Talk:Angelina Jolie

Marriage

She is gaight (half gay and half straight.) Can anyone find the interview where Angelina stated she would not get married till "people who should be able to get married, can" (in reference to gay marriage? 76.112.102.98 23:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"Gaight"?!? Um, bisexual, which isn't necessarily a half and half thing. --Melty girl 19:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Request/ suggestion

- Title of Section - International Success- If you review each movie after this part, a majority were panned by the media, and ignored by fans. How is this international success?? Just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.151.121 (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Shiloh Jolie-Pitt should have her own article. She's starring in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and isn't only Angelina Jolie's daughter but also Brad Pitt's. -- Jolie has got a tattoo which reads "know your rights" on her back. This information may be included in the section regarding this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.1.116 (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this [1] and other humanitarian work should be included but I cannot add it because of WP:COI --BozMo talk 08:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I added on sentence. -- EnemyOfTheState 18:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am amused that when we upload content from our website onto Alertnet (which executes no editorial control) you link to that rather than directly to our website but only amused its all the same to me. --BozMo talk 20:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)There should be a reference to Jolie trying to ban Fox news and others from her press conference for the "A Mighty Heart".

This picture is freely allowed to add to the article. --Z33t4h 12:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Nice drawing, but we really should try to use photographs whenever possible in biographical articles. 23skidoo 13:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I just worked with her on movie Changeling, she has tatoo on her back just below neck line which says "know your rights". Not sure how long she has had it but page should list all of her tatooes as it lists some and to list them all would be a sentence or two.

Box Office Gross

Hi there,

I was going through some Hollywood bios and came across Diane Keaton, another FA. In the lead theres a line stating her total box office gross - Keaton's films have earned a cumulative gross of over USD 1.1 billion in North America.[2]. Shouldn't there be a similar line in this article as well? Is there any particular set of guidelines for actors/actresses which could be followed while writing the leads of their articles?

Thanks,xC | ☎ 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• The problem with including such a line is that it would need to be continually updated since Jolie is still a working actress. (So is Keaton, too -- I personally disagree with including that information in her article). One would also need a reputable source for citing such a number, of course. There's probably one out there, but every time Jolie makes a movie someone would have to update the number. A better approach rather than adding all the films up would be to cite her most successful films (in terms of box office gross) to date. My guess is it would be the first Tomb Raider film. That way the list would only need to be updated whenever she makes a hugely successful film. 23skidoo 16:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • True - I disagree with the addition of that line as well, but since its in an FA, I figured maybe theres some guideline about such things that I didn't know about. Also, are all films of the actress supposed to be mentioned in the article, or only notable movies/roles? xC | ☎ 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions?

• Jolie's role in Love Is All There Is is given a one line mention in her article. But neither the article Angelina Jolie nor Love Is All There Is asserts why her role in the movie was notable.
• Further, the film Playing God (film) in Jolie is a commercial and critical failure (as noted in its own article). Yet it is mentioned in the article. Why is it notable then?
• In the section International Success, there is a line referring to Life or Something Like It stating - The film was poorly received by critics, though Jolie's performance received positive reviews. The thing is, nothing is mentioned there about how well the film did commercially, nor does the film's article have any details. The reader is left to imagine whether the film did well inspite of being critically trashed (example Lara Croft) or was the film unsuccessful on both counts? Shouldn't an article related to an FA contain the bare essential details at the minimum?
• Just a few doubts I had, would appreciate any feedback on this. regards,xC | ☎ 08:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The text mentions all her theatrical releases, assuming they are all notable as biographical facts, regardless what more can be said about the film; with about two dozen movies to cover, this seems still practical. If an actor has done many more films, it becomes necessary to limit the number of movies mentioned, of course. I don't think there are any clear WP guidelines how to handle this in detail.
  • There is no policy demanding a certain quality from articles linked to a FA. Regarding Life or Something Like It, how about "poorly received by critics and the audience"? -- EnemyOfTheState 14:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the quick response. True, there is a lack of guidelines regarding the filmbios and it does get confusing at times. I've put together some of the issues in one page, that I feel might deserve some discussion and creation of relevant policies/guidelines. Here's the link. Please do have a look if you're not too busy. I'd appreciate all feedback on it, before I post to the wikiproject talk pages for Hollywood and Bollywood. Having a set of guidelines related to filmbios would definitely help out editors working on these pages.
    • About Life or something like that, well honestly I don't know how the movie was received... I was wondering, so I thought I'd ask here :)
    • Regards,xC | ☎ 14:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This says that Shiloh's birth was a scheduled caesarian but Jolie has said that Shiloh was breach and that was the reason that she delivered this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.240.217 (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry

{{editprotected}} Angelina Jolie's ancestry is inaccurate. Jon Voight's paternal grandfather was Czech, his paternal grandmother was English, his maternal grandfather was German, and his maternal grandmother was German. Thus, Jon Voight is 1/4 Czech, 1/4 English, and 1/2 German. Therefore, Angelina Jolie is 1/8 Czech, 1/8 English, 1/4 German, and 1/2 French Canadian with the "disputed" tiny droplet of "supposed" Iroquois blood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by

Beautifulxlife (talk • contribs).

The article is clear enough, and your comment will stay here on the talk page for reference. Please sign your talk page posts with four tildes - ~~~~ - so readers know who left these comments. KrakatoaKatie 23:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that angelinajoliepics.com should be included as an external reference. Jolieweb 02:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

French Canadians are almost all part Indian so this is not a surprise. The early settlers mixed with the Indians but later as more European women arrived that became less and less common. Possibly this could be more than a "sliver" even if she has no recent Indian ancestors there could be multiple Indian ancestors from 300-400 years ago. Clearly, Jon Voight knows nothing about Canadian history. French Canadians are not all French either. There were many Italians in the colony early on as part of Italy was then under French control. Jolie looks more Italian then French.

The problem with tracing Native American Ancestry is two-fold: 1) Native Americans have not always maintained paper birth records and 2) until recently many 'Whites' also of Native American descent felt a need to hide their non-White heritage in order to avoid discrimination. Therefore one should not automatically assume that Jolie is 'just barely' Native American.

Sean7phil (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry

If you take a look at the 1910 federal census of Yonkers, NY, you will see that Jon Voight's paternal grandmother, Mrs. Helen Voytko, was U.S.-born, but her parents were born in another country, listed as Hun-Slovak, as was her husband George Voytko. According to Wikipedia, Slovakia was a part of the Kingdom of Hungary until 1918, when it became Czechoslovakia. Census information is not absolutely reliable, but there is nothing here to indicate English heritage. Kayqueue 20:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC) As for Angelina's mom being French Canadian, perhaps she had French Canadian ancestry, but she was born in Illinois. See <http://marchelinebertrand.blogspot.com/>, where a cousin says she was born in a small town in Illinois. Kayqueue 00:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC) French-Canadian refers to people from Quebec or Arcadia which at one time included Illinois. Since they've been there a long time and were for two hundred years cut off from France they are distinguished from more recent French immigrants. French Canadians typically have some Indian blood because there were not many French women in the colony early on. Morocco also has ties to France as well. She has morocan blood too since her grandmother was born in Morocco. --Unsigned content added by User:71.59.237.189

Interjection: this is addressed to IP user 71.59.237.189 who has been editing the above paragraph: please sign your comments and please do not add to old paragraphs. The above was first posted in January, but you added a few words in March. I nearly deleted your recent additions as IP vandalism. If you have something new to add, please start a new paragraph or a new thread. Thanks. 23skidoo (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally think her ancestry shouldn't be examined deeper as it already is. There is no need to have a full family tree in the text, imho. EnemyOfTheState

New Yorker description

Movie critic Anthony Lane of the New Yorker offers some choice observations about Jolie that I found insightful and may be worth incorporating. One amusing line in his description of her different aspects was, "2. The sexpot. In this she is unchallenged, and yet her timing is off by fifty years. When it comes to channelling her carnal appeal, no current film director has a clue; the guy she needs is Frank Tashlin, who guided Jayne Mansfield through “The Girl Can't Help It” (1956) and “Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?” (1957), and whose eyeballs, if confronted with Jolie in the flesh, would pop out on cartoon springs and bob around." - BanyanTree 05:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Article length

