Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 8

The Tourist > Already filming
She is in Venice, Italy shooting the movie with Johnny Deep

It should be added to her filmography.
 * Well, that wouldn't be considered a reliable source and at present, that film is listed as being in pre-production, so no.

It's in pre-production, but we can add. We need an announcement as well as reliable sources of that information. Better try for that. Cheerio :) Tanvir 10:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, we don't add films not yet in active phases of production to the filmography table without a reliable source. Ones listed on IMDB that aren't either filming or in post-production aren't added with out the source. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Johnny Depp himself states in this interview that shooting starts this Tuesday
 * Again, it requires verification from a reliable source. Comingsoon.net and Hollywoodlife.com are not considered reliable sources. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Shooting already start, pictures here: Enough proof to include the movie?
 * Livejournal is a blog. Not acceptable. Please go read WP:RS and figure out what is a reliable source. Not blogs, self-published websites or dubious sources. National magazines, newspapers, etc. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

A picture of her naked is in the set of the movie is not enough proof? I give up, include the movie when the first trailer comes out, if you think that the trailer is a reliable source.
 * No, a picture of her in the set of A movie posted to a blog is unreliable. Are you the person who posted all of that? Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think a sentence or so should be added about "Salt" in "International success, 2001–present" catagory. And yes, there is a poster, trailer and plenty of production photos to prove that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitefox.gabriel (talk • contribs) 00:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that film hasn't opened yet and there isn't critical commentary or facts to write about it until it is reviewed. What would you say? "She starred in Salt"? There is no deadline to add something and it is most prudent to wait until there is actually something to add. It opens in July, it can wait. Movie posters, trailers and production photos don't add content to the prose. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The picture of Angelina should be changed (at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland) seeing as how it is from 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitefox.gabriel (talk • contribs) 12:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding in sub-categories
The categories that this article has can be put under one category as sub-categories, which is why I am changing it. It is not vandalism, but other FA articles does it as well and to be honest, the article looks neater that way. AhnSoonKyung (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agreed. Speaking of which, if we're going to do that because it does make the article look more attractive (FA or not, because there's always room for improvement), should put her children and relationships under Personal Life? GinaGucci (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should say. A good rule of thumb for me whenever I'm editing is that if they are talking about the same thing (in this case, her career) then they should be subcategories rather than categories. As for her Personal Life, I think her children's section is much too big on its own, although I suppose it would work too.  SandylovesMicky (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder what the odds are for three people to show up here, never having editored here before, all of whom have an interest in articles related to Korea, in support of a particular version created by one of them? I wonder... Did we call in support??? Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We actually met through Wiki and when she asked me about the categories thing, I came to check and voice my opinion. As for GinaGucci, I dunno who she is. SandylovesMicky (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, you don't have to sound like we're attacking you. LOL!  It is only Wikipedia. SandylovesMicky (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but there are strong rules about canvassing and meatpuppetry. Coming in to post in support after being asked by another editor is frowned upon. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Kung Fu Panda mentioned in lead
Who actually sees that as Jolie-driven project? She didn't appear in the film, only her voice was heard. And who even knew she was a voice in it? That film was made for a little kids. Shouldn't her most commercially successful film she has actually been seen in be mentioned instead?Closeminded8 (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The reference does indicate that "Kung Fu Panda" was one of the films that she participated in that grossed the most money. However Closeminded8's point stands, "had her biggest commercial successes" is not an encyclopedic statement. The implication is that either she personally had financial success, or that she was responsible for the commercial success of the film overall. The citation given doesn't support either conjecture. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. If you look at the way the previous sentence ends, and the way the sentence under discussion begins, we have :"and since then has established herself as one of the best-known and highest-paid actresses in Hollywood.[2] She has had her biggest commercial successes with...."   When we go straight from discussion of being highly paid, into comment about her "commercial" success, I think it is easy to draw different interpretations.  My interpretation is that those two films represented her highest pay cheques.  It may not be the case, but the way it is written suggests that to me.   I don't think it even matters that one was a live action and the other an animated film in which she wasn't even seen.   The wording is purely about money and that each of the three of us have a slightly different interpretation, suggests less than ideal phrasing.   I'm not sure how it should be reworded or even what we need to be saying.   Success as in Angelina's personal pay cheque?   Success as in box office takings?  What is the main point to be made in that section? Rossrs (talk) 07:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the question is certainly, "what we need to be saying?"


