Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 6

Manipulation of Public Image and Media (Please add to article, if OK)
A 2008 New York Times article “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image” states that Jolie is actually a highly skillful manipulator of both the media and her public image. The article states that through an uncanny savvy at such manipulation, Jolie was able to re-create her image from a “former Hollywood eccentric who wore a necklace ornamented with dried blood and talked about her fondness for knives before transforming herself into a philanthropist, United Nations good-will ambassador and devoted mother of six.”

NY Times states that sources in the media involved in bidding for photos after the birth of her biological children revealed terms of the negations included legally binding the winning bidder so they must agree to censor remarks made in the story to omit anything disparaging about the couple. Further, the negotiated restrictions were to apply not just for the resulting photo spread and article, but to all subsequent articles issued by that publication or media group. (The winning bidder was People Magazine, owned by Time, Inc.)

Similar restrictions were previously bargained for by Jolie in her earlier career. This was the period immediately following Jolie’s adoption of first son Maddox, the ensuing divorce from Billy Bob Thorton, and the publicly made pleas of concern about Jolie’s mental stability made by her recently re-estranged father, Jon Voight. Those earlier attempts at restrictive negotiations and content control with the press were to be in exchange for an exclusive photo shoot with Jolie and her then newly adopted son.

When negotiations broke down, the photo agency was later tipped off, again by Jolie herself, about where and when she could be seen playing with her son in public. The resulting pictures of Jolie and Maddox playing outdoors, sympathetically conveyed to the public the image of a young, newly divorced, starlet mother foiled by paparazzi in her attempt at private play time with her adopted son.

Through similar techniques, Jolie has successfully managed to shift public perception of herself and to raise her celebrity likeability or “Q factor” from 13 (during her Billy Bob Thorton era) up past the average rating of 18 for female stars, and further up to her current rating of 24 (during her motherhood, charity ambassador, and Brad Pitt era), armed with only “a cell phone, her manager and her lawyer.”

Source: “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image”. NY Times Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/business/media/21angelina.html?_r=1 63.226.211.112 (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Jolie officially doesn't have an agent, but her "manager" used to be an agent (as well actor, producer, etc.)


 * According to the deal offered by Ms. Jolie, the winning magazine was obliged to offer coverage that would not reflect negatively on her or her family, according to two people with knowledge of the bidding who were granted anonymity because the talks were confidential.


 * LOL Scuttlebutt ftw. Nar Matteru (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the amount of detail given here is needed, but the New York Times is the epitome of WP:RS, so if they've done an article on it, then it's fair game to at least mention some aspects of it. One must be careful not to interpret the article otherwise that causes WP:NOR and WP:BLP issues, but if the Times feels it's notable enough to cover, and they have indeed covered it, then it's fair game for this article. 23skidoo (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the NY Times story is already linked in the Further reading section. Other than that, I don't think there should be much more mentioned about this, considering it is a very media specific subject, certainly not typical encyclopedic information, not to mention that this story was flatly denied by People ; and they send out a memo to discredit it .  EnemyOfTheState  undefined 17:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's already linked, cool. As for the denials, etc., we've seen that sort of infighting before, and it's not our place to judge one way or the other. The Times is a RS, and so is People, so as long as both sides are represented, then fair game once again, should this be introduced into the story. 23skidoo (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Although the NY Times link itself is already included, it applies to a different context. The new topic requested to be added, "Media Manipulation", is not, so it certainly should be added. It isn't a Jolie vs. Annisten (or etc) type of opinion. The wiki article is about a certain media celebrity/actor. If that media celebrity has been noted by a reliable source for an unusually adept ability at manipulating the media and her success at revamping a notoriously dark and eccentric public perception, then it merits mention. I have suggested a change in the title (removing the term "Manipulation" that was used by the NY Times). 63.226.212.48 (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Papparazzo (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No explanation of what needs to be changed. [ジャム] [ t -  c  ] 10:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: Please add the following new section to the article and include the source, which is the NY Times. Thanks.

Changing Public Image and Media Perception

A 2008 New York Times article “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image” states that Jolie is actually a highly skillful manipulator of both the media and her public image. The article states that through an uncanny savvy at such manipulation, Jolie was able to re-create her image from a “former Hollywood eccentric who wore a necklace ornamented with dried blood and talked about her fondness for knives before transforming herself into a philanthropist, United Nations good-will ambassador and devoted mother of six.”

