fact if there were, I would not be able to write that here in the talk page. Secondary reliable sources have called her lesbian, so it is entirely proper for us to report that. Elizium23 (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a misunderstanding of policy plain and simple.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Well then, enlighten me please, what kind of policy permits us to interpret the primary source (her speech) as something other than what is reported in reliable secondary sources? Elizium23 (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't interpret it, and we don't use the interpretation of secondary sources. We use a clear self statement only. LadyofShalott 21:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't use the interpretation of secondary sources - REALLY? What policy says that we are not supposed to do that? Elizium23 (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Try: WP:OR and Wikipedia:EGRS#Sexuality.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - per previous consensus, and per DC's comment above. She has not indicated her sexual orientation and there is no reliable source to indicate so. I'm LGBT myself, as it happens, yet I'm disturbed by the amount of fervent LGBT-tagging that goes on on Wikipedia - Alison ^❤ 18:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose identifying as having a partner of of a particular sex does not equate to identifying as being of a particular sexual orientation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If this were true, then most of the LGBT biographies on Wikipedia need editing, because for most, the fact the subject has a same-sex partner has been sufficient to label the subject as LGBT. --Crunch (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Foster has not said what her orientation is. Lack of a category does not imply that she is straight. LadyofShalott 19:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• She didn't just say she had a same sex partner, she said that she came out. You have to be LGBT to come out. NYSMy talk page 19:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Really? - Alison ^❤ 19:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oh god, that stuff is just bologna. NYSMy talk page

If by bologna you mean ignorant and homophobic, then yes, its bologna. --98.246.156.76 (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, those things are ignorant and disparage coming out as gay, as if they measure up equally. NYSMy talk page 19:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder that consensus does not override policy. Feel free to keep "voting", but it isn't going to make any difference. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Your arrogance offends me. Support. RAP (talk) 16:59 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This is such an awful and not-assuming-good-faith way to communicate. Feel free to keep "voting", but it isn't going to make any difference. Really? That's the inflammatory and rude phrasing you choose to interact here? Moncrief (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

From the guy who said, "I will not let this drop. If the consensus once again is bullshit, i'll start another" - srsly? - Alison ^❤ 17:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose A lot of the arguments above are missing the point, to quote User:Only in death... from the BLPN: What BLPCAT also says is "and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability", which in her case they are not,. Totally agree, since when has her sexuality been a notable part of her public persona? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, look at the thinly veiled homophobia on here. Get your shit together, people. I mean, really. She came out. "She didn't really say it" Actually, she did. Add her back to "LGBT actresses" (and the other similar categories that she was in for a day or two after the Golden Globes). "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." She didn't "come out as straight". Anyone who tries to argue that, you really shouldn't be an editor on here, period. --98.246.156.76 (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No one is arguing that Foster is straight, simply that she has not been clear enough in her declarations for us to put her in a category. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This is deliciously contradictory. If she isn't straight, what else could she be either than bisexual, gay, or transgendered (I'm pretty sure she's not the last of those)? If every person is by definition either LGBT or not-LGBT and you're saying that "no one is arguing" she's not-LGBT, isn't she LGBT? Moncrief (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Foster's sexual orientation is whatever it is. Lack of a category does not mean that Foster is straight. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If you say she's not straight, isn't she therefore LGBT? That is the broad catchall category that includes anything "not straight," and therefore by default and definition, appropriate to her. (No one, to my knowledge, has argued that this article be added to the "Gay actors" category, but rather the catchall "LGBT actors" category. Is the crux of your argument that there is a third category of human sexuality (in addition to straight and LGBT) to which Foster might belong after her coming-out statements? Help me understand, because this may be at the root of the semantic gap here. Moncrief (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Haven't we already had this particular discussion? I have a personal guess as to Foster's sexual orientation, but that doesn't mean I get to add her to whatever category I believe applies. I am not saying she is not straight. I am saying that the lack of a category does not mean that she is straight. If Foster said she was gay, we could add the LGBT categories. Likewise if she said she was bi, or if she said she was transgendered. We do not add the category because we suspect she is not straight. Get it? And if you don't know which of these things she is, how can you argue that her statements were conclusive? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The point is that it doesn't matter which of the things she is in "GLBT." The category is catchall, all-inclusive of all of those nonheterosexual possibilities. If she's bi, that's the category for her (see the "B"). If she's gay, that's the category for her (see the "L" and "G"). If she specifies at a later date which of the elements that make up that acronym she is, change the category to suit. She has come out as nonheterosexual, so by definition she is GLBT. Honestly, though, I feel the same way you seem to: if you don't get it by now, I guess you're not going to get it. Moncrief (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. The LGBT category is for people who have self-identified as belonging to one of those groups. We can revisit this the next time Foster makes statement that alludes to her sexuality, but until then, this is just a waste of time. Consensus here will not override policy (and you clearly will not get consensus here). I'm done here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be very invested in the proper use of the LGBT category; that is great, and I commend you for it. Upon making this observation, however, I might suggest you may be interested in taking a look at every article in Category: LGBT actors (there are not many) and see if you can have all of them removed from that category; none of the subjects of articles in that category meet any requirements for inclusion that Jodie Foster does not also meet. I do not wish you to think of this as an "other stuff exists" argument, because it is not. If those other articles truly do not fit into that category, it would be a) good to get them out of that category and b) may keep people from looking at that category and believing Jodie Foster more than qualifies to be in it. The article you may wish to begin with would be Amber Heard; she "came out" in public, discussed sexual/relationship partners, and has been the subject of multiple third-party, reliable sources discussing her sexual orientation: very similar to the situation with Jodie Foster. The one way the situation seems to differ, however, is that Amber Heard is categorized as an "LGBT actor". "How is that?" you may ask. Well, there was a consensus found at the BLP Noticeboard to include Amber Heard in LGBT categories over the option of including her in bisexual categories (that is even with the fact that Amber Heard has specifically stated that she does not like labels). I say all of that, not to perhaps somehow magically change your opinion, but simply to advise against ever trying to predict what consensus will or will not be.  Chickenmonkey  20:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. It should be evident from the phrasing of Foster's statement(s) that she has made a considered decision not to make the declaration that would (among other things) meet Wikipedia requirements. Unless we change our underlying policy (a rather bad idea), that should settle the matter. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per previous consensus and WP:BLPCAT. Cresix (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV in lead

