Talk:Jodie Foster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Adding section about Hinckley to 'Personal life' section?[edit]

Would anyone be against me moving the information about the Hinckley case to the "Personal life"-section as a subsection? The bit about her relationships, sexual orientation and children could be named something like "Relationships and family". My reasoning for this is that while the Hinckley case certainly was 'a bigger deal' than your 'ordinary' celebrity stalker case, it was still very much something that affected Foster's personal life rather than her career, and having an entire section dedicated just for that seems a little odd. Also, what are your opinions on maybe renaming the section? In my ear, "fan obsession" is too broad a term – you could call any teenaged fan of a pop star who plasters their room with their idol's pictures and screams at their gigs 'obsessed'. Given that we are here talking about very serious crimes and acts committed by severely mentally ill people rather than actual fans, I think another term would be more suitable. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

"...rather than ACTUAL fans..." ?? Oh, my. Please point me in the direction of the "authorized true fan license bureau". I forgot fans can't be ill nor commit crimes, how could I?! Also, please cite the sources for your claim that the incident affected her personal life more than her career. (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


Currently, in the Religious views section, we have this: "Foster is an atheist. She has stated she has "great respect for all religions" and spends "a lot of time studying divine texts, whether it's Eastern religion or Western religion." She and her children celebrate both Christmas and Hanukkah." " (I deleted the footnote markers.) To my mind this doesn't make sense. Someone like that would be described as an agnostic, as it doesn't make sense for an atheist to "[study] divine texts." And why celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah? __209.179.54.78 (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Read the Atheism article for the different aspects of atheism. And as this Google search shows, many atheists celebrate Christmas or other religious holidays. Also see this YouTube video ("Do Atheists Celebrate Christmas?") that turns up in that Google search. And, yes, some atheists debate these aspects among themselves and with religious people. Flyer22 (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Further, atheists on average know more about religion (and I assume thus have studied it more) than other religious groups. But if she self-identifies as atheist, then that's what we put in the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I know people change the meaning of words (look at how nobody understands the correct use of the term "begs the question"), but in the old days atheists denied the existence of God. If they wavered on that they were agnostics. While I understand the notion of self declaration, calling yourself something doesn't necessarily make it so. To me the idea of an atheist (not an agnostic) studying religious texts is like Pat Robertson reading Why Darwin Is Completely Right And Genesis Completely Wrong. But thanks for responding. __209.179.13.208 (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
An atheist greatly respecting religions, studying religious texts and/or celebrating a religious holiday does not mean that the atheist believes in God or any deity. That's the point of my "03:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)" post above. Did you even bother reading the Atheism article, looking at sources that the Google search points to, and/or watching that YouTube video? Flyer22 (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The correct response to the OP is: We suggest you read more about the variety of athiestic world views. Perhaps then it will make sense to you - or did you have a specific concern? An athiest is a non-theist. That is, they do not believe in the existence of an entity or entities regarded as "god(s)". It does not necessarily mean they don't believe in the supernatural, and I can't imagine how someone can think that study of ANY books or subjects requires "belief" in the relevant subject. It is a simple (and obvious) non-sequitur. (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


I'm planning on overhauling this article, as I think Foster deserves a more detailed one given that her career has spanned more than five decades and includes several classic films. My intention isn't to make any radical changes in terms of layout, but rather to add more information about different stages of her career, as well as better sources. If there's any editor who'd be interested in collaborating, please don't hesitate to contact me! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Confused about her family[edit]

The article has left me confused about her family. The article states that she has her kids from her relationship with Bernard, but I kinda doubt it was the same way as within a straight relationship. If she got her kids through adoptation, I think the article should mention it. --2003:71:4E3F:3382:184:B6C:7C10:9401 (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, she has refused to talk about this subject in public. It is known that she gave birth to both children and that Bernard them adopted them, but that's all. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Well, that information alone that they're her biological kids would help clear up the confusion if it can be sourced, even if the father is not known. --2003:71:4E3F:3300:9D1A:9A7C:74E3:8B46 (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Revision of 'Early life and education' needed?[edit]

In this section, there is plenty of info about her father his ancestors (going as far back as the Mayflower), his roots, previous marriage and career. It then states that Foster's parents' 'marriage ended before Foster was born, and she never established a relationship with her father.' As such, why do we have so much information about him? Is it at all relevant if she had nothing to do with him? Wouldn't it be better to focus on her mother, with whom she did have a relationship?

I've not edited this; there's a lot of correctly referenced info in there, which makes me wonder if this is relevant for a reason I've overlooked. 2A02:1811:B605:4E00:24E4:50DC:366:7E59 (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)