NY Times states that sources in the media involved in bidding for photos after the birth of her biological children revealed terms of the negations included legally binding the winning bidder so they must agree to censor remarks made in the story to omit anything disparaging about the couple. Further, the negotiated restrictions were to apply not just for the resulting photo spread and article, but to all subsequent articles issued by that publication or media group. (The winning bidder was People Magazine, owned by Time, Inc.)

Similar restrictions were previously bargained for by Jolie in her earlier career. This was the period immediately following Jolie’s adoption of first son Maddox, the ensuing divorce from Billy Bob Thorton, and the publicly made pleas of concern about Jolie’s mental stability made by her recently re-estranged father, Jon Voight. Those earlier attempts at restrictive negotiations and content control with the press were to be in exchange for an exclusive photo shoot with Jolie and her then newly adopted son.

When negotiations broke down, the photo agency was later tipped off, again by Jolie herself, about where and when she could be seen playing with her son in public. The resulting pictures of Jolie and Maddox playing outdoors, sympathetically conveyed to the public the image of a young, newly divorced, starlet mother foiled by paparazzi in her attempt at private play time with her adopted son.

Through similar techniques, Jolie has successfully managed to shift public perception of herself and to raise her celebrity likeability or “Q factor” from 13 (during her Billy Bob Thorton era) up past the average rating of 18 for female stars, and further up to her current rating of 24 (during her motherhood, charity ambassador, and Brad Pitt era), armed with only “a cell phone, her manager and her lawyer.”

Source: “Angelina Jolie’s Carefully Orchestrated Image”. NY Times Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/business/media/21angelina.html?_r=1 63.226.211.112 (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

63.226.212.48 (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to re-post all of that. Your suggestion was noted before, and editors noted that the article discusses something that is being denied by other media and is possibly more an issue of publication in-fighting. At this point, I agree, there is not a preponderance of other articles being noted from other publications which confirm what is essentially a story by one source which was disputed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Awards table
I have recently added several smaller awards to the filmography; it does already include all the awards listed in the awards table below. User:Wildhartlivie has suggested that it would probably be best to then remove the awards section entirely. I agree that the table is rather redundant, since the awards are already listed in the infobox and the filmography. On the other hand, I think the awards table does serve a purpose to provide a quick overview of her major awards/nominations. Personally, I don't have a real preference (remove the awards section, or keep it), so I'm interested what others think about it. EnemyOfTheState undefined 19:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I prefer the information to be consolidated and the filmography table is versatile enough to allow this. I was looking at the awards table at Julia Roberts a few days ago, and wondering if it was the best way to go, so I'm glad this has been raised.   For Jolie and Roberts, the award table is displayed by date, although another option is to display it by award.   There's not a right or wrong way, but I think consistency is important, and some articles (can't think of names right now) show the same information in different formats.   If I want to see how many Oscars Angelina has been nominated for, for example,  I still can't see that at a glance, and I've still got to scan through and count them.  If that's the case, I'd rather see it all in the one filmography table so that a bigger picture emerges.  For example,  I find interesting what was not considered worthy of a nomination and the filmography puts all the award nominated films into context of the overall career.  I think that is more useful.   I'd rather have one table that contains a lot of information but that keeps the overall article concise, than a series of more basic smaller tables that make the article look busy. Rossrs (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be possible to make the awards table sortable by either year or award, which then makes the number of received awards/nominations easier to identify. On a general note: Of course I can see the advantages of the current filmography style, having all the information in one place. However, it also means that you have to look for Oscars somewhere between online critics awards. And while I think it still works reasonably well in this article (and others such as Maggie Gyllenhaal or Liv Tyler), I don't think it looks all that great on articles like Kate Winslet or Heath Ledger, where the number of smaller awards are rather overwhelming; there it's more like an awards list that also mentions the films, than an actual filmography. So I guess my point is, no ideal solution has been found yet in how to deal with listing acting awards. Maybe some form of hidable element might be a good idea.  EnemyOfTheState  undefined 15:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose the challenge is to have a format that best suits that majority of articles, and maybe there is no ideal solution for all articles. I find it hard to visualise a hideable element - can you think of any other tables that use something similar so that I can see what you mean?   Do you mean within the table to reduce the longer lists or the table itself?  Rossrs (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I didn't have anything concrete in mind. I was thinking about a method that would allow to hide some of the smaller awards in the right column of the filmography. That column (let's say titled "Notes and major awards (show all awards)") would by default only show the bigger awards, and if you click on "show all awards" it would expand to show all the awards that person has won. But I'm afraid the current wiki language does not allow such an option (I might be wrong about this).  EnemyOfTheState  undefined 15:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Being the person who first mentioned this, I suppose I should reiterate. I find the separate awards table redundant to various other points in the article and is happily incorporated into the main filmography table. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Added note: If the awards are included properly, it should have the awards won first, followed by nominations, and in alphabetical order by awards name in each of those two categories. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is the way I tried to do it, did I mess up the order?  EnemyOfTheState  undefined 15:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did. I was just commenting on the way the compilation should be formatted to be able to see clearly what was won and what was nominated. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We probably misunderstood each other. I was talking about the filmography, while you were commenting on the awards table I suppose; that section is currently listed chronologically.  EnemyOfTheState  undefined 17:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm the idiot. That's what I get for answering when I'm half-asleep. I really think I misread your question. I'm certain I was responding to "That is the way I tried to do it." by agreeing that you had. My original comment was in response to your statement "However, it also means that you have to look for Oscars somewhere between online critics awards", to which I was feebly trying to communicate that with the awards in alphabetical order then by won/nominated, they should be easy to see in the filmography list. I'm sorry for not making myself clear! Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think having the awards in the filmography table makes the filmography more difficult to read, since many of the fields end up empty while others end up with 5+ lines. Before the awards and filmography were partially combined, they were not redundant, and were, in my opinion, easier to read. The separate awards table is in the format typical when a stand-alone article is created for the awards (See most any artist awards list at WP:FL, eg this one). Gimmetrow 01:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's a fair comparison. It's comparing a "list of awards", in which a detailed break-down should be expected, against an actor biography which should be comprehensive and concise.  It wouldn't be appropriate to have the content of List of awards and nominations received by Gwen Stefani in the article Gwen Stefani in this form, which is exactly why it's been broken away into its own article.  Rossrs (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think the Stefani tables are spun out into their own article because of length, not form. I'm sure there were awards tables in some actor FAs at the point they passed FA. Gimmetrow 12:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but I was only commenting on the example you gave.  It may have been broken away because of length, but the length is determined by the format used, and it's not a concise format.   Rossrs (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think clarity and readability are more important, but the separate awards table as it used to be here seems pretty concise to me. Gimmetrow 18:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess there is no clear consensus, though the majority seems to be in favor of removing the awards section. Maybe a solution could be to cut the table, and to create a sub-article that contains both a more detailed filmography (including directors, co-stars, box office gross), as well as a list of her awards and nominations comparable to the Gwen Stefani example above? EnemyOfTheState undefined


