Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 4

real age
according to government public records, in USA PEOPLE SEARCH, Angelina Jolie Voight, daughter of Marcheline and Jon Voight is 45.--Juju 18:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Methinks that's an error. Those types of sites are about as accurate as the IMDb on these sorts of things. 23skidoo 19:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * check if your age is right....it is based on public records not biographies off of fan sites. but it seems interesting...because that means her mom had her at 17...--Juju 23:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My mom was married at 17. Chaplin's last wife was 17. That's certainly not a criteria. There is no logical reason for Angelina Jolie to claim she's 15 years younger than she is! If that's the case, then she must have been a really late bloomer because she would have been 20 when she made her first film back in 1982 and she looks like a little kid! Besides, note how many Angelina Jolies are actually listed. You only cite the first one -- forgetting that her legal name hasn't been Voight for about 5-6 years. There are several other Angelina Jolies -- including one in LA -- with the correct age. Ignore this source. It's wrong. 23skidoo 23:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * the reason why i mentioned the first one, is because it lists other aliases, as well as mentions relatives. yes there are several different people with the name 'angelina jolie' but there is only one who is related to marcheline.  the first one mentions LA, and if i am correct she probably owns a variety properties within the US.  so ofcourse she would have other cities listed.  i dont think it could go on the wiki, without more substantial evidence, but it is an interesting tidbit of information.  --Juju 01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No argument there. I'm curious to find out where 45 figure came from. Someone must have gotten a mix-up somewhere. The fact that you click on the name and the site provides zero information/sources is one of the reasons why I discount it. 23skidoo 03:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic
Is she roman catholic?, his father, Jon Voight is roman catholic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Domingo Portales (talk • contribs) 21:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Protection status
Another editor has unprotected the page in hopes it can return to normal. Unfortunately there's already been an anonymous idiot who decided to post nonsense. If further vandalism occurs over the next day or so we'll have to protect it again. 23skidoo 21:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the level of vandalism hasn't gone away; it might be a good idea to protect the page again. -- EnemyOfTheState 19:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm reinstating the protection. 23skidoo 16:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Part "Iroquois" rumor direct citation needed
Since Wikipedia is a great place to dispell rumors, I thought it would be good to add the information that the "1/4 Iroquois" rumor is in question.

The first thing that made me curious about this rumor that Jolie's (besides the fact that M. Bertrand does not look half aboriginal) is that you can't really be "fullblood Iroquois," as "Iroquois" isn't a tribe or ethnicity, but rather refers to the Six Nations Confederacy. The fact that the press calls Jolie's mother Iroquois seems to show that they don't know her actual First Nations heritage as there is never any mention of whether Marcheline Bertrand's mother was specifically Mohawk or Oneida, etc. I've never heard another Native person say "I'm Iroquois;" that's something one hears non-indigenous people say. Even if someone was mixed Oneida-Cayuga-Onondoga, you most likely wouldn't call yourself "Iroquois."

However, while the fansite's webmaster I've cited for the information about the rumor being overturned seems to be reputable, I realize it would be good to have the actual source of the Jon Voight 2001 statement, so I'll try to track it down unless someone else can find it first. Efrafra 04:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to see the original source for this, because I never heard the rumor that her Native American background might be made up. On Inside the Actors Studio Jolie said herself that her mother is "part Iroquois Indian"; I don't know whether that means her grandmother was "fullblood Iroquois" as you described it, but she was definitely serious about it. Back in 2000 there was even a news story that Jolie was trying to "reclaim her native American roots" . Would that suggest her parents left her in the dark as well about their little in-joke? I doubt it. -- EnemyOfTheState 15:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * According to the webmaster of the fansite I cited, she read this 2001 interview with Jon Voight online but didn't keep a copy of it. I found another online reference from another person who was looking for the interview as well wanting to verify this piece of information. I hate to say it, but just because someone is "definitely serious" about trying to "reclaim her Native American roots" doesn't prove anything; many people hear from their parents lore about some Cherokee princess great-grandmother (i.e. doesn't exist--I hear this all the time) and then assume they are Cherokee. My point about the sketchiness of saying you're "part-Iroquois" isn't about the blood quantum of her grandmother, but that you really can't be "part-Iroquois" as Iroquois does not refer to an ethnicity. The 2001 Jon Voight quote I've read about twice didn't call it an "in-joke" as much as something they made up in fun--to make Marcheline's image seem more exotic for the media. That certainly doesn't sound improbable--lots of people love to do this--"part-Indian" is oh-so-chic. All I'm suggesting is that unless there's some proof other than someone's "serious" sweat-going in 2000, this seems to count as more rumor than fact. It may very well be true, but there has been no supporting evidence, and it's now 2007. Not only that, but the newsshort you've cited sounds totally Hollywood--I mean, "shamanic healing"? Ask most Native people--we don't do shamans. "Multi-ethnic" sweats are quite hip and abound everywhere, as do fake medicine people calling themselves shamans. And wow-- "I just felt so connected to those people but then, at the same time, I'm dark, you know." Huh? Hopefully I can find some better info that will be able to cut the main page. Efrafra 03:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

'''== Here is a link to that 10/2001 online interview with Jon Voight with UK's Telegraph. ==''' This is where he mentions:

"Voight is reluctant to dampen any of her enthusiasms. She recently claimed that she is part Iroquois Indian and campaigned for the tribe to allow her to join them in their "sweat lodge". Voight is quick to say that Angelina is "not seriously Iroquois" and that this is just a little fancy he and Marcheline developed to enhance his ex-wife's exotic background. Still, he insists, "We always liked the idea of her as an Iroquois, and I love that my kids have picked up on that."

