Talk:Angelina Jolie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) at 01:44, 29 July 2016 (→‎The lead -- attractiveness as part of notability). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleAngelina Jolie is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 19, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 9, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
October 8, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 21, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Common name: Jolie or Jolie Pitt

It seems the mainstream media have begun calling her Jolie Pitt with the release of her new film. I know People (the unofficial Jolie-Pitt mouthpiece) and The Hollywood Reporter have consistently done so since she changed her name at the start of the year, but now when I look at google news there's many outlets doing the same, including the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, New Yorker, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Entertainment Weekly, Rolling Stone, etc. Other sources still use Jolie.

What does this mean for the article, with regard to WP:COMMONNAME? Should we start calling her Jolie Pitt only in new and future material or change every existing mention of Jolie? Should the article be moved or not? Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Angelina Jolie" is her WP:Common name. I don't see how "Angelina Jolie Pitt" is even close to being her common name. And having the article use "Jolie Pitt" throughout is not only unnecessary but can create a confusing and/or awkward read when referring to both Pitt and Jolie (for example, "Pitt and Jolie Pitt"); that is, if the person doesn't simply refer to her as "Jolie" in that instance. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, Jolie Pitt isn't her common name yet, but it likely will be in the near future, which is why I've brought it up. It's her legal, professional and public name and reputable media outlets have now adopted it. To quote policy: "If the sources written after the change is announced routinely use the 'new' name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." The key word I think is routinely; sources like the ones I mentioned have only just started using it (or at least I hadn't noticed until now). So when does 'routinely' apply? If a majority of sources is still using it six months from now? A year? Btw, reputable media use Pitt and Jolie Pitt together, so I don't see the problem there. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it will be her common name in the near future either, given that she has been known as "Angeline Jolie" for far longer and therefore the vast majority of the sources about her use that name. Various newer sources referring to her as "Angelina Jolie Pitt" doesn't trump that, in my opinion. I would be against the move unless that name reached the level of "Jada Pinkett Smith" in acceptability. These days, it just seems natural to refer to "Jada Pinkett" as "Jada Pinkett Smith." Not so natural to refer to "Angelina Jolie" as "Angeline Jolie Pitt," or else we wouldn't even have to question the matter. As for "Pitt and Jolie Pitt" together, I mean for things in the article like the following: "After a two-month courtship, Jolie married actor Billy Bob Thornton on May 5, 2000, in Las Vegas." If we changed Jolie to "Jolie Pitt" there, it is confusing and awkward, no matter that readers will know that her last name is now Pitt before reaching that point in the article. She was not "Pitt" when she married Billy Bob Thornton. Another example is the following: "In early 2005, Jolie was involved in a well-publicized Hollywood scandal when she was accused of being the reason for the divorce of actors Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston. She and Pitt were alleged to have started an affair during filming of Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)." Using "Jolie Pitt" there is also confusing and awkward. For sentences like these, I would suggest simply using "Jolie," if this article were moved to Angelina Jolie Pitt. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For a better understanding of what I mean, take this example at the Jada Pinkett Smith article, where I changed "Pinkett Smith met Will Smith" to "Pinkett met Will Smith" for better flow. Notice that the section already used "Pinkett and Smith became friends" instead of "Pinkett Smith and Smith became friends." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two more examples where I would forgo "Jolie Pit" are the following sentences: "Jolie and Pitt did not publicly comment on the nature of their relationship until January 2006, when Jolie confirmed that she was pregnant with Pitt's child." and "Jolie took on Pitt's name following their marriage." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinkett Smith is a very good example, yes. I think Angelina is heading in that direction, just based on the wide variety of sources that have made the switch, from New York Times to Vogue. I understand your latter point, but that's only a matter of good, clear writing. Anyway, I will come back to this in six months or so. It's entirely possible that Jolie Pitt won't be as widely picked up as I expect, but if it does, then WP:Common name is clear that we should consistently use Jolie Pitt (except, as you point out, where it would cause confusion). Until then, to address my own question, continuing to use Jolie for new material is probably best. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I only just noticed your own name change. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Six months later, Jolie Pitt has not been widely adopted by the media, unless they're discussing the subject's humanitarian work. So the common name remains unchanged. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jolie Angel Prince Isong (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do we judge how actor articles should be rated?