 * That is a distinct possibility. There are numerous entries under Category:Filmographies, and although most use the title "First name/last name filmography", there are various formats being used.   One example is Katharine Hepburn filmography which incorporates her Academy Awards/nominations in separate tables, though it would be wise to put on sunglasses before you look at it.  I think it has potential, although it ignores all the other awards and nominations Hepburn received.  Rossrs (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about an appropriate title for such an article. "Angelina Jolie filmography and awards and nominations list" or something like that sounds rather ungainly. The Hepburn filmography is of course very informative by listing all her fellow Oscar nominees, but that makes a potential awards list very long (if it contains most, if not all the awards given by the IMDb). Not to mention that it takes a lot of work to put it together. I created a rough example how I think it could be done here: User:EnemyOfTheState/Sandbox.  EnemyOfTheState  undefined 17:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Affair with married man
There is no mention of the fact that she became pregnant with Pitt's child while he was still married to Jennifer, despite her protestations she would never do such a thing. This seems like an important fact to leave out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.43.129 (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That might be because Wikipedia isn't a tabloid and wouldn't include unsourced gossip, nor would it take sides in the bad Angie/good Jen factions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if look at the time line of her pregancy she was clearly pregnant while brad was still married to his wife so how is that unsourccd gossip? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nillarse (talk • contribs) 19:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if we look at the time line of her pregnancy, the date that he and Aniston split up, the date that the baby was born, and deduce that she had sex with him before the divorce was final, without sources for it, it would be unsourced speculation. And if we include it because we think it means she was untruthful about anything, then we are violating WP:BLP and that won't be happening. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Her religion?
Is she religious? I think she's some kind of agnostic or atheist even. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.192.184 (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Format
I think that the format could be tweaked a little. Perhaps a 'personal life' and 'career' heading with several sub-headings. Teatreez (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

1st Marriage
I just removed the following sentence:

She attended her wedding in black leather pants and a white shirt, upon which she had written the groom's name in her blood.