The article currently reads in at over 70kb. Perhaps its time to split into relevant sections?xC | ☎ 20:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be unusual to have sub-articles for an actor/celebrity biography, and since the article became featured in its current state, it might be best not to split it. Also, the mere text is 'only' 40 kb, a lot of it are the references. EnemyOfTheState 10:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Humanitarian/charitable recognition Awards

First, I want to say I think the article is great. Some sections might be trimmed up a bit, but otherwise, it is well-written and informative. Besides that it could be more concise, it is a good article. But I have one other suggestion! Her humanitarian work is so important that I think there should be a list of awards she has in that area in the Info Box! You have her entertainment industry awards, but what about her UNHCR and related awards? --Ashley Rovira 15:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the article uses the actor infobox template, there is no way to include non-acting awards. EnemyOfTheState 10:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sentence

Minor copyedit: Under "Early life and family" - this is not a sentence as it has no subject: Because my son’s adopted, and families are earned. I think it needs to be merged either with the sentence before or after. Can someone more knowledgable help? Thanks. ♫ Cricket02 16:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a direct quote, so I don't think it should be changed. EnemyOfTheState 10:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Often cited?

From the lead:

She is often cited by popular media as one of the world's most beautiful women[1]

The footnote leads to this BBC News article which mentions one internet poll that placed Jolie top. That is in no way enough to justify the phrase "often cited". As it happens I agree that she is often cited as such... but the referencing here is clearly inadequate for the claim. 86.132.138.229 02:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There is another 'source' with the link to People magazines most beautiful issue in the media section, but you are right of course, a direct statement in a reliable article would be much better. EnemyOfTheState 10:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Main image

Does anyone else find this image better for the top than the current one? --thedemonhog talk • edits 17:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the other one is better than the one we have right now...xC | ☎ 18:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, it might be the better picture, but it is less suited as a lead image. It's not a portrait image and it's only 186px wide, so it can't be cropped to 200px, the default width for the infobox. EnemyOfTheState 10:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed the main image to Image:Angelina Jolie 2007.jpg FANSTAR 17:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I cropped this image to Image:Jolietop2.png, I think it's better for the infobox. I also cropped this image of her back, Image:Jolietattoo.png; it could be used in the tattoo section - in the past several people tried to include copyrighted images of her tattoos in the article. -- EnemyOfTheState 10:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone find a more suitable image? Her face is hardly visible in the current image. Myoutbackshed 10:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I second this. She's way to beautfiul to not be seen in full. --Notorious Walt 04:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The crop and Photoshop job on the current image is horrible. Since she just visited Iraq recently, we should have some better government photos than this. thedemonhog's suggestion would fit better as well. ⇔ EntChickie 18:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

At least let's get an image that's properly exposed. I keep fighting the urge to up the gamma on my monitor. Is there a particular reason why the far superior photo used in the "Jolie in the media" section isn't the lead? 23skidoo (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The current main image appears to be Image:Jolietop2.png with the background darkened. You're welcome to switch them around. Gimmetrow 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Switched them up. If a better photo from her Iraq trip emerges, I'll put that up. ⇔ EntChickie 19:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to use the current picture as the lead image, wouldn't it be preferable cropping it a little bit to make it more of a portrait photograph? Something like that ? EnemyOfTheState (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Jolie's black ancestry

Could anyone confirm whether or not she has some black ancestry as there are several articles floating around claiming that her mom had an affair with a black or mulatto guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.152.214 (talk) 20:15, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

She has no black/mulatto ancestry. Her father's side of Czech is well documented. Her mother's side of Canadian-Frech blood is well documented.Ruth E 22:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats Canadian-French-Native American blood to be accurate.

Sean7phil (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Filmography move: premature?

Jolie seems seems like a young film actor to have her Filmography moved off her main page already. It doesn't seem like it did all that much to shorten the page, and it seems like such primary information to move. Wouldn't it be better to edit down other sections that veer into trivia in order to shorten the page, or move something else, then move the filmography back to this page? For example, does the Tattoos section need to be so long? Or could it be moved? I think readers come to the Angelina Jolie page to read about her films (and many other topics) more so than to read about her tattoos. --Melty girl 04:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Unless Wikipedia's MOS has been changed to require filmographies to have their own articles, I don't see the point in doing so here. It's just going to be an AFD magnet, and AFD will likely result in a decision to remerge it to the main article. I give it a month. 23skidoo 15:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow, interesting. Yeah, I think it was not the right move. Should we put it back and save people the trouble of AFD? --Melty girl 16:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I put the filmography table back in and proposed deletion of the filmography article. --Melty girl 19:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

ancestry

is she of slovak or czech ancestry? 60.242.48.18 13:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Mother's ancestry

It should be noted that if Marcheline Bertrand had Iroquois ancestry, the article must not then read 'Native American'. The native peoples of Canada (regarding Bertrand's French Canadian roots) are not referred to as 'Native American', they are primarily called 'First Nations'. I guess though the main question should be if she did indeed have Iroquois roots, were they based out of Canada? If the ancestry section is to stand, this should be rectified in the article. Sorry to bring up yet another ancestry section here. Bentonia School 13:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Iroquois also lived in what is now the United States. --Melty girl 22:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Section on Controversies?

Incidents happened in india could be worth mentioning. Article states all positive and no negative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool kanks (talk • contribs) 18:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• It would be helpful if you specified what you're talking about. (And provided sources). 23skidoo 19:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Bryan Brandenburg AKA Jesus Christ is the biological father of the new twins. Citation forthcoming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.190.51.19 (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Straight?

I read in an article on afterellen.com that she no longer identifies as bisexual. Does anyone know if this has been confirmed? 199.126.166.13 22:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it's something you just turn off at will; more likely she possibly no longer pursues bisexual relationships due to her current family situation. In any event, such discussion can't be added to the article unless there's a verifiable source. I don't know of any. 23skidoo 04:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Plenty of people stop identifying as bisexual, or state that they don't feel like a "true bisexual", thus they start to identify by their majority sexual preference (heterosexual or homosexual) due to their lack of sexual/romantic interest in the sex they do not favor. Angelina Jolie may identify as heterosexual, but like 23skidoo stated, we need a valid source stating that she does not identify as bisexual...but rather as heterosexual (straight). Flyer22 05:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

She is still bisexual. Get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.171.164 (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Children in infobox

I reverted the edit that removed the children from the Infobox. Why else do you think a "children" field was included? Of course they need to be listed there. I do agree wikilinking them was unnecessary as, for now at least, the links just redirect back here anyway, so I took those out. 23skidoo 04:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• OK, looks like we might have the makings of an edit war here. Here is my rationale and I invite the editor to state his/her's and then let's get third parties chiming in. 1. Picking and choosing what children should be listed under the "Children" field of the Biographical infobox is a violation of WP:NPOV. 2. It is not "gossip" to list children for whom there is voluminous evidence that they exist (you're not supposed to list rumored children, etc.). 3. Information in infoboxes is expected to repeat information in the article; that's why they were created. Otherwise it could be argued that every infobox can be removed since the articles should contain all this information. If the editor has an issue with the listing of children in the infobox, I recommend lobbying with the creators of the infobox to have that field removed. 3. In the case of these children all have been mentioned repeatedly in the media, and therefore are considered public figures. That does not justify giving them their own articles, in which I am in full agreement, but if someone can prove that a life is being ruined by listing them in an infobox, then I'll be quite interested. 23skidoo 14:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think her children should be included really. Template:Infobox actor states that only "especially notable children" should be mentioned, which is hardly the case here, as none of her children are even notable enough to have their own article. I suppose it is intended for someone like Kirk Douglas -> Michael Douglas? I'm not a fan of lengthy infoboxes anyway, so I wouldn't include the fields "Occupation" and "Years active" here either. EnemyOfTheState 15:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

EnemyOfTheState gets it right: Template:Infobox actor contradicts 23skidoo's rationale for putting the Jolie-Pitt kids in the infobox. It's not for any children, it's for "especially notable children." These children have done nothing notable on their own. Yes, they are famous names, but only because of celebrity gossip magazines that obsessively follow every celeb's baby, not because they've actually done anything notable as people. Should Wikipedia follow that ridiculous gossip trend and consider them notable on that basis? No -- they don't have their own WP pages, because they're not notable. And sure, the infobox is going to echo info from the article, but that still doesn't override the intention of the children field in this particular infobox, which was thoroughly discussed and thought through. It is not meant for non-notable children. Angelina Jolie herself is an example of a notable child of notable parents, but her own children are not.

