Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Pregnancy

Along with comments about being bisexual and wanting to be a funeral director, somewhere in the Jolie archive there should be a quote from her stating outright that she had no desire to ever become pregnant, preferring the adoption route. Obviously she's changed her tune, but I think it might be interesting to mention this remark, but only if it can be cited properly. 23skidoo 17:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Angelina said this to Barbara Walters during an interview circa 2003. I wish I could tell you exactly when! If I find out, I'll post it here. (Jake)

I'm pretty certain there was also a newspaper interview or maybe a magazine article (Vanity Fair comes to mind) where this was discussed, too. 23skidoo 08:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, she did say something to that effect. Hope she has a safe pregnancy. "If I have a baby that would be one less child that I was taking out of an orphanage, and that would haunt me." - Angelina Jolie Source: Contact Music Anonymous

Mind you, when she said that she wasn't attached to anyone. I seem to recall her stating that she had no plans to marry ever again after Billy Bob. But that was before she met Brad Pitt who, famously, has had no children of his own yet. 23skidoo 02:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point. It's about Pitt. While she is beautiful, I think she couldn't pass up the chance to be Mrs. Brad Pitt and being the first to have his kids. - Anonymous.

Killer

Is it true that she had ordered a hitman to kill her?

I think you have her confused with Phyllis Diller. 23skidoo 03:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
She's stated she considered it. Emo.

Angelina Jolie's Lips

Does anyone have any definitive information as to whether Jolie's lips are real? All I find are some fan comments saying that they are, but with no authoritative first-hand information. Anyone know the truth of the matter, and where we can find documentation to this effect?

I've seen video of her in her early teens before fame and she had large lips then, too.Crumbsucker 07:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I, too, had a hard time believing they could be natural. I did some looking around and found some photos of Angelina in her teens, and eventually managed to find one of her as a child. From them I was able to deduce that if she got collagen implants, she would have had to do it at about age eight.  :P Not very likely. So it seems that Angelina's extraordinary oral labia are indeed the real deal. -Kasreyn 11:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you would really need a source to say they were NOT real, otherwise no mention or passing mention that they are frequently referred to as a notable part of her beauty, with a reference.

I knew her before she was famous and I can tell you that they are real. Olayak

Those Lips

Pictures aside, is there any hard documentation that the lips are real?

You've made a simple logical error. The onus of proof is upon those who wish to state that the lips are fake. The natural state of lips is to be real. Wikipedia needs no proof since it doesn't even need to make an assertion: unaltered lips can be assumed. Now, making the statement that they are not real - that's what would require hard documentation. -Kasreyn 11:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I knew her before she was famous and I can assure you that they are real. Olayak

"Affectionate Behavior" Toward her Brother

that language is deceitful. didn't she tongue-kiss her brother? Streamless 15:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Source? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't recall anything about her tongue-kissing anyone. All I remember is her being all huggy towards him at the Oscars and making that "I'm so in love with my brother" comment during her acceptance speech for Girl Interrupted. I think unless there's a source it's just another rumor. 23skidoo 18:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
i thought it was live, on tape for everyone to see - ? Streamless 14:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure it would be all over the internet if it were. You can find the "I'm so in love" comment and the hugging, but that's all I've been able to find. Incidentally, I believe the word you meant to use was "misleading" not deceitful. That's an entirely different meaning. 23skidoo 15:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
fair enough. Streamless 16:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

20 million?Or not?

See [|Jack son channel] .

Can someone confirm her salary for mr and mrs smith. I doubt she was paid so much as shes paid 15 mill for her next film.

I think the rumour arose because of some entries in uncyclopedia.

See http://uncyclopedia.org/index.php?title=Angelina_Jolie&action=edit&section=5.

We all know that uncyclopedia is crap. This page on uncyclopedia is loaded with lies and is probably the leak of the rumour that she is paid 25 million dollars per film after mr and mrs smith and cannot be trusted. Pojojo 11:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It did not originate on the uncyclopedia page. I remember reading an article in a few months before the release of Mr. and Mrs. Smith that she made $20 million for it.--Fallout boy 07:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

category Articles Lacking Sources

This is odd. I attempted to edit the article to remove this category, but could not find anywhere in the article text the "unreferenced" or "primary sources" tag that results in the article appearing with the category link. And yet, the article does show the category, even though the required code appears to not be present! How is this phantom category working?? Frustrating. -Kasreyn 11:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Weird. My understanding is the category listing only occurs when the {{fact}} or similar tag is added. Have you checked the category page itself to make sure no one manually added the page? I don't know if you can actually do that or not. Another alternative is to go back in the history to the edit that added the category and see what was done. Maybe there's a hidden bit of coding that isn't showing up on the page... 23skidoo 16:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC
Or it could be the {{unreferenced}}.--KrossTalk 03:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism

I'm uncertain whether it is correct to say Jolie is "a practising Buddhist". She has stated that her son Maddox is Buddhist - but only he is. And reports of her and Pitt being married in a Buddhist ceremony are purely rumor. If someone can provide a source indicating that she is indeed Buddhist, please do so, otherwise the statement should be deleted. 23skidoo 03:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Already did so. Buddhist143 is a single-issue editor. S/he goes around adding "X is a practising Buddhist" to celebrity articles. Never gives any sources. I'm wondering whether that merits a user talk page vandalism warning. Perhaps it's well-intentioned, but Buddhist143 seems uninterested in providing anything to back up his/her claims. -Kasreyn 06:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I added the Please-cite template to that user's talk page. --Yamla 15:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I've seen a few of those types of editors around. I'm not disputing whether she's a buddhist or not -- though I thought this article had already established she was an athiest -- but given the lack of reputable sources on this subject, I think it's just a case of reporting rumor. And if it's based upon tabloid rumor regarding the nature of a wedding that may not actually occur, that makes it even more dubious. 23skidoo 22:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Relationships with Angelina Jolie

Hello,

Relationships with Angelina Jolie is meant to give the visitor a wide angle view of how Angelina Jolie handles her relationships in essence and in practice. It also allows the visitor to examine the characteristics of his own relationships with Angelina Jolie.

Both content and test are based on sound astrological knowledge and research which gained vast popularity among web surfers.

I believe that even though Astrology is not considered a mainstream science, these knowledge and compatibility tool should be made available to whomever wishes to study Angelina Jolie as broadly as possible.

I have no desire to be considered a spammer and I don't want to force Top Synergy on the founders of Angelina Jolie's article.

However, I ask you - chief editors of Angelina Jolie - to publish a link to Relationships with Angelina Jolie if you feel that it may be a valid resource for some of Angelina Jolie's fans and researchers.

With appreciation, Midas touch 05:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you for being so polite about it, Midas Touch, but since astrology websites like that are, as they so often say, for entertainment purposes only, I think it's clear that they cannot be considered serious resource tools. I have nothing against your interest, and wish you the best of luck with it, but wikipedia is intended as a serious encyclopedia. We do not publish things simply because they are popular. Also, astrology is not just "not a mainstream science" but is not any kind of science at all, since it lacks a methodology for experimental testing and falsification. Therefore, astrology is a belief system or philosophy. Maybe you could include your link on the page for Astrology, under its modern popular uses. Cheers, -Kasreyn 17:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Kasreyn for taking the time to rend me such an elaborate answer. I couldn't find the "modern popular uses" you were referring to and I would hesitate to start a new section. However, I appreciate your educated response. Midas touch 05:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The Lips Again