 * For example, I was bemused in an article (Tim Allen), when an editor chose to remove the cited statement made by Allen himself about which of his movies was his personal favorite. The editorial explanation was: "...questionable OR by Mr Allen himself." This struck me as peculiar ... isn't it part of an artist's job to assess their own work? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Most beautiful" is unencyclopedic
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That a reliable source, in an otherwise factual article, ventures an opinion that someone or someplace is beautiful, that statement is WP:PEACOCK. To draw a comparison with a less emotional topic, how many parks and tourist spots are described as "the most beautiful place on Earth" etc.? Where these statements are not subjective, they are driven by marketing factors. I.e., WP:BIAS. Wikipedia doesn't need the opinion of every Chamber of Commerce, tourist board, and guidebook that a location is "beautiful".

I return to this, because "most beautiful woman" doesn't hold up to any critical evaluation, either. Just what it is about her that — in a testable, provable sense — that is most beautiful? Are her toes the most beautiful? Her molars? Is every part of her more beautiful than any other woman living? If she had a nose job, would she still be "most beautiful"? Is her current rating 99.999997? And would the nose job improve it to 99.9999998? Since there is no way to test whether the statement is true, "most beautiful woman" cannot be in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not a beauty contest. There are plenty of objective things to report in Jolie's favor. Allowing peacock in the article casts doubt on her other, genuine accomplishments, with the implicit suggestion that many might just be a matter of opinion. Piano non troppo (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What you seem to be missing is that it is not added as an editor's opinion, it is from a source widely considered reliable and it is a notable mention that she was named the Most Beautiful Star by People and it is sourced. The source is not a Chamber of Commerce, tourist board, or guidebook. Various other articles, some of them featured articles like this one is, note the inclusion of some celebrity or actor by the same magazine and it has not been challenged. However, as I said, this has been discussed before and just because you didn't come by to edit war over it, you are wrong, discussions concluded with multiple editors supporting the wording. As I pointed out and you ignored, see here, here, here, here, here, and here. And the discussions became more sophisticated and detailed as they went on. But mostly, it is not peacockry to include a sourced statement that she is considered beautiful. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See also lead of . From what I can see, only discussion there has been where the note should go (lead or elsewhere). Gimmetrow 20:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. There are notable mentions of People's Sexiest Man Alive and various other sorts of titles that are attached (such as Sexiest Couple, Sexiest Woman, and this one). They are notable mentions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with People Mag calling Angelina Most Beautiful. It's just something they do.  It's not over the top to have it in the article. Malke  2010  17:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * All we are saying is that she has been described as one of the most beautiful, and that's true enough - she has been so described. I don't see a problem with it. Rossrs (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

And this video on CNN, reporting on a People magazine article today, says that Julia Roberts is. Come on. What's the point? Wiki should report whatever peacock statements magazine editors choose to publish? Piano non troppo (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesnn't change the fact that they once reported her as "Most beautiful woman". Take it too ANI, it's the only way this will ever get resolved. In the mean time, it is a sourced and accurate fact, widely used in articles. magnius (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not whether it's sourced, it's whether the fact itself is verifiable AND encyclopedic. Some newspaper saying she can "act the arms" off someone ... you would consider that appropriate for Wikipedia, too?