I looked through the source and couldn't find anything about this. I may have missed it,can someone verify this? It seems kind of extreme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwake20 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it isn't that extreme for her - she wore a vial of blood around her neck when she was married to Billy Bob Thornton. There are a lot of news entries for her from that page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do we have any other sources? I'm sceptical about using IMDB sources because it is user edited (like WP, which is why we can't use WP to source WP).  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 23:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't IMDb content though, it is from outside news sources that IMDb carries. That isn't user edited. This is a featured article and wouldn't have passed that if the source was dubious. However, I had planned to look for confirming sources anyway. In any case, I wouldn't remove content if I had a question about a source, I'd tag it for confirmation. But also, as I said, it is entirely something I'd believe about her based on lots of exploits from her past. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How about the NY Times (though they claim they were 'rubber pants')? The IMDb News are not user edited however, they are proved by WENN, an entertainment news and photo agency.  EnemyOfTheState  undefined 23:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed the footnote.  EnemyOfTheState  undefined 00:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't realise the news bit of IMDB wasn't user edited.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 09:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Salt
The movie Salt is currently in production, listed through IMDB, and now has its own Wikipedia page. Why can't it be listed on Jolie filmography? The information is there, it should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.142.249 (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate information about her parents
the article says that she has been long estranged from her father and that the tomb raider movie was an attempt at reconciliation. THIS IS NOT TRUE. angelina thanked him in her golden globe and oscar speeches in the 90s. there are also MANY, MANY photographs of her and her father together and looking happy throughout the years. OBVIOUSLY they were not "long estranged" whatever source says so is inaccurate. jon came to both of her weddings, attended numerous award ceremonies with her and was often seen with her in public. this needs to be changed.

here are the photos http://wireimage.com/searchresults.aspx?cbi=2177&s=angelina%20jolie&sfld=C

they don't look estranged to me!

The fall out between Ms Jolie and her father is based on a disagreement they had when Ms Jolie was submitting papers for the adoption of her son Madox. She had a lot of stress and at one point felt Mr Voight was slow in signing some papers needed for the adoption. You could hardly call that a 'major disagreement'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwrd (talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

ALSO, the article says her parents separated in 1976. that is false, whatever source says so is untrue. how do you explain all the family photos?

most sources say that marcheline and jon voight split in 1978 (which is the truth) even people magazine says so and that is a very reliable source. if they separated in 1976, angelina would have been one year old.

here are family photos that show angelina and she's obvious not one year old:

http://images2.sina.com/english/entertainment/p/2009/0204/U135P200T1D216063F8DT20090204200252.jpg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMBfoQbBYpw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNm7P0YdeFo&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqtsm_Oa5tg&feature=related

i try to make edits but wildhartlive keeps reverting them for no reason

Excuseme99 (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have reverted your edits, except they are for very valid reasons. They are incorrect and constitute guess work and sleuthing in the absence of valid sourcing. I'm growing weary of reverting and adding third party, verifiable and reliable sources in order to further support statements in this article regarding Jolie's relationship with her father and when her parents separated. From what I can tell, you appear to have an idea about the dates and whether or not she was estranged from Voight. Per the definition of estrangement: the feeling of being alienated from other people, a state of separation between persons or groups. It does not mean they are enemies or that they refuse to see each other or be in the same place. The information about the year the Voights separated comes from an article from Vogue magazine in which Jolie participated. Are you saying Jolie what - lied about it? Why would she do that? Do you think that because a couple is separated that they wouldn't speak, be somewhere for some given reason together, or be in contact because of the kids?? What do we have as opposition to an article in which the information came from Jolie? Your conclusions from one photo. Yes, they certainly can have separated in 1976 and not divorce until two years later. There is a difference between separating and divorcing.

The last edit included a link given as reference to one page showing a picture of Jolie, as a quite young toddler, likely no older than a year old or so, sitting on Voight's lap, next to her mother with James Haven on mom's lap. They appear to be in a waiting area somewhere. Jolie was born in June, 1975. The article had stated that her parents separated in 1976. The photo is offered as some sort of proof that "Some sources say that Jolie's parents separated in 1976, although this is contradicted by many others that say they separated in 1978 as well as photographs that show the family looking together and looking happy when Jolie was older." There is no context given for the photo, or if they are "looking together and looking happy", and it certainly offers no proof that the couple was together until 1978 - when Jolie would have been three years old. For all anyone knows, this could have been taken while waiting for a court hearing regarding legal separation. It proves nothing. There is no reference offered to disprove the already sourced material that they separated in 1976. This sort of inclusion is nothing more than original research and synthesis.