He has nothing but praise for her in this interview. His intent in the article is not to argue against her claim, it is just a passing sentence among praise for his children who he calls "the loves of my life" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2001/10/02/fmjoli02.xml Yvette 10:54 5 February 2007
 * I'm not sure he tried to imply here that Jolie and her mother had no Native American ancestors at all. I would read it more like they are so minor (1/8, 1/16, ...) that she can't be considered "seriously Iroquois". On top of that, Jolie's mother was apparently working on a documentary about a Native American activist before her death, which would also seem surprising, if her ancestry was indeed made up entirely. Jaqu 02:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, this would not be "surprising." Why would someone need Native blood to be working on a documentary about a Native activist? (Why would it be surprising for someone without Cambodian blood to do a documentary on a Cambodian activist?) Lots of white people are interested in Native activists; lots of white people are interested in Native Americans, period. I also don't understand interpreting this statement by Jon Voight--that she is not "seriously Iroquois"--as meaning she's just part-Native? Last I checked, "serious" is not a word used to describe blood quantum. If we used this word, how would that fit the sentence in the article? "and on her mother's side, she is French-Canadian and not seriously Iroquois." (I love it!) I feel that this interview is plenty of back up to remove the "Iroquois" part from the page completely. This article is supposed to be a model article, so why would we want info on here that is not proven fact? Wouldn't it make more sense to leave out something without proof till it's proved? As it is, this rumor continues to abound on the web; wikipedia should be the last place to endorse that. But because I'm sure people will freak out if this detail was completely removed, I propose that when this article reverts out of its protected status, we change the sentence to merely state:

editprotected
 * ...on her mother's side, she is French-Canadian and claims to be "part-Iroquois." (w/ citation of Telegraph article)
 * Again, this statement from Jolie's father in such a matter carries a ton more weight than any of her statements, which so far have been the only cited sources. Efrafra 18:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I disabled the editprotected tag. The page is no longer protected; you may make the edit yourself. CMummert • talk 14:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be preferable to introduce the conflicting facts directly into the text, because as it reads now, it sounds to me like it is almost certainly a product of her imagination. I would rather suggest something like:

"... and is said to be part "Iroquois"; however, Bertrand's alleged Native American ancestry was once disputed by Voight in an interview in 2001." -- EnemyOfTheState 15:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Cambodian citizenship
Angelina Jolie is a Cambodian citizen. She was granted citizenship by the King of Cambodia for her enviromental work and generosity.
 * Please sign your comments. It was only honorary citizenship. She remains an American citizen. 23skidoo 00:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Info deleted per BLP
Per WP:BLP,
 * Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages. These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.

and
 * Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked.

From WP:RS
 * Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, anonymous websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

I've deleted information from the following personal websites or otherwise unreliable sources:


 * http://www.wutheringjolie.com/nuke/modules.php?name=FAQ&myfaq=yes&id_cat=6&categories=Parents%2C+b-day%2C+family%2C+peculiar+facts%2C+and+other+info.#33.
 * http://www.geocities.com/jolie_web/services.htm
 * http://toronto.fashion-monitor.com/news.php/toronto_celebrities/2006062304maddox-jolie-pitt
 * http://www.eyeballson.com/angelina_jolie/angelinajolielips.htm
 * http://www.geocities.com/cfidarren/r-famous.htm
 * http://www.religionfacts.com/celebrities/angelina_jolie.htm
 * http://www.wutheringjolie.com/nuke/modules.php?name=tattoosjolie
 * http://www.joliecommunity.com/aj_quotes.php

