Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Restored material

AnneBCG, regarding this and this, will you discuss what you want removed and why? Also keep in mind that, per WP:Claim, we should avoid "denial." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead

@Flyer22 Frozen: The current lead reads like a press release rather than a neutral article, and the lead glosses over controversial and notable aspects of the bio, such as intense coverage in tabloids/celebrity culture over marriages/relationships/health etc. In fact, this coverage predominates. Why do you feel this is inappropriate to revise? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding this? No, the text I reverted to doesn't read like a press release. As Krimuk2.0 and others who elevate celebrity BLP articles to WP:Good article or WP:Featured article status can relay, this is how our celebrity BLP articles are written, as seen, for example, by looking at the Leonardo DiCaprio article or various other GA and FA celebrity articles. You make it sound like the lead should include a bunch of negative material. We include the most notable things about these people, and those things are usually overwhelmingly positive, including in the case of Jolie, who (as the article notes) altered her "bad girl"/controversial image. That there are still people proclaiming that they are "Team Aniston" matters not. Jolie is not a controversial figure in the way that Kanye West is.

You added the following: "Her personal life, including her adoptions, health battles, and marriages and relationships, including to actor Brad Pitt, have made her a longtime fixture in tabloids and celebrity culture." I don't see that it's an improvement. And we usually cover personal life matters last in the lead, which is also the case for this article.

No need to ping me to this talk page since this article is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Also see the Jennifer Lawrence article for an FA example. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

"The recipient of such accolades as..." The use of the passive voice here is ridiculous, as is the plain-as-day boosterism. The purpose of a lead is not to summarize the wonderful things about a person. That's call WP:NPOV. The point is to summarize the person as a whole. The lead conveniently omits mention of aspects of her bio that have received substantial attention and notoriety of over the years, including any reference to the breast cancer scare, marriages, divorce, etc. When a significant part of a celebrity's notoriety is derived from coverage of their personal lives, it becomes noteworthy for the lead. Per MOS:LEAD, we are in fact required to note prominent and possibly controversial aspects of a persons bio in a BLP lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, this hasn't been reviewed for FA status in 15 years. I don't think that FA status, since it's a bit stale, is a reason to blindly enforce the status quo here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, sorry, but "humanitarian" and "filmmaker" are ridiculous titles. She is first and foremost an actor. Her role as a "filmmaker" is not significant. She has been noted for activism and involvement in humanitarian causes. So have many public figures. They are not all "humanitarians." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

With this edit, Krimuk2.0 changed "such accolades" to "numerous accolades." If you have an issue with us using the word "accolades", I must point out that this word is used in various Wikipedia articles with regard to BLP subjects and other things. No one stated that "The purpose of a lead is to summarize the wonderful things about a person." What I did state is "We include the most notable things about these people, and those things are usually overwhelmingly positive, including in the case of Jolie, who (as the article notes) altered her 'bad girl'/controversial image." The lead summarized the article before you showed up and still does. It's supposed to summarize the article, but this obviously doesn't mean it should mention everything in the article. Whether it should touch on a bit more because, for example, the personal life text "glosses over controversial and notable aspects of the bio" is a personal opinion. We can easily ask for more opinions. For example, Betty Logan has offered opinions on this article times before and might be willing to weigh in on this as well.

For the personal life aspect, the lead simply stated "her personal life is the subject of wide publicity." Now, because your edit, and Krimuk2.0 and I being fine with retaining your addition of "relationships, marriages, and health battles," it states "her personal life, including her relationships, marriages, and health battles, have been the subject of wide publicity." Your "longtime fixture in tabloids and celebrity culture" wording is not needed. As you know, it is very common for celebrities to be a fixture in the tabloids, temporarily or longtime." It is also very common for them to be a fixture in celebrity culture. That we state "have been the subject of wide publicity" is enough and obviously includes tabloids. I'm not sure if you want us to include detail in the lead about how she kissed her brother on the lips and this caused controversy and/or how her image was once that of a bad girl, and that her relationship with Pitt initially amplified her "bad girl"/seductress image and resulted in the "Team Aniston" vs. "Team Jolie" phenomenon, as noted by sources such as this 2012 CNN and this 2016 The Guardian source or what, but not even the lead of the Jennifer Aniston article includes that detail. And I don't think that most editors would agree that such detail should be in the lead of either article.