 * Do you have ANY IDEA how stupid this sort of information makes Wikipedia look to the academic community? Any idea at all? Piano non troppo (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we should at least try to stick to the policies and guidelines, particular WP:BLP, which is strictly enforced: For a celebrity who trades on her looks, it is important that relevant sections of the media considered her the most beautiful woman in the world. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * NPOV asks for impartial tone - not mockery
 * Article should be timeless, stating facts which are true for all time eg X said Y. So what is true "now" needs to be phrased as "As of X date, Y", for example
 * I don't think it's relevant who is now considered most beautiful. It's like saying, in an article on Neil Armstrong, "Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon, but Mr X was the most recent". We just don't care in a Neil Armstrong article who was the most recent.
 * The point is, the statement isn't provable. "People Magazine" says one thing, "Vogue" says another. ALL celebrities trade on their looks, and every celebrity, or at least every celebrity's agent, would like to present her as somehow exceptional. That doesn't mean she is. Just that someone is spending advertising money to make the claim that she is. That's the second problem. It's not just that "most beautiful" is WP:PEACOCK, it's that the source of these statements is self-serving promotion WP:SPAM or the subjective opinion of fans WP:BIAS. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is not very encyclopaedic when quoted out of the blue. Perhaps we could move it to her role at the time it was announced eg mention it in relation to the Lara Croft movie, if this was one reason for its high profile. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I've read through the reference given, it is much later, and describes some of her charity work too. The beauty being referred to is not just related to her physique. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting to be in this position, because I was the one who suggested four months ago that the Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life article could be improved by using material in the commentaries. I was impressed, and felt the article wasn't doing her justice. In a sense, that's why I feel on firm ground here. I don't think Jolie thinks she is the most beautiful woman in the world, and I bet, if we asked her, she would prefer to emphasize her other accomplishments. Cheers, Piano non troppo (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Beginning to see your point. Just for laughs, check out this ... "sex appeal and edginess"  Part of the problem across a range of articles is that we try to convey what the media says about celebrities in a celebrity-obsessed culture.  It's an important part of their marketing and helps shape public perception, so we can't just ignore it.  We have to present it with a degree of balance. The "in the media" section in the article, covers the main points and doesn't focus on just one aspect of her, but the lead must summarize the whole article, while ensuring that brevity is maintained and that's difficult.  That section isn't well summarized.  For example, being on Times "Most Influential" list seems more significant and perhaps even more measurable than being on People's "Most Beautiful".   Just because this is a FA, does not mean it's perfect, and it should be approached with that attitude.  I disagree with one aspect of your comment.  How Jolie prefers to be seen is less relevant that how she is seen, although the article should certainly represent her viewpoint.  It still gets down to us attributing something, in this case "beauty", to someone else (rather than ourselves).  It's peacockry for People, although it's within their aims.  It's not peacockry for us to comment on their appraisal of her.  It could more correctly be described as cherry picking on our part, because of all the things that have been said about her by the media, we're deciding what's important enough for the lead and what is left for the "in the media" section. We should keep looking at this.  Rossrs (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. What the media says about her is important, as we are here to report what reliable sources say. But what the media say about her accomplishments has more depth and is more encyclopaedic - and we should give this more weight. Stephen B Streater (talk) 06:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm there seem to be quite a few issues here. In my view, the media's opinion (even if it is based on a wide group of people's opinions ie polls and the like) is still an opinion nonetheless, and hence in an encyclopedia would not be considered as important as actual facts. So shouldn't we focus more on established information rather than these trivialities? Yes, she is an actress and a celebrity, but to say she is the "most beautiful" isn't closely related to her film career... Deagle_AP (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that lists such as Peoples "Most Beautiful" are twaddle (to quote another editor from another discussion) but a celebrity like Angelina Jolie does not succeed solely on her acting abilities. We live in a celebrity obsessed culture and Jolie is a product of that culture.  It is entirely possible to know quite a lot about Jolie without seeing a single one of her performances and if she wasn't media-savvy or if the media was not interested in her, she'd have a completely different career to the one she has, if she had one at all.  I think it would be wrong to ignore that the coverage given to her by People or E-News may do more to raise her profile than a good performance in a little-seen film.   We need balance, and there's no question about that, and we have to ensure that in reporting "twaddle" we don't become a part of it, but we can't simply ignore what is seen as "trivial" because those trivialities are a large part of Jolie's stature as a celebrity. They have nothing at all to do with her ability as an actress, but how many producers would risk her pay cheque on a project if the public was less interested in her?    I'm sure Jolie would be happier if the world at large concentrated solely on her acting and her humanitarian work, but she uses her public profile to further her acting and humanitarian pursuits, and so I'm just as sure that she doesn't ignore less-lofty publications as People as quickly as some of would like to do, because it's part of the overall process that effectively markets her.   As a product, Jolie succeeds because she's well marketed. Opinion is important.   That Jolie is beautiful is no less a matter of opinion than whether or not Meryl Streep or Laurence Olivier are/were good at acting.  The careers depend on public perception and that perception is not necessarily tangible or measureable.   The actors who don't arouse some form of opinion are the actors we don't have articles about, because they don't become notable.  Balance is essential, and so we should include what's relevant.   The disagreement here is clearly in relation to what is relevant. I'm in favour of rewording the section to place it in a better context, but removing it completely would be incorrect, in my opinion. Rossrs (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In short, that is a good explanation, and I agree with you there about maintaining balance. Deagle_AP (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As I stated in a past discussion, I don't see the problem with mentioning that she is considered one of the most beautiful people in the world, sometimes the most beautiful woman in the world. I altered that part of the lead closer back to how it originally was, but with more sources and a bit more similar to how Brad Pitt's "most beautiful" information is relayed. In addition to her acting, this woman is known for her beauty; it is often cited as a "great beauty," and she is often named one of the most beautiful women in the world. Why are we acting like only People magazine has called her such? The way this information was put in the lead before my change to it was more like an afterthought, as if she was named "most beautiful" only once in her life. She was named most beautiful as recently as 2009 by Vanity Fair (which is now in the article). And I must say this edit by Piano non troppo sounded like some bitter debate going on in the lead. Jolie is simply one of those people whose attractiveness is a significant part of her fame. The only other woman I can think of who has recently had as much fuss made over her looks is Megan Fox (who is often compared to Jolie). Flyer22 (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's important to distinguish between aspects of a source that are reliable on one subject, and unreliable on another. Take for example IMBb, which is considered a Wiki-reliable source for history of performances, but not a reliable source for actor's birthday or other biographical material. It's quite irrelevant how many non-encyclopedic sources identify someone as "the most beautiful" or any other subjective WP:PEACOCK. An encyclopedic contribution would be adding to the magazine's Wiki article a list of a magazine's WP:PEACOCK pronouncements so that Wiki readers can assess for themselves the (lack of) quality of the source. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. The sources I provided are Wiki-reliable, encyclopedic sources (encyclopedic in regards to Wikipedia's format, since this is not a typical encyclopedia), and they are quite reliable for reporting that she is often considered one of the most attractive people in the world, sometimes the most beautiful woman in the world, titles that are very relevant to this person's fame. No, those titles are not relevant to every actor and actress' fame. Yes, plenty of actors and actresses are considered good-looking, but only certain ones (such as Jolie, Halle Berry, Brad Pitt, etc.) have "hoopla" made about their good looks. Not every woman looks like Jolie, and not every actor or actress' career benefits greatly from their looks, especially those who are not typically considered good-looking. There is nothing unencyclopedic about reporting on something that is such a significant part of this person's fame. We cover it in the lower body of the article. And per WP:LEAD, it should be in the lead as well. Flyer22 (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your changes are quite good, Flyer, and brings this back into what it used to be. Not a forum for picking favorites. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Wildhartlivie. I added two more sources just for good measure. Flyer22 (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion
the article previously contained a link to Jolie's divorce petition to Billy Bob Thorton listing Maddox as being a child of the marriage. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/joliediv1.html has been removed from the article.

