Talk:Angelina Jolie

reference does not pertain to statement

She denied this on several occasions, but later admitted that they "fell in love" on the set.[104] This reference has no such statement.

add to under in the media second to last sentence

Jolie was named the most powerful actress in 2012 Forbes top Celebrity 100.

Philosophical views

I tried to add a sentence about Angelina Jolie's interest in the philosophy of Objectivism. Lady Lotus undid the edit, claiming that mentioning hobbies is not allowed. Yet, I pointed out that a secular philosophy is no more of a hobby than a religion is, and that in any case Jolie's entry mentions "Jolie holds a private pilot license and owns a single-engine Cirrus SR22 aircraft", which surely is a hobby. I received no reply from Lady Lotus. According to the 'Religion' section of this talk page, Lady Lotus does not think that mentioning religion is not allowed, provided that the statement is well sourced. My statement on Jolie's secular philosophy was well sourced.

Bencherlite claims that it's trivial, also not explaining his/her reasoning as to why a secular philosophy is 'trivial' but a private pilot license is not. --Renren8123 (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The second source cited with your edit seems to be based on the first source, so all we really have is this out of context comment from Jolie: "I just think (Ayn Rand) has a very interesting philosophy" in a website article not just about her but quoting many celebrities. That is not very much to go on at all and I would definitely consider it non-notable trivia for this article. I definitely would not characterise it as evidence of "a secular philosophy". For relevant Wikipedia policy, see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Jolie is probably interested in a great many things and we cannot include them all here without diluting the value of the article. Information included in articles needs to be encyclopedic as well as verifiable. If this interest had influenced Jolie's life in a significant way, and this was well covered in reliable sources, it may well be considered encyclopedic however. HelenOnline 15:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually I did respond if you had looked at my response after your post on my talk page yesterday morning. And as I said on there, saying she's just "interested" in the philosophy is very different than saying she practices a philosophy like Buddhism or Taoism. It's different, and inserting a single sentence about it is trivial. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I've noted in the edit history of this article more than once that I think that the "Jolie holds a private pilot license and owns a single-engine Cirrus SR22 aircraft." text should be removed; it's trivial, in my opinion, and is not a good fit for the In the Media section. Not to mention that it's a lone sentence, which we should try to avoid...per MOS:PARAGRAPHS. Flyer22 (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

On a side note, I noticed that you linked Lady Lotus's username three times above; I'm not stating the following to be snide or anything: All it takes is one instance of linking a username; the WP:Echo will (usually) reach the person. Flyer22 (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: I removed the license/flight matter, per what I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie - children

I have edited paragraph 4.2 on Angelina Jolie's children. It is quite hard to remember, or know, in some cases which of her children are girls and which are boys, because of their names. The article obviously indicates it, and I have edited the boxed list to show it here as well. --P123cat1 (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems pretty reasonable and done in a useful way.Naraht (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Main image

• 
• 
• 
• 

The 2007 side view isn't an improvement. Personally I'd prefer File:Angelina Jolie by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg as the main image.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I like the current one of her in 2012, it's the best headshot with nothing obstructing her face (like a microphone ;)) LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I prefer File:Angelina-Jolie cropped.jpg, but the others are fine, too. Really I'm just curious to know what "shock value" PS171 sees in the 2012 image. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Right? What shock value either of the images he suggested has? Doesn't even make sense LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I added the images in question in a gallery above. Unfortunately WP:LEADIMAGE does not define clearly enough the way images should be selected, I only used the wording found there. On the other hand, the current pic with the strange smile IS a bit "shocking" to me. PS171 (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

And what exactly do you mean by shocking? It's her. Smiling. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Late comment: I prefer this lead image, which was the lead image before Lady Lotus made this change. I know that the image I prefer is from 2011, and that having a 2011 image (or even a 2012 image in the case of what Lady Lotus added) can conflict with editors who feel that "newer is better" when it comes to lead images of celebrities, but, out of all the latest image options (images from 2010 to 2012), I still prefer that one. Newer is not always better, and newer is not necessary unless the celebrity looks drastically different (due to age, hair style or hair color, etc.) than they do in the older picture. Flyer22 (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Another option, taken this month...--Stemoc (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes! To Stemoc's image LADY LOTUS • TALK 00:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed! That is an excellent image, Stemoc, and it's from 2014 (which keeps the "must use up-to-date image" editors from swapping it, at least on the grounds that it's not up-to-date). Flyer22 (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I updated the lead image with Stemoc's proposal (and made a fix to the caption afterward). If the image that I removed to add this one is added back to the article, I prefer that it's not added in place of any of the existing images in the article. Except for the microphone image, I like all of the existing images that are in the article better than the aforementioned 2012 image and I don't see a need for the aforementioned 2012 image in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Third highest domestic opening weekend ever for a solo female star. The Dave Hollis commentary. Should these bits stay in the article?

Krimuk90 removed this bit that Dragonzbb11 (talk · contribs) added, calling it fluff. Though it may be best to use better sources for that material, it doesn't seem like fluff to me to note that Jolie, as Maleficent, had the third highest domestic opening weekend ever for a solo female star.

As for the Dave Hollis, Walt Disney Studios's executive vice president of theatrical distribution commentary, I'm iffy on that; it can be considered fluff. But then again, he credits Jolie with being a large part of the film's success, saying, "Angelina Jolie is a very big part of the overall equation. As a star, she's a draw that transcends culture and borders and language. There's a universal nature to the intrigue she creates." I was going to state that it gives the vague "but Jolie's performance was singled out for praise" commentary some context. But Krimuk90 added this, which takes care of the context for the praise commentary. Flyer22 (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll re-add the bit about the third highest domestic opening weekend ever for a solo female star. I stand by the rest of my edit, as critical commentary is better than what a studio executive has to say about "his own" film. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

LOL, yeah, I see your point. Flyer22 (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Honorary Damehood

I don't want to mess this up as it's a Featured Article so won't make any changes myself, but I am wondering how we deal with her Honorary Damehood (see this BBC article for more details). I ought to know this being a UK citizen, but is she entitled to use the title? In other words, can she call herself "Dame Angelina Jolie"? How do we display it on Wikipedia? Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the Dame prefix isn't used in this case, such as with previous recipients of Honorary DBEs like Esperanza Aguirre, Helen Suzman and Simone Veil. This is Paul (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I would think that is correct; the same rules are likely to apply as for Honorary Knighthoods, e.g. Bob Geldof & Spike Milligan, who can use the letters KBE after their names but not use "Sir". Terry Wogan has, or took out, dual nationality so he is permitted to entitle himself "Sir".Eagleash (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

She is entitled to use the post-nominal letters DBE, and here in Britland she will be 'Angelina Jolie DBE'. As a technically 'foreign' citizen - although us Brits don't really think of Americans as 'foreign' - it is an honourary title, so she cannot - again technically - call herself 'Dame'. 81.132.190.27 (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is correct.Eagleash (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

She'll use 'DCMG' not 'DBE'. The Order of St Michael and St George is different to the Order of the British Empire. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 08:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2014

Change DBE to DCMG as she has been made a Dame Commander of St Michael and St George not a DBE. See http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/13/angelina-jolie-dame-queens-birthday-honours-list 87.127.39.236 (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done - by another - Arjayay (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Education

The article says nothing about her education. Did she complete college? At one point she was taking flying lessons. Did she complete these and become a licensed pilot? Details like these are far more important than where she lived in New York City. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Pregnancy - IVF?

Was it ever confirmed that Jolie's 2008 pregnancy was the result of IVF or not? Or do they remain unconfirmed rumors? -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)