I totally disagree with the idea that because Jolie's lips appear to be natural, there should be no statement about them on the page. I'm sure there are many people who, like myself, came to the Angelina Jolie page for the express purpose of finding out if her lips are real or not, and were sadly disappointed to find no mention of them whatsoever. This is an encyclopedia, so people use it to find answers to their curiosity about given subjects. I think it's Wikipedia's duty to answer this oft-asked question and present some evidence. Anybody got some good evidence that can be presented in the actual article? Pulsemeat 02:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we can find a reputable third party source that has addressed the issue, we could quote them, but for us to say "they're real" is original research, which is not allowed at Wikipedia. If you can find a website that addresses the evidence - and more importantly, addresses the controversy, ie., why it's worthy of inclusion on wikipedia - then we can include it. We can't simply dump it on the article, though. We must show why it's noteworthy to be included, which means we need a quote from some other source saying something like "Angelina Jolie's lips have been the subject of much rumor and controversy." Unless we can provide a quote like that, then the section will be original research. -Kasreyn 17:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I support Kasreyn. If a third-party source can be found that has made this an issue, then so be it. But otherwise I don't really see the point. I need to be sold on what would make it encyclopaedic. Let's use an example from someone else. Let's say Anna Nicole Smith was claiming her breasts were natural, but a newspaper printed that they were not, and Smith sued the newspaper. That would lend notability to the discussion. If someone wants to go hunting, I'm sure there's an interview quote around somewhere in which Jolie either states her lips are natural or she states that they aren't... 23skidoo 18:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
This might be a little weak, but Antonio Banderas has been quoted as saying that her lips are real. The link is to a Jolie fansite though. Perhaps a picture of her in her youth might be in order as well? What do you think? There's no mention of her lips in any fashion in the article, which seems to me about as ridiculous as an article about J-Lo not mentioning her butt. Pulsemeat 05:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know whether the following has to be considered "original research", but since this subject is of such importance for some of you, I might be able to contribute:
Her lips are definitely real – although there can hardly be a 100% irrefutable proof in this matter of course, the evidence suggesting her lips are natural is overwhelming: There are numerous photos of her as a child [1] [2], a teenager [3] [4] and a young model [5] [6], all showing her already uncommon big, characteristic lips. Moreover, if you compare early close-ups (at the age of 16) with a recent photo shoot [7] you can clearly see her trademark ridge and two small humps on the right and left side of her lower lip and a little notch at the bottom upper lip on both pictures; these kind of details would be impossible to preserve during plastic surgery. And just take a look at her father and especially her brother [8]. He has big, dominant lips himself that are actually quite similar to his sister's. - EnemyOfTheState 23:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutriality

"her exotic looks, her tumultuous off-screen life" - This certainly doesn't seem neutral to me. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 11:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Her Hispanic appearance vs. pale appearance of her parents

Before reading this article I always thought she was of hispanic descent. She has always looked very Hispanic, although she has died her hair blonde in several movies and it hid this somewhat. As she has aged recently she looked more hispanic. But I read here and looked at her parents. First her mother vs. beside her and it's hard to see any resemblance. Her father basically looks so pale his skin is red. Both parents have brown to very light colored hair. Angie has black hair and very dark skin. Her eyes are more slanted and her nose is different. So I wonder about that. I'd like the article to explain this. DyslexicEditor 12:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I google searched and lots of pages claim her as Hispanic. DyslexicEditor 12:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Obviously they are incorrect, as (as stated in the article) her roots are Iroquois, Czech, and French. It's the Iroquois that makes her look slightly Hispanic. I've been a fan of her's for years and I've never thought of her as Hispanic. Another "false Hispanic" is Carla Gugino -- who even played an Hispanic in the Spy Kids films, but who is in fact Italian and I believe Irish. 23skidoo 14:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, it cannot be included here. Making unsourced claims about her ethnicity would be original research, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Kasreyn 22:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Ingrid Cortez was a hispanic. In the 2nd film, her parents weren't hispanic. The angie jolie question was more for my curiousity than the article. Odd, though how the Iroquois genetics really came out in her and made her look not like her parents. DyslexicEditor 04:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I think she has her mom's lips or something like that. I agree that Ingrid Cortez is probably not Hispanic but that hasn't stopped the character from being described as such. I do believe Gugino plays an Hispanic in Juda's Kiss ... and isn't Karen Sisco also supposed to be Hispanic? I don't know the character well enough although J-Lo did play her as well...but that's neither here nor there. 23skidoo 05:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

NNDB on atheism

I've removed the atheist cat, whose source was nndb, because it doesn't seem very reliable to me. It cites no sources for its information. It takes an editorial voice and derides her marriage to Thornton. And its "summary", like those of other celebrities on nndb, is a whimsical put-down. The site's just not serious. For all I know, calling her an atheist is another one of their little jokes. Kasreyn 11:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I support this. I've yet to come across any reference to her actually stating that she's an athiest. It's very possible that she isn't religious, but that's not the same thing. If anyone can find a magazine article, newspaper interview, etc. in which she actually outright states that she's athiest, by all means put it back in (and perhaps include a source within the trivia section). I don't recall her making such a statement in Notes from My Travels, either. 23skidoo 13:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm the one who added the category. I thought NNDB would be a reliable source. Sorry. --Tuspm 17:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories

This article went completely category happy for awhile. Another user removed a number of the unsourced racial categories and I deleted a couple of others that I felt were either inaccurate ("Ex-patriates living in the United Kingdom") or POV ("Eccentrics"). 23skidoo 12:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If she is described (or of course, describes herself) as an "eccentric" or an "ex-patriate" in a reliable source, then we can put her in those categories. Same for the ethnicity ones, really. Mad Jack O'Lantern 23:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
This is true. I'm troubled by the whole Eccentrics category. I think it's a bit too POV so might nominate it for CFD. As for "ex-patriate" I agree if a source can be found I have no objection to the category being reinstated, although to specify UK would be inaccurate because Jolie also lives in Cambodia, Malibu, and (if the latest rumors are correct) might be about to set up shop in Namibia. And then there's the rumor about moving to Italy. And up until about 10 months ago people were convinced she was moving to Alberta ... the mind reels! 23skidoo 00:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget stuff like this...[9] :) Also, the eccentrics category is interesting. I mean, if all the people included have been describing as "eccentric" in good sources I guess it works - but it's still kind of iffy... Mad Jack O'Lantern 03:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record an anonymous editor tried to add the category back in today and I reverted it. As it stands now, according to its CFD vote which I instigated here the votes are clearly in favor of deleting the category in any event, although I do not know whether it will actually be deleted or not. I guess the 'Bot that is set up to handle these things is running a few days behind. 23skidoo 07:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Merging with Maddox

I proposed the merger of this article and this one. Her son isn't at all notable in his own right, since he's currently five there's little chance of him becoming so, and his article is an unwikified stub. However, there is a smidge of useful information in it (e.g. his birth date) that could go into the Adoptions section here. --Gatta 23:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I have a hard time believing anyone would find issue with this. Be bold; go for it. Kasreyn 23:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
If no one has nominated the article for AFD yet, someone's asleep at the switch. Merge by all means. 23skidoo 00:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. For reasons stated. Godheval 5:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it was rather pointless to delete/merge the Maddox article, since it will just pop up again pretty soon. The Shiloh article has been deleted several times now, but as of this moment it exists again. Maddox, just like her two other children, are actually notable on their own by considerable parts of the general public (both US and worldwide) and Maddox in particular is probably going to be a star a few years from now - some might even argue he already is. Whether you like it or not, Jolie’s three children are more famous than the majority of people described in this encyclopedia and the fact that new articles about her children are being created constantly just shows the apparent interest for them. Therefore I would suggest to allow short articles for Jolie's children which refer to the Angelina Jolie article - otherwise moderators will just be forced to delete newly created articles every other week (or day lately). (138.246.7.73 13:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

Third child

See the external links to conflicting reports on places of birth 30 km apart... Is it going to be Walvis Bay or Swakopmund? Gregorydavid 18:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


And another thing: 0140 local time would mean 28th of May, wouldn't it?!? -- Jokes Free4Me 12:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Shiloh Nouvel means "New Messiah". Interesting, isnt it? Olayak

They joke that this baby is as big as Jesus. New messiah...Jesus.... hmmmm

Hmm. Child of the two prettiest people on Earth? Sounds more like an evolutionary leap than a messiah. In my opinion, if Jesus ever returns, it will be as a homeless gay black woman. And we'll kill her all over again. Kasreyn 00:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


Why is Shiloh's birthhday listed as May 27? According to news reports she was born on Sun May 28 1:40am local (Namibian) time. US time should not be used here IMHO -- EnemyOfTheState 02:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Loves Haute Couture clothing

This trivia entry should be deleted. While she certainly enjoys dressing up occasionally, Jolie seems to dress extremely casual by Hollywood standards; therefore this claim appears very unfounded. Plus there is no source whatsoever.

Done. I also took out several other pieces of trivia along the same lines. --Yamla 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Propose removal of link to image of Shiloh

According to that site, the image was taken before the first officially "allowed" image. The only explanation I can think of is a papparazzi with a zoom lens. This is an invasion of Jolie's and Pitt's privacy against their repeatedly expressed wishes. Wikipedia should not condone or endorse such behavior.