And about the occupation and yearsactive fields, I think those fields are far more important than the fields like parents and children. That's the kind of crucial information about a person that an infobox can present more immediately than prose. What's more important that what a person does and how long they've been doing it? That's the whole reason they're in WP in the first place.

Last, I'll just mention that if children are kept in the infobox (which still remains to be seen) I think it is highly distasteful to note who's adopted and who's biological in a simple list like that. I'm going to delete that much for now. --Melty girl 17:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the discussion in this section and the next, I think we're now ready to go back to a children-free infobox, right? --Melty girl 20:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. All Hallow's Wraith 08:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

All I can say in response to Melty Girl is that in order to determine "especially notable children" you must violate WP:NPOV. If you're willing to accept that by not listing the children that NPOV has been violated, allowing therefore any POV statements to be added to the article, then I'm fine with the change. 23skidoo (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Just as a followup to my above comment I have made the recommendation that this problematic criteria be removed as determining notability requires violating NPOV. My compromise suggestion is to only allow individuals with Wikipedia articles to be listed; since survival of such articles indicates consensus that the subject is notable, that solves the NPOV issue right there. It also handles the issue of whether spouses and parents are notable, or that matter. 23skidoo (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If determining whether children are "especially notable" violates WP:NPOV, then Wiki editors must violate that policy every time they determine whether a subject is notable enough to deserve an article or not. I think your logic simply falls down on that score. At the same time, I agree that whether a child has its own article is one good indication of whether that person is notable enough to merit mention in the parent's infobox—but I think that has nothing to do with your original argument about WP:NPOV, and it's not the only indication possible. Finally, I'll just comment that there seems to be a consensus here (above and below, it's not just me) that at present, the Jolie-Pitt kids are not notable enough to merit mention in the infobox, though they clearly merit mention in the article (not everything should go in the infobox!). As for your suggestion about policy for the infobox in general, this is not the correct forum to decide matters that extend beyond this article; let's restrict that discussion to Template_talk:Infobox_actor. --Melty girl (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

The English articles have always a lot of trivia, especially in this article. why don´t you care more about the quality of the articles? its more gossip than information who are necessary for an encyclopedia. La Lovely 18:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)--

It's not trivia that she is often cited as one of the most beautiful women in the world. It's instead a notable fact about her, which is included in this article in a non-trivial way. The other detail you removed...I don't consider trivial either, except for exactly what she wore one day. Second, this article is a featured article, so of course we care about the quality of this article, as well as other articles that aren't featured. This article has been formatted like that for a while, without any objections...until now. You replaced the heading Children with Trivia, and moved information that was not presented in a trivial way to the top, while having the information about her children underneath that in that same section. The information about her children certainly is not trivial, but rather a part of her personal life, which is not considered trivial in any such way. Flyer22 19:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Flyer22, except that I think that the detail about her exes and children might not need to be in the lead section -- it could probably be summarized, with the exes' names and childrens' names perhaps left out of the lead. But this detail is crucial to the Personal life section of the article, and the fact that she's considered one of the most beautiful women in the world is absolutely not trivia. She's a famous actor, and her physical attributes are a critical part of her craft and career opportunities. It's an undeniable social reality that Jolie's perceived beauty is a huge money-maker and a cultural force, whether we like it or not. Would you remove the mentions of Elizabeth Taylor or Marilyn Monroe's being famous for their beauty? --Melty girl 19:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I´m sorry but I didn´t understand everything that you said because I am no native speaker but I will try to explain you why I did it as good as I can.

In the German Wikipedia is said that the names of the children of celebrities and other information about them are only necessary when there is a concrete interest of the children, I think the information about the children are too detailed and it needn´t to be mentioned how there full names are, where they were borned, etc. I think it´s enough to mention that they have 4 children and that 3 of them are adopted from a poor country. La Lovely 19:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)--

La Lovely, there is a lot of interest in her children, whether it's that notable or not, I suppose can be debated and has been before. But having the detail about them in her Personal life section is not trivial. They are her children, a part of her personal life and the article gives insight into the matter in what I feel is not a trivial way. Also, I agree with what Melty girl has stated about the lead section of this article. Perhaps, we can come to an agreement on that. 20:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

---

SOUTH PARK REFERENCE?

IS ANYONE GOING TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE SOUTH PARK EPISODE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.42.211.4 (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• What South Park reference? 23skidoo (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

I'm curious why the page protection was lifted recently. The article has already been vandalized half a dozen times, and there is no reason to expect it will get better. I don't think ending the protection was a very good idea. Sloan21 (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I unprotected the page because it is not Wikipedia policy to leave articles semi-protected forever. Every now and again, protection is lifted to see if it remains necessary. At the moment I think vandalism is within acceptable levels - only a few vandal edits a day and some positive IP edits. I would also point out that this editor [2] would not have been able to edit the page had it still been semi protected. That seems a good faith edit. If you think the article should be reprotected, you can request that at any time at WP:RFPP. WjBscribe 12:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well given the edits since my previous post, I have decided to restore semi-protection. WjBscribe 07:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Good call. For whatever reason cetain articles are simply vandalism magnets for people with too much time on their hands. I agree that it's good to unprotect the page from time to time, if only to justify why it should be protected. 23skidoo (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest to put this page under semi-protection again. This ongoing reverting orgy really serves no purpose; there was hardly any meaningful edit form an unregistered user since this this article was unprotected. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Some suggestions

• If there is a separate Awards section, there should be a proper awards table (like Jake Gyllenhaal), not this rather confusing list of succession boxes. Also, I don't see the usefulness of these succession boxes with award shows anyway - unlike a political office for example, the predecessor has no relevance or connection to the incumbent. One succession box for the Academy Award would be more than sufficient, imho.
• Whether she should be introduced as "a former fashion model" in the lead might be debatable. She never gained any particular notability as a model and her previous modeling work hasn't come to prominence in retrospect either. Since she was never well know as a fashion model (and also currently is not), this might be best removed.
• Is the disambiguation link on top of the page really necessary? Seems a bit like advertising to me, as the character in question doesn't even have its own article.

EnemyOfTheState (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on all three counts! --Melty girl (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The latter is probably because of the redirect from Jolie. There was a disambiguation page which I've moved to the correct spot; this page can link to that. To some people the most famous "Jolie" would be Mama Jolie. Gimmetrow 21:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I included a table in the awards section and changed the first sentence. I don't know whether it is unnecessary for 'Jolie' to redirect here, it could be a disambiguation page. I doubt many people type in "Jolie" if they are looking for this article (unless they already know about the redirecting). EnemyOfTheState (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree the award list is better than the succession boxes. Would it help if the categories linked to the appropriate article, for those who want to know "who won the year before"? Gimmetrow 00:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The 12 Days of Angelina Jolie

• Bauer Griffin online has a pretty extensive daily feature on Angelina Jolie,which features her during a different month of '07 every day. I am new to this page, so I can't put up a link, but you can see it here: The 12 Days of Angelina Jolie Langosta (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Tattoos