Any reason for this? 96.27.38.63 (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What would it show? When the divorce was finalized, Jolie apparently received sole custody of Maddox. Gimmetrow 02:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Moreover, it shows Thorton's parental rights were apparently terminated in some subsequent proceeding. Whenever a notable person's parental rights are terminated, it should be mentioned in an article.  96.27.38.63 (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't address Thornton's parental rights status, it only gives custody of Maddox to Jolie. It's non-essential. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Left handed
Why doesn't this article mention that she is left handed? I think it is amply sourced. Debresser (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree to add this info in personal life section. We can use following references:
 * Hope that will be okay. Tanvir 05:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fundamentally, I have no issue with adding the handedness, but not with either of those sources. The IMDb bio is user submitted and is not vetted content, so anyone could write a bio and it be totally incorrect. As for "Famous Left-Handers", it isn't an actual university website, but a personal one, with the following note on the page: "I would like to expand this list to include «famous left-handers» of many cultures and activities. YOU CAN HELP by nominating «famous left-handers» that are not included on this page: Click here to submit a new name!" Essentially also a reader based list. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But she is a left handed person. In her film, Gia, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and so on she appeared left handed. Those sourced may not be reliable, but if we search more, we can found a reliable one I think. Regards, Tanvir 16:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed it in "Original Sin". Debresser (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We can't cite "I noticed this in a movie and therefore she's left-handed." Like I said, it's fine with reliable sources, but the ones listed above aren't reliable sources. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The restriction is that information that is likely to be challenged has to be sourced. Since we all know it, I see no problem adding it. Especially since there are sources, just not of the highest quality. Debresser (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wildhartlivie that we must put this info with reliable source, not because I or someone else saw this in a movie or so. I will find myself for some reliable sources. Hope someone will try too. :) Tanvir 15:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as it gets added. :) Debresser (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wildhartlivie that we must put this info with reliable source, not because I or someone else saw this in a movie or so. I will find myself for some reliable sources. Hope someone will try too. :) Tanvir 15:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as it gets added. :) Debresser (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