Alternatively, the photo could be a photoshop job. That is the only "legal" way it could have been taken.

We should wait on including any photo purporting to be of Shiloh until the official photo allowed by the parents has been published. We should not aid and abet whoever violated their privacy and intruded upon them. Kasreyn 08:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I will wait a few hours for commentary. I think the "be bold" principle applies here. Kasreyn 08:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the link was changed, because if you're talking about the link labelled "Baby Brangelina pictures" it leads to a reputable newsite reporting on the first official photo being published by People Magazine. I don't see any paparazzi shots on the linked page. My only concern is this page will probably become outdated or go behind a subscription wall in a few days. If there's another link that I'm somehow missing, it should go now that the official pictures are out. 23skidoo 12:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The one you deleted was the one I was referring to. Thanks! Kasreyn 22:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

WCBS link

As a followup to the above thread, I'm not sure why the link to the WCBS page would be deleted yet a blog page with unauthorized copies of the pictures (i.e. "copyvio") would be kept. While my concern that the WCBS link might become outdated remains, at the present time I see no reason why it can't be here since it's a legitimate news outlet covering the authorized photos. 23skidoo 14:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because the person who added it spammed this site to many articles. I'm quite happy for it to stick around in this particular article if it is relevant (WP:EL but you are well aware of the criteria). I didn't remove the other link because I was reverting spam, not specifically checking this article for valid external links. --Yamla 14:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
No worries. I did delete the second WCBS link as I thought that was extraneous. I wasn't aware it was being spammed. In this case the link was applicable, though it may need to be replaced if as I indicated earlier the page goes out-of-date. 23skidoo 17:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I think there should be a general discussion which links should be included at all. First of all, the IMDb link should definitaly be at the top, "Angelina Jolie Pictures" has to be removed, totally pointless IMHO. Then, if there is a sentiment that recent news stories should be linked (there is obviously), it's probably a reasonable idea to include the blog JustJared.com, since it offers the most up to date info about Jolie on the net right now. Plus the two biggest worldwide fansites SoulieJolie.com and WutheringJolie.com should possibly be included as well. -- EnemyOfTheState 02:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Is JustJared a Jolie-specific site or just a blog that happens to mention her a lot? If it's the latter, I wouldn't be in favor of including it. We should stick to Jolie-specific sites. Agreed regarding IMDb (in fact I'll fix that right now). If the other fansites aren't included, perhaps they should be however I'd recommend checking the Wikipolicy on that. I've seen some major fansite links removed from other articles as they didn't match up with the policy or whatever. IIRC SoulieJolie was listed here up until fairly recently; you might want to check the history log to see if anyone stated why it needed to be deleted.23skidoo 07:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. I checked that Just Jared site. Some of the photos there were depressing... Jolie and Pitt on the beach with their kids... in sunglasses, hands shoved in their pockets, trying to hide their faces... The world's prettiest couple, who probably live every day feeling like they're in a cage with a million eyeballs on the outside. It's indecent. Kasreyn 07:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
That might be worth considering when we decide what links to use. I'd rather use a link that features legitimate news coverage of the baby pictures than one giving coverage to paparazzi who forced a couple to flee to Africa in order to find a little privacy. (Though as an aside I'm surprised the two went to Namibia, considering the king of Cambodia made Jolie an honorary citizen of that country and probably could have done an even better job of keeping the press out than Namibia did. Then again, Namibia will probably make a mint from the extra publicity.) 23skidoo 07:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. There are plenty of legit photos of them we can use without giving the paparazzi any credit. Besides, the higher quality paparazzi images are very unlikely to be free for use under Wikipedia's copyright policies. Kasreyn 08:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Iroquois

She has Iroqooise blood and should be put in the category Native Americans

Done. Michael 05:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
For the record, it's "Iroquois". Hope this helped. Kasreyn 09:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I know...I could decipher what the original poster said.
Having "Iroquis blood" does not a Native American make. Being described as a "Native American" in a reliable source does a Native American make. So speak the elders of Wikipedia..... Mad Jack 06:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree... most of the categories for bio articles are very subjective and should go, but I just don't have the energy to fight that battle. Kasreyn 20:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, the category isn't here now, so I guess we win. Mad Jack 23:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Self absorbed...

Has anyone every sat down and considered adding some notes about how self-absorbed this woman is and how irrelevant she is to the rest of the people on the planet... I mean really... Who cares if/when/how she had a baby??? Women have been having babies for many years...why the big deal...because she's rich? Because she was in a movie? Gimme a break!!! Why doesn't she sell the $17000 diamond pacifier and help some people who are hungry... I guarantee, they are far more worried about tonight's supper than her latest escapades...

What in blue blazes are you talking about? Jolie has arguably done more for charitable causes than any other Hollywood actress of her generation. She is the Goodwill Ambassador for the UNHCR - do you think they hand that out for nothing but a pretty face? She has not only talked the talk, she has walked the walk. Somehow I get the feeling, whoever you are, that even if you gave every cent you earn for the rest of your life to charity, you won't match Jolie's contributions to helping the needy. Kasreyn 06:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, right... All she cares about is getting her face on another tv show or magazine... and if you believe otherwise then you've just bought the hype... Open your eyes!
Please sign your comments otherwise it's really hard to take you seriously. It's quite easy to troll behind the wall of anonymity. As with everything else on Wikipedia, if you can find a reputable source that suggests Angelina Jolie is a rip-off artist or an anti-Christ (I suppose next you'll be saying Audrey Hepburn had similar motives when she literally killed herself for UNICEF), please feel free to add this to the article, but bear in mind that anything less than an air-tight, verifiable source (no yellow journalistic tabloids or paranoid-delusional websites) won't last 2 minutes. 23skidoo 15:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Child #4

Geez...she's adopting ANOTHER one?! I added the "Fourth Child" info to her page (with appopriate source) Vikramsidhu 01:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is very misleading. As long as she hasn't adopted again, there shouldn't be an entire section for a child that is hypothetical at the moment. This info could very well be put into the trivia section anyway, especially since the "next week" part seems to appear solely in the source mentioned which is very suspicious.. -- EnemyOfTheState 09:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...well you might be right. But a) I don't think she'd make such a HUGE statement if she wasn't going to go through with the adoption, b) the source is very credible (considering CNN has already been playing parts of the interview and a full transcript has been leaked), and c) "next week" seems reasonable because its hard to say "Oh I'm going to adopt a kid on June XX" -- a week seems to give the sense of yes, it will be done immediately, but it's not pinpoint exact either. Vikramsidhu 12:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Reading other reports about this CNN interview (http://people.aol.com/people/articles/0,19736,1205441,00.html), I certainly don't get the feeling that an adoption is imminent, this "next week" remark is included nowhere (it definitely would be mentioned, if she actually said it). Therefore I still suggest to delete the entire section unless you can offer a transcript with her implying that she is about to adopt another child in the next few days. -- EnemyOfTheState 16:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well let's just wait until tonight when the interview airs.

And there are 400+ articles in Google News regarding this story (not all just AP reports or anything either) [10]Vikramsidhu 16:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Childhood picture

I'm a new editor, and I just added the picture of Angelina Jolie, age 12. I found it on http://www.galeon.com/guarderiadefamosos/jolie.htm I'm pretty sure it doesn't have copyright on it, it was a picture taken at the 1988 Oscars. I got a link to it from imdb. But I don't know how to change the copyright status to "no copyright". -IO —The preceding unsigned comment was added by InformationOverload (talkcontribs) .

Hey IO... welcome to Wikipedia!  :) I'm not too big an image contributor myself, so I don't know the processes for dealing with images and copyright. Maybe Wp:images would be a good place to start. The image you provided has a copyright warning tag on it, which means it's going to be auto-deleted by a bot in 7 days if the appropriate information showing we have a right to use the image isn't found. Good luck, and ask me if you need any more help.  :) Oh, and by the way, you can add a signature to your talk page comments by typing ~~~~. Cheers, Kasreyn 06:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This picture is definitely protected by some sort of copyright - is was propably taken by professional photographers at the red carpet - and should be removed. -- EnemyOfTheState 12:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you... the image will be removed by the end of the week anyways. InformationOverload 21:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Cat Creep

I've removed the following categories for the following reasons. Discuss as needed.

