Talk:Angelina Jolie/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Promotes cutting as therapeutic?

Could we maybe not have that quote in there? I mean I'm not one for censoring an actress's opinions on her page, but of all the things to put on here, a quote that puts cutting in any sort of positive tone? Any accredited psychiatrist will tell you that self-harm is dangerous, and symptomatic, rather than therapeutic. She's not an authority on the subject, and her opinion on such a critical issue to so many young impressionable people is not notable nor beneficial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.57.33 (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be fairly relevant to her article, describing her self-harm when she was younger and what she has to say about it now. It doesn't seem to advocate it, and it's not suggesting she's an authority on psychiatry. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Huge edit by Reimanova

Thought I should explain why I reverted this edit as it was rather large and the editor spent some time on it. I reverted it as it contained several copyright violations, it was full of unencyclopedic trivia, used countless unreliable sources (such as the biography page of IMDB), had some pretty major overlinking, etc. Nymf _hideliho! 01:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Angelina's Ancestry

It says on her father's side she is of "German and Czechoslovak" descent. However, two things: 1. There is no such thing as a Czechoslovak person, a person from that former country is either Czech or Slovak (or Moravian or possibly Carpatho-Ukranian, ethnic Hungarian, etc. if one wants to get very specific) and 2. Her father Jon Voight's page says his paternal grandfather immigrated to the U.S. from Košice, Slovakia. In this way, it would make Angelina's ancestry "German and Slovak" on her father's side. I don't mean to nitpick but I was just wondering if this is an appropriate change to make. Thanks! Demokratickid (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Just went ahead and did the change anyway. If anyone has any reason it should't be this way, feel free to voice it. Demokratickid (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur. On a related note, I changed "she is French-Canadian" to "she is of French-Canadian [...] ancestry" as Jolie is not Canadian and therefore cannot be French-Canadian (i.e. Canadian of French acestry). Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Slovak or Hungarian?

Jolie's great-grandfather actually immigrated from Kassa, Hungary, which is now Košice, Slovakia. Prior to WWII, the vast majority of the population was Hungarian, so I feel it's safe to assume he was Hungarian, not Slovak. Does anyone object to me making this change? Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. Guy was Slovak after all. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Missing info

The "Career" section is missing Jolie's post-2008 work (Salt, The Tourist, Kung Fu Panda 2), and the "Humanitarian work" section is missing visits/donations made by Jolie in 2009 (assuming she made any that year). Just pointing it out in case someone feels like researching and adding. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added her humanitarian work from 2008-2010. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

In 2008, she returned to Iraq and made her first trip to Afghanistan, visiting returnee families in Kabul and Nangarhar province. In 2009, Jolie met with Burmese refugees in northern Thailand and made her third visit to Iraq. She later went to Dadaab, Kenya to visit the world's largest refugee settlement, which houses mainly refugees from Somalia, and returned to Syria with Brad Pitt to meet with Iraqi refugees.

In February 2010, following a $1 million donation to relief efforts combating the ravages of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, Jolie visited Haiti and the Dominican Republic to discuss the future of relief efforts. In April, Jolie travelled to Bosnia with Brad Pitt to visit displaced victims of the Bosnian War; she returned four months later to meet with Presidency members Haris Silajdžić and Željko Komšić. In June, she visited Colombian refugees in Equador, reuniting with a Colombian mother she had met there in 2002, and returned to Haiti to meet with U.N. and Haitian officials, including President René Préval. In September, she went to Pakistan and donated $100,000 to the United Nations for the Pakistan flood relief operations.

Her 2010 film work has also been added. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Jolie next appeared as the eponymous character in the thriller Salt (2010), her first film in two years. She starred alongside Liev Schreiber as CIA agent Evelyn Salt, who goes on the run after she is accused of being a KGB sleeper agent. Originally written as male, the character Salt underwent a gender change after a Colombia Pictures executive suggested Jolie for the role to director Phillip Noyce. Salt grossed $293 worldwide and received generally favorable reviews, with Empire remarking that "when it comes to selling incredible, crazy, death-defying antics, Jolie has few peers in the action business." Also in 2010, she co-starred with Johnny Depp in The Tourist, directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck. Although the film was met with a mostly negative critical reception, Jolie received a Golden Globe Award nomination for her performance.