I left some text with cite tags, because it can be referenced to a recent Vogue magazine feature. There are other sources which look marginal, but aren't as glaring as these, so I haven't deleted thembut at minimum, the information sourced to IMDb should be reviewed, as it is not a reliable source. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 06:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems a bit excessive to me. WP:BLP is referring to "controversial material" specifically; I'm not sure if much of the things you removed could be considered controversial. For instance, you removed the source for her pilot license, only to replace it with a citation needed tag - a potentially weak source is still better than no source at all IMHO. The IMDb sources refer to the site's news which are provided by WENN, an agency with editorial oversight just as reliable as any other source for celebrity news. Also, I think when evaluating a source the content needs to be considered. Wutheringjolie.com is certainly not a reliable source per se, but it was used as a reference for her various tattoos providing pictures of each of them; being able to look at pictures makes this source just as reliable as a NY Times article for me. EnemyOfTheState 13:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As you noted, I removed the unreliable source about her pilot license, but left the info, since it is easily verifiable to reliable sources. I read it in Vogue somewhere last week, in case you can't track down a good source.  I could go back to the Dr.'s office and find it again if you don't come up with something.  Per WP:EL, we're also never supposed to link to copyright violations, so you might want to review the sources with that in mind.  Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No need to go back to your Dr.'s office, all three of her Vogue articles are listed in the References section. None of them mentions what type of pilot license she has though. EnemyOfTheState 11:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Left handed?
According to a few sites, Jolie is left-handed...has this ever been discussed/dismissed? IMDB states that she had to have guns specially made for her for the Tomb Raider movie because of this fact, and I also found http://www.indiana.edu/~primate/left.html which has a long list of left-handed actors/actresses. There's quite a few other sources citeable although I'm not too sure about which ones are acceptable as citeable sources so haven't actually added this snippet :-) SmUX 12:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If a reputable source can be found regarding the Tomb Raider item (Wikipedia does not consider IMDb trivia to be reliable as it's not verified and is often incorrect), that's worth noting. The fact she's left-handed in and of itself is not particularly notable, but if special consideration needed to be taken as a result for one of her projects, then that is notable. I'm a little skeptical about it, though, since Lara Croft is depicted as shooting twin guns most of the time, and I've never really considered pistols to be "left-hand/right-hand" weapons; someone should be able to shoot the same weapon just as well with either hand. 23skidoo 15:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Page protected again
As soon as the protection was removed, anonymous IP users with no lives started vandalising the article again, so I have put protection back onto the article, with no expiry date. Obviously people who aren't bothering to register aren't going to play nice, so we may as well kick them out of the playground. 23skidoo 12:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits by Lilkunta
I reverted the edits of user Lilkunta several times now, because I believe they compromise the quality of this article - Lilkunta insists on these changes though. I have little interest in an edit war, but I do think these extensive edits are not helpful for a number of reasons: Leaving a note on Lilkunta's talk page was not very useful, so I'm interested in others' opinions. -- EnemyOfTheState 17:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The lead section should not be cut down; per WP:LEAD an article with more than 30,000 characters should have a lead of three or four paragraphs. If anything the lead needs to be extended.
 * I replied to you that it does not have to be 3-4 paragraphs. Wikimedia say 1-4. I gave you the citation but you choose toignore. Lilkunta.
 * 1) Highlighting quotes that are especially interesting for the tabloid media (relationship with her father, Jolie-Aniston controversy) is not advisable.
 * This isnt tabloid. These are words AJ said herself. It is imp't bc many come here looking 4 info on aj-bp-ja relationship.Lilkunta
 * 1) The formatting is very careless ("Brad Pitt ( while he is filming The Curious Case of Benjamin Button)").
 * A mistake which I corrected.Lilkunta
 * 1) Facts are changed (Making her best know after Mr. & Mrs. Smith, instead of Tomb Raider, as it originally read) or wrong facts are included (Pitt is no longer filming in New Orleans).
 * I did not change that. Look again. I deleted the info on her 1st movie. TR is what made her well know. Smith got her her biggest $.Lilkunta
 * 1) Wrong formatting is used for the awards in the infobox.
 * I tried to correct the awards. I checked the years. Instead of just deleting them, why not correct?Lilkunta
 * 1) Wikilinks are removed from dates which should be linked per WP:DATE.
 * I've noticed this edit conflict and am considering placing the article under full lock-down until these issues are resolved. I strongly recommend Lilkunta and others involved in the issue discuss it here before making further substantive edits of the type that have created the current conflict. It should be strongly noted that the current instability in the article will result in it losing Featured Article status. 23skidoo 17:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Lock it down, the edits by Likunta, despite EnemyOfTheState's best efforts to explain, are unhelpful and contentious. Suggest protecting the article and an admin-based discourse with Lilkunta.  Anything I can do to help..... The Rambling Man 17:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you also tell this message to enemy?I feel s/he acts as if he owns the page. The history shows he repeatedly changes what others add, as if s/he only knows what should be added.S/he repeatedly added uncited info( pax's DOB). Did you look at the edits I made? I did not add a whole bunch of stuff. The intro/lead paragraph should be a good synopsis of Aj right? She isnt known for her 1st role nor for her marriage to John.  Her 1st role because it was not significant. Her marriages to John and Bob are also not significant, yet you put them back in the intro paragraph. Also, Pax's DOB as 29 NOV hasnt been released. I checked both the ref and they say Nov 03, his day of birth is not given. Please check that.Lilkunta

I have locked the page from all non-admin edits until a consensus has been reached. Once again I invite Lilkunta and any other interested parties to please discuss the issues here. Requested changes can be made by admins until such time as this article is unlocked. This decision was reached when I saw that Lilkunta had reinstated several of the edits without any apparent attempt to seek consensus, as he was requested to do by me on the user's talk page. 23skidoo 20:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC) You posted to me after you locked the page so you did not give me a chance. Did you also tell this message to EnemyOfTheState? I feel s/he acts as if he owns the page. The history shows he repeatedly changes what others add, as if s/he only knows what should be added.Lilkunta

Repeated edits/Enemyofstate DOMINATION of this AJ wiki page.
1) I feel EnemyOfTheState, s/he acts as if he owns the page. The history shows he repeatedly changes what others add, as if s/he only knows what should be added.S/he repeatedly added uncited info( pax's DOB). Pax's DOB as 29 NOV hasnt been released. I checked both the ref and they say Nov 03, his day of birth is not given. Please check that.

2)I tried to correct the awards. I checked the years. Instead of just deleting them, why not correct?Lilkunta

Firstly, I would respectfully ask you to use the normal font; it is almost impossible for me to read your text. In response to your statements: -- EnemyOfTheState 18:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to "dominate" this page. Yes, I do revert edits occasionally, but not to show domination, but to preserve the quality and the article's featured status. The very reason I started this discussion here is to bring others into it, and not to act on my own.
 * Again, on the lead issue: WP:LEAD; this is really as obvious as I can make it.
 * On your response regarding careless formatting and changing facts: I took all my examples form your latest edit . Your claims that you corrected them or that they were not put in by you are not correct.
 * For his birthday, see below.