  • Adoptive parents: Not notable. Millions of people adopt. Jolie is notable because she's Jolie, not because she adopts.
  • Children of famous people: Really, what's the point? How vague is it possible to be? This would lump Jolie in with Uday Hussein. I don't think I've ever seen a more useless, information-free category on Wikipedia.
  • College dropouts: The article says she did not choose to complete her studies. "College dropout" implies a person who couldn't make the grades, ie., a failure at college. Like it or not, that is what it implies. I call structural bias, unless a source is provided that Jolie left college due to poor grades.
  • Worst Actress Razzie nominees: I don't see a source in the article.

I would also make a case that "multiracial entertainers" is also a pointless category that conveys very little information, but I've probably already bitten off as much as I can chew. Kasreyn 11:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Myspace

Does Angelina Jolie have an official MySpace profile? If so it should be an external link. 69.232.110.28 20:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if she had one, why would it be noteworthy here? How could we prove that it was Jolie who was actually running it, rather than an imposter a la Perfect Blue? Kasreyn 22:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
If she has an official MySpace profile it would be worth having it as an external link. But it would have to be verified by her or her people: for example, if she has an official website, and on this website a link is provided to her official myspace page, etc., it can be considered legitimate. Rock bands do this for instance. 69.232.110.28 22:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
This one looks somewhat convincing but it is not verified as far as I know: [http://www.myspace.com/angelina_jolie75 69.232.110.28 22:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
This next one looks like a joke but I like it:[http://www.myspace.com/the_real_angelina_jolie . There are so many...69.232.110.28 12:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think any of this serves any purpose unless you can find some sort of proof that Jolie actually is a MySpace subscriber. I have a hard time believing anyone as rich as Jolie would even want to use MySpace, when they can hire a professional web designer to make their own webpage. Kasreyn 16:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless Jolie herself comes out and announces it, all alleged Angelina Jolie MySpace accounts are bogus unless proven genuine and have no place being listed in the External Links. 23skidoo 17:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Shiloh

If Shiloh's notable engough to have her own Tussauds waxwork (and is described by Tussauds as ""already an iconic figure in world popular culture"), is she notable enough to have her own article? 86.134.40.13 19:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have always believed that all of her children are notable enough to have their own articles, since a good part of the general public could identify them on pictures or assign their names to her mother. New articles for them are created and then deleted on a regular basis anyway. There have been debates about this in the past and the majority doesn't want seperate articles apparently. Articles for the children would also shorten this article which would be recommendable. -- EnemyOfTheState 21:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"known for her great beauty"

This is a bit NPOV for an opening sentence. We could well say "known for her fake breasts", "known for being an emotional flake" or "known for being heavily tattooed".

Please sign your comments. Although actually adding "known for her fake breasts" was unnecessary vandalism, I do agree the line was too POV and I have changed it accordingly. 23skidoo 16:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Odd thing is, she IS considered beautiful by most people. Otherwise she wouldn't have her status as an actress today. Yeah, it's point of view as to what a person considers "beautiful" but it wouldn't POV violation at to say something like "She is considered by many possessing great beauty." 74.137.217.32 10:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Stupid question, but. . .eh. Isn't the question of beauty one for the beholder? Should an encyclopedia that is attempting to reach an audience beyond the National Enquirer readership make declarations as to whether a person is "beautiful"? Isn't it more important to detail the person's backround, career, charitable causes, other notable aspects rather than make subjective and - let's face it - tabloidish judgments about their physical attractiveness? Just a thought. 75.46.106.222 19:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Early life plagiarism?

I'm very concerned about the section on Jolie's early life. Please examine this Jolie bio which is cited throughout as a source. Quite a few sections seem to be copied verbatim.

I'm taking a week or two off from Wikipedia, so I won't be able to help out. Would someone please examine the source and the section to see if the article is indeed plagiarizing? Kasreyn 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The reference to the moving "Looking to Get Out" and how she "did not" get the idea to be an actor from her father appears to cut a little close to what the website said. But we'd need to do a side-by-side comparison to catch everything. This needs further examination. 23skidoo 22:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm finally back from my wikibreak. What say we get back to this plagiarism problem? Kasreyn 22:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The section was partly rephrased. Two sentences that rely heavily on phrases from the biography have direct footnotes to the original text, therefore the source it clearly noted and I think the section is well within WP copyright policy. -- EnemyOfTheState 15:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Jolie's early life section needs to be changed. It's source is just another biography which lacks sources. Interviews would be the most accurate sources for this type of information. InformationOverload 12:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

While the bio doesn't name its sources, I'd say it's clear that it was written based on interviews and (reliable) articles. Most info can be cross-referenced with other articles listed in the reference section (especially the two Vogue articles). These Tiscali biographies seem to be an accepted source, e.g. it's mentioned as a reference on the featured article "Uma Thurman". If you on the other hand think that some info in the section is wrong and you have a reliable source for it, then just change it. -- EnemyOfTheState 15:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sub-article for tattoos and trivia?

It has been proposed on the peer review page to move the "Tattoos" and "Other trivia" sections to a sub-article "Angelina Jolie trivia" like it has been done with the Madonna trivia for example. I support this proposal, it would allow (a) to shorten this article, (b) to make it less "listy" and (c) to wirte a short summary about it that links directly to the new created list. I'm interested in opinions about this. -- EnemyOfTheState 11:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Any thoughts on that? EnemyOfTheState 12:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the idea. I'm actually surprised Madonna trivia has survived without being tossed by AFD. 23skidoo 14:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Impressed

As an editor on a lot of actor biographies, I'd just like to say that I am very, very impressed with the article, especially compared to what it used to look like. Good job everyone. You could get a GA for sure, and aren't far aways from an FA. Mad Jack 22:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

However, "Other trivia" needs to go - all of it should/can be either deleted or inserted into the other parts of the article Mad Jack 22:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Would tend to agree with this. Things like what color truck Jolie drives are really not worth mention. Kasreyn 00:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree this really turned into an impressive article. Should it be nominated for FA any time soon? Sloan21 11:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I would be thrilled to help with that.  :) Kasreyn 00:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
It would certainly be a good idea if a native speaker could go through the text to check or if necessary improve the prose, in accordance with the FA criteria. I wrote/rewrote big parts of the article in the last months, though as a non-native speaker I can only assess the text quality to a certain extend. -- EnemyOfTheState 23:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a very good article indeed, detailed and well cited, good job. I think it would stand a good chance as FAC. The only concern might be its length, though I don't see how it could be considerably shortened without losing a lot of information, since there are no sub-articles to move details. You might want to consider nominating it rather sooner than later, because good articles tend to erode over time, unless they are closely monitored ;) 138.246.7.94 11:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
So what's the consensus on a possible FA nomination? Sloan21 12:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the user who said it's too long. Surely there are unimportant details that can be removed. Each and every small detail of her life seems to be listed and quite frankly, I couldn't read the whole thing because I got bored. Is there anything that can be done to eliminate or combine some of the unnecessary details? --Lorraine LeBeau 21:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

I have no objection to the removal of the present trivia section as there really wasn't a lot there ... but wasn't there a more substantial trivia section a few weeks ago? Something seems to have gone missing. 23skidoo 22:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the trivia section a few weeks ago and put everything I considered noteworthy into the new created media section, as "trivia needs to go" was a repeated suggestion to improve the quality (not just of this article). -- EnemyOfTheState 23:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks. For some reason it just snuck by me. I'm not anti-trivia like some folks but if it can be worked into the main article, that's fine. (Trivia is good for listing items that are too tangental for the main discussion) 23skidoo 21:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Toronto's newspapers copying this article

This is more a random observation than a discussion about the article, though I still thought it's noteworthy.