External Links addition
In the External Links section, I think a link to the Maddox Jolie-Pitt Foundation should be added - http://www.mjpasia.org/.

I think this would be of interest to readers as a very constructive avenue for showing support for Ms. Jolie's humanitarian work.

And I believe this would be of interest to Ms. Jolie because it would provide an avenue for her fans to give her support for a project she obviously cares about.

68.245.189.143 (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC) David Kirshbaum


 * This is an encylopedia not a fan page. Tubby23 (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

68.245.189.143 (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC) David Kirshbaum
 * Your point is well-taken, but I think that this link should still be added to the External Links section because it adds important information about the subject of the article and definitely fulfills the purpose of this section of the article.


 * If the foundation is notable, you could create an article for it. Then a blue link could link to it from here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Important information" needs to be defined according to Wikipedia guidelines. WP:EL explains:


 * "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."


 * External links are not just pointers to other information some readers might find interesting. The first question is why information about the foundation couldn't be included in this article. The second, as Streater points out, is why, if the information is not appropriate for this article, why it doesn't merit its own Wiki article. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

new picture
that picture has been there for 3 years it needs to be changed.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.225.181 (talk) 05:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

kung fu panda
shes going to be in the second film so should we put that there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.225.181 (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When it reaches an active phaase of production and accompanied by a reliable source. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

music videos
shoulnt we put a section of all the music videos shes been in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.225.181 (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.180.51.29, 31 May 2010
69.180.51.29 (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please use the "please change X to Y format in future, it makes it a great deal easier. Please also state a source, especially as the change linked to a disambiguation page and it wasn't clear what was meant.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  13:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the entire replacement article you inserted as it was unnecessary and damaged the layout of the talk page.

Angie Is Of Huron Descendancy
Angelina is the direct descendant of Quebec Frenchman, Jean Durand and his Huron wife, Catherine Anenonta married 26 Sep 1662 in Quebec City. She descends through their son, Louis married 9 September 1698 to Elisabeth Michel dit Taillon.. Catherine was born about 1649, and Jean was born about 1636 in Saintes, France. She is also the 6th great granddaughter of Charles /fortier and Spouse, Charlotte Barabe m. 19 Jul1773 in Yamachiche, Quebec, Canada. She descends through their son, Joseph Marie married 16 Jan. 1797 on Louiseville (Riviere-du-Loup) Quebec, Canada to Madeleine Carpentier.

Sources:
 * PDRH U. of Montreal
 * Mariages du Louiseville by Dominique Campagna
 * 1880 Federal Census
 * 1930 US Census
 * Drouin Record, Quebec Vital Statistics

Swimmer1940 (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Are any of these sources online to verify this info? :) Would be a big help. Avic enna sis @ 03:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Under Angelina Jolie's picture, her occupation should be changed from "Film actor" to "Film actress". I believe that actor is masculine and she should have the correct respected label as an actress as stated in her article. 72.28.54.31 (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)dscalzo