Czech ancestry

Since last November, Reimanova has been adding the (usually unsourced) claim of Czech ancestry to the "Early life" section of this article. I would like to explain once and for all why this is not a helpful addition to Angelina Jolie.

One may occasionally find sources that claim Jolie is of Czech ancestry (or even Czechoslovakian ancestry, when no such thing exists) because the available information on her heritage used be less specific. Until a few years ago, it was believed that her paternal great-grandfather was an immigrant from the former country of Czechoslovakia. We now know (see Jolie's profile at the William Addams Reitwiesner Genealogical Services) that he in fact immigrated from the city of Košice at a time when it belonged to Austria-Hungary, later to Czechoslovakia, and now to Slovakia. Through University of Pittsburgh's Slovak Studies Program, we know that her great-grandfather identified himself as Slovak in the 1910 US census.

So we know that Jolie's paternal great-father is not Czech. Neither is her paternal grandmother, who is of German descent. The only one of her family members whose ancestry is unknown is her paternal great-grandmother. So unless a source is provided that specifically states that her paternal great-grandmother was Czech, I will continue to remove the claim of Czech ancestry from this article. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Input requested – Humanitarian work

I propose a change to the Humanitarian work section of this article.

In its current state, most of the section is basically a list in prose form of "In *month* *year*, Jolie visited refugees in *place*". Jolie makes several of these visits each year, and I don't think listing them like that really adds to the understanding of her Goodwill Ambassadorship. And we can't go into further detail on every individual visit, since that would make the section far too long. So I propose cutting these paragraphs altogether—an updated version of "Jolie has been on field missions around the world and met with refugees and internally displaced persons in more than 20 countries" summarizes them well enough, in my opinion.

Thoughts? If there are no objections to my proposal, I'll make the change in a week or so.

Cheers, Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC).

Having written most of this article, including that section, I agree that it has become too long by now. I would agree with cutting most of the material in paragraphs 2-6 of that section. But I'm not sure throwing out everything is the best way to do it necessarily. Maybe there would be an elegant way to summarize her mission in some way, for example just pointing out the highlights, or the places she has visited most. EnemyOfTheState_|talk 17:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree. I'm not sure what you mean by highlights, but I think the visits where she met with Presidents and other high-ranking officials (Pakistan 2005, Bosnia 2010, Haiti 2010, and possibly others) can be mentioned in connection with her political involvement. Her 2004 Arizona visit can be tied to her founding of the National Center for Refugee and Immigrant Children the following year. Maybe something about how she combines her duties as an actress with her ambassadorship, visiting refugees while filming on location (Beyond Borders in Namibia, A Mighty Heart in India). That's all I can think of for now. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Like EnemyOfTheState, I can't say I agree with cutting most of it. I like your suggested summary line, but after that, I feel examples with detail should be mentioned. Preferably 2-4 paragraphs. Because, to me, there is no reason to have a section that only consists of one or a few sentences. I always look for ways to just merge a section when it is that short. Nor do I feel that such a summary would do her humanitarian work justice. Honestly, though I am open to you downsizing it, I feel that the section is fine as it is. I mean, this article did become featured with that section, and most of what was there at the time is still there now (just better tweaked, rearranged or whatever). It's not like this article is going to grow too much bigger, so I don't see a need for drastic cuts. Flyer22 (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

And I'm pretty sure that by "highlights," EnemyOfTheState also means her wide recognition for her humanitarian work...such as her awards. Flyer22 (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you misread EotS's response, because he/she did in fact agree with cutting most of the field missions, but suggested we find some way to mention the "highlights". I've downsized the section, so even if you disagree, please take a look and tell me what you think of this (rough) version. To clarify, I've removed (most of) paragraphs 2–7 and 11, and I've bolded the content I added. Cheers, Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC).