For those who know about the topic, I'd like a better list of her tattoos. It says that she has 13 and more than three can be listed. I saw a photograph with "13 5 1960" in Roman numerals on her left arm, and I have no idea what it represents. Reywas92^Talk 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• We gotta be careful of WP:NOR, though. Unless there is an actual article or book giving an up-to-date account of what she has and what they mean, it might be a challenge passing this through WP:BLP. 23skidoo (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• She has "XIII V MCMXL" (13 May 1940) on her left forearm, the date of Churchill's Blood, toil, tears, and sweat speech - however, as with many of her tattoos, I don't think she ever actually commented on this, so the meaning is more or less media speculation and not a definite fact. Initially, there was a full list of her tattoos, but it was removed during the peer review I think. Also, during the featured article nomination, there was an understanding that only a handful of her tattoos should be mentioned (ideally those that offer some insight about her personality), while a full list of 'body art' is not desirable and unencyclopedic trivia. For example, a list of her tattoos can be found here [3], more pictures and explanations [4]. At one point, there was an external link to a website listing and explaining all of her tattoos, but I think it was removed per WP:EL, because these sites normally violate copyright. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• If a good source can be found, though (one which either she or a good third party like a bioigrapher gives an accounting) I think it would be notable to have a more detailed account of her tattoos, because it is considered a major part of her persona. But it can't just be a willy nilly list and guesswork. And it would have to be updated from time to time as she has been known to revise her tattoos (such as replacing the Billy Bob one). 23skidoo (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the last sentence in the tattoo section rather redundant? I think it's talking about the prayer, which was already discussed, but maybe I'm just dumb. :) And, in a Rolling Stones article, she says she covered the window with a tattoo of a tiger, which is on her lower back. I know I've seen pictures of her getting that tiger tattoo done, but I can't remember where it was. I'll look in my magazine articles in a couple days, once I unpack them. :) 74.140.234.35 (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Another suggestion for addition, and certainly highly contributing to an insight into her persona. On the place of her left arm, a tatoo is lasered out and she keeps on adding the map coordinates for the birthplaces of her children. As her personality changes, the topics of her tatoos - coming and going - change.

Criticism on Adoption

Brad Pitt has not adopted the children. Jolie only added his last name and made him a legal guardian. He is not their adoptive father. http://www.moono.com/news/news00160.html http://www.nypost.com/seven/01112007/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm http://kadnexus.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/return-of-the-brangelina/ http://www.languageofblood.com/whywrite.html

A section about adoption should be in the article. The positive and negatives on both sides. Otherwise it's POV. Right now it has a tinge of "Adoption saves children" so this should directly be addressed.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Since no one added anything, I did. I'll take it if someone takes that part off even with the citations, that this article is POV, and I'll report it as such. However, you are welcome to add counterarguments.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting your additions because the sources used are questionable to say the very least. One is a blog which is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Another is what appears to be a gossip site (Moono.com). That source also does NOT state that Maddox was sold or bought, it clearly states that he may have been bought. That's hardly an admission. That article also has no author and has a great deal of tabloid phrasing including Jolie has told a friend., and that such & such told a source. Adding parody videos to support your claim also seems questionable. Celebrities get made fun of constantly so that is not a barometer for scandal or wrongdoing, that's just plain criticism. Other celebrities have adopted foreign children for years so I think this attack on Jolie is more personal than anything else. This is a featured article so it has been put through the motions by several editors to get rid of POV and the like. If you still feel this topic needs to be addressed, I suggest you find more reliable sources than gossip sites and parody videos to back up this claim. This article is about Jolie, her life, and what makes her notable, not the pros and cons of international adoption. Pinkadelica (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My response is basically: take the removal however you want and report away. As Pinkadelica said, to become a featured article, it goes through a rigorous examination regarding reliable sourcing, neutrality editing, and fairly intense criticism. The only really nearly viable thing you seemed to add to this article was a 4 year old one time item about a question raised regarding the adoption agency Jolie went through having problems with questionable adoptions. I did a thorough search trying to find any follow-up legitimate news items that found that her adoption of Maddox was tainted or illegal and guess what? Nothing. Nowhere. The question was raised when the agency she used first came under scrutiny, and had the adoption turned out to be questionable, it most certainly would have had more press than one item. The item says she was going to be facing a huge legal battle to keep Maddox, but even when the agency's owner faced legal problems, no question surfaced regarding Jolie. Another source you used is based on a gossip item originally from the Daily Mirror from January of this year, saying Jolie and Pitt were travelling to Africa to adopt another child, with a supposed statement from her brother confirming a trip that was planned for this very past weekend. It's a gossip rag, with an item run before the news regarding her very apparent pregnancy hit the press. Given the announcement that she was using fertility drugs to increase the chance of conception, I have to wonder why this gossip blurp sounds suspect? The languageoftheblood site is a self-published blog. Cited or not, it's not been subjected to independent objective fact-checking, and is essentially, at best, original research. Not acceptable. Pagesix and the New York Post are just unvalidated gossip and would never be acceptable as reliable sources. If you want to open a critical analysis of the pros and cons of international adoption, then write an article elsewhere and don't attempt to play it in the midst of other articles, especially one that has passed featured article status, based on some obscure website charges that Jolie hasn't done enough for the author's favorite cause. She doesn't owe anyone that. But it will have to pass WP:BLP, which this addition to Jolie's article calls into question. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

New lead picture

Just for my 2 cents, the current lead picture is a much better choice than some of the ones used previously. 23skidoo (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really like it. Only shows the face. Image:Angelina jolie lugar.jpg was better. Gimmetrow 02:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with just showing the face? Hayden Panettiere's lead image is just the face and is actually quite striking (and one of the few exceptions I've seen to the "Commons images are lame" rule. And the one used here is pretty good, too. 23skidoo (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

At some point after I posted that last comment someone went and changed the lead image at the article, replacing it with what they thought was a "better" Commons image, though IMO it is exceedingly poor. So please ignore my above comment as it seems to no longer apply to the article in question. (I refer to the Hayden Panettiere image; the current lead image for Jolie is still a very good one. [User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers priority assessment

Per debate and discussion re: assessment of the approximate 100 top priority articles of the project, this article has been included as a top priority article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Summary Paragraph

I hate to sound TOO pedantic, but the introductory sentence of this page states that Angelina Jolie is an American film actor and UN Goodwill Ambassador. She is neither. She is, surely, an American film actress and and UN Goodwill Ambassadress . . .82.214.225.237 (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Ambassadress"? Where does that come from? That term is never used. As for "actress" that term is no longer used in the gender-neutral media. Actor refers to both male and female in the media and my understanding is Wikipedia follows this standard in its MOS. 23skidoo (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Actress" is still used in a lot of Wikipedia articles, though, and in valid news sources, not to mention for award nominations/wins. But I never had a problem with this article using it for Jolie/being applied to any girl/woman. It has become a gender-neutral term after all. Flyer22 (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no word such as "Ambassadress". And the word "Actor" is regardless of gender. --::semper fidelis:: 18:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurbutterfly (talk • contribs)

Can I Just Say

That i posted on here that Angelina was expecting twins and some stupid gay moderator called enamyofthestate kept deleting it, so i actually was right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.46.24 (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2008

Hopefully, you'll realise calling someone gay doesn't get you anywhere. If you couldn't back up your claims beforehand, thats your problem. Now its been confirmed, it can be sourced, and therefore should be on Wikipedia. Matt (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Relation to Hilary Clinton

I heard on Google's website that Angelina Jolie is distantly related to Hilary Clinton they are 9th cousins once removed and that Angelina is related to her on her mother`s side and Hilary is related to her on her mother`s side meaning that they are maternal cousins to each other which also means that Hilary`s daughter who is an only child is Angelina`s 10th cousin and Angelina `s children are Hilary's daughter`s 10th cousins once removed and if Hilary's daughter has children of her own then Hilary`s grandchildren and Angelina`s children would be 11th cousins to each other right or wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.106.105 (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Animal Abuse