I recently found the Fashion Monitor Toronto using an exact quote from the artile:

"Zahara's name means "flower" in Swahili, the second name "Marley" comes from late Jamaican reggae superstar Bob Marley. Zahara's nickname is "Z"." Zahara Not Shakira

And I was even more suprised today to discover that the Toronto Daily News used entire paragraphs:

"Angelina Jolie announced the founding of the Jolie/Pitt Foundation which gave initial donations to Global Action for Children and Doctors Without Borders of $1 million each. [...]
Angelina Jolie is a goodwill ambassador for the UN High Commission for Refugees. During her years as Goodwill Ambassador Jolie concentrated her efforts on field missions, visiting refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) all around the world. Asked what she hopes to accomplish, she stated, “Awareness of the plight of these people. I think they should be commended for what they have survived, not looked down upon.” In her travels, Angelina Jolie visited Tham Hin refugee camp in Thailand and Colombian refugees in Ecuador, went to various UNHCR facilities in Kosovo and paid a visit to Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya with refugees mainly from Sudan. Angelina Jolie also visited Angolan refugees while she was filming Beyond Borders in Namibia. During a private stay in Jordan in December 2003 Angelina Jolie asked to visit Ruwaished camp in Jordan's remote eastern desert, 70 km from the Iraqi border. With the humanitarian situation in Sudan worsening, Angelina Jolie flew to Chad in June 2004, paying a visit to border sites and camps for refugees who had fled fighting in western Sudan's Darfur region. In 2004 Jolie visited Afghan refugees in Thailand and on a private stay to Lebanon during the Christmas holidays she visited UNHCR's regional office in Beirut as well as some young refugees and cancer patients in the Lebanese capital. Recently, Angelina Jolie became more involved in promoting humanitarian causes on a political level. Jolie pushed for a bill to aid 70 million vulnerable children in the Third World which was signed by President Bush in November 2005, but so far no funding has been granted. In September 2005 Angelina Jolie was named the new spokesperson for the clothing line St. John, and the deal includes the start-up of a charity headed by Jolie which will focus on children's issues and causes." Jolie-Pitt Foundation Donates $2M to Children, Medical Charities

Anyway, I just thought that is quite interesting. -- EnemyOfTheState 17:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Shiloh

I've uploaded three images of Shiloh (specifically the cover of People and New Idea magazines and her wax figure at Madame Tussauds). Why did you deleted it? I've cited fair use and sources of the image and if the image break any rule on uploading or tagging it, it should received warning, but until now it havent receive. Would you please give me a concrete reason on why you remove the said images? Hedwig0407 08:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Three pictures of Shiloh is excessive and totally unnecessary. There already is an external link to the People pictures and the fair use rational was questionable, since People sent out dozens of cease-and-desist orders to websites using the cover. Plus, the article has a lot of fair use pictures as it is. -- EnemyOfTheState 16:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

IMDB refs

IMDB definitely is not even vaguely a reliable source. It shouldn't be used as a reference Mad Jack 22:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

IMDB (although sometimes incorrect) has a better modification system than wikipedia and the likelihood is that if you were to compare wikipedia to IMDB you would find it's more reliable. Any modifications/additions made to IMDB are confirmed by moderators before it's added to the database and any corrections (if incorrect info is found) is looked into. IMDB is indeed a reliable source for most info, but I would suggest double-checking elsewhere to make sure it's right before citing it as a source :-) SmUX 12:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

minor grammar edit

i edited the sentence containing "...situation on the ground of thousands..." to read "...situation of thousands...", as the previous version is incorrect, as it refers to the situation on the ground that belongs to thousands of refugees, not the situation of the refugees themselves. Parsecboy 14:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Angelina is adopting a Indian Child.

I added a text which says:

Angelina Jolie was all-set to adopt an Indian Child.

But it was edited. I also given reference where I got that news from. Please Give me reason for deleting this news/ or otherwise i'll revert this article.

Thanks. Message is from User:Bunty02.

The original source for this information is the UK tabloid newspaper Daily Mail which is a highly unreliable source to say the least. Also, you provided a reference to some sort of blog, not acceptable per WP:RS. There is no point including random tabloid speculation. -- EnemyOfTheState 14:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is right, is it?

I thought she was going to adopt another Nigger from Africa. I girl from Chad?

Reliability of height

I believe celebheights.com is a reliable source for celebrity heights. It is not editable by anyone, people can leave comments about heights however only the owners of the site can edit the height listed. Anyone disagree? --Bansal 23:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

No. It is only reliable if it cites where the information came from. Now, most of the heights I've checked have included the specific citation. That said, it would be better to go straight to the source. That is, if celebheights says People magazine on this date, it would be better to use People magazine itself as the citation rather than celebheights. But celebheights would still be acceptable in that case. However, if they just list an uncited height or provide an unreliable citation, they are not reliable. --Yamla 23:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page is getting hit hard. I think it should be protected. -Yancyfry 17:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the level of vandalism is that bad; I'm afraid it's rather normal for popular topics. Usually, vandalism is reverted quickly, so I don't see a need for page protection. -- EnemyOfTheState 18:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, one of the problems created by protecting a page is that not only do we prevent vandalism, we also prevent "good" edits that might improve the article. The vandalism is manageable - it's just an annoyance. Rossrs 22:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
There are different levels of protection. The page can be protected against people who aren't registered. That's one of the incentives of registering -- to be allowed to edit pages that are protected. The vast majority of vandalism edits are by anonymous, non-registered editors, and anyone who is serious about wanting to edit this article could and should register an account. It doesn't stop 100% of the vandalism, but fully 99% of the problems. There is also a protection level where only admins can edit the page; that should only be used for the most extreme cases, or instances where legally dangerous material is being added. 23skidoo 09:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Career/Film career

This is not a big issue, I'm just interested in the general opinion. User:Lil Flip246 has repeatedly reverted the section headline "Film career" to "Career", because it "includes her modeling career". While this might be technically correct, I doubt he is really interested in accuracy, but rather wants to emphasize the importance of modeling, judging by his edit history. Anyway, I don't care too much either way, but I still prefer "Film career", because (a) the two short sentences at the beginning don't establish a modeling career, but they are basically a lead-in to her movie roles, (b) the remaining section deals with her acting work exclusively and (c) including 'film' makes it easier to distinguish it from other sections, especially humanitarian work. So hopefully we can decide on one of these two headlines, and then stick with it permanently. -- EnemyOfTheState 00:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your take on this, and I see nothing wrong with "film career". Discussion within that section doesn't have to be exclusively about the film career, but could include any relevant tangents especially events that paved the way for her acting career. Such as her modelling work from which her acting career seems to have evolved. She was not especially notable as a model, it was just something she did, so the article should not be tailored to fit around the one sentence that describes it. But as you said, it's not a big issue. Rossrs 06:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


Feedback

I think that there must be a lot of people copying the article too. Maybe adding in a line that says, "Please site what you copied from this article." should work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.103.254.186 (talkcontribs) 07:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Her lips

I was stunned to see no mention of Miss Jolie's very famous lips in the article. They are always talked about in the media as her trademark. I think her lips are at least as notable as her tattoos and definitely deserve mention. I hope you agree and like what I wrote.BHFeller 23:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe they were once mentioned but the reference was removed under NPOV. Wikipedia is becoming rather strict regarding biographical articles of living persons. Considering Jolie is an Oscar winner, has been acclaimed for her humanitarian work, and is also widely regarded for her looks (something that, in itself, would be expected to include her lips), there would need to be some reputable sources added to back up why her lips should be singled out for attention as opposed to her tattoos or any other part of her often-exposed body. 23skidoo 04:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I shortened the passage you added about her lips. I don't think her lips are worth an entire paragraph and the sources you provided basically support that; sites like the nationalledger.com or eyeballson.com are hardly acceptable per WP:RS. -- EnemyOfTheState 18:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

EnemyOfTheState:

I’m a newcomer to Wikipedia and have a couple of questions.

Because it seems you are designated as the authority in charge of the Angelina Jolie article, I hope you don’t mind if I direct these questions to you. In your above comments, you make the assertion that two of the sources I referred to in the contribution I originally made in the article about Angelina’ lips “are hardly acceptable per WP:RS.” I did some digging and I find this statement puzzling as the sources I used seem to be at least as reliable as http://fansites.hollywood.com/~ajolie/int34.html, http://www.joliecommunity.com/, http://www.geocities.com/jolie_web/services.htm, http://www.pickbabynames.com/Celtic/M/Maddox.html, and even two references to http://www.wutheringjolie.com along with other questionable websites which you don’t mind being used as sources; and yet you disallowed my sources per WP:RS. Can you explain to me why you consider the sources that you let stay in this article as reliable and not the two of mine that you called unreliable? The reason I am interested in this is that I’m trying to learn as much as so can so I can make good contributions in the future. I thought I was beginning to grasp the concept of what comprises an acceptable source, but now you have me all confused. No offense please, but some of the websites you apparently approve of as reliable sources for this article about Angelina Jolie seem to just post recycled secondary source information, which makes them tertiary sources that I thought are to be avoided when possible. I should mention that these sites are also covered with a lot of spam ads and have sketchy copyright issues as well. I’m sincerely trying to understand and learn from your reasoning in allowing them to remain. Do you allow links to these websites to stand as sources because the particular information from the website cited by this article is reliable in spite of other things posted on the website in question? Does your reasoning have anything to do with the stuff the editors are debating in the External Links policy arbitration board concerning links to sites like youtube.com that have a mix of copyvio material and other legitimate non-copyvio material? Are these sources “grandfathered” in or something? Are these sources left to stand because they are the only place online where the information exists? Why does there seem to be a double standard? Help me out here please. I really want to learn.

