Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Angelina Jolie. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Most beautiful woman?

Hey, whatever. I have seen maids in my country who are a million times prettier than this Angelina Jolie... thing.

On regards of the gay pride thing: Personally, I wouldn't feel any pride on talentless people like Angelina "pig liver lips" Jolie being gay.

Oh, by the way boys, I'm male and heterosexual. So, I'm not biased, just stating what her marketing team wont allow you to think.

Hey - to each their own, but it's a matter of public record that she usually tops magazine polls in these categories, so her marketing team doesn't really have much say in those matters. Her good works with the UN will remain long after her looks begin to fade, and I think she knows this. Personally I expect her to retire from acting to go full-time into humanitarian work one of these days, although as she herself has said the money she makes from movies has made it possible for her to do her work, so one compliments the other. 23skidoo 12:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know everyone has their own taste, and I personally find Angelina Jolie to be the most beautiful woman I have ever seen; but I think it is worth mentioning that, as the article says, she has been voted in the most beautiful women list of many magazines, and has been named 'First Perfect Woman' by Vogue Magazine. And I think it's fairly safe to say that, as far as taste goes, it doesn't get much better than Vogue. Yanington

I think that's fair, just as numerous actors have been named "Sexiest Man Alive" by various magazines. If you can cite a magazine and year, please go ahead. 23skidoo 19:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Is there any positive reason for the inclusion of this pointless section on the talk page? It adds nothing to the discussion and wastes space. -Kasreyn 10:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, as an actor, Angelina's looks are an important part in her career. Sadly the entertainment industry is very superficial and appearances play a significant part in the work an actor recieves; it's just part of the trade. So I personally feel that her beauty (or lack of it, according to some) is a tolerable subject. In my opinion, Angelina is the most gorgeous woman I've ever had the pleasure to lay eyes on; but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so obviously not everyone is going to agree with me. There's no need to start an argument about it. However, I would like to ask those of you who don't think Miss Jolie is beautiful: what actresses do you find attractive? I'm not trying to fuel a possible spat, I'm just curious. Thanks in advance. 04:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Lola

Well, personally I do feel she's one of the loveliest women I've ever laid eyes on (though it's a tossup with Audrey Hepburn!). But the claim is very subjective and unless it were sourced by a very broadly-distributed survey I'd be against including it in the article. In any case, the article has pictures of her; the readers can see how beautiful she is on their own. Kasreyn 16:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's too difficult to find a third party source referencing her in this way. 23skidoo 16:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think it’s rather ridiculous to reference “beauty” in the first sentence of the article. The introduction should offer a non-controversial summary of the topic where no references are needed. Just take out the “great” and return to the phrase that was used a few days ago. EnemyOfTheState 01:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? Don't we have to justify the inclusion of the article on grounds of notability? What could be better justification than the widespread belief that Angelina Jolie is very beautiful? Her humanitarian work and acting talent are also notable, but in general, in terms of people's awareness of her, she is an icon of beauty and sex appeal. Shouldn't we portray that? Kasreyn 03:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Adopted or Pregnant??

I heard she was pregnant with both kids. But others say no. I can't find any info on a google search either way. 212.0.138.94 00:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is substantial media coverage of the fact that she adopted Maddox and is in the process of adopting a second child (I don't believe this process has been completed yet). Jolie says she has no desire to become pregnant as long as there are orphans out there. 23skidoo 15:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In response to the question 'Why the hell is it here?'

Part of what a continually updated encyclopedia like Wikipedia does is we include current events. Several major media outlets including the New York Post are reporting the rumors that Angelina is pregnant. Although her publicists deny this - just as they deny the romance with Pitt - the fact major media reports this makes it notable and worth mentioning; if it had been a single source, or originating from a blog or whatever, I wouldn't have added it. But once it's in major newspapers it becomes notable. I certainly do not support the deletion of the tattoos section so I put that back (and what was with that edit summary "Can't you see I'm not proud of these tattoos"? Is the editor trying to claim to be Angelina Jolie? If so, I'm available! ;-) 23skidoo 1 July 2005 12:11 (UTC)