I see the Controversy section I put up was deleted. That's fine. I just didn't want to mess with the flow of the text elsewhere. Though it is old news I couldn't find one word about personal drug use in the article other than for a character of hers. My primary reason was of course the mention of animal abuse in her youth. I think this could be a line under the early life section. I couldn't find any mention of animal abuse by her earlier than yesterday. Synchaser (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of a bio article is not to detail every stupid thing someone has done in their youth. Nar Matteru (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how much detail can fit in one line on the page. The 5 paragraphs on her Humanitarian work might not be enough to balance it out. :-) Synchaser (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see how her past drug use should be included (the first paragraph of the media section, following sentence about her 'wild girl' image might be a good place for that), however, I fail to see the encyclopedic value of the fact that she caused the deaths of several animals as a child. This might be seen as cruel, but to me, this has more the quality of tabloid trivia than relevant biographical information. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the line in there portrays her as being cruel. I think there is a real honesty about it that I found refreshing, even if it was on video in a private setting. I'm uncomfortable with even calling the topic in this discussion "Animal Abuse" but couldn't think of anything else off hand. And she certainly didn't come off as bragging about it like the Sun article said. On the other hand she seems to have a real fascination with death as a youngster and a lot of kids do - then a lot of kids don't. With the cutting stuff and funeral director thing (might have been said in jest), I can't help but wonder if that isn't in some way connected perhaps on a subconcious level with her pets. Quite a bit of valid information originates from tabloids and then gets carried by the main stream media. If you feel strongly that it has no relevancy in her biography or think it treats her unfairly go ahead and edit or delete it. I just wanted to see a tad bit of balance and thought it would go in well for that section. Synchaser (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

People do stupid things as kids, and wikipedia isn't really the authority to hold them accountable for it. I can see including it for example if she were a child actress, or if it were something that were still occurring now that shes an adult. But in this case, I just don't feel that every stupid thing someone has done as a child is notable for a biographical article. That, and there's really not any ways of including it that don't sound like a tabloid smear. Nar Matteru (talk) 05:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Referencing in Awards section

Following a message of "section lacking citations", the award section now states as its source the list of Jolie's awards from IMDb. I asked in WikiProject Film's discussion regarding reliability of IMDb in this regard. The reply is IMDb is not exactly a reliable source for such info. Indeed, Wikipedia:Citing IMDb also (probably) tells the same thing (probably, because I could not make out if "hard data" includes awards). So, the editors are requested to include reliable sources in the awards section. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the awards information, aside from the filmography listing, the quintessential IMDb "hard data"? This information is not included by members, like biographical details or future projects, but by employed editors, following award shows. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of who compiles the IMDb awards dta, so asked the question there in the WikiProject Films' discussion board. According to one editor says, "using IMDb as a stepping stone. Sometimes non-notable awards are listed, so you can take the keywords from a film's award page and search for the main website (like the Academy Awards, as TheBlazikenMaster suggested). If you can't find a main website or if you find a website that seems too bloggish, then it is probably not worth inclusion. Another way is to check to see if an award has a Wikipedia article and review its references to see how prominent it is."--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So I don't think there is a problem then, because the table only includes major awards, far from everything the IMDb lists on their site. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection off

The article's protection has expired so it's open for anyone to edit once again. I give it about 24 hours before we'll have to lock it down again because of IPs. 23skidoo (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like the IP brigade is at it again, doing things like removing pictures, posting unsourced rumors about births, etc. Any objections to me locking the article down again? 23skidoo (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Please LOCK it again. I just posted something she said, and it's gone. I will do a revert. Ruth E (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The post was removed because it wasn't really in keeping with the rest of the article, and it most certainly was not removed by an IP vandal. The format of the post, with the entire quote linked off-site, is inappropriate. We don't routinely post the daily quote from Brangelina. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

Since unregistered IP users have decided to target this page with vandalism - again - I've locked it down until further notice. Any legitimate users who want to edit this page can make their requested changes here, or better still register with Wikipedia and spend some time gaining experience as editors first. Given that every time this article is unprotected it becomes a magnet for vandalism, I strongly advise that it remain semi-protected permanently and am pursuing inquiries to see if it's possible to institute a ban -- as in if anyone wants to remove the protection, they can't without first going through a process. This may sound extreme, but I think the record shows that this article needs permanent protection due to ongoing IP abuse. 23skidoo (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Angelina's air force. Yes, she is becoming an Aviatrix

While it may not be worth a section yet, the aviation community is talking about her growing fleet.

From http://discussions.flightaware.com/viewtopic.php?p=38089&highlight=&sid=7759ace6aa79003b5a8759b4cabd39eb Ms. Jolie's personal aircraft are a Cirrus SR-22GTS N808MX which replaced an earlier Cirrus SR-22G2 N805MX which was used to earn her PPL. Added to the fleet last year was Cessna Caravan N48JA. Currently N808MX was approved to be reregistered N805MX. Both aircraft are owned by Ms. Jolie's production company Chivan Productions. And possibly N311CG Gulfstream V-SP c/n 5108 registered on title is AVN AIR (aka GE Credit) reported to be owned by Angelina Jolie.

Pictures http://justjared.buzznet.com/2006/08/21/angelina-jolie-airplane-flying/

--Flightsoffancy (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Latest children

Have the names of her twins actually been confirmed? The news sources quote the doctor as giving the names but wouldn't that best be received by her publicist or someone who is actually allowed to give that information? Also, her twins are premature according to the dates her camp has given out, and this article states it was a scheduled c-section. I have a hard time believing that a doctor would schedule a premature delivery. I think both items should probably best be taken out of the article until they can properly be confirmed and cited. Susan

The parents are expected to give the millions of dollars gained by selling the first photo of the twins to charity. Because of their high tax brackets, this will be a cash savings of millions on their estimated taxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.126.95 (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

71.231.95.11 (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The name of the boy is Knox Léon, not Knox Leon, according to the birth certificate (Léon is the name of Angelina's great-great grandfather). See [5]. --Markov (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspected Copyright Violation

Compare the second two paragraphs of this article with http://www.theinsider.com/celebrities/Angelina_Jolie . I did not bother to examine the article in further, so there might well be additional violations. -- Danorton (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you the only plagiarism here was done by The Insider. I wrote the second and third paragraph of the lead over two years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Angelina_Jolie&diff=prev&oldid=67444013). Over time, it was slightly rewritten to its current form, which was then copied for their website, apparently. EnemyOfTheState (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Enemy of the State. I also contributed to the paragraphs (though I can't remember what if any of my contributions remain). Wikipedia is frequently copied by other websites, and the GDFL license I believe makes this material fair game, even if they don't acknowledge it. 23skidoo (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Roseanne Barr Tirade

Should the tirade Roseanne Barr made against her and her family be included in the Jolie in the media section? I'm only asking. http://www.accesshollywood.com/article/10893/roseanne-blasts-angelina-jolie-and-jon-voight-over-political-opinions/ --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not of encyclopedic merit; it's not important to the understanding of the topic. See WP:SOAP. --Danorton (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, unless the tirade (which I've been unable to examine as the link provided isn't working for me) achieves some form of notoriety (for example the Rosie O'Donnell vs. Donald Trump feud of a few years ago, or even the current well-publicized disagreement between Spike Lee and Clint Eastwood over the depiction of blacks in American World War II films. Jolie is a public figure who occasionally makes political statements and therefore she is open to criticism, but this fact in and of itself is not notable. 23skidoo (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubly agree. Jolie gets blasted on a daily basis since she has been involved in some controversial events these past few years (e.g., her involvement with the UN and politics, her extensive family, her relationship with Brad Pitt). There is no notoriety here -- at least, not in my opinion. Ms. Sarita (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously one needs to make sure we aren't looking at the subject through rose-coloured glasses, but the fact Roseanne has a bone to pick with them (I wish I could get that link to work, I'm curious now!) falls into the "big deal" category. Now, if one of the presidential candidates were to sound off about something related to Jolie, OK fine (thinking here how Dan Quayle and Candace Bergen went at it long ago). 23skidoo (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...the link seems to work just fine for me. In a nutshell, Roseanne rips Jon Voight, Jolie, and Pitt a new one about the family's political opinions on the presidential campaign, how reports have insinuated that Jolie will side with McCain, and how Voight supposedly said, "God forbid, we live to see Mr. Obama president..." It's just a hot piece of drama that doesn't even need to be mentioned in the article. Ms. Sarita (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The only notability here is in Jolie agreeing with her estranged father on something (though I take anything that suggests Jolie is a conservative with a few grains of salt). A person's political leanings, whether they choose to make them public or not, fall into the "who gives a damn" category. I'd rather see the article make mention of the news reports that Jolie is presently suffering severe postpartum depression. 23skidoo (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's quite notable if it was reported by many major news sources (Google it and you'll know), so it doesn't fall under the WP:SOAP policy. Her postpartum depression by the way, is pure speculation; it's as verifiable as the rumors that she and Brad are breaking up, so that wouldn't merit being in the article at this point. And as for the statement that feuds such as Clint and Spike and Rosie and Donald are more notable than this; they're not. This has received considerable coverage in the era it happened as much as the aforementioned feuds (especially Jon Voight threw one right back at Roseanne). --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that 23skidoo was being sarcastic in his/her "postpartum depression" comment but I could be wrong. As you can see, I do not agree that the Roseanne tirade warrants any merit to the article. We could post every single tirade that someone has made against Jolie...but that would make the article far too long. I don't see any reason why it should be included as it only denotes one's opinion about Jolie. However, many people have not commented on this section in the talk page. You can try to fit it into the article and see if people revert it. Ms. Sarita (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I am sorry for not getting the sarcasm (though it's hard to identify in text, because you can't "read" emotions). And this tirade made big news because of the subject matter and the timing with the ongoing elections, and Roseanne is famous for her controversial comments (so maybe consider adding it on her page instead? I don't know), that's all I was saying. But the buzz of the news has now passed, so you may have a point in forgetting about it. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No apology is necessary. Like I said, I could be wrong about 23skidoo's sarcasm. Anyway, regardless of whether or not a person's rant is famous or not, it is only one person's opinion of Jolie. I hadn't even heard of this particular rant (maybe because I'm too busy focusing on the hurricanes and the presidential conventions). In my opinion, it is not notable to post one lady's political/personal opinions about Jolie on the article. Ms. Sarita (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Filmography is Not Prospective