When I said I was in agreement with EnemyOfTheState that I can't agree to cut most of it, I was referring to this line: "But I'm not sure throwing out everything is the best way to do it necessarily." Because, to me, you were suggesting to cut out everything and just leave your summary sentence. I considered that to be "cutting most of it." EnemyOfTheState also suggested "2-6 of that section," which still leaves a few paragraphs -- close to the number of paragraphs I suggested (6 to my 2-4 suggestion). As for your rough draft of a new version....(I'm placing my comment right below it). Flyer22 (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured there was some miscommunication going on when you mentioned the section being "one or only a few sentences" long after my proposed cuts. I only ever intended to remove the paragraphs listing her field missions, not her political involvement and awards; sorry if I wasn't clear on that in my original post. Cheers, Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC).

Draft

Humanitarian work

UNHCR field missions

• February 2001, Sierra Leone
• June–July 2001, Cambodia
• August 2001, Pakistan
• March 2002, Namibia
• May 2002, Thailand
• June 2002, Ecuador
• October 2002, Kenya
• December 2002, Kosovo
• March 2003, Tanzania
• April 2003, Sri Lanka
• August 2003, Russia
• December 2003, Jordan and Egypt
• April 2004, Arizona, United States
• June 2004, Chad
• October 2004, Thailand and Sudan
• December 2004, Lebanon
• May 2005, Pakistan
• November 2005, Pakistan
• November 2006, India
• December 2006, Costa Rica
• February 2007, Chad
• August 2007, Iraq and Syria
• October 2008, Afghanistan
• February 2009, Thailand
• July 2009, Iraq
• September 2009, Kenya
• October 2009, Syria
• February 2010, Haiti
• April 2010, Bosnia-Herzegovina
• June 2010, Ecuador
• August 2010, Bosnia-Herzegovina
• September 2010, Pakistan
• March 2011, Afghanistan
• April 2011, Tunisia
• June 2011, Turkey, Malta, and Italy

Jolie first became personally aware of worldwide humanitarian crises while filming Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001) in Cambodia. She contacted UNHCR for more information on international trouble spots. To learn more about the conditions in these areas, Jolie began visiting refugee camps around the world. In February 2001, she went on her first field visit, an 18-day mission to Sierra Leone and Tanzania; she later expressed her shock at what she had witnessed. In the following months, she returned to Cambodia for two weeks and met with Afghan refugees in Pakistan, where she donated $1 million in response to an international UNHCR emergency appeal. She insisted on covering all costs related to her missions and shared the same rudimentary working and living conditions as UNHCR field staff on all of her visits. Jolie was named a UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador at UNHCR headquarters in Geneva on August 27, 2001.

"We cannot close ourselves off to information and ignore the fact that millions of people are out there suffering. I honestly want to help. I don't believe I feel differently from other people. I think we all want justice and equality, a chance for a life with meaning. All of us would like to believe that if we were in a bad situation someone would help us."

Jolie on her motives for joining UNHCR in 2001

Since then, Jolie has been on field missions around the world and met with refugees and internally displaced persons in more than 20 countries. Asked what she hoped to accomplish, she stated, "Awareness of the plight of these people. I think they should be commended for what they have survived, not looked down upon." Jolie aims to visit what she terms "forgotten emergencies", crises that media attention has shifted away from. She is noted for not shying away from areas that are currently at war: she visited displaces families in the Darfur region of Sudan during the Darfur conflict in 2004; she met with Sudanese refugees in neighboring Chad during its civil war in 2007; she visited displaced people as well as US troops and other multi-national forces in Iraq during the Second Gulf War in 2007 and 2009; and she met with internally displaced people during the war in Afghanistan in 2008 and 2011.