I appreciate you generously allowing the re-adding of one of the sentences I put in the article about Angelina Jolie’s lips; I too think her lips significant and specific attention in the media is notable. However, I do have one suggestion. I think the statements about her lips that you put back in should be altered just a little. Maybe something like this could be said in the article:

“As one of her most distinctive physical features, Jolie's lips have attracted notable media attention. Her lips were mentioned among the "world's sexiest things" in a 2006 FHM poll (askmen.com citation). Despite speculation that her famous lips are the product of simple genetics or from some type of cosmetic enhancement (eyeballson.com citation), they top the list of body parts most wished for by plastic surgery patients. (USAToday citation)”

In interest of NPOV, I think the statement about the positive media perception about the appearance of her lips should be tempered with at least a mention of the speculation about her unique lips origins (genetic or artificial) and is discussed with dignity in the eyeballson.com article. I think this because of the extreme ramifications such speculation has in the world in which we live. I am especially motivated on this topic being mentioned because I read a current event article located at [11] which I found interesting and troubling. You should check it out. It makes it perfectly clear to me why this addition to the Wikipedia article is timely and relevant. If you look at the topic of the article I read, and check out Angelina’s name smack in the middle of the second paragraph, maybe you’ll see why I think that the information in the eyeballson.com article is important enough to add or at least be linked to in this Wikipedia article. I think that there is a widely held media-driven perception that her lips are the model woman lips and are obviously “fake” and can be had easily by anyone for the right price and by those willing to take the risk. However, as the article about the girl who died says; “people need to do their homework” and have realistic expectations about plastic surgery. I think the eyeballson.com article handles the issue of the speculation about her lips with dignity and NPOV and serves as a “reality check” as mentioned by the doctor quoted in the article. It should be included in case people considering trying to get “Angelina Jolie lips” choose to “do their homework” here at Wikipedia.

Plus I find it interesting that you and others wanted to include this information before. See [12]. You just needed a valid reason to put it in then. Well here you go.

Now granted, maybe linking to the eyeballson.com site as a source isn’t sufficient for citation in the body of the article, (which still puzzles me because of the other sources you let stand), but maybe in lieu of a source citation, it could possibly be at least added to the External Links or References section? I know that Wikipedia is not intended to be a link-farm, but I also know that WP:EL policy does state that a small and select list of external links is appropriate when the links help expand a topic in ways not possible in the Wikipedia article. I think the article at eyeballson.com is highly relevant, informational, and certainly expands the topic. Also note, I tried to find this article or one like it at a more widely known website like Time, CNN or Newsweek, but couldn’t so I linked to it at eyeballson.com. I think it can be considered a reasonably reliable secondary source because it offers insight into the topic from an interview with a plastic surgeon that is in fact a primary source that can be easily verified. As a matter of fact, I called the office of the doctor quoted in the article and they verified that he indeed gave the interview (no original research, just source verification, right?). I looked and don’t think the topic is already sufficiently covered in any other of the external sources listed, so I think its addition to the External Links or References could be justified and useful if it’s not used as a citation within the article.

Also, if you can’t justify adding the additional reference to her lips speculation in the sentence and an accompanying external link because of article length concerns, maybe you could cut down the Tattoo section (as was suggested in the peer review) and then squeeze it in that way.

I just think that somehow it needs to be in there.

I look forward to your comments and hope you consider my input. BHFeller 07:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your criticism of some of the sources mentioned above might be valid, but they are not used to cite controversial statements, and therefore I feel it might be better to have a potentially weak source, than no source at all. You try to include a highly controversial statement though; mentioning mere speculation about plastic surgery will probably be interpreted as confirmation by some readers and WP:BLP is very strict on that matter: Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material. It is my understanding that information about possible plastic surgery is generally left out entirely, unless the person has confirmed it him or herself. The media section only tries to document major topics of her public life and I don't think there is really an ongoing debate about the genuineness of her lips, certainly not in the main stream media. Also, the plastic surgeon on eyeballson.com seems to believe her lips are real himself, as he points out to take a look at her brother and father or childhood pictures, at least he is very indifferent about it, so the article is probably not an ideal source for this alleged speculation, anyhow. -- EnemyOfTheState 16:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

EnemyOfTheState: I added the word "unconfirmed" because you are right, that may have been misunderstood. Thanks for the help. Also, no big deal, but I re-read the article with the plastic surgeon and I think in fact he doesn't give an opinion at all. He's ambiguous. He says,“If you really wanted to know, you could look at a few basic things like her genetics and the looks of her parents and any siblings. You could also look at early pictures of her from when she was a child or teenager. You could also examine close-ups of the areas in question for scars and other obvious signs of work.” I think he is making a generic statement applicable to anybody, and not necessarily an opinion about Angelina; another case of unconfirmed speculation. Anyway, I've probably spent too much time on this, but I do still think it is a valid point that deserves mention. I agree with Pulsemeat in your discussion here [13] and people do probably come to Wikipedia to escape the crap of the blogospere. I know I did. I agree that it would be highly controversial to make a poorly-cited statement that her lips are either fake or real in Wikipedia. I would never want that. I think the statement in the form it is written now qualifies as non-controversial thanks to your suggestions. It now simply acknowledges that this is a question for which a lot of writers and companies frequently state their assumption of the answer as fact, but that has not actually been reliably settled in one way or the other. I think that point is benign, non-controversial, and notable.

Just a couple of interesting conflicting examples of it being alluded to as settled fact are once again[14] that infers that her lips are fake and easily duplicated by plastic surgery; a careless assumption. Also this one is just sad [15]; poor kid got the parent's non-Angelina-DNA and it gave them boring lips. Also check this confused lady out at [16]; if the lady followed the advice given in the answer I bet she had sore lips:) None of these are citable sources obviously, I just think they are interesting in regards to this topic. Thanks again for your help and insight. BHFeller 22:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

23skidoo:

In regards to your comments about the relevance of mentioning her lips in the article, please consider the following. To find a reputable (although admittedly non-citable) source for why her lips should be singled out, one needs to look no further than the topic Physical attractiveness in Wikipedia, which has a picture of Jolie with a caption about her lips. The NPOV policy concern is why I added this information to the "Jolie in the media" section and not to her "Career" or "Humanitarian Work" sections. You can hardly read a report in the media about her humanitarian work, acting career, or anything else without seeing a mention of her lips. Her lips have been credited with carrying movies and blamed for distracting from her acting performances. Her lips are often used as the marketing bait for the multi-billion dollar lip augmentation industry. Her lips make headlines in the worldwide foreign press. Her lips are often the target of late-night comics and other satirists. Other actresses are ridiculed for trying to mimic her lips. Even the section in this very Wikipedia article titled "Breakthrough" makes reference to a Gone in Sixty Seconds movie review that mentions her lips...check this out in the last paragraph -"The role was small, and the Washington Post criticized that ‘all she does in this movie is stand around, cooling down, modeling those fleshy, pulsating muscle-tubes that nest so provocatively around her teeth.’ " Yes, she has done more important things than have notable lips, and her list of accomplishments is impressive -that's exactly why I think it noteworthy to point out that the media focuses on her lips so much in spite of all she's done.