As for FA status, while it's been years since this article was reviewed for FA, it has repeatedly been subject to what is essentially peer review and various consensus discussions since then. It underwent substantial changes in 2011, with a lot of editor input. And it underwent more significant editing before and on the day it was listed on the main page in 2013: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 19, 2013. It was listed on the main page again in 2017. Clearly, it's not the same article it was when it was elevated to featured article status in 2006. Editors have consistently maintained and improved its quality. Being careful with featured articles like this one is not about "blindly enforc[ing] the status quo." It's about what WP:CAREFUL and WP:FAOWN state. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

And as for "humanitarian", we have an entire section on it ("Humanitarian work")...with subsections. It is a significant aspect of who Jolie is. It is one of the things she is notable for. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't really have strong opinion on the accolades wording here (it was fine before the alteration and it is fine after). As for the statement about her personal life, I think that is a largely redundant change; if it is to stay then it should read "has been the subject of wide publicity" because her personal life is singular and the object of the sentence. As for removing the filmography section I think this is a mistake; filmographies are a general feature of actor articles and if I recall from an earlier discussion the consensus was to make sure it could be easily located from the contents at the top. Betty Logan (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Betty Logan, I fixed the grammar on that. My eyes aren't as sharp as usual these days. Even as recently as this edit on an editor's talk page, I even miss including words more than I used to when typing now. I don't see "relationships, marriages, and health battles" as needed either, but it's a compromise. I obviously agree about the Filmography section. But per what I stated here, I don't see what else there is do except copy and paste some wording from both the Jolie and Pitt filmography articles just so that a Filmography section can exist in both articles, or except for starting an RfC on it at WP:Film and advertising it at related pages. The RfC would concern more than just the Pitt and Jolie articles. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Additions about likely sleeping with female fans, and commentary on Jenny Shimizu, specific types, and Lara Croft

Krimuk2.0 and Betty Logan, speaking of recent additions, I just reverted this and this edit by M900417. Regarding the first edit, I do not at all see how the "I'm likely to sleep with my female fans" piece is needed. It's trivial. And also keep in mind that this statement was made when Jolie had a "wild child" image before changing that image. She would make provocative comments like this before that ceased. I also reverted because that Jolie fell in love with Jenny Shimizu is already made clear in the section. When she talks about falling in love with a woman when she was 20, she is clearly talking about Shimizu; Shimizu is the only woman she has acknowledged having fallen in love with. An hour ago, when checking in on this article, I thought about retaining the "fell in love with a woman" addition by M900417 and moving it right after the "I fell in love with her the first second I saw her." piece. After all, it gives more insight into Jolie's attraction to Shimizu. So I don't mind that addition much. But M900417 came back and added more material. With their second edit, they added, "In a 2000 interview with Elle magazine, she said: 'Honestly, I like everything. Boyish girls, girlish boys, the heavy and the skinny. Which is a problem when I'm walking down the street'." Exactly why is this detail needed? If one wants to state that it shows Jolie's type(s) or lack of type(s), it's still the case that we usually don't go into this kind of detail regarding other celebrities. Also, people's type can change over the years. For example, a man might initially only date blondes, but later be open to dating brunettes, attributing his previous preference to whatever. And then there's the Lara Croft piece that M900417 added. That's just excessive. The paragraph in question is supposed to be about Jolie's bisexuality. It does not need to get into thoughts about her take on the sexuality of a fictional character.

So...any thoughts? And, M900417, I would have reverted you without taking this matter to the talk page, but, looking at your contributions, it's clear that you would just come back and revert. So I brought it to the talk page. Do not WP:Edit war over this. Per WP:CAREFUL and WP:FAOWN, extra care should be taken with a WP:Feature article, which this is. We do not add trivia after trivia, or, as made by WP:DIARY, every little thing a subject has stated. You need to make your case here on the talk page for these additions. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Frozen: All you have written is your opinion, what I added all sourced and you can simply tag any piece of information as being "trivial"! She said what she said, but you decided to remove the content because "people would change preference between blondes and brunettes", and probably there are some men called Nancy or Nicole! However, every time I write in this encyclopedia, I encounter someone who has more genius ideas than the one before! I am the one who hates edit wars, not you, as I am the one who wrote then you reverted! In general, people read magazines for these interviews, here I just summarized some controversial comments, but it seems that you do not want comments on Lara Croft sexuality ! M900417 (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

M900417, no, all I have written is not my opinion. Regarding article content, what I have written is based on polices or guidelines such as WP:DIARY. What is there now about her attraction to Shimizu and bisexuality is not trivial. What you added, on the other hand? That is trivial material, with perhaps the exception of why she fell for Shimizu. For example, no significantly experienced Wikipedian is going to agree to retain that Lara Croft bit you added. I did not decide to remove the "types" material because "people would change preference between blondes and brunettes". Nor was I stating that a man who is later open to dating brunettes changed his preference. He may still have a preference for blondes, but is now open to dating brunettes. And my statement on such an occurrence occurs in real life. I removed the "types" bit because it is unnecessary. Noting that the type of people one is sexually attracted to can change is just an additional point on my part, as is noting that Jolie routinely made provocative and/or controversial comments in her 20s and that how she felt then is not necessarily how she feels today. Focusing on such comments she made before her image change? Such comments should be included only when they improve the article, such as when discussing her early life or assisting and complementing text about how she has changed. Not just because they are out there. WP:DIARY and WP:NOTEVERYTHING are clear. If people want to read her comments from early years or otherwise, they can find them elsewhere online. This is an encyclopedia.