Over time, Jolie became more involved in promoting humanitarian causes on a political level. She has regularly attended World Refugee Day in Washington, D.C., and she was an invited speaker at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2005 and 2006. Jolie also began lobbying humanitarian interests in the U.S. capital, where she met with members of Congress at least 20 times from 2003. She explained in Forbes: "As much as I would love to never have to visit Washington, that's the way to move the ball." She also pushed for several bills to aid refugees and vulnerable children in the Third World. Jolie has met with high-ranking officials during several of her field missions: while visiting Afghani refugees in Pakistan in 2005, she met with President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz; during her visit to Haiti in 2010, she discussed the future of earthquake relief efforts with Haitian officials, including President René Préval; and while visiting displaced victims of the Bosnian War in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 2010, she met with Presidency members Haris Silajdžić and Željko Komšić.

In addition to her political involvement, Jolie began using her public profile to promote humanitarian causes through the mass media. Her early field visits were chronicled in her book Notes from My Travels, which was published in conjunction with the release of her film Beyond Borders (2003). In 2005, she filmed an MTV special, The Diary Of Angelina Jolie & Dr. Jeffrey Sachs in Africa, portraying her and noted economist Dr. Jeffrey Sachs on a trip to a remote group of villages in Western Kenya. [The above was mostly taken from the subsequent paragraph, because it doesn't fit in there at all. It needs to be expanded—any more examples of her using mass media? Maybe a mention of those PSA's she does?]

In 2005, Jolie took part at a National Press Club luncheon, where she announced the founding of the National Center for Refugee and Immigrant Children, an organization that provides free legal-aid to asylum-seeking children with no legal representation, which Jolie personally funded with a donation of $500,000 for its first two years. In 2006, Jolie announced the founding of the Jolie-Pitt Foundation, which made initial donations to Global Action for Children and Doctors Without Borders of $1 million each. Jolie also co-chairs the Education Partnership for Children of Conflict, founded at the Clinton Global Initiative in 2006, which helps fund education programs for children affected by conflict. In 2007, Jolie became a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Jolie has received wide recognition for her humanitarian work. In 2003, she was the first recipient of the newly created Citizen of the World Award by the United Nations Correspondents Association, and in 2005, she was awarded the Global Humanitarian Award by the UNA-USA. Cambodia's King Norodom Sihamoni awarded Jolie Cambodian citizenship for her conservation work in the country on August 12, 2005; she pledged $5 million to set up a wildlife sanctuary in the north-western province of Battambang and owns property there. In 2007, Jolie received the Freedom Award by the International Rescue Committee.

- Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

...I say it's good. And I much prefer keeping 4-6 paragraphs instead of 2-4. You even found a way to keep her field missions. To be clear, though, I wasn't saying that nothing should be cut because of her field missions. After all, we cannot continue to list all of her field missions (as she continues and continues to do them), unless they can all fit in the box you created without being too long. I was just worried about too much being cut, her humanitarian work not being adequately covered, and felt the need to express that I didn't see drastic cuts as necessary to that section right now. But you've done a good job of summarizing the material without downplaying her work. I approve. Flyer22 (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the draft above is very good. The list of field missions might be a bit misleading, because the countries she visited are not always identical with the nationalities of the refugees/the place of the conflict. It might also break the layout of the page, depending on the screen resolution. I can't really add much input. Possibly her many (at least 4?) visits to Pakistan could be tied to A Mighty Heart. EnemyOfTheState_|talk 20:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point on the list; I won't add it into the article. I'm glad you (plural) approve. Cheers, Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC).

I don't have a problem with her field missions not being specifically mentioned either. Flyer22 (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit 7/7/11

I've made quite a few changes to the article (compare old with new), and with this being an FA, I figured I'd explain the major ones here:

• Jolie's career did not begin in 1993, but in 1991. A starring role in a commercially released music video ("Alta Marea") qualifies as the starting point of her career.
• Split the middle paragraph in the lead section and moved the "sexiest"/"most beautiful" line to the last paragraph for balance.
• Reduced the content on her relationship with Brad Pitt by taking out the mentions of the Kenya paparazzi pictures and the lawsuit against News of the World. This material is also mentioned in Brangelina, and what good is that article if it merely rehashes material from Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt?
• Removed her adopted children's birth names because it can be sensitive information for adopted persons and I believe their inclusion is not "relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject" per WP:BLPNAME.
• Parts of "In the media" were better suited to other sections and have been moved there, namely her part in Lookin' to Get Out (moved to "Early work"), her use of "Jolie" as a stage name ("Early life"), and her relationship with Pitt and the births of their children ("Personal life").