I just removed a reference to a 2010 planned release, but more because I can't see that it's anything more than pure speculation and it hasn't even started filming yet. But is there a written guideline or style suggestion on adding unreleased items to a filmography list? --Danorton (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, somebody beat me to the deletion. I added an HTML comment asking editors to discuss unreleased works before adding it to the filmography section. --Danorton (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Kung Fu Panda is 2008.

i don't have an account so i can't change it. it's in the second paragraph i think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.219.205 (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. You can edit even if you don't have an account! --Lova Falk (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not on this page because it is semi-protected due to IP vandalism. Anyway, I updated the date reference a few days ago. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 17:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Actor or Actress

In English the use of the word Actor to pertain to persons of the female gender is improper usage and the word Actress should always be used. Also the words Actor and Actress are proper nouns and should be capitalized. So I have and will continue to change the word Actor (when pertaining to women) to Actress. However unless someone can add reference links (preferably to video footage) of Angelina Jolie referring to herself as an actor then I will let it go...!!!!!Antiedman (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this article, where Jolie states, on page 3, "I thought I'd become a funeral director when I wasn't going to be an actor."

Not to mention that the English definition, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, is "a theatrical performer." Nowhere in that definition does it mention gender. Just thought you should know that so you can stop reverting the article and avoid being banned.

ETA: I was unaware that the word "actor" or "actress" is supposed to capitalized. I believe that you are incorrect in this. Ms. Sarita (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's another quote: "I think that sometimes people take me less seriously in my work for the UN because I am an actor." See: [6] Lova Falk (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's an even better quote, Lova Falk. Thanks for providing it. Ms. Sarita (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the two articles given above as references for Angelina using actor over actress. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 08:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My two cents on this: I don't believe whether or not Jolie uses the word 'actor' should be of too much relevance here, especially since there are probably just as many instances, where she used 'actress' ([7], [8]). What's more interesting: is there a WP standard that's generally agreed on, and is 'actor' actually a common word in American English for female performer; I guess the first point is debatable, but actor certainly seems pretty common for a woman in American English. Thus, it's perfectly acceptable to use 'actor', per WP:Gender-neutral language. EnemyOfTheState_|talk 10:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, as Enemy says above, there is a Wikipedia standard. Journalistic standards such as the Canadian Press Style Guide and others say "actor" is to be used for both male and female. Whether it's "correct English" or not is beside the point. Most gender-neutral terminology throws "correct English" out the window anyway. In the newspaper world we get hit with criticism about this all the time (as well as the fact that in 99% of cases the word "that" is removed, plus there are other things done in written journalism that may not be kosher in an academic thesis). In the case of WP style, Antiedman is certainly welcome to dispute the use, but unfortunately the only way to get the style changed is to lobby for a change to the applicable Wikipedia policy. And since Consensus can change there's nothing stopping any editor from attempting to get such a change made. For now though we have to stick to the rules. 23skidoo (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, both of you are absolutely right. Lova Falk (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I like the two references for the word 'actor' in the very first sentence too much - this looks very redundant to me, as if people are disputing she is acting. I'm not sure what you are trying to source here exactly; as I stated above, I don't believe her own use of the word 'actor' should have much relevance for this article. I also don't think the enforcement of WP guidelines needs any references. IMHO, these two footnotes look rather awkward and if anything hurt readability. EnemyOfTheState_|talk 12:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not expect the sources to actually be placed in the article. Antiedman asked for references of Jolie using the term "actor" to describe herself, so we provided them for him/her. If you don't like the references in the article, then remove them. I believe that Antiedman can simply look at this talk page if he/she feels like reverting the article...again. Ms. Sarita (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Cites were:

• Angelina Jolie: Billy Bob, Knives and Sex. ABC News. July 11, 2008. Accessed 2008-10-01. "As an actor you know, you're being evaluated [...]"
• SPIEGEL Interview with Angelina Jolie: 'Acting and Politics Are Sometimes a Very Bad Combination'. SPIEGEL. August 28, 2007. Accessed 2008-10-01. "I think that sometimes people take me less seriously in my work for the UN because I am an actor."

Removed. Gimmetrow 13:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you removing references?.--SkyWalker (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

SkyWalker, I advise you to read the entire discussion. Thank you. Ms. Sarita (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As do I. I fully support the removal of these references because no other biographical article on a female actor goes to this length. As EnemyOfTheState rightly points out, it indicates that there is a dispute as to whether Angelina Jolie is involved in the profession of acting. The fact there is a dispute as to whether to use gender-specific terminology cannot be denied, but this is not the forum to address it. If any editor (not just those involved in the discussion) wish to push for a change to Wikipedia policy on the matter, there are proper channels to go through; similar debates have been held regarding other gender-specific terms. The fact (good or bad) is in the English language most if not all of the gender-neutral forms happen to be identical to the male-specific form. That's just the way the language works, though of course it's not consistent as I've never seen a woman author referred to as a writress. I have seen the term authoress used, though. And Ambassadoress. But it's rare 23skidoo (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I also fully agree with the removal of the references. The line referring to this discussion is enough. Lova Falk (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is it even THAT important, though? Why inflate this problem to something this big when you cannot ignore that she is a woman and you cannot ignore that "actress" would suffice. The only problem anyone has had here is that "actor" needs to be changed to "actress" because it is more commonly used to imply the person is male. English is a neuter-rich language, but why not use the feminine form of the word since she is a woman? There is absolutely no problem with it. I sincerely doubt this would have been a problem if the first word used was actress. We all know what an actress is. There is no silly gender dispute.