Dual citizenship

I often see that when people either become an American citizen or an American citizen becomes a citizen of another country that it is always stated that the person will retain both citizenships. This seems redundant to me as most of the time (from what I know) people will retain their former citizenship.SD6-Agent 17:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

This is actually not true. You can only maintain dual citizenship with a few countries. I am a British citizen living in Canada and will be able to have dual British and Canadian citizenship. If I decided instead to go for U.S. citizenship, I would have to give up my British citizenship. I could, however, hold both Canadian and U.S. citizenship. Alternatively, I could hold British, Canadian, and Australian citizenship if I emigrated to Australia. --Yamla 18:09, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

The fact Angelina didn't request the Cambodian citizenship means that, in the eyes of the US, it would only be honorary, so that's why she's expected to remain an American citizen. Of course she could decide to go for full citizenship whenever she wants to. Similarly she also has a home in England, yet to my knowledge she hasn't applied for UK citizenship. 23skidoo 19:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Cambodian people category

A couple of times now attempts have been made to list Jolie under a Cambodian People category. These categories should only be used based upon country of birth. Just because Pierce Brosnan is now an American citizen, he shouldn't be listed under American people, should he? If someone makes an article on Maddox, that's another story. Let's not get carried away. 23skidoo 21:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Jolie should not be added to the list of Cambodian people but I don't think it is fair to ALWAYS follow this rule. I'm British, as previously mentioned, but have spent almost two thirds of my life in Canada. I'm probably more Canadian than British. Such is not the case for Jolie, however. --Yamla 22:12, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

That's very fair, but Jolie could tomorrow be given honorary citizenship by Sierra Leone, Ethiopia or any of the other countries she has helped -- that wouldn't justify her being listed in categories related to those countries. Maybe a solution would be to create a category for "Honorary Cambodian citizens" though I would imagine Jolie would be the only entry. 23skidoo 14:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Random unsigned comments

this article is one of the most hilariously non-neutral things I've seen on here.

GO GET A LIFE PEOPLE!!!!

Inspirational

I came on here, prepared to make an essay about how brilliant Angelina Jolie is. But, instead, I'll just simply say that anyone, who has the ability to help the world, live comfortably, change someone's life without knowing it [as she did with mine], and still maintain a family is unbelievable. She is the only person in the world who has every inspired me, and I know that anyone who reads about her, but is willing to accept the slighty 'unorthodox' life she lives, will be inspired too. I think she is wonderful, and hope she continues her humanitarian work with the United Nations and helping other randomers [like me!] for a long time. Yanington

Atheist?

A trivia item was added recently stating that Jolie is an atheist. I deleted it for now because it seems to contradict other statements that have been made in Notes from My Travels and elsewhere. If anyone can provide a source - an interview, a book - that can support this statement, please feel free to put it back (with the source cited, of course). 23skidoo 19:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Your admiration for her does not make the article impartial Curphey 18:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm uncertain what that has to do with my question about the athiest trivia item. In any event, I removed "controversial" from your edit which is POV, plus I put back the award-winning actress part because that's a statement of verifiable fact. 23skidoo 19:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.nndb.com/people/493/000023424/

nndb is not generally considered a particularly reliable source. Certainly, given that Notes from My Travels contradicts statements made in nndb means that I do not believe this is sufficient. --Yamla 20:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

NNDB has been cited numerous times in other Wikipedianin subjects. I'd also like to know what these "statements" made in Notes From My Travels actually say.

I would like to add that back, as Jolie stated in an interview with the Onion AV Club: "Hmm... For some people. I hope so, for them. For the people who believe in it, I hope so. There doesn't need to be a God for me. There's something in people that's spiritual, that's godlike. I don't feel like doing things just because people say things, but I also don't really know if it's better to just not believe in anything, either."