As for edit wars? Reverting your WP:Bold edit once is not an edit war. You were bold. Now, per WP:ONUS, it's up to you to make your case for inclusion.

On a side note: Since I am watching this article, I ask that you do not WP:Ping me to this talk page. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You simply wrote your opinion regarding that she might have changed here opinion about sexuality after gaining her "image". I used to know someone who was obsessed with her, and I hope that you are not because that makes you subjective and overprotective. I would leave the article as it is despite all my time and efforts, because I am concerned that you would stalk my edits as at least three are doing that right now ! M900417 (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You keep focusing on the "the type of people one is sexually attracted to can change" (such as women who were once into "bad boys" no longer being into them) part of my comment while ignoring the other things I have argued. You have not at all made a case for why we should include ancient commentary from her about likely having sex with her female fans. I have, citing WP:DIARY and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. And, really, asking ourselves if this is something Jolie would state today also applies per WP:Due weight. She wouldn't state this today, and that is not my personal opinion. It's a fact, as noted by a least one academic source that I will at some point use in this article, that Jolie ceased making provocative comments like that. Whether she still feels that way, or ever truly felt that way, we do not know. But what we do know is that it's just one of the many provocative comments she made in her youth. Because of this, one needs to make a solid, WP:Due case for why we should include this one. One needs to make a solid, WP:Due case for including the "types" material, or commentary on Lara Croft's sexuality. The section in question is about Jolie's personal life, not the personal life of a fictional character.

Looking at your contributions, you seem to have a focus on adding material regarding female celebrities' attraction to women. So it seems that's why you added the material you added. But as is clear by WP:Due, WP:DIARY, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:ONUS, simply adding it because it is out there is not enough. As for stalking your edits, I looked at contributions because I was concerned about your editing. I am not stalking you. I have yet to revert you at a different article. If I see a need to do so, after you pop up at an article I watch, I will. I'm not arguing you any further on the Jolie edits you made since, whether it's due to your newbiness or whatever, you just don't get it. And do cease your ignorant and offensive "I hope you are not obsessed with her" commentary. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Angelina's transgender son

Her son John (formerly named Shiloh) is transgender and should be reflected in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58A:8100:9440:5153:2BB5:4A3F:A354 (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

"Filmmaker" yet again

Vinny Weasel (talk · contribs), regarding this and this? Why do you feel it's necessary to state "director, producer, writer" in place of "filmmaker"? I could see if you were only stating it in the infobox, but you have simultaneously added it to the lead. And why are you removing "humanitarian"? We have a whole, non-trivial section on her humanitarianism.

Anyway, filmmaker" has been discussed before. See Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 10#Filmmaker and Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 11#Filmmaker as occupation. I ask that you don't WP:Edit war on this. Make your case here. I don't mind the descriptions being in the infobox. So maybe only have them in the infobox as a compromise...along with retaining "humanitarian" there? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Added in original timestamp; had forgot to sign.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2020

Jolie was in the movie “Looking to Get Out” when she was seven years old, not five years old. Please change it. Kellyrivera1899 (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Kelly Rivera Kellyrivera1899 (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Jolie Pitt

Is there any need to include “formerly Jolie Pitt” in the leading sentence?

I don’t think so since “Angelina Jolie Pitt” is in the “other names” section in the Infobox.

The user who reverted my decision to remove it gave the reason:

"She did a movie and wrote under her married name. Use common sense."

And? The name "Angelina Jolie Pitt" is in the other names section.

It’s funny the user speaks of using common sense. Does that mean we have to include someone’s previous names in the leading sentence if he or she has been credited in all of those names? Obviously not.--EsotericJoe (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You're either brand new or completely, blithely ignorantly unaware of the Manual of Style for names in the lead section. Trillfendi (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Newer pic for infobox

I want to update the pic in the infobox as its already 6 years old. I'm suggesting this one

. its from 2019 Urgal (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

My opinion on the matter is at Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 11#Lead image. As seen there, I prefer the current one to the suggested one. I stated, "She does not look substantially different from four or five years ago. Newer is not always better." I think that the current one is the overall better image; it has a closer focus on her face, with more of an angle toward readers, and shows her face in a relaxed state. But if consensus were for the newer image, I wouldn't fight it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post.Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Spouse "Jonny Lee Miller"