 * I am using normal font.
 * U rv'd alot, not occasionally; that's why I feel like u were dominating.
 * Again, u reread WP:LEAD. It says 1-4 paragraphs. I even quoted it.
 * I made 1 mistake where I didnt finish the sentence about the film BO was recording. The rest of my edits were fine.
 * Where is this "scan" from? Why doesnt it have his adopted name? I remembr u commented about unreliable sources, but you believe a scan? Lilkunta 22:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this discussion goes nowhere, as Lilkunta is persistently ignoring the lengthy guidelines on WP:LEAD. I'm not sure what to do here, but I have no intentions to debate this obvious issue indefinitely. -- EnemyOfTheState 16:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Article location
As a person who shares the same family name as Angelina, I would like to see this article only occupy Angelina_Jolie rather than also occupying the "Jolie" space which would be more appropriately used to discuss the origin/history etc. of the name. I was hoping to research my family name but there is nothing in that space. 158.228.209.145 14:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Canadian/American Nationality
Angelina Jolie's mother Marcheline Bertrand was French Canadian which means Angelina is an American Canadian. This ought to be changed.


 * "On her father's side, she is of Czech descent,[5] and on her mother's side she is French-Canadian and is said to be part "Iroquois";[6][4] however, Bertrand's alleged Native American ancestry was once disputed by Voight in an interview in 2001.[7]" This statement is clearly INCORRECT! Angelina's father, Jon Voigt,  is of German descent. The parents of her father, Barbara Kamp and Elmer Voight, and therefore her grandparents, were both German and German American. Please change!

Pax's birthday is UNKNOWN! Take the info off.
Pax's DOB has not been released. Change the info. EnemyOfTheState added this erroneous info as part of his continued domination of this AJ wiki page. The ref all say Nov 03, that is all we know at this time. I think this is good 4/as the last 2 paragraphs of that section:
 * On March 15,2007, Jolie adopted a three-year-old boy from Vietnam. Pax Thien Jolie was born in November 2003 as Pham Quang Sang and abandoned at birth at a local hospital . His new name means "peaceful sky" in two languages: Pax means "peace" in Latin and Thien is Vietnamese for "sky" .  She collected the boy from the Tam Binh orphanage in Ho Chi Minh City.


 * Jolie told Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh City Law newspaper: "I will stay at home to help Pax adjust to his new life. I have four children and caring for them is the most important thing for me at the moment. I'm very proud and happy to be their mother."  .Lilkunta 16:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Birthdate
I have removed the DOB as the BBC News source that was cited does not support it anyway. 23skidoo 16:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The source for his birthday was his passport, I wasn't aware no news agency picked it up yet. -- EnemyOfTheState 18:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a source for this "scan" of Pax's passport? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilkunta (talk • contribs) 21:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I have to agree with Likunta on this one. Presumably the passport image originates from an online news source. So all we need to do is cite this source and the birthdate can go back into the article (obviously PhotoBucket isn't a reliable source). It's very possible such a source was originally noted but got lost in the edits. 23skidoo 15:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not suggesting that the image should be used as a source, I was merely pointing out where I picked up his birthday; I initially thought the BBC story already included his birthday. A reliable source for the date would be here for instance. In any case, his birthday probably isn't the biggest problem at the moment. -- EnemyOfTheState 15:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll split the difference, including the November 2003 as the announced date (per a USA Today link I just found) and acknowledge that some media have a more exact date, citing the Australian link. 23skidoo 02:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Link to full biography and articles
Hello, I'm from People Magazine. Can you please add a link in the external links section to our Celebrity Central Database at People.com? It has a full biography of Jolie (including a professionally researched timeline), the photo archive from People, and full-text links to all the articles about her which have appeared in People. The link is http://www.people.com/people/angelina_jolie. Thank you.