The source is cited as http://avclub.theonion.com/avclub3631/avfeature_3631.html but that page is now gone. --TMC1221 09:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's not go making errors of miscategorization, now. Jolie's viewpoint fits the category of agnosticism better than it does atheism. An atheist denies god and/or expresses a lesser or greater certainty of disbelief, while an agnostic feels that certainty is not really possible and that the issue is better left as a mystery. I can hardly think of a more beautiful summation of the agnostic philosophy than Jolie's quote. Kudos to Angelina for saying it better than I. -Kasreyn 11:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I should point out that the issue is largely moot anyway, unless another source can be found. The Onion, hilarious and beloved staple of my existence notwithstanding, definitely does not qualify as a reliable source under Wikipedia policy. More's the pity, but how is a disinterested third party to tell which articles are fictional satire and which are legitimate? They've run fictional interviews in the past. -Kasreyn 10:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your agnostic comment, but The Onion AV Club is not The Onion. The Onion is 100% satire. The Onion AV Club is 100% fluffy entertainment interviews (ie not fake). --TMC1221 01:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone has added that she is agnostic to the trivia (in place of the Buddhist comment from earlier. But if all we have as a source is the Onion, then I don't consider that to be a good source, either. 23skidoo 03:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not our place at wikipedia to try to guess what religion someone belongs to by their words and deeds. We merely state what they are described by others as, or what they self-identify as. Anything else is original research. -Kasreyn 18:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

23skidoo, you are falling for the same mistake that labels The Onion's news as real. The Onion AV Club is not satire. --TMC1221 03:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Way too many images

This article is starting to become a gallery. Can we pick three fair use images, maximum, to illustrate? I suggest one magazine cover, the book cover, and if we can get a public domain image of her that everyone agrees on, that's fine. It's debatable whether we really need an image of one of her tattoos, and am uncertain whether it qualifies as fair use. I'll let others hash out whether it should stay. 23skidoo 21:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with too many images. I agree, gallery status would be a bit to much, but as they are now is nothing really wrong. Myrockstar 11:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the recent addition of photos of Jolie in many of her major roles bother me. WP's fair use policy says that we can only use copyrighted images if we have a need to. We already had enough images of Jolie; where is the need to show what she looked like in Hackers, Girl Interrupted, and Tomb Raider? I say we should remove the images of her specific roles. Kasreyn 20:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

She is an actress by trade, so therefore I think there is an obligation to have at least one image of her from a movie role. Fair use isn't really a case of "only if we need to" it's more a case of using images with purpose. IMO the images did serve a purpose but I agree that there were too many. I suggest keeping either the Girl Interrupted image (as this was her Oscar-award role) or the Tomb Raider image (as her best-known role). We don't need the one from Hackers. If necessary we can lose the image of the book cover, or one of the extraneous shots of her standing against a wall. I hope we can keep the one with Maddox because it's cute, though a shot of her with her other children and/or Pitt might be better.23skidoo 22:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object. Most featured articles about actors (Henry Fonda, Uma Thurman, Lindsay Lohan, etc.) include more than one screencap to illustrate his or her career. Some featured artiles about movies have even more than a dozen screencaps, therefore this WP policy shouldn't be taken this literally, especially since WP policy also states that pictures increase the quality of an article.

I agree that there is definitely a contradiction between different Wikipedia policies (a matter for debate in another forum). For example WP:NOT also states that articles shouldn't become photo galleries. So the question is how many images must be added before it becomes a photo gallery? I still stand by my agreement that there are too many images, although if push came to shove I'd rather see more images taken from her films than from publicity shots ... except that as established as images were removed as copyvio in recent months, it's easier to justify press and publicity shots as fair use. With Wikipedia tightening the rules on uses of images, it's becoming harder to find images that are allowed by the increasingly draconian rules. Note, for example, that despite Jolie being an international model we are not allowed (by Wikipedia policy, not guidelines) to upload magazine cover images. It's tempting sometimes to just go without images altogether.23skidoo 23:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing out these pictures does nothing but hurt the overall quality of this article. Of course movie images benefit an article about an actor - they elucidate past career steps and illustrate former roles; the main reason for an actor's celebrity - therefore there is a certain "need" to use them. As stated above it is common practise in many featured articles to use serveral movie screen shots to exemplify the topic at hand. Since these articles went through the featured article approval process, using these kind of images is obviously tolerated and lies within the general understanding of WP policy. The pictures should be put back. -- EnemyOfTheState 23:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless there is a solid argument why this article should be treated any different concerning screen shots than hundreds of others (many of them "featured" and "good" articles), I will put the three pictures in question back in — with a lower resolution if demanded. This is not the place to debate general Wikipedia policies. -- EnemyOfTheState 18:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Russian son