Their has been confusion and controversy over her first spouse, Jonny Lee Miller. This needs to be confirmed with a reliable source to specify that the divorce was in 1999 or 2000. Hartma9616 (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion of separation from Brad Pitt

Her divorce with Brad Pitt has not been finalized, as Brad and her were living together in 2019. They filed for divorce, but Angelina moved out in early 2020 and they're divorce is currently pending. Please confirm that the marriage is dissolved or not. Hartma9616 (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

This edit on the matter was made. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2021

Change gender of child Shiloh to Male ChiChiku (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Shiloh's gender remains at "female". Please see this link. Thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 13:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

A 2007 article seems irrelevant to this topic, considering that Shiloh/John Jolie-Pitt's was not old enough to verbally express their gender identity at that time. A more defensible position is that neither Shiloh/John nor their parents have issued a formal and unambiguous public statement. That being said, given the existence of any doubt at all and the absence of any non-prurient public interest in Angelina Jolie's children (none of whom, apart from their parentage, are individually notable by Wikipedia's standards), it seems inappropriate and irrelevant to even mention their sexual anatomy or putative gender identities. What interest is served by Wikipedia taking an editorial position on Shiloh/John Jolie-Pitt's gender (or by the same measure, any of their siblings, or the non-notable children of any other public figure)? --April Arcus (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@April Arcus: I know this is just a tabloid, but it would seem that changing anything would be editorializing. --SVTCobra 16:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

My move is to remove all mention of the children's sexes and/or putative gender identities (see edit). The topic is irrelevant and contentious, and the most delicate way to handle it is by leaving it unremarked upon. We can revisit the issue if a reliable source emerges and notability is established. --April Arcus (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@April Arcus: OK, I guess that means we are in agreement. I was only looking at the current state of the article (in fact, I didn't look at the history as this was under a heading of a protected edit request) and I thought your use of "Shiloh/John" in your comment was advocating for inclusion of a trans status for this child. I guess I misunderstood. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Cheers! --April Arcus (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Notice how Angelina Jolie has never said Shiloh was a trans child, it's everyone else who has jumped to conclusions. Trillfendi (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: M.nie.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"Humanitarian" in the first sentence and infobox

Reliable sources that describe Jolie as a humanitarian include:

• BuzzFeed News – You know Angelina Jolie — Academy Award–winning actor, filmmaker, humanitarian, and all-around Hollywood legend.[1]
• CNN – Actress, activist and humanitarian Angelina Jolie...[2]
• The Daily Telegraph – US actress, filmmaker and humanitarian Angelina Jolie...[3]
• Elle – The humanitarian - who also describes herself as a 'mum and filmmaker'...[4]
• Entertainment Weekly – In a New York Times op-ed published Thursday, the actress, filmmaker, and humanitarian writes...[5]
• The Hill – Jolie, a longtime humanitarian activist...[6]
• The Independent – Jolie, a longtime humanitarian...[7]
• Los Angeles Times – Actress and humanitarian Angelina Jolie made headlines in June...[8]
• The Mercury News – The humanitarian also said...[9]
• Vanity Fair – The actress, filmmaker, and humanitarian penned an impassioned piece...[10]
• Vogue – But the actor and humanitarian is undeterred...[11]
• W – After reportedly spending some time with the actress and humanitarian over the past few months...[12]

Putting the profession in the first sentence and infobox very clearly meets MOS:ROLEBIO. KyleJoan^talk 12:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie date of birth

Actress Angelina Jolie date of birth is the 4th of July not June. It was originally July in your website then changed to June. Thanks 82.42.150.247 (talk) 09:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi dear Angelina I'm big fan of yours..

I watch CHANGELLING OVER N OVER again which was based on true story..I'm seeking your help since you r humanitarian ambassador in UN .cause I've almost similar situation.. 202.5.159.188 (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2022

Cambodian American 2001:8F8:183F:B130:8143:FADF:380:B264 (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Brad Pitt abuse allegations

Should we add a sentence or two to the "Relationships" section about this? https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/jolie-pitt-abuse-allegations-court-filing-1.6606760 ThePlug111 (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Updating Infobox Pic

How do we feel about updating the infobox image to this new 2022 image (left)? The 2019 comic con image could be a runner up (right) if people aren't vibing with the newest one.

Suggested image

Runner up

LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section:

• Cite templates will be used where possible.
• I prefer capitalization and punctuation to follow the standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, rather than "title case".
• Links to potentially unreliable digitised copies and to booksellers may be removed.

This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2023

Change “film maker” to “film director, film producer”. Angelina deserves these titles just like other directors and producers (ie, Steven Spielberg’s page says film director and film producer).

Thank you 75.140.65.102 (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)