Before Monochrome Monitor's edit, Angelina Jolie was in Category:Top-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles. Monochrome Monitor placed her in Category:Mid-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles, which includes actors like Drake Bell. Jolie is far above that level of fame, popularity, respectability and career work. With this edit, I reverted Monochrome Monitor, stating, "As a biography, I'd rate her high (not top). Film aspect? Mid. But this field isn't working. So I'll revert and remove it." I saw that the field is working, and so I placed her in Category:High-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles with this edit. So which category is she best suited for, and why? How do we judge this for her or other actors? Are we basing this on how well-received their acting career has been? On how famous and/or respected they are? On what? Monochrome Monitor has been going around making these changes to actor articles and to film articles; for example, see this edit at Talk:Avatar (2009 film) and the fix afterward by Frietjes. And with this edit at Talk:Dustin Hoffman, Monochrome Monitor stated, "stop adding actors you like to this category. it needs to be free of recentivism. People on AFI's list of stars, influential directors, and anyone on 'greatest X of X' list will count." By contrast to Monochrome Monitor's categorization of Jolie, he placed Brad Pitt in Category:High-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles. Why Pitt and not Jolie? I'll alert WP:Film to this matter for more opinions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alerted WP:Film here and two other pages here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did I rate her mid? I meant to do high. I agree with you.--Monochrome_Monitor 05:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My rating system is not perfect. I do think it's better than what we had before, where Casablanca was labeled low importance and Toy Story was high importance. --Monochrome_Monitor 05:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the americans mentioned in top-importance bio should be high-importance american film, with the exception of Griffith and Hitchcock. And maybe Orson Welles. --Monochrome_Monitor 05:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Grading topics on the importance scale is highly subjective by nature. Interestingly, WP:FILM doesn't have any guidelines on how to handle this, but WP:ACTOR does here. According to the chart, it would seem Jolie qualifies as high importance. The chart is based off of Wikipedia's outline for priority assessments, though in my opinion, WP:ACTOR made a very loose interpretation of the scale which will lead to some confusion. Perhaps a discussion should take place there to add more detail that helps clarify where actors/actresses ultimately land. International recognition and historical significance are big factors, but ultimately how important the subject is to the field (in this case, acting) should trump both. Personally I think she's closer to mid than high when taking that into account, similar to say Alec Baldwin. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to compromise, all I knew is she wasn't top importance. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI...Just a reminder, the Film project no longer uses the |importance= parameter, and does not cover biography articles. Those articles are covered by adding |filmbio-work-group=yes to {{WikiProject Biography}} instead. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - according to WP:ACTOR's assessment, I'd rate Jolie "high" on the project, but then I'd also argue Jolie is "extremely notable to the common person" (something which I don't think can be said of certain individuals in the "top" category. I'm not sure what is the criteria exactly for differences in accomplishments/impact/importance between actors in the "high" and "top" categories. For instance, Monochrome changed the priority assessment of Cate Blanchett from top to high, but that is an actor I would consider in the "top" importance in accordance with impact in the industry and the level of accomplishments/recognition received. The "top" category seems skewed almost exclusively toward Old Hollywood. Lapadite (talk) 05:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Top importance to any field of study (not just WP:ACTOR) means that any research in that field would absolutely benefit from the inclusion of material about the subject in question. Is Jolie's contribution to acting so great that it must be considered crucial to any research on the performing arts? Winning an Academy Award was no small feat, but it was for a supporting role. So while an argument can be made for high importance, I think top importance is out of the question. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, per her contribution to her field as generally regarded by RSs and the industry (e.g., accolades, etc), I'd agree with the "high" placement. Lapadite (talk) 07:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Angelina Jolie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The lead -- attractiveness as part of notability

With this and this edit, Ajax1995 removed pieces from the lead that acknowledge that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's perceived attractiveness is a part of their notability, stating "GOSSIP, TABLOID CONTENT,SUPERFLOUS, nothing to do with an ENCYCLOPEDIA, NOT IN THE LEDE, there is the body content for this chit chat 'he is so sexy, so good-looking'" and "GOSSIP, TABLOID CONTENT,SUPERFLOUS, nothing to do with an ENCYCLOPEDIA, NOT IN THE LEDE, chit chat 'she is so sexy, so good-looking' The same sock wrote the Jolie and Pitt articles, the same sentence! what a shame!"

I've centralized the discussion here, per WP:TALKCENT. As seen here and here, I reverted. And I reverted per WP:LEAD. This material is not simply gossip, tabloid, superfluous material. It is indeed a big part of their notability, as made very clear lower in their articles, especially in the case of Jolie, where her perceived physical attractiveness is analyzed by sources. That makes this a matter that should be briefly noted in the lead. Pitt's "In the media" section needs work when it comes to tying his perceived physical attractiveness to his notability, but it can be as well-crafted as Jolie's "In the media" section. While I can understand many editors viewing looks as trivial, looks commonly are not trivial as far as an actor's appearance goes, and especially when the actor has received as much attention for their looks as Pitt and Jolie have, or, for example, Marilyn Monroe. Furthermore, this has been discussed before; see Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 8#"Most beautiful" is unencyclopedic, Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 10#Cited as "most beautiful" by whom? and why is this claim important to a supposedly objective article about a celebrity?, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 48#Problem with biographies. Contrary to Ajax1995's claim, the inclusion of this material is not the result of a sock; it's the result of WP:Consensus among editors based on the WP:LEAD guideline. I'll alert WP:Biography, Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons and WP:Film to this matter for discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Angelina_Jolie&oldid=732021597"