A second link was added to a Wire Image page offering 17 photos of Voight with Jolie or Jolie and Haven, and is given for support of the change from text reading "Jolie has been long estranged from her father. The two tried to reconcile and he appeared with her in Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)." to new text reading "Jolie is estranged from her father. The two starred together in Lara Croft: Tomb Raider in 2001. Some sources say that they had been long estranged before then, and that they attempted reconciliation during filming This, however, is contradicted by that fact that Jolie and her father made many public appearances together and appeared seemingly happy during the years prior to the film." Pardon me, but what?? The amount of time prior to Lara Croft that they were estranged isn't specific. The article actually says they reconciled and then appeared in Lara Croft and then became estranged again after that. Estrangement doesn't mean they never had any contact whatsoever, it doesn't mean there weren't times they were closer than at other times. What we're offered as allegedly proof that they weren't is basically three photos while Jolie was still a child - one from 1980, one from 1986, one from 1988. Then there were a couple from one event in 1991 and a couple from one event in 1994. The rest were posed publicity photos taken at mostly awards ceremonies after Jolie began to receive awards or premieres. The last few were taken in 2000 and 2001 - around the time Lara Croft was filmed. There is no way to conclude that they made public appearances together - only that in some cases, they were at the same event, or to discern in what ones they were "seemingly happy". This is conjecture and again, does not prove they were close, happy, or "together" prior to some given time. It's just enough. Please either provide valid and reliable third party sources or stop injecting your POV into the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The People magazine sources I found regarding Jolie's parents divorce simply state that Jolie's parents married in 1971 and that her mother filed for divorce seven years later. Another article I found states that Voight abandoned the family when his daughter was less than a year old, which would mean around 1976 which is what the article states. Quite a few couples divorce years after they separate and that seems to be the case here (If there are any People magazine articles I'm missing that challenge this content, I'd be more than happy to read them because what I found jives with what's in the article). If there were an actual reliable source for this content, I could see challenging it, but pictures and/or YouTube video and someone's interpretation of those are not acceptable as sources. Ever. Considering Jolie's article is currently an FA, I trust that several experienced editors have gone over every bit of content and if this "inaccurate" info were actually inaccurate, someone would've caught it by now. If the OP really wants to include this content, I suggest opening an RfC and letting the rest of the community decide if someone's thoughts on some pictures should trump verifiable sources.  Pinkadelica Say it...  07:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sources for her being largely estranged from her father, and for them trying to reconcile with Tomb Raider (all these predate this article):
 * USA Today
 * CBS News
 * Chicago Tribune


 * Sources that her parents did not split in 1978 (again predating this article):
 * NY Times
 * Vogue ("when Jolie was six months old")

Them being estranged does not mean they never met, therefore pictures showing them together is not a contradiction. From what I understand her parents divorce was finalized in 1978, but they separated in 1976. EnemyOfTheState undefined 13:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the People article says they "split" when she was three (See http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20214047,00.html) so there you have it. If you bother to watch the youtube videos, she is a toddler in many of the photos with her parents. I highly doubt that it was at a court hearing or something---her parents were not on good terms at all after the split. Excuseme99 (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There we have what? A reference to a "split"? What does that mean? They divorced? They stopped living together? They legally separated? Citation policy requires something far more substantial than conclusions and assumptions made by Excuseme99 from watching some YouTube clips and expressing personal doubts about the backstory of an otherwise unexplained photo. Please review WP:OR and WP:SYN. What I can't understand is your persistence in coming back to your argument over and over when multiple editors have spoken against it. Persistence doesn't change the basic problem, you can't substantiate your POV. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Who agrees?
Who agrees that it should be kept as "actress" instead of "film actor"? Because whenever i change it to Actress, someone just reverts it and I think we should just keep it as Actress. Why should it matter? All other wikipedia articles don't have this conflict. It's not a big deal, yet some users on here are stubborn and freak when someone changes film actor to actress. Actress sounds better. Justme89 (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On the same token, maybe someone should be asking you the same question: Why should it matter? – Ms. Sarita  Confer  01:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed ad nauseum. Regular editors on this page have agreed to the use of "actor". Jolie uses the word "actor". "All other wikipedia articles" would require a bit of proof. Some do, some don't. No one freaks, but there certain are imbedded notes that explain this in the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Smaller changes
I made some minor changes, mostly clean-up. I did remove two dubious claims I could not verify There a no reliable sources for this, only stories that are apparently based on this Wikipedia article. EnemyOfTheState undefined 18:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * that she was signed with Finesse Model Management
 * that her documentary A Place in Time features Jude Law, Hilary Swank, Colin Farrell and Jonny Lee Miller.