 * I'm opposed to this suggestion. There's nothing wrong with People, but Wikipedia should not be endorsing/advertising commercial sites, nor should Wikipedia be used in such a manner. How does Wikipedia benefit from this?  If we link Angelina then we could link virtually any celebrity article (the same question is raised at Talk:Britney Spears) and before we know it Wikipedia becomes a vehicle by which People is advertised.  Then, we'd have to fairly link to any other rival sites... I think it would be a huge mistake, and I also think it would contradict External links - numbers 3 and 4, and also External links.  Rossrs 14:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition, we have no way of knowing whether or not the message posted above is actually from someone from People magazine. Personally I doubt it because People doesn't need to advertise in this way. In any event, I agree with Rossrs that such a link would go against WP:LINKS. 23skidoo 15:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that an organization like People, who certainly know how to market their product professionally, would take a more direct approach if they wanted to get Wikipedia on board, rather than the haphazard approach of leaving messages on a couple of talk pages. Rossrs 21:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If it was people, I'm sure they would contact wales or wikimedia. They wouldnt post on the discussion page. & y didnt they leave a name, some contact info @ People Mag 2 verify?Lilkunta 15:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Nv8200p deleted pic of Maddox/AJ; pls restore
Why was the pic of Mad & Aj deleted? I clicked on it too send a message to the person who added it, but User:Nv8200p deleted the info about the person who loaded it. Pls help.Lilkunta 12:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The image should not be re-uploaded, because it was deleted for a wrong fair-use claim, per WP:IFD. -- EnemyOfTheState 16:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Should the article remain locked?
The article has been locked for several days now and I haven't seen too much additional discussion regarding the edit-war issues from previous. We're not supposed to leave articles locked for extensive periods of time, so what should we do -- unlock it or leave the lock in place awhile longer? 23skidoo 23:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keeping the page locked won't do much good, I suppose. I'd like to know whether Lilkunta plans to implement his/her changes again right after the protection ends though; apparently Lilkunta still hasn't recognized the length recommendation for the lead section for example. -- EnemyOfTheState 23:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait to see if anyone else chimes in on this. Incidentally it will only go back to semi-protection; for whatever reason this article is a vandalism magnet and as such it should remain locked to unregistered users. Everytime it's unprotected we immediately have to deal with IP vandalism. 23skidoo 03:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I also wanted to see it temporarily unlocked. But I do understand how exasperating the vandalism can be. So perhaps we can use the "editprotected" request here instead? Efrafra 08:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As an admin, I don't like handling "editprotected requests" when the page was blocked for edit warring, because too often the requests are made by an editor involved in the war. It would be better to wait until the page is unprotected and then make the changes yourself. Per the suggestion of User:23skidoo above, I am going to remove the full protection and see what happens. CMummert • talk 14:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Shiloh cameo
An editor has included a note that Shiloh is appearing in a Brad Pitt movie, but the only source cited is the IMDb. If a more reliable source can't be located, it should be removed. 23skidoo 17:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the sentence. I think this is only speculation at the moment and the IMDb is certainly not a good source. If it is actually true, we will find out about it soon enough. -- EnemyOfTheState 16:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed some trivia
I removed a few sentences with unnecessary trivia that shouldn't be in an encyclopedic text imho (feel free to object):
 * "collected snakes and lizards and had a crush on Mr. Spock."
 * "Voight has not met his grandchildren." (also weak source)
 * "The couple's Los Angeles obstetrician was assisted by local staff."
 * "In August 2006, 41 percent of all 18- to 24-year-old American adults knew Shiloh's correct first name according to an Ad Council survey."
 * "Her lips were mentioned among the "world's sexiest things" in a 2006 FHM poll."
 * nicknames of the children
 * placements of tattoos (whole section probably debatable)

Also, I included Pax' birthday again as a fact. Aside from the source given in the text, the date was also covered by several magazines and I think it should be ok to use it. And I removed her alleged Czech-German ancestry which was recently introduced by LiberalConservative; this might very well be true, but LiberalConservative provided a very unlikely source, a NY Times article from 1944. I left a note on the his/her talk page to clear this up. -- EnemyOfTheState 15:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Joseph Kamp, the grandfather (mother's side) of Jon Voight, was a German immigrant to the United States. --LC 21:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I still don't understand this really. How do you know that Kamp was Voight's grandfather and why was that mentioned in the NY Times from 1944? -- EnemyOfTheState 13:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the newspaper article stated he was survived by his daughter Mrs. Elmer S. Voight (Barbara Kamp). --LC 02:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've put it back in the article, I guess you were referring to this article. I'm still not sure whether Elmer Voight should best be decribed as Czech, Slovak or Czechoslovak though. -- EnemyOfTheState 15:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about that, alas. He could be Sudeten German as well. --LC 17:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie- video about her work with the UN
editprotected

Hi there,

I'm the Web Liaison Manager for a Department of Education (UK) initiative called Teachers TV. We have an online video available with Angeline Jolie who narrates it, and features throughout it. It's free to watch online, and shows her good work for the UN.

Can I please create a link to this video? It would be of interest to both fans, and people interested in her work with the UN?

Here's some more information about it:

http://www.teachers.tv/video/18716

What's Going On?

Since the mid 1990s, more than 150,000 residents of the Democratic Republic of Congo have fled from their homes and country to escape the ravages of war.

On behalf of the United Nations and her own commitment to the refugee cause, Angelina Jolie travels to Africa to reach out to child refugees. In the Kibrizi Transit Centre in Tanzania, she meets the three Fataki brothers - orphans on the run from rebel troops in the DRC.

Alone, penniless, frightened and distraught, the boys are processed and sent to a refugee camp. Angelina travels with them to the camp, and helps them build a shelter that will be their home.

This programme journeys into the world of child refugees, and exposes the heartbreaking reality of their daily struggle to cope. It also reveals the power of hope and laughter, demonstrating that with the help of others, child refugees can still hold on to their dreams.


 * This page is only semiprotected; administrator assistance is not required to edit it. By the way, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes at the end. CMummert · talk 13:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Blank ref
Ref 67 is blank, it's a repeated ref so rather than search I'm just notifying. Quadzilla99 13:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I fixed it. -- EnemyOfTheState 14:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Marriage
She is gaight (half gay and half straight.) Can anyone find the interview where Angelina stated she would not get married till "people who should be able to get married, can" (in reference to gay marriage? 76.112.102.98 23:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Gaight"?!? Um, bisexual, which isn't necessarily a half and half thing. --Melty girl 19:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I think this and other humanitarian work should be included but I cannot add it because of WP:COI --BozMo talk 08:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I added on sentence. -- EnemyOfTheState 18:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am amused that when we upload content from our website onto Alertnet (which executes no editorial control) you link to that rather than directly to our website but only amused its all the same to me. --BozMo talk 20:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)There should be a reference to Jolie trying to ban Fox news and others from her press conference for the "A Mighty Heart".

picture is freely allowed to add to the article. --Z33t4h 12:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice drawing, but we really should try to use photographs whenever possible in biographical articles. 23skidoo 13:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Box Office Gross
Hi there,