I won't go into detail on the rest of the edit because I don't think anyone cares, but I will respond to any questions/objections raised here.

Cheers, Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC).

Why replace the ref about acting pay from Reuters with something from myfreelibrary? Gimmetoo (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Because the Reuters article doesn't support the claim I made. The lead used to say "since then has established herself as one of the best-known and highest-paid actresses in Hollywood." I felt "since then" was too vague and replaced it with "she established herself among the highest-paid actresses in Hollywood with the Tomb Raider sequel The Cradle of Life (2003)," which is supported by the PR Newswire article (vaguely, it says she was the seventh highest-paid actress of 2002 with $12-15 million per movie; I may have to look for a source that specifies she earned that money with TCoL). Both sources report on surveys by The Hollywood Reporter, if you're worried about accuracy. Cheers, Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC).

Should we really move the information about her attractiveness to the bottom of the lead? I mean, the only reason it is even included in the lead at all is because it has heavily contributed to her fame, as discussed in various past discussions at this talk page. It just makes more sense to me that it stay in the first paragraph, instead of being regulated to the bottom with mention of her past and current romances and other personal life. Placing it there makes it look more trivial than anything, when her attractiveness has actually been one of the main things the public has focused on about her. More so than her relationship with Brad Pitt or her children. The first paragraph talks about why she is famous and/or fascinating, and I feel that the information about her attractiveness fits there better than her being "named Hollywood's highest-paid actress by Forbes in 2009 and 2011." Flyer22 (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I think it's rather trivial no matter where it's located. I also disagree that her sex appeal has contributed more to her fame than her relationship with Pitt; she may have been A-list before meeting him, but their involvement made her the biggest female star in the world. (Note that the majority of "most beautiful"/"sexiest" accolades came post-Pitt). Anyway, I moved it because the third (now fourth) paragraph was only two sentences long and a paragraph needs to be three sentences minimum (at least that's what I've been taught), and because I feel it fits better with her much-gossiped about personal life rather than the "serious" subjects of her acting career and humanitarian work. I added the highest-paid accolade because to me it's in line with mentioning her awards, showing that as an actress she's both critically acclaimed and financially successful. But if you feel strongly about it or other editors agree with you then I will move it back, no problem. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't say it's trivial at all, Prayer for the wild at heart, when it has heavily contributed to her fame. And let's be real here: It has. If it were trivial, editor after editor would not have agreed to maintain it in the lead time and time again. We wouldn't even mention her attractiveness at all in this article. But, seeing as it has played a big part in her fame, there is a spot in the lower body of the article discussing it, and the lead is supposed to summarize the most significant aspects of a topic, it belongs in the lead either way, per WP:LEAD. By her physical attractiveness contributing to her fame more than Pitt has, I simply mean that it (other than her acting skills) is what put her on the map; she was cited as the world's most beautiful woman time and time again even before she got involved with Pitt. When people think of "Angelina Jolie," I really don't believe that the first thing they think of is "Brad Pitt." I believe it's "stunning" or "beautiful," as demonstrated by various readers in magazines...and magazine, newspaper, and site columnists themselves. Without her looks, would she really be as famous as she is right now? Not to downplay her acting ability, or the fact that people (mostly men) have achieved great fame without being perceived as good-looking, but would so many people really have embraced Jolie simply because she is tied to Brad Pitt? Jennifer Aniston's career didn't take off to the heavens while dating Brad Pitt, and the same can be stated for all the other women he's dated. While people made a big deal about "Brad and Gwyneth" and "Brad and Jen," it pales in comparison to the big deal they have made about "Brad and Angie" (aka Brangelina). And the reason people made such a big deal about these two being a couple to begin with? Because they are often perceived as the two most good-looking people in the world. It boggles people's minds, and certainly did when it made them go bananas wondering what Shiloh would look like. So while I can see what you mean about Pitt contributing to Jolie's fame, at the core, all of the hoopla over Brangelina mostly has to do with the fact that Pitt is perceived as the most good-looking man in the world and Jolie as the most beautiful woman in the world. This has been stated in various sources. And you are the one who added "sexy," when I feel that "most beautiful" by itself suffices enough for the lead and makes it sound less trivial.