Children

I think, instead of saying she has three adopted children and three biological children, it should just say she has six children, and then list their names. It is already mentioned elsewhere in the article that Maddox, Pax, and Zahara are adopted. Do we really need to seperate the children into groups of "adopted" and "biological"? She has six children, period. ShiLover (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• On talk pages new threads go at the bottom, so I have relocated this discussion. In answer to the comment, the fact she has adopted several children is considered quite notable. Therefore to state this wherever applicable is perfectly acceptable. 23skidoo (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

and also her twins were born on the 13th of july not the 12th as thbe artivle states.(900neojames900 (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC))

According to the reference, the twins were born on the evening of July 12, 2008. If you care to dispute it, then you need a reference. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 21:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ShiLover; to state "Children: three, and three adopted" implies that the adopted kids aren't her children or aren't her children in the same way the biological ones are. If you want to point out that some are adopted and some are not, the better way would be to state: "three biological, and three adopted" or "three adopted, and three biological" since the adopted ones came first.--Gloriamarie (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't even see why the criteria is necessary in the infobox. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 20:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe this criteria has been established by the Biography Wikiprojects as they created the infoboxes; you may wish to ask there. 23skidoo (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. What I meant is that the original template for the Actor Infobox doesn't even include a "children" section. So it must have been added for some reason. I don't see a "children" listing for any of the other actors that I have looked at. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 20:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, I stand corrected. I thought it was in the standard infobox. (It is a legitimate question, though, were there to be such a field) 23skidoo (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Jenny Shimizu - domestic partner?

I was wondering what constitutes a "domestic partner" - someone with whom Jolie has been in a long-term, marriage-like relationship (such as Brad Pitt), or any person Jolie has been in a relationship with? If it's the latter, Jenny Shimizu should be included - Jolie dated her in 1995-1996 while on a hiatus from then-boyfriend Jonny Lee Miller, as stated in a 2001 interview with Rolling Stone. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Do people who date generally become known as domestic partners? Of course not. There needs to be an indication of something more permanent intended. 23skidoo (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with SHILOVER also because children are children and should not be sorted into a "biological" or "adopted" group. It doesn't matter how her family came about, it matters that they are family.MUSiC SPEAKS 7 (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)MUSiC SPEAKS 7 12 January 2009

Second sentence of the lead

I'm not sure why User:Wallie fells the need to change the "one of the world's most beautiful women" part in the lead. I don't like the new wording really. The reason this is in the lead at all is because Jolie has topped a lot of these magazine "hot lists" which makes it a notable fact about her. Citing just one of these lists in the lead however is more like random trivia that shouldn't be mentioned there at all. (Also, People named her the most beautiful in 2006, so it's not even factually accurate right now.) EnemyOfTheState_|talk 16:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I started to undo it when I saw it but thought I'd wait to see if others had issues with it. By all means, as far as I'm concerned, change it back! Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Tom Boy

Was she a Tom Boy as a kid? The article doesn't say.

65.101.228.154 (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What is a "Tom Boy"?

Is she a man? Why is she referred as an actor if she is an actress? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.196.31.171 (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you don't know the term. A tomboy is a girl who may dress and like to play games more associated with boys. They might like to play baseball or football, or wear blue jeans and t-shirts, or just be more rough and tumble. No, Angelina Jolie is not a man. She'd be hard pressed to explain two pregnancies if she were. She is referred to as an actor because it is not a gender specific term and can refer to either males or females who act for a living. The term "actress" was coined for females in the era when everything fell over itself to differentiate males from females. Wildhartlivie (talk)

It's obvious the IP didn't bother to read the discussion on the "actor/actress" issue. Use of gender-neutral terminology is the accepted standard on Wikipedia, as it is in most media. I do have to wonder why this appears to be the only article about a female actor of the many I edit and have on my watchlist where this is even an issue. 23skidoo (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I just assumed this was a person whose first language isn't English and let it go at that. I often revert that same change on Michelle Pfeiffer. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Manipulation of Public Image and Media (Please add to article, if OK)

A 2008 New York Times article “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image” states that Jolie is actually a highly skillful manipulator of both the media and her public image. The article states that through an uncanny savvy at such manipulation, Jolie was able to re-create her image from a “former Hollywood eccentric who wore a necklace ornamented with dried blood and talked about her fondness for knives before transforming herself into a philanthropist, United Nations good-will ambassador and devoted mother of six.”

NY Times states that sources in the media involved in bidding for photos after the birth of her biological children revealed terms of the negations included legally binding the winning bidder so they must agree to censor remarks made in the story to omit anything disparaging about the couple. Further, the negotiated restrictions were to apply not just for the resulting photo spread and article, but to all subsequent articles issued by that publication or media group. (The winning bidder was People Magazine, owned by Time, Inc.)

Similar restrictions were previously bargained for by Jolie in her earlier career. This was the period immediately following Jolie’s adoption of first son Maddox, the ensuing divorce from Billy Bob Thorton, and the publicly made pleas of concern about Jolie’s mental stability made by her recently re-estranged father, Jon Voight. Those earlier attempts at restrictive negotiations and content control with the press were to be in exchange for an exclusive photo shoot with Jolie and her then newly adopted son.

When negotiations broke down, the photo agency was later tipped off, again by Jolie herself, about where and when she could be seen playing with her son in public. The resulting pictures of Jolie and Maddox playing outdoors, sympathetically conveyed to the public the image of a young, newly divorced, starlet mother foiled by paparazzi in her attempt at private play time with her adopted son.

Through similar techniques, Jolie has successfully managed to shift public perception of herself and to raise her celebrity likeability or “Q factor” from 13 (during her Billy Bob Thorton era) up past the average rating of 18 for female stars, and further up to her current rating of 24 (during her motherhood, charity ambassador, and Brad Pitt era), armed with only “a cell phone, her manager and her lawyer.”

Source: “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image”. NY Times Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/business/media/21angelina.html?_r=1 63.226.211.112 (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Jolie officially doesn't have an agent, but her "manager" used to be an agent (as well actor, producer, etc.)

According to the deal offered by Ms. Jolie, the winning magazine was obliged to offer coverage that would not reflect negatively on her or her family, according to two people with knowledge of the bidding who were granted anonymity because the talks were confidential.

LOL Scuttlebutt ftw. Nar Matteru (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the amount of detail given here is needed, but the New York Times is the epitome of WP:RS, so if they've done an article on it, then it's fair game to at least mention some aspects of it. One must be careful not to interpret the article otherwise that causes WP:NOR and WP:BLP issues, but if the Times feels it's notable enough to cover, and they have indeed covered it, then it's fair game for this article. 23skidoo (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the NY Times story is already linked in the Further reading section. Other than that, I don't think there should be much more mentioned about this, considering it is a very media specific subject, certainly not typical encyclopedic information, not to mention that this story was flatly denied by People [9]; and they send out a memo to discredit it [10]. EnemyOfTheState_|talk 17:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's already linked, cool. As for the denials, etc., we've seen that sort of infighting before, and it's not our place to judge one way or the other. The Times is a RS, and so is People, so as long as both sides are represented, then fair game once again, should this be introduced into the story. 23skidoo (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Although the NY Times link itself is already included, it applies to a different context. The new topic requested to be added, "Media Manipulation", is not, so it certainly should be added. It isn't a Jolie vs. Annisten (or etc) type of opinion. The wiki article is about a certain media celebrity/actor. If that media celebrity has been noted by a reliable source for an unusually adept ability at manipulating the media and her success at revamping a notoriously dark and eccentric public perception, then it merits mention. I have suggested a change in the title (removing the term "Manipulation" that was used by the NY Times). 63.226.212.48 (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}Papparazzo (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

 Not done No explanation of what needs to be changed. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 10:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Clarification: Please add the following new section to the article and include the source, which is the NY Times. Thanks.

Changing Public Image and Media Perception

A 2008 New York Times article “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image” states that Jolie is actually a highly skillful manipulator of both the media and her public image. The article states that through an uncanny savvy at such manipulation, Jolie was able to re-create her image from a “former Hollywood eccentric who wore a necklace ornamented with dried blood and talked about her fondness for knives before transforming herself into a philanthropist, United Nations good-will ambassador and devoted mother of six.”

NY Times states that sources in the media involved in bidding for photos after the birth of her biological children revealed terms of the negations included legally binding the winning bidder so they must agree to censor remarks made in the story to omit anything disparaging about the couple. Further, the negotiated restrictions were to apply not just for the resulting photo spread and article, but to all subsequent articles issued by that publication or media group. (The winning bidder was People Magazine, owned by Time, Inc.)