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

Thanks, xC | ☎ 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with including such a line is that it would need to be continually updated since Jolie is still a working actress. (So is Keaton, too -- I personally disagree with including that information in her article). One would also need a reputable source for citing such a number, of course. There's probably one out there, but every time Jolie makes a movie someone would have to update the number. A better approach rather than adding all the films up would be to cite her most successful films (in terms of box office gross) to date. My guess is it would be the first Tomb Raider film. That way the list would only need to be updated whenever she makes a hugely successful film. 23skidoo 16:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * True - I disagree with the addition of that line as well, but since its in an FA, I figured maybe theres some guideline about such things that I didn't know about. Also, are all films of the actress supposed to be mentioned in the article, or only notable movies/roles? xC | ☎  16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

On the main page it shows she has received academy award which she never did. I think it should be nomination rather than award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chotaidiot (talk • contribs)
 * Erm... she won an Academy Award for Girl, Interrupted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions?
This says that Shiloh's birth was a scheduled caesarian but Jolie has said that Shiloh was breach and that was the reason that she delivered this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.240.217 (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jolie's role in Love Is All There Is is given a one line mention in her article. But neither the article Angelina Jolie nor Love Is All There Is asserts why her role in the movie was notable.
 * Further, the film Playing God (film) in Jolie is a commercial and critical failure (as noted in its own article). Yet it is mentioned in the article. Why is it notable then?
 * In the section International Success, there is a line referring to Life or Something Like It stating - The film was poorly received by critics, though Jolie's performance received positive reviews. The thing is, nothing is mentioned there about how well the film did commercially, nor does the film's article have any details. The reader is left to imagine whether the film did well inspite of being critically trashed (example Lara Croft) or was the film unsuccessful on both counts? Shouldn't an article related to an FA contain the bare essential details at the minimum?
 * Just a few doubts I had, would appreciate any feedback on this. regards, xC | ☎ 08:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The text mentions all her theatrical releases, assuming they are all notable as biographical facts, regardless what more can be said about the film; with about two dozen movies to cover, this seems still practical. If an actor has done many more films, it becomes necessary to limit the number of movies mentioned, of course. I don't think there are any clear WP guidelines how to handle this in detail.
 * There is no policy demanding a certain quality from articles linked to a FA. Regarding Life or Something Like It, how about "poorly received by critics and the audience"? -- EnemyOfTheState 14:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. True, there is a lack of guidelines regarding the filmbios and it does get confusing at times. I've put together some of the issues in one page, that I feel might deserve some discussion and creation of relevant policies/guidelines. Here's the link. Please do have a look if you're not too busy. I'd appreciate all feedback on it, before I post to the wikiproject talk pages for Hollywood and Bollywood. Having a set of guidelines related to filmbios would definitely help out editors working on these pages.
 * About Life or something like that, well honestly I don't know how the movie was received... I was wondering, so I thought I'd ask here :)
 * Regards, xC | ☎ 14:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ancestry
If you take a look at the 1910 federal census of Yonkers, NY, you will see that Jon Voight's paternal grandmother, Mrs. Helen Voytko, was U.S.-born, but her parents were born in another country, listed as Hun-Slovak, as was her husband George Voytko. According to Wikipedia, Slovakia was a part of the Kingdom of Hungary until 1918, when it became Czechoslovakia. Census information is not absolutely reliable, but there is nothing here to indicate English heritage. Kayqueue 20:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC) As for Angelina's mom being French Canadian, perhaps she had French Canadian ancestry, but she was born in Illinois. See , where a cousin says she was born in a small town in Illinois. Kayqueue 00:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC) French-Canadian refers to people from Quebec or Arcadia which at one time included Illinois. Since they've been there a long time and were for two hundred years cut off from France they are distinguished from more recent French immigrants. French Canadians typically have some Indian blood because there were not many French women in the colony early on. Morocco also has ties to France as well. She has morocan blood too since her grandmother was born in Morocco. -- Unsigned content added by User:71.59.237.189
 * Interjection: this is addressed to IP user 71.59.237.189 who has been editing the above paragraph: please sign your comments and please do not add to old paragraphs. The above was first posted in January, but you added a few words in March. I nearly deleted your recent additions as IP vandalism. If you have something new to add, please start a new paragraph or a new thread. Thanks. 23skidoo (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


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

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

Article length
The article currently reads in at over 70kb. Perhaps its time to split into relevant sections? xC | ☎ 20:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would be unusual to have sub-articles for an actor/celebrity biography, and since the article became featured in its current state, it might be best not to split it. Also, the mere text is 'only' 40 kb, a lot of it are the references. EnemyOfTheState 10:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Humanitarian/charitable recognition Awards
First, I want to say I think the article is great. Some sections might be trimmed up a bit, but otherwise, it is well-written and informative. Besides that it could be more concise, it is a good article. But I have one other suggestion! Her humanitarian work is so important that I think there should be a list of awards she has in that area in the Info Box! You have her entertainment industry awards, but what about her UNHCR and related awards? --Ashley Rovira 15:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the article uses the actor infobox template, there is no way to include non-acting awards. EnemyOfTheState 10:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sentence
Minor copyedit: Under "Early life and family" - this is not a sentence as it has no subject:  Because my son’s adopted, and families are earned.  I think it needs to be merged either with the sentence before or after. Can someone more knowledgable help? Thanks. ♫ Cricket02 16:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a direct quote, so I don't think it should be changed. EnemyOfTheState 10:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Often cited?
From the lead:


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

The footnote leads to this BBC News article which mentions one internet poll that placed Jolie top. That is in no way enough to justify the phrase "often cited". As it happens I agree that she is often cited as such... but the referencing here is clearly inadequate for the claim. 86.132.138.229 02:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is another 'source' with the link to People magazines most beautiful issue in the media section, but you are right of course, a direct statement in a reliable article would be much better. EnemyOfTheState 10:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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


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


 * I disagree, it might be the better picture, but it is less suited as a lead image. It's not a portrait image and it's only 186px wide, so it can't be cropped to 200px, the default width for the infobox. EnemyOfTheState 10:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed the main image to Image:Angelina Jolie 2007.jpg FANSTAR 17:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I cropped this image to Image:Jolietop2.png, I think it's better for the infobox. I also cropped this image of her back, Image:Jolietattoo.png; it could be used in the tattoo section - in the past several people tried to include copyrighted images of her tattoos in the article. -- EnemyOfTheState 10:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

'''Can someone find a more suitable image? Her face is hardly visible in the current image.''' Myoutbackshed 10:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I second this. She's way to beautfiul to not be seen in full. --Notorious Walt 04:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The crop and Photoshop job on the current image is horrible. Since she just visited Iraq recently, we should have some better government photos than this. thedemonhog's suggestion would fit better as well. ⇔  EntChickie 18:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * At least let's get an image that's properly exposed. I keep fighting the urge to up the gamma on my monitor. Is there a particular reason why the far superior photo used in the "Jolie in the media" section isn't the lead? 23skidoo (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The current main image appears to be Image:Jolietop2.png with the background darkened. You're welcome to switch them around. Gimmetrow 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Switched them up. If a better photo from her Iraq trip emerges, I'll put that up. &hArr;  EntChickie 19:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Filmography move: premature?
Jolie seems seems like a young film actor to have her Filmography moved off her main page already. It doesn't seem like it did all that much to shorten the page, and it seems like such primary information to move. Wouldn't it be better to edit down other sections that veer into trivia in order to shorten the page, or move something else, then move the filmography back to this page? For example, does the Tattoos section need to be so long? Or could it be moved? I think readers come to the Angelina Jolie page to read about her films (and many other topics) more so than to read about her tattoos. --Melty girl 04:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless Wikipedia's MOS has been changed to require filmographies to have their own articles, I don't see the point in doing so here. It's just going to be an AFD magnet, and AFD will likely result in a decision to remerge it to the main article. I give it a month. 23skidoo 15:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, interesting. Yeah, I think it was not the right move. Should we put it back and save people the trouble of AFD? --Melty girl 16:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I put the filmography table back in and proposed deletion of the filmography article. --Melty girl 19:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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

RE: Mother's ancestry
It should be noted that if Marcheline Bertrand had Iroquois ancestry, the article must not then read 'Native American'. The native peoples of Canada (regarding Bertrand's French Canadian roots) are not referred to as 'Native American', they are primarily called 'First Nations'. I guess though the main question should be if she did indeed have Iroquois roots, were they based out of Canada? If the ancestry section is to stand, this should be rectified in the article. Sorry to bring up yet another ancestry section here. Bentonia School 13:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Iroquois also lived in what is now the United States. --Melty girl 22:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Section on Controversies?
Incidents happened in india could be worth mentioning. Article states all positive and no negative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool kanks (talk • contribs) 18:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you specified what you're talking about. (And provided sources). 23skidoo 19:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Bryan Brandenburg AKA Jesus Christ is the biological father of the new twins. Citation forthcoming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.190.51.19 (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Straight?
I read in an article on afterellen.com that she no longer identifies as bisexual. Does anyone know if this has been confirmed? 199.126.166.13 22:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's something you just turn off at will; more likely she possibly no longer pursues bisexual relationships due to her current family situation. In any event, such discussion can't be added to the article unless there's a verifiable source. I don't know of any. 23skidoo 04:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


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

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

Children in infobox
I reverted the edit that removed the children from the Infobox. Why else do you think a "children" field was included? Of course they need to be listed there. I do agree wikilinking them was unnecessary as, for now at least, the links just redirect back here anyway, so I took those out. 23skidoo 04:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, looks like we might have the makings of an edit war here. Here is my rationale and I invite the editor to state his/her's and then let's get third parties chiming in. 1. Picking and choosing what children should be listed under the "Children" field of the Biographical infobox is a violation of WP:NPOV. 2. It is not "gossip" to list children for whom there is voluminous evidence that they exist (you're not supposed to list rumored children, etc.). 3. Information in infoboxes is expected to repeat information in the article; that's why they were created. Otherwise it could be argued that every infobox can be removed since the articles should contain all this information. If the editor has an issue with the listing of children in the infobox, I recommend lobbying with the creators of the infobox to have that field removed. 3. In the case of these children all have been mentioned repeatedly in the media, and therefore are considered public figures. That does not justify giving them their own articles, in which I am in full agreement, but if someone can prove that a life is being ruined by listing them in an infobox, then I'll be quite interested. 23skidoo 14:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think her children should be included really. Template:Infobox actor states that only "especially notable children" should be mentioned, which is hardly the case here, as none of her children are even notable enough to have their own article. I suppose it is intended for someone like Kirk Douglas -> Michael Douglas? I'm not a fan of lengthy infoboxes anyway, so I wouldn't include the fields "Occupation" and "Years active" here either. EnemyOfTheState 15:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * EnemyOfTheState gets it right: Template:Infobox actor contradicts 23skidoo's rationale for putting the Jolie-Pitt kids in the infobox. It's not for any children, it's for "especially notable children." These children have done nothing notable on their own. Yes, they are famous names, but only because of celebrity gossip magazines that obsessively follow every celeb's baby, not because they've actually done anything notable as people. Should Wikipedia follow that ridiculous gossip trend and consider them notable on that basis? No -- they don't have their own WP pages, because they're not notable. And sure, the infobox is going to echo info from the article, but that still doesn't override the intention of the children field in this particular infobox, which was thoroughly discussed and thought through. It is not meant for non-notable children. Angelina Jolie herself is an example of a notable child of notable parents, but her own children are not.
 * And about the occupation and yearsactive fields, I think those fields are far more important than the fields like parents and children. That's the kind of crucial information about a person that an infobox can present more immediately than prose. What's more important that what a person does and how long they've been doing it? That's the whole reason they're in WP in the first place.
 * Last, I'll just mention that if children are kept in the infobox (which still remains to be seen) I think it is highly distasteful to note who's adopted and who's biological in a simple list like that. I'm going to delete that much for now. --Melty girl 17:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the discussion in this section and the next, I think we're now ready to go back to a children-free infobox, right? --Melty girl 20:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith 08:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