Lead section
I think the lead needs some minor tweaking, bearing in mind two things - 1. This is a featured article and 2. The lead should summarize the article per WP:LEAD. I don't see anything about her being glamorous in the article, and as beauty and glamor kind of go together, I don't see why it's so important to add that she is not only beautiful but also glamorous. I don't feel this is particularly enlightening, but I'd be more comfortable with "glamorous" existing in the lead as one of the most important points if it was also given some discusion in the article. Also, I think the lead paints a fairly shallow portrait of Jolie by focussing on her physical appearance. She's also been cited as one of Time 100 most influential people, which is of more consequence than her ability to look good in photographs. Rossrs (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, although I'd just as soon lose the glamour mention altogether. The first citation to support that she's been cited as one of the most glamourous stars is a review for Taking Lives and says "Angelina Jolie plays a role that definitely feels like something she has already done, but she does add an unmistakable dash of excitement and glamour." The second is a photo slideshow from a reader vote. When I first reverted the addition of glamour, it was because it was stuck into a sentence that was wholly supported by one source and the source didn't mentino glamour at all. Jolie has worked as a UN Ambassador, and all that is mentioned in summary of quite an extensive section on her humanitarian work is "Jolie has promoted humanitarian causes throughout the world, and is noted for her work with refugees through UNHCR." I believe it sells her activism, humanitarian work and philanthropy far short of what should be covered. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Both beauty and glamour seem to be self-evidently notable features of her, and it's only one sentence out of the whole lead in fact. I would say on balance that, if anything, the article body is failing to cover that aspect, rather than the lead covering it too much.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't give license to add things to the lead that aren't covered in the article. Her notability comes from her acting work, the awards that have come from that and the humanitarian work and influence she is able to exert because of it. Without those things, she's just another pretty face who hasn't made a huge diffrence in the world. The article covers those things quite well, but exactly how much can the article cover once it is said she's been cited as being extraordinarily beautiful? At present, her beauty gets one sentence and the very long section covering humanitarian and philanthropy get a sentence. It doesn't reflect the content in the article, which is the most important aspect of what the lead should do. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I helped to write the WP:LEAD guideline. There's nothing that says you have to have a straight n:1 sentence or word count or any other ratio between the article and the lead. And the lead is allowed to have facts that don't really need elaboration, for example birth dates are the classic example of that. Merely noting that she's normally considered beautiful and glamorous doesn't necessarily require elaboration. I also think that your claim that she is only notable because she is an actress is not really true; she is in a relationship with a famous actor, and has famous parents and gets notability from there and many other things; but that doesn't mean she's not notable for her beauty and glamour as well, it seems to be the case that she gets notability in multiple ways.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the lead had to have specific ratios, but I did say it should reflect and be a summary of the article itself. And for the record, the first source you added did not endorse her as a figure of glamour, it said she brought a little glamour to a film role. For Taking Lives, it wouldn't take much to glam it up a bit. That's a bit different. And I absolutely did not say she was only notable because she is an actress. I said she is notable because she is an actress, she has won awards, she does massive humanitarian work and has influence that comes from that. Famous parents don't necessarily make one notable, although her relationship with Brad Pitt would probably bring her notability if she were the drive-up window operator at McDonald's. Besides that, the original post by Rossrs wasn't simply about your adding the word glamour, it was about the fact that the lead is lacking and needs to be tweaked up to better reflect the complete article, especially since it is a featured article. I think his point also was that it needs to better reflect something besides the glitz to truly reflect what Angelina Jolie represents and what she has accomplished. If you helped write the lead guideline, then you're probably aware that it could be a bit better than it is. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think Jolie is regularly described as "one of the world's most glamorous women" at all; the two sources are certainly insufficient. Also, it sounds a bit silly in the lead imho.  EnemyOfTheState  undefined 11:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, I don't think it's particularly enlightening to call her "glamorous", and the cites are not good. I think if they are the best available it only reinforces how superfluous the comment is.    I agree that there is nothing to say that the lead must be an exact mirror of the article, but it must convey the same balance and emphasis of relative importance.    Discussing the individual appearance of a person is difficult.   "Glamor" is a matter of perception, and is one of several perceptions of her appearance.   For every photograph published of her looking glamorous at some media event, there are about 10 others of her strolling along with her brood of children, and exuding more an "earth mother" persona than that of a stereotypical figure of glamor.  I'm not about to add "earth mother" to the lead, but I bet I could find a few sources to support such a description.  This is without even looking at any of the negative comments made about her appearance.   A lot could be said about her appearance, and all cited, but I'm straying from my main point.  Wildhartlivie is completely correct in her comments regarding my original post.   The significance of Jolie's accomplishments are not conveyed as successfully in the lead as they are in the article body.   Many actresses are beautiful and glamorous, and many actresses promote causes and good works, but very few have been acknowledged for their impact and influence.  The lead doesn't reflect this.  My comments relate to the overall tone of the lead and the balance, and I think it leans closer to the "glitz" than the substance of her work.   It seems to weigh her significance differently in the lead than in the article.   I think for a featured article, there should be more care in achieving/maintaining a balance.  That's all.   Rossrs (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to re-write the lead. Easy ways to expand her humanitarian work in the lead could be mentioning that she became a Goodwill Ambassador in 2001, visited over 20 countries since then, maybe becoming a member of the Council on Foreign Relations in 2007. Her being among the Time 100 in 2006 and 2008 could also be included possibly. However, it should be worded very cautiously, and not sounding like praise in any way.  