She had plans of adopting a Russian boy(mosnews.com)7 month old Gleb from baby house 13 but gave up on this. Later adopting Zahara from Ethiopia.

Poor kid!!! He's still only 3 and he does not still realize what a great life he missed with such a famous celebrity for a mum and the she flirts with famous guys like Pitt,he has narrowly missed a life of luxury. Shouldn't someone tell her about this,I mean what she did was wrong right,one day he's supposed to be the son of one of the most famous women of all (besides Oprah,Rowling and Britney) the next day he doesn't know if he will be adopted at all. Current sources state that he's still at the orphanage awaiting adoption.

If you really want to discuss this sort of thing here, feel free. Just remember that to do so in the article itself without citing reputable sources and using personal language violates Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. And don't tell me she's any different than any of the other people who adopt -- you can't adopt everyone. What, for example, is your proof that "she wanted Zahara more". I know people who have adopted children from out of country -- hell, I've written newspaper articles on this very subject. And there are so many factors involved it's not even funny. Again, unless there is a reputable source (forget tabloids) to provide detail, for all we know there was a lack of compatibility with the Russian boy, or the orphanage made unreasonable demands or (and this happens all the time) the government just said "No." 23skidoo 05:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Given that she adopted her oldest child with Billy Bob Thornton and now Brad Pitt is adopting the same child, will her next husband get to adopt all three or will Brad be allowed to remain father of the biological one? Jtmichcock 00:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you assume there will be a next husband? Just curious. I wasn't aware that she had some sort of "love em and leave em" reputation. -Kasreyn 11:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Snake

I do not know if Jolie owned a pet rat snake or a pet rattlesnake. There's been a number of changes back and forth on the page today, however, changing between the two. I hope people know that it is entirely possible she owns a rat snake as this is a real type of snake. Also, imdb's page, although notoriously unreliable, states that she has a pet rat snake, NOT a rattlesnake. A google search seemed to indicate a lot of sites think she has a rat snake but they may all be using this very article as their source. --Yamla 17:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I think this trivia item should be deleted unless someone can provide a non-IMDb source like a newspaper interview. I can't find any reference beyond IMDb and Wiki-mirrors to Jolie ever owning a snake - rat or rattle. Closest I could find was an article on womensfirst.co.uk in which Jolie states she spent time with a bunch of snakes to become comfortable with them before shooting the scene. I'm going to delete it now; if someone can provide a source they're welcome to put it back. 23skidoo 18:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Much of this article reads little better than "Hello" magazine and does not really demonstrate the impartiality demanded for it to be a good Wikipedia article. "renowned for her acting talent" is, I dare say, somewhat subjective Curphey 18:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Bisexuality

Is The National Enquirer really a reliable source? I'd like to have that confirmed before we label her bisexual. I've never heard that elsewhere. --BDD 07:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The National Enquirer is most certainly not a reliable source. Feel free to revert unless someone can come up with a decent source for this claim. --Yamla 16:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Check her interviews for other magazines. I believe she has made this statement elsewhere. Also I believe the biography that was published on her a few years back also made this statement. I'd remove the Enquirer citation however I do believe if someone were to do some research they could easily find an alternate. 23skidoo 16:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the recently-added Barbara Walters quote should fit the bill, though it didn't need to be in the lead paragraph so I moved it down. There was a follow-up quote added that I removed because it wasn't sourced (the one about falling in love with a woman). If someone can find the source for that quote, please feel free to put it back. 23skidoo 17:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

She and Christina Aguilera are probably the hottest bisexuals out there Batzarro 10:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)