Sadly, there is probably more press about her lips than her humanitarian work. To deny this fact violates NPOV, in my opinion, and I think the media section of this article was probably created to discuss topics like this. Besides the sources I referred to in the paragraph I submitted to the article (that you deleted and EnemyOfTheState amended), here are some other examples of her lips being singled out in the media:

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21], the last two paragraphs

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29],see "Meg Ryan, Mary-Kate Olsen, Lara Flynn Boyle and Melanie Griffith are among the most notable celebrities sporting artificially inflated lips." - and then read the last couple of paragraphs about Angelina

[30] , a news site in India has this as one of its headlines

[31], third paragraph

[32], even kids want her lips

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

...and I could list thousands more. No, none of these references are from scientific journals, or whatever else you think is a reputable source, but this section of the article is about the media. A huge section of the media industry devotes itself to allegedly frivolous topics like this. I think that a mention in the media section of this article about the disproportionate attention her lips receive, along with citations to back it up, is appropriate. No, I wouldn't devote a whole separate section to it, but to leave it out altogether would be ignoring a very obvious topic relevant in an informational article about Angelina Jolie. I agree with your point that a discussion about her lips pales in comparison to her UN work, her Oscar, etc, but it is very relevant in a discussion of her presence in the media. The reason her lips should be singled out as a topic is simply because the media singles them out very frequently. As far as I can tell they mention them far more often than her tattoos, the topic of which somehow merits a large section in this article. Her lips even seem to be mentioned even more than her beauty as a whole. A mention of the constant reference to her lips in the worldwide media just seems obvious to me, and from my reading of all the Wikipedia policies, is not even close to being considered controversial or potentially libelous...read the Dolly Parton or Mick Jagger articles if you think frankly mentioning a celebrity's trademark body part is unprecedented.

I think an article written by a publicist would probably avoid reference to her lips and their obvious attention in the media, but I think a mention here in the Wikipedia is fair and, if anything, casts only a negative image on the media's sometimes strange priorities.

In conclusion, I took seriously the invitation to “help improve this article” mentioned at the top of this discussion page. I think the information about her lip's coverage in the media: improves the article; is relevant and timely (see my comments to EnemyOfTheState for the reason); is completely NPOV when compared to other things mentioned in this and other Wikipedia articles; does not violate the policy of no original research WP:NOR simply by its inclusion in the article without citation of a source concerning the topics relevancy; and definitely merits inclusion. I hope you agree and don’t delete it back out again. I also hope that someone doesn't just read this and make a knee-jerk reaction by deleting all references to other interesting Angelina Jolie topics (i.e. tattoos, Brangelina...) not as important as her UN work and her Oscar. All of this stuff collectively is what makes her interesting and notable. BHFeller 07:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to provide a catalog of web listings to support your point. One or two will do, however as I have discovered on an unrelated issue, anything that smacks of being a blog is considered an unreliable source (rightly or wrongly) so if you are to add a citation (which should still be done if not done already), I would go with a reputable print source. There are one or two up there at first glance. Just remember this article is not just about Jolie's lips. ;-) 23skidoo 17:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ann Scott reference

An anonymous editor added an unsourced statement claiming Jolie had an affair with someone named Ann Scott. I deleted it per WP:BLP but if there happens to be a reputable source to support it, feel free to put it back. 23skidoo 17:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi. well I don't know if it can be called a reputable source as I'm not a journalist..... let's just say that I happened to witness this "thingr" if I may say... I didn't put it here to do any harm, I just thought it was funny to report it. The girls weren't hiding or anything so therefore I asume it's ok to say it ?
    • Please sign your comments. As per the note I left on your talk page, you cannot post such infomation just because it was "funny" or you saw it or whatever. Please read WP:NOR and WP:BLP. And under the rules of WP:BLP, the Three Revert Rule does not apply for removing such unsourced information. 23skidoo 21:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What I meant by funny was 'sweet'. As I said this is no secret to anyone who actually lives in Paris and happens to go to certain places. Jolie and Scott met on a TV set where they were both invited and became friends after that. The appartement Jolie and Pitt stayed in while last in Paris is owned by a close friend of Scott. There were photos in Voici Magazine and Closer Magazine of the girls together. First walking Jolie's kids in the Champ de Mars,then coming out of the Plaza Athenée where they had lunch or something like that,then there was one of them kissing in the car downstairs from the appartement. So..... Olaf750.

  • You're saying "kids" plural so that means this would have happened around the time she hooked up with Brad Pitt ... so why then has all western media apparently ignored this? I just noted that you have added a URL and yet for some reason the Wikipedia system rejected it. I'll put it back since you have added a citation. You might want to check your member preferences. 23skidoo 15:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I removed the citation. It doesn't actually lead to any article and it's not in English - English language links are required on English Wikipedia. If you can find a direct link to an article in English, then that should work. (I'm personally not that concerned if the article is in French, especially if it's mostly photos, but the link that was there simply went to a homepage for a magazine, so it wasn't very useful). As I mentioned on your talk page, you're on the right track and if an online source isn't available (presumably the article you tried to link to has been removed or is now behind a subscription firewall), a print reference is fine, too. 23skidoo 15:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed the claim, because there seems to be no source at all. You having witnessed it is no enough and your alleged source was just a link to a homepage. Also, I don't think a "brief affair" is worth mentioning anyway, even if it was true. -- EnemyOfTheState 18:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well to be honest with you, this is getting out of hand. I just wanted to add a line and it keeps being removed and or argued and really it's not worth it. If this information doesn't appeal to you guys, well then forget it, I can't spend days like you coming back and forth on this page, I'm not an Angelina Jolie fan to the point that I have to control everything that's being said about her.... No hard feelings. As for when this took place, yes it was during the time she hooked up with Brad Pitt when they stayed in Paris for quite a while, and no I don't know why the western media ignored it. May be because Ann Scott is a french person and is only wellknown in France, I don't know.

I know it's tough, but the fact is Wikipedia has made it more difficult to add off-the-cuff information -- and even published information -- under their tightened WP:BLP policy. Wikipedia has nearly been (and possibly has been) sued for libel on numerous occasions, so they are requiring people to be diligent. Whether the piece of information is notable or not isn't the issue here. It needs to be something that, if Angelina Jolie or Ann Scott took umbrage, they could confirm on their own as being a legitimate source. Jimbo Wales (the head of Wikipedia) has taken a stand that he'd rather see zero information on a subject than risk incorrect or libellous information. While I disagree with him in terms of having to provide citations for every little bit of detail in an article about a book or movie, for example, when it comes to biographies of living persons, he's quite correct. Especially when we're talking about rumored or alleged relationships. This is quite different than the debate we were having over Angie's lips earlier. There may be debate over whether it should be part of this article, but Jolie isn't likely to sue Wikipedia if we mention that people think she has sexy lips. 23skidoo 20:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Page is protected from anon/new user editing

Due to a higher-than-usual frequency of vandalism edits by anonymous editors, I'm protecting this article from edits by new and unregsitered users until further notice. 23skidoo 20:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please add io and oc

Interwiki - io:Angelina Jolie oc:Angelina Jolie . Thank you.

Done. Please confirm the interwiki coding works as I've never had to add these sorts of links before. 23skidoo 03:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect?

It's been a few days since I put in the protection on this article. Should I unprotect the page again, or would folks be willing to leave it protected for the next while? I'll be offline from Wikipedia starting the 18th and gone till the second week of January, though of course any admin-level editor or sysop can remove the protection. Protection is generally considered a temporary measure, so we should get this article back "in the clear" as soon as possible, however if it's just going to attract those vandals again, it might be worth keeping it under "lock and key" for awhile yet until those folks get bored and move their attention to more worthwhile endeavors such as watching Teletubbies. 23skidoo 17:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The protection seems to be very effective. The increased vandalism might be a result of her (even) higher media presence as she is promoting her newest film anh this will probably remain a problem for some time, so it might be reasonable to keep the protection up for now. Though I would suggest to change the tag to {{sprotected2}} to avoid this ugly banner. Sloan21 18:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd rather we keep the current version. It offers more options to users -- including a "request unprotection" link, also encourages people to request changes on the talk page, which has already occurred. I also noticed that sprotect2 for some reason is also triggering a "This article is too long, please split it" notice which to be honest is even uglier than the padlock graphic. 23skidoo 18:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Sprotect2 doesn't trigger a "This article is too long, please split it" notice, very long articles like this do. :) semper fiMoe 03:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
For some reason it was doing it on a much shorter page as well, though ... maybe it was some bug. 23skidoo 03:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Filmography

I agree with Enemy of the State's reversion of the change in the filmography. There is no need to use a truncated filmography. All films in which she appears should be listed rather than picking-and-choosing. 23skidoo 19:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC). According to the IMDB Jolie has to more films for 2008 The Changeling, and Wanted.