EnemyOfTheState  undefined 12:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that you are claiming that your OR about whether or not she is glamorous is more important than reliable sources that say she adds glamour or has been voted the most glamorous out of more than 50 actresses. Your assessment about how she looks when she takes the children to school is NOT the issue under NPOV, and neither do her good works and acting skills make her not glamorous unless you have an RS for that. I'm also confused by the overall thrust of the argument. There aren't even 4 paragraphs to the lead, so if you want to add more material about her good work then go right ahead. FWIW the emphasis in the lead is not supposed to reflect the article, it's supposed to reflect NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Otherwise, this comes down to NPOV. I only added 2 references so far, I could probably add another half a dozen reliable sources without even trying.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand what I'm saying, or I may not have conveyed it as clearly as I should.  I'm not claiming that my 'OR' is more important, (nor am I claiming it to be 'OR').   I am saying that much has been written about her appearance and there are various perceptions.   To single out one type of commentary while ignoring others can be misleading.   It may even be a case of WP:UNDUE.    I'm sure you could add 100 sources to say she's glamorous, but to do so you would have to overlook every other description offered of her, by the reputable media.  In any case, I think EnemyOfTheState's previous comment about beefing up the humanitarian work is on the right track. Rossrs (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Your attitude that adding two words to the article somehow detracts from all the other words (and there are very many paragraphs on that) is just bizarre to me in the extreme. And I'm sorry, but that's not how NPOV works. NPOV works by including all points of view, not excluding points of view. If you can't follow the standards and policies of the wikipedia, then you should contribute to a different project.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not tell me that I don't have a right to an opinion or to contribute to Wikipedia. This is a discussion that should remain civil, and you are beginning to stray from that.  You misinterpret my attitude, despite what I've actually said, but if the two words are ill-chosen, and not supported by a strong cite, then they should be removed.   If they are disputed and challenged by other editors, they should be removed.  The sources you cited have been challenged as weak by more than one editor.  More than one editor has disagreed with the edit.   This is reason enough to remove it.   Your right to an opinion does not negate the right of other editors to challenge and disagree with your edit, or even to revert it.   The discussion here is strongly in favour of the removal of this description, and you are the lone voice in favour of retaining it.  Please don't tell me that I'm not following "standards and policies" when you are so clearly not following them yourself.   As for your comment that "NPOV works by including all points of view" - for crying out loud that is exactly what I've been saying, and you are not including ALL points of view.  Just the one that interests you.  Rossrs (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but for the people that haven't bothered to read the wikipedias policies, I don't have to add all points of view to the article. Your removal of points of view other than ones you happen to favour purely and simply constitutes undue weight of your point of view.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't even make sense. You're adding information to a stable, featured article and three editors including myself dispute it.  How is your adding a particular viewpoint that you favour more acceptable than what you claim to be my biased removal of a viewpoint that I don't favour?   That's illogical.   Rossrs (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not how the wikipedia works. NPOV is found by including all notable points of view. Your argument you're making is that it is a notable point of view, but you're going to remove it anyway. Um? No? And note, the wikipedia is not wikiality; we don't seek consensus on talk pages, we seek WP:CONSENSUS which is agreeing what the sources mean. You've already agreed that this is a notable point of view, so the discussion so far as consensus is concerned is ended.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, WP:CONSENSUS talks about "specific points of article content" and we are discussing a specific point of article content.  Not what the sources mean.  It doesn't say that.  That comes under WP:RS, but the fact that it's covered by a different policy doesn't make it any less valid.    Anyway, I've finished with this.  Unless you have something new to add, please don't bother me further.  You're making this personal and any interest I may have had in discussing this with you, has completely evaporated. Rossrs (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the glamorous part for now; I seems no one except Wolfkeeper supports its inclusion. The two sources certainly don't support the notion that this is a integral part of her public persona or of her general image, which I believe would be necessary to feature it so prominently in the second sentence of the lead. Apparently Wolfkeeper has worked on Glamour (presentation) recently, and introduced glamor references to other articles as well, e.g. Marilyn Monroe. Maybe someone should take a look at them as well.  EnemyOfTheState  undefined 13:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm reverting your edit on the grounds that it does not accord with wikipedia's policy. I've added just two words to an article and added 2 good references, and your arguments don't hold any water.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your edit on the grounds that 3 editors have given clear reasons why they think the edit is inappropriate and unnecessary and why they think the references are not satisfactory.  You haven't offered any comment that addresses these points, and your comments seem to boil down to you think you're right and we're wrong, and that's good enough for you.  Well it's not good enough for me.  Rossrs (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe somebody should look at your edits, you seem to think that you get to say what is and isn't notable, completely independently of 3rd party references. That's not how the wikipedia works, and I find what amounts to be an attack on me to be contrary to WP:AGF as well.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hard to assume good faith if you persistently ignore that you are the only one who accepts these two sources as "good references". I don't believe I "get to say what is and isn't notable" - on the contrary, it is you who is acting on your own; nobody else obviously agrees that it should be included.  EnemyOfTheState  undefined 15:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So your entire argument is that you're outvoting me, and so you can now assume bad faith as well as remove referenced material? I must have missed that bit of the policies, could you point that out for me?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, these two sources are insufficient to support the claim she is described as "one of the world's most glamorous women". More importantly however, whether something can be verified by reliable sources is not the sole litmus test if a statement should be in an article or not; if that were the case, the length for articles on popular topics would become unmanageable. Rather, facts also have to be of encyclopedic value, relevant to the subject and not of trivial nature. And the talk page is exactly the place to make these determinations of article content.  EnemyOfTheState  undefined 16:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Films mentioned in introduction and picture
1. Why put such an unflattering photo of her when there is a much better photo of her under the "in the media" article? that photo looks much better.