Similar restrictions were previously bargained for by Jolie in her earlier career. This was the period immediately following Jolie’s adoption of first son Maddox, the ensuing divorce from Billy Bob Thorton, and the publicly made pleas of concern about Jolie’s mental stability made by her recently re-estranged father, Jon Voight. Those earlier attempts at restrictive negotiations and content control with the press were to be in exchange for an exclusive photo shoot with Jolie and her then newly adopted son.

When negotiations broke down, the photo agency was later tipped off, again by Jolie herself, about where and when she could be seen playing with her son in public. The resulting pictures of Jolie and Maddox playing outdoors, sympathetically conveyed to the public the image of a young, newly divorced, starlet mother foiled by paparazzi in her attempt at private play time with her adopted son.

Through similar techniques, Jolie has successfully managed to shift public perception of herself and to raise her celebrity likeability or “Q factor” from 13 (during her Billy Bob Thorton era) up past the average rating of 18 for female stars, and further up to her current rating of 24 (during her motherhood, charity ambassador, and Brad Pitt era), armed with only “a cell phone, her manager and her lawyer.”

Source: “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image”. NY Times Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/business/media/21angelina.html?_r=1 63.226.211.112 (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

63.226.212.48 (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to re-post all of that. Your suggestion was noted before, and editors noted that the article discusses something that is being denied by other media and is possibly more an issue of publication in-fighting. At this point, I agree, there is not a preponderance of other articles being noted from other publications which confirm what is essentially a story by one source which was disputed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Awards table

I have recently added several smaller awards to the filmography; it does already include all the awards listed in the awards table below. User:Wildhartlivie has suggested that it would probably be best to then remove the awards section entirely. I agree that the table is rather redundant, since the awards are already listed in the infobox and the filmography. On the other hand, I think the awards table does serve a purpose to provide a quick overview of her major awards/nominations. Personally, I don't have a real preference (remove the awards section, or keep it), so I'm interested what others think about it. EnemyOfTheState_|talk 19:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the information to be consolidated and the filmography table is versatile enough to allow this. I was looking at the awards table at Julia Roberts a few days ago, and wondering if it was the best way to go, so I'm glad this has been raised. For Jolie and Roberts, the award table is displayed by date, although another option is to display it by award. There's not a right or wrong way, but I think consistency is important, and some articles (can't think of names right now) show the same information in different formats. If I want to see how many Oscars Angelina has been nominated for, for example, I still can't see that at a glance, and I've still got to scan through and count them. If that's the case, I'd rather see it all in the one filmography table so that a bigger picture emerges. For example, I find interesting what was not considered worthy of a nomination and the filmography puts all the award nominated films into context of the overall career. I think that is more useful. I'd rather have one table that contains a lot of information but that keeps the overall article concise, than a series of more basic smaller tables that make the article look busy. Rossrs (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be possible to make the awards table sortable by either year or award, which then makes the number of received awards/nominations easier to identify. On a general note: Of course I can see the advantages of the current filmography style, having all the information in one place. However, it also means that you have to look for Oscars somewhere between online critics awards. And while I think it still works reasonably well in this article (and others such as Maggie Gyllenhaal or Liv Tyler), I don't think it looks all that great on articles like Kate Winslet or Heath Ledger, where the number of smaller awards are rather overwhelming; there it's more like an awards list that also mentions the films, than an actual filmography. So I guess my point is, no ideal solution has been found yet in how to deal with listing acting awards. Maybe some form of hidable element might be a good idea. EnemyOfTheState_|talk 15:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the challenge is to have a format that best suits that majority of articles, and maybe there is no ideal solution for all articles. I find it hard to visualise a hideable element - can you think of any other tables that use something similar so that I can see what you mean? Do you mean within the table to reduce the longer lists or the table itself? Rossrs (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't have anything concrete in mind. I was thinking about a method that would allow to hide some of the smaller awards in the right column of the filmography. That column (let's say titled "Notes and major awards (show all awards)") would by default only show the bigger awards, and if you click on "show all awards" it would expand to show all the awards that person has won. But I'm afraid the current wiki language does not allow such an option (I might be wrong about this). EnemyOfTheState_|talk 15:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Being the person who first mentioned this, I suppose I should reiterate. I find the separate awards table redundant to various other points in the article and is happily incorporated into the main filmography table. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Added note: If the awards are included properly, it should have the awards won first, followed by nominations, and in alphabetical order by awards name in each of those two categories. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That is the way I tried to do it, did I mess up the order? EnemyOfTheState_|talk 15:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you did. I was just commenting on the way the compilation should be formatted to be able to see clearly what was won and what was nominated. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We probably misunderstood each other. I was talking about the filmography, while you were commenting on the awards table I suppose; that section is currently listed chronologically. EnemyOfTheState_|talk 17:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm the idiot. That's what I get for answering when I'm half-asleep. I really think I misread your question. I'm certain I was responding to "That is the way I tried to do it." by agreeing that you had. My original comment was in response to your statement "However, it also means that you have to look for Oscars somewhere between online critics awards", to which I was feebly trying to communicate that with the awards in alphabetical order then by won/nominated, they should be easy to see in the filmography list. I'm sorry for not making myself clear! Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think having the awards in the filmography table makes the filmography more difficult to read, since many of the fields end up empty while others end up with 5+ lines. Before the awards and filmography were partially combined, they were not redundant, and were, in my opinion, easier to read. The separate awards table is in the format typical when a stand-alone article is created for the awards (See most any artist awards list at WP:FL, eg this one). Gimmetrow 01:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair comparison. It's comparing a "list of awards", in which a detailed break-down should be expected, against an actor biography which should be comprehensive and concise. It wouldn't be appropriate to have the content of List of awards and nominations received by Gwen Stefani in the article Gwen Stefani in this form, which is exactly why it's been broken away into its own article. Rossrs (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I would think the Stefani tables are spun out into their own article because of length, not form. I'm sure there were awards tables in some actor FAs at the point they passed FA. Gimmetrow 12:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I was only commenting on the example you gave. It may have been broken away because of length, but the length is determined by the format used, and it's not a concise format. Rossrs (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think clarity and readability are more important, but the separate awards table as it used to be here seems pretty concise to me. Gimmetrow 18:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess there is no clear consensus, though the majority seems to be in favor of removing the awards section. Maybe a solution could be to cut the table, and to create a sub-article that contains both a more detailed filmography (including directors, co-stars, box office gross), as well as a list of her awards and nominations comparable to the Gwen Stefani example above? EnemyOfTheState_|talk

That is a distinct possibility. There are numerous entries under Category:Filmographies, and although most use the title "First name/last name filmography", there are various formats being used. One example is Katharine Hepburn filmography which incorporates her Academy Awards/nominations in separate tables, though it would be wise to put on sunglasses before you look at it. I think it has potential, although it ignores all the other awards and nominations Hepburn received. Rossrs (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about an appropriate title for such an article. "Angelina Jolie filmography and awards and nominations list" or something like that sounds rather ungainly. The Hepburn filmography is of course very informative by listing all her fellow Oscar nominees, but that makes a potential awards list very long (if it contains most, if not all the awards given by the IMDb). Not to mention that it takes a lot of work to put it together. I created a rough example how I think it could be done here: User:EnemyOfTheState/Sandbox. EnemyOfTheState_|talk 17:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Affair with married man

There is no mention of the fact that she became pregnant with Pitt's child while he was still married to Jennifer, despite her protestations she would never do such a thing. This seems like an important fact to leave out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.43.129 (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That might be because Wikipedia isn't a tabloid and wouldn't include unsourced gossip, nor would it take sides in the bad Angie/good Jen factions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if look at the time line of her pregancy she was clearly pregnant while brad was still married to his wife so how is that unsourccd gossip? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nillarse (talk • contribs) 19:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well if we look at the time line of her pregnancy, the date that he and Aniston split up, the date that the baby was born, and deduce that she had sex with him before the divorce was final, without sources for it, it would be unsourced speculation. And if we include it because we think it means she was untruthful about anything, then we are violating WP:BLP and that won't be happening. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Her religion?

Is she religious? I think she's some kind of agnostic or atheist even. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.192.184 (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Format

I think that the format could be tweaked a little. Perhaps a 'personal life' and 'career' heading with several sub-headings. Teatreez (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)