Profile Image

I do not believe that the picture of Angelina Jolie which is part of the profile box on the right hand side of the article depicts the high level of beauty which is commonly associated with this celebrity. There are many pictures available which clearly demonstrate her beauty, perhaps one of these images should replace the existing image. As I am a newly registered user, I cannot change this semi-protected article. Jason Agrona 00:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that your replacement image is freely-licensed? If so, please point out where it is and we can add it. Or you can wait. But do check out WP:FU if you are unsure. Almost all images you find online are inappropriate. --Yamla 00:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Angelina Jolie finances 'A Moment in the World'

Angelina Jolie is making a film called 'Wanted' alongside James Mcavoy and Morgan Freeman. Release date is 2008.

Filmography

London, Jun 8 (ANI): Hollywood actress Angelina Jolie has financed a documentary titled 'A Moment in the World', which captures events as they occur all over the world during the same random three-minute time frame.

Jolie, who came up with the idea after realising how contrasting her travels have been in recent years, said: "I kept going between Mad's country and refugee camps or war zones to Hollywood and all these odd places and then seeing the world at all these different times." "Then it became this kind of crazy adventure of organising a lot of people and gathering over 30 crews of people and sending them across the world to all these places. On January 11th (05) we all opened up our cameras at the exact same time, coordinated across the world for three minutes," femalefirst quoted her as saying. (ANI)


I think this should be added.

The documentary was announced back in early 2005, but so far it has not been released and I'm not aware of any plans to release it in the foreseeable future. With this uncertain status, I don't think it should be included in the filmography, since there is probably a good chance it won't be released at all. -- EnemyOfTheState 14:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


Whether or not you it was released, it was still a part of her work. Unless we think she was lying when she stated it was, on "Inside the Actors Studio". Just because we have not seen it doesnt mean it wasnt something she accomplished. Yes she stated it was COMPLETED on "Inside the actors studio"... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pelomixa (talkcontribs) 14:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Secondary filmography

OK, we obviously have the makings of an edit war here. I invite the user who insists on placing the incomplete "main filmography" on this article to state his case and for those oppsed to state theirs. 23skidoo 03:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's time for discussion. I think to have two filmographies is redundant - we only need one and in choosing one it should be the one that is most complete. The shortened list is POV so I don't like it. Who decides what goes on the short list? I disagree that it looks "cool". I think it looks random and confusing. I prefer the full list that is not skewed by anyone's POV, and I also think the complete chronological listing is more logical and easier to refer to, than the abbreviated list. Rossrs 12:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Rossrs, it's redundant and POV. Also, the template doesn't list the role names or any additional comments, so it's totally unnecessary. The only reason to include it seems to be "it looks cool", and that isn't a reason at all really. -- EnemyOfTheState 14:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • ok, fellows, let´s talk about it.
  • "It looks cool" is a big reason, a great reason, but it's not the one. Wikipedia was made to be upgraded including its layout. Is a mutant one. The standard filmography is visually atrocious and too long. Main filmography is easier to navigate, and isn't complete, for god's sake, it is MAIN. The films placed there are not POV, but common sense to people who watch films, not just angelina fans. The other ones are irrelevants. But if it bores you, what about add all films to the template? Two filmographies are redundant? Well, it isn't, is one main filmography to users who just want acess most popular films and one complete filmography. But, if it bores, let´s place all of it inside the template.Machocarioca 19:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Machocarioca
Jolie has made 30+ films. The "Main" list contains 13. Who decided which films were selected for the list? You? If so, the list is a product of your POV, and no matter how many people might work on creating a short list, it would still be POV and would conflict with one of Wikipedia's key intents. Even your comments above suggest a POV that is out of step with Wikipedia's aims, when you talk about "common sense" and "irrelevants". These are inherently POV terms and you are applying them as a rationale for something that should be devoid of POV. Also, it is not appropriate to continue adding the navigation box while we are still discussing this. It's ok to be bold and add things that nobody objects to, but a few editors have now objected to this inclusion and the navigation box should not be added unless we reach a consensus. Rossrs 07:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
For what it is worth, Machocarioca (apparently operating on other names and IP addresses such as 201.37.247.93, Films addicted and perhaps others) has been adding such truncated "main filmographies" to a number of actor and director pages. A number of users have asked him to refrain, giving various reasons. I agree with the comments made here that a "main" filmography is by definition a judgment call, and is inappropriate in the context of Wikipedia. The "main" filmography removes additional information about particular films also. — Grstain | Talk 14:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Grstain, I'm not you who reverts the templates using your username and your IP. I'm just Machocarioca, period. I'm not film addicteds or sometihng or IPs, ok? You're the vandal here. You didn't like the templates and i can't wonder why, (they are a big upgrade in the layout and shorts the size of the article) and only you didn't like it, until this discussion here about Angelina filmography. You tried impose me a WK policy that there isn't about theses templares, right? Those estandard ones are suggestions. Atrocious ones.

Mr. Ross, you're right. Then, my point is: i'm improving the layout and trying to ease the search. Templates are, by far, a more civilized way to search films here. The selected filmography is not a POV, but a common sense by who works in films, as i said. But, if it bores you, why not a selected filmography along with the complete one? Is it bad? I don't think so, we have to improve here over and over. All the particular informaion you say is in the complete filmography is in the articles. Having it in the standard box is a POV, right? Or a suggestion.... Let's discuss the whole thing? Everybody here wants to make a better wiki, the discussion is the better way to do that, ok? Machocarioca 20:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Machocarioca

Machocarioca, I agree with your aim of trying to make a better Wiki. That's what I try to do and what I hope others will always try to do. I think improvement is a very good thing, and there is no problem with trying new things and seeing how other editors feel about it. It's just in this particular situation, I don't think the "main films" template is an improvement for the reasons I've stated above. I think it creates a problem rather than solves a problem - ie it creates POV. Even if it makes it easier to navigate, that's a secondary issue, because presenting a neutral point of view is one of the most fundamental principles of Wikipedia, and a shortened filmography, no matter how well reasoned or no matter how many experts contribute to the list, it provides a judgement and a point of view, which we should do everything possible to avoid. The use of a full filmography may not necessarily be policy, but I think it better complies with aspects of Wikipedia that are in fact policy, in relation to POV. I don't think it's perfect, I just think it's preferable. Rossrs 11:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Rossrs, my intention in creating theses templates are: coolest layout improving the shape of the article, easing the navigation and the search to common users and short the articles. We don't need all these bytes. Also, the reason to the MAIN filmography is that in many full filmographies just a half have links, because there are many irrelevant films that stay red there for years. But in this special subject here, where all the films are in blue (except one) I think I could do a template with the full filmography (including this red one). If what bores you and the others are, mainly, the main filmography, do you agree with a template with the full one? Thanks. Machocarioca 07:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Machocarioca

"Agree" would be too strong a word, but it would not contradict WP:NPOV, therefore I would not oppose. It would not be my first choice, but I accept that not everyone has the same taste as me. Rossrs 14:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that ,let's see how it's going to upgrade the layout and how people will accept it. Machocarioca 22:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Machocarioca

I just like to say that I still greatly prefer the list, as it includes more information (role names and awards). It seems to me that Machocarioca tries to force his or her personal preference on everyone, but still remains the only one who is in favor of the template. I'm not interested in endless debate about this and I can live with the template, but apparently Machocarioca's tenacity defeated any real arguments. -- EnemyOfTheState 14:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I also prefer the list - as stated above. I said I wouldn't disagree with the template on the basis of POV, as a full listing removes the POV problem, but Machocarioca, I think you have misunderstood my comments as agreement to change to the template. There is no consensus for changing and you have not addressed the comments made by other editors regarding the additional comments in the table being lost because of the template. I noticed that another user changed back to the table and was reverted again, so that makes another person who disagrees. I am going to change it back to the table. I think at this point, we've discussed it enough unless there are new arguments to put forward. It's ok to make a change such as this, but if other editors object to it, you should respect that there is no consensus to change and leave it as it was. Thanks Rossrs 21:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys, just both of you do not like the template. Hundreds enter there day by day and just you revert it. There are three people who does not like it? well, there are dozens that like or doesn't matter. They do other things there than revert the template. C'mon. The template is complete, all informations are inside the articles. You are by loosing 50 X 3. :-) Machocarioca 22:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Machocarioca

Angelina Jolie is making a film called 'Wanted' with Morgan Freeman and James Mcavoy. Why is it not named in her filmography?