All I can say in response to Melty Girl is that in order to determine "especially notable children" you must violate WP:NPOV. If you're willing to accept that by not listing the children that NPOV has been violated, allowing therefore any POV statements to be added to the article, then I'm fine with the change. 23skidoo (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as a followup to my above comment I have made the recommendation that this problematic criteria be removed as determining notability requires violating NPOV. My compromise suggestion is to only allow individuals with Wikipedia articles to be listed; since survival of such articles indicates consensus that the subject is notable, that solves the NPOV issue right there. It also handles the issue of whether spouses and parents are notable, or that matter. 23skidoo (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If determining whether children are "especially notable" violates WP:NPOV, then Wiki editors must violate that policy every time they determine whether a subject is notable enough to deserve an article or not. I think your logic simply falls down on that score. At the same time, I agree that whether a child has its own article is one good indication of whether that person is notable enough to merit mention in the parent's infobox—but I think that has nothing to do with your original argument about WP:NPOV, and it's not the only indication possible. Finally, I'll just comment that there seems to be a consensus here (above and below, it's not just me) that at present, the Jolie-Pitt kids are not notable enough to merit mention in the infobox, though they clearly merit mention in the article (not everything should go in the infobox!). As for your suggestion about policy for the infobox in general, this is not the correct forum to decide matters that extend beyond this article; let's restrict that discussion to Template_talk:Infobox_actor. --Melty girl (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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


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


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


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

In the German Wikipedia is said that the names of the children of celebrities and other information about them are only necessary when there is a concrete interest of the children, I think the information about the children are too detailed and it needn´t to be mentioned how there full names are, where they were borned, etc. I think it´s enough to mention that they have 4 children and that 3 of them are adopted from a poor country. La Lovely 19:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)--
 * La Lovely, there is a lot of interest in her children, whether it's that notable or not, I suppose can be debated and has been before. But having the detail about them in her Personal life section is not trivial. They are her children, a part of her personal life and the article gives insight into the matter in what I feel is not a trivial way. Also, I agree with what Melty girl has stated about the lead section of this article. Perhaps, we can come to an agreement on that. 20:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

SOUTH PARK REFERENCE?

IS ANYONE GOING TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE SOUTH PARK EPISODE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.42.211.4 (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What South Park reference? 23skidoo (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

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


 * I unprotected the page because it is not Wikipedia policy to leave articles semi-protected forever. Every now and again, protection is lifted to see if it remains necessary. At the moment I think vandalism is within acceptable levels - only a few vandal edits a day and some positive IP edits. I would also point out that this editor would not have been able to edit the page had it still been semi protected. That seems a good faith edit. If you think the article should be reprotected, you can request that at any time at WP:RFPP. WjBscribe 12:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well given the edits since my previous post, I have decided to restore semi-protection. WjBscribe 07:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Good call. For whatever reason cetain articles are simply vandalism magnets for people with too much time on their hands. I agree that it's good to unprotect the page from time to time, if only to justify why it should be protected. 23skidoo (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Some suggestions
EnemyOfTheState (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is a separate Awards section, there should be a proper awards table (like Jake Gyllenhaal), not this rather confusing list of succession boxes. Also, I don't see the usefulness of these succession boxes with award shows anyway - unlike a political office for example, the predecessor has no relevance or connection to the incumbent. One succession box for the Academy Award would be more than sufficient, imho.
 * Whether she should be introduced as "a former fashion model" in the lead might be debatable. She never gained any particular notability as a model and her previous modeling work hasn't come to prominence in retrospect either. Since she was never well know as a fashion model (and also currently is not), this might be best removed.
 * Is the disambiguation link on top of the page really necessary? Seems a bit like advertising to me, as the character in question doesn't even have its own article.
 * Agreed on all three counts! --Melty girl (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The latter is probably because of the redirect from Jolie. There was a disambiguation page which I've moved to the correct spot; this page can link to that. To some people the most famous "Jolie" would be Mama Jolie. Gimmetrow 21:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I included a table in the awards section and changed the first sentence. I don't know whether it is unnecessary for 'Jolie' to redirect here, it could be a disambiguation page. I doubt many people type in "Jolie" if they are looking for this article (unless they already know about the redirecting). EnemyOfTheState (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


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

The 12 Days of Angelina Jolie

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