As for the third paragraph being only two sentences long... That's no reason to remove the longer-standing mention of Jolie's attractiveness from the first paragraph. That paragraph is for mentioning the most significant and/or important elements contributing to her fame. Why she is notable. And her physical attractiveness, as I have gone over, is one such significant element. I can't agree that the "highest-paid" information fits there better. That vs. her physical attractiveness? It's clear which has contributed to her fame more. I don't mind the "highest-paid" information being that high in the lead (and, really, the first paragraph is the place it fits best); I just don't agree with your excluding what you did in order to fit that in. If the final paragraph is too small, which I agree that it was, then we can find some other way to balance that out. Flyer22 (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Flyer22, all you had to do was say you would really prefer it were moved back and I would have, like I stated before. No need to repeat the argument you made the first time, because I still disagree with you. And yes, I added "sexiest" in addition to "most beautiful," because four out of the eight sources cited call her the world's "sexiest" woman; I'm merely interested in accurately representing the source material. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't repeat the argument I made the first time. I contested your argument for the change and expanded on why I disagree with the change. I was also saying that there must be another way to expand on that final paragraph. But I thank you for simply restoring the text without turning this into some big deal. You have done great work on this article and I appreciate that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Prayer for the wild at heart, do you mind if we cut down on the references attributed to the "most beautiful" line? Ten is way too many, and signals Wikipedia:Citation overkill to experienced Wikipedia editors. We can/should just leave it at four, and let the In the media section cover the other references. Flyer22 (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. In a previous response you mentioned not liking the "sexiest" accolade in the lead, so I'll take that out along with the corresponding refs. Cheers, Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

Thank you. I didn't mind "sexiest" being in the lead much. But, yes, I feel that this version is better. Flyer22 (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if "most beautiful" should be without quotation marks, though. I added it before so that some people wouldn't get all "bent out of shape" about something that is an opinion, even with it being a widely-held opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I missed this, sorry! Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Flyer22 (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Base

Where do they actually live? One minute they say New Orleans, another its France, then back in LA. Can somebody please write in her persona life where her and Brad's homes are and where the children go to school on a permanent basis. I have absolutely no idea on this as they appear to always be travelling around the world.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It seem you have answered your own question -- "they appear to always be travelling around the world." They no doubt have more than one home, and have clearly done a great job of keeping the media from specifying their location to just one spot. Flyer22 (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Maddox's origins

While googling to find out Jolie's adopted kids' birthplaces, I couldn't find any reliable sources that support the unsourced claim that he was adopted from Battambang. It wasn't included in the original news reports on the adoption, and the only semi-reliable sources I've found are articles by The Guardian—which has a history of relying on wikipedia—and The Age, which I'm not really familiar with.

The reason I question that he was adopted from Battambang is that her first coordinates tattoo points to Phnom Penh, not Battambang. (Her other tattoos point to Addis Ababa, Swakopmund, Ho Chi Minh City, and Nice—the cities where she adopted/birthed her other children.) Why would she get a tattoo of the coordinates of Phnom Penh if she adopted Maddox from Battambang? Also, the adoption agent Jolie used to adopt Maddox was based in Phnom Penh, and most of the orphanages this agent is known to have used were also located in Phnom Penh, while none were located in Battambang.