Isn't it supposed to be at least a passing mention in the lead section (alongside the award) that her role in Taxi Driver was John Hinckley's trigger? It's not like a 13 year old actress portraying a child prostitute is an ordinary thing... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Golden Globes and speech... again?

After the above thread, there should not be any further exhaustion and discussion about her well established homosexuality. Three RS, including Reuters and the NY Times, have been reverted out of the article. Please state a valid reason. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Read the discussion above again for the policies. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

So if three references say that John Doe is gay, even if Doe never said it, it should be included? The only reliable reference is Foster, and her speech was so ambiguous she "came out" without came out. The above discussion explains why this is excluded, and it shouldn't be included per WP:BLP. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 15:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, yes... per WP:RS, namely WP:SECONDARY. We're actually encouraged to look for reliable secondary sources rather than primary sources. Besides, having a confirmed same-sex partner puts her in that category by definition. Yes, by definition, because the definition of gay is having a same sex relationship. Maybe bisexual, but that would also put her in the LGBT category. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh that's great, with WP:SECONDARY references we can say that John Doe is an homosexual homicide with federal charges in five countries, even when Doe is neither of them. It is great to see that WP:defamation is the spirit of SECONDARY references. Also, where are *you* obtaining she is "lesbian"? In her speech she said something like 'I made my came out many years ago', but never said "I'm lesbian", and if you can't prove that this is wrong, you are violating the BLP policy by saying she is "lesbian", when she never said so, this discussion should be closed, and you probably reported at the WP:BLPN. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 16:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, that escalated quickly!

1. Per WP:SECONDARY (underlined as policy): "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."
2. Per WP:WPNOTRS: "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources."
3. Per WP:BLPSOURCES: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source (...) While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources (...) are preferred."
4. Per WP:WELLKNOWN: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

Let's review that last part again: if an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Everything points to the following: there is a plethora of reliable sources that confirm that Foster's speech was her coming out, and that, coupled with the fact that she herself referred to "coming out" (her exact quotation), and also with the fact that she had a same sex relationship for several years, with consideration to all the policies quoted above, leads to the inevitable conclusion that she needs to be categorized as LGBT. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

What you are not understanding (or not want to understand) that it doesn't matter if the NYT asserts she is "lesbian", as they called her, there is no single reliable reference that confirms this other than Foster. You are a House fan. Let's assume Thirteen is a real person. If the NYT says 13 is lesbian just because she left a bar with another woman, and they assert 13 is lesbian due to this, why this is not defamation?, and why Wikipedia has to back up such defamatory content? Yes, the links you posted above are valid (Wikilinks and references), but let me remind you that this website is not a democracy test, nor a burocracy, nor a site where editors has to follow every single rule that exists in it. There is an statement about her speech in the page, but the category(ies) you want to include violates WP:BLPCAT, as the statement you want to include is not mentioned in the article. Just because Foster dated/dates a woman, doesn't make her "LGBT" by default, and in this case "L". Lindsay Lohan dated Samantha Ronson and Lohan is not within the LGBT categories. There are two consensus to exclude those statements, one at the BLPN and one here because the first consensus was "bullshit" according to RAP. Your arguments are exactly the same as of his: "The acceptance speech failed qualifications for a lesbian category. No where does it disallow LGBT.--RAP 31 January 2013. But community consensus demostrates it does, and should not be changed unless you demostrate that what happened in January is different now, and for that you should read both consensus because apparently you haven't, and if you had, you are not saying something new that we had discussed in January. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 10:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I will address your reply in a bulleted list.

1. You wrote: "this website is not (...) a site where editors has [sic] to follow every single rule that exists in it." Wrong!!! If it is a policy, we must follow it. What I quoted is not a guideline, nor is it an essay/suggestion. These are policies, some of which are directly pertinent to BLP.
2. You wrote: "there is no single reliable reference that confirms this other than Foster." Again, wrong!!! I just cited the appropriate policy, which is: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
3. Continuing the previous paragraph: well-documented means covered by multiple reliable sources. In this case, there is, aside from NYT, Reuters, Associated Press, HuffPost, and a quick Google search will yield some more.
4. You accuse me of WP:IDHT, but you keep ignoring BLP policies while citing the same policies as the alleged reason to violate the same policies. In other words, your own reasoning goes against basic BLP policies.
5. No consensus can override an established policy. In this case, the "consensus" is simply a number of editors who voted "oppose", which is the same "test of democracy" you were mentioning earlier. It's not how many editors, it's the content of the dispute that counts.
6. As for your question about Thirteen: if the NYT, along with AP, Reuters, LAT, HuffPost, Time magazine, etc. would assert that she is a lesbian based on whatever, it would have been our duty to report on that, because, as the BLP policy states in a crystal clear manner: "BLPs should simply document what [reliable secondary] sources say." Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)