2. Why mention her flop films (Cyborg 2, Hackers) rather than her hits (gone in sixty seconds, wanted, plus her oscar nod for changeling)?

3. Shouldn't her awards be mentioned in order of importance? and shouldn't it say "won" instead of "received"?

Excuseme99 (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. That would be purely your POV. There are actually people who think the photo is quite beautiful.


 * 2. As has been said to you over and over, a lead section is supposed to be a summary of the entire article. It is entirely relevant to mention an actor's first acting appearances in the lead and perhaps the progression leading up to "stardom". Contrary to your belief that every "hit" film (or is that "blockbuster"?) needs to be mentioned in the lead, the lead gives an outline of that. She has had lots of hits, they don't all have to be included in the lead. It covers the two biggest commercial successes. It can be argued that Gone in Sixty Seconds wasn't so much a Jolie vehicle as it was an ensemble supporting cast, which would not necessarily mandate it as a major vehicle for her. Nicholas Cage, yes. Meanwhile, the lead mentions what may be considered major awards she has won, but it is unreasonable to begin to include everything for which she was nominated.


 * 3. How do you determine the order of importance of awards? POV, completely. There is nothing that compells one to use "won" instead of "received". There's entirely too much winning vs. losing connected to awards. Should we say she "lost" the Academy Award for Changeling? Maybe number of awards should determine it, or maybe reverse order of some perceived "importance".


 * Finally, please be so good as to not charge in and make changes to featured and good articles such as you did, and have done in the past, without discussing it first. Teams of editors review articles thoroughly for such a status. Such articles with such statuses have been thoroughly reviewed for content, accuracy, sourcing, scope of coverage and balance. Personally, I don't see your changes as improvements at all. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)