 * The word actor refers to a person who acts regardless of sex, while actress refers specifically to a female person who acts; therefore a female can be referred to by either term. The Oxford English Dictionary states that originally "actor" was used for both sexes. Not really a big need to change, in my opinion. Avic enna sis @ 03:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about other countries, but I recently heard that here (in the UK), actor is considered the "politically correct" term for both male and females, to avoid distinguishing between the sexes in career titles.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  13:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

uhm
shoulnt we put her a new picture.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.238.97 (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm open to a different picture for the main image. Flyer22 (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Protection level
It seems this article should be changed back to its original full protection level, instead of this new "accepted revision" lock. Flyer22 (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean semi-protection (i.e. autoconfirmed users only), in which case I agree. I've filed a request for this using Twinkle.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  20:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  07:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Semi. Unfortunately. Since we are talking about 1-2 edits a day, perhaps in another month things will cool down, and the protection level can be lowered again. Debresser (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly, though I'd imagine this is just one of those articles which will receive constant drive-by vandalism, greatly outweighing the positive edits which IP contributors may make if unprotected. In any case, constructive edits may still be suggested by unregistered contributors here with a sper request and enacted by any autoconfirmed user.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  10:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant semi-protection, and thanks for the help. I also believe that this is just one of those articles that will receive constant drive-by vandalism. Flyer22 (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

A. Jolie is more accuratley an "actor," not an "actress."
Actor connotes real hard core actors, independant of sex. Ten bucks says she too considers herself an actor as opposed to an actress. Wikipedia's article on her calls her an actress. Please change it. ty —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlsicard (talk • contribs) 21:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you offer a reliable source that will verify that she prefers the term 'actor?' If we can verify that, I'd support the change. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This was brought up often in the past, and consensus was always for the lead introducing her as an actor (instead of as an actress), but I do not care much either way. Flyer22 (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Riza Novruz, 17 July 2010
editsemiprotected

Riza Novruz (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We can't see the C drive on your computer. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. That's why I'm delisting. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Rzermatt, 24 July 2010
Under the Filmography section of the page next to 'Salt', the "Notes" column reads: "(to be released on July 23, 2010)." As of today, the film has been released. This text should therefore be removed.

Rzermatt (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Dabomb87 (talk) 04:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

lets replace pictures...
lets replace the picture she has with the one were she is in comic con.it is more up to date —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.247.116 (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Salt
Salt has been out for a week now, shouldn't there be information about it in the Career section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Papayaew (talk • contribs) 06:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie appears in Jeff Healey music video?
I COULD be wrong but I've been reading Andrew Morton's new Unauthorized Biography on Angelina Jolie and I specifically remember those music artists named in which she appeared in their videos. Jeff Healey was not one of them. After reading the Wikipedia article and still knowing this piece of information, I thought nothing of it. I simply looked the video up to have a watch. The girl in this video, though quite similar in some aspects (one being her big cushy lips) is not Angelina Jolie. I have been looking at this woman(Angie) for years in movies, and in photography alike. This lady can't be her. Her teeth aren't near as straight, her face is more rounded. Her eye aren't even quite right (I paused the video to take a better look and replayed the best footage of her throughout the whole video multiple times just to see her expression and movement). I also followed the citation from which the person who added the information to Wikipedia supposedly had gotten it from. Nowhere did I see Jeff Healy. Again, there is always the possibility that I am wrong, but Angie fans...take a look and see for yourself. I also looked her up in the IMDb. It's not there either.

Here is also an independent piece I personally put together in GIMP to show another visual difference:

LadyPortia (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You are not wrong...Angelina Jolie is not in the Jeff Healey video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.82.103 (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Pakistani Minister
Should the recent news be added to this article about the Pakistani minister trying to flirt with Jolie by giving her his visiting card? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakistani888 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think it should be. How is this a notable encyclopedic fact? The article is already quite large. Airplaneman   ✈  20:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Awards style
I've reverted this change to the established style of a table in this article, which has long had the colored won/nom as used in many other articles. This table also has a horizontal structure that some editors prefer. See Talk:Halle_Berry for more info. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * replied at Talk:Halle Berry. Jack Merridew 19:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

bosnia film
shoulnt we discuss that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.250.30 (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What? Gimmetoo (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry
Enough of this. I have searched for any even partially acceptable source which suggests this, and have found none. Per WP:BLP, these unsourced changes are inappropriate. Non-working sources don't help matters - that suggests fake sourcing. Neither does seeding yahoo answers a few hours ago. Any further attempts to change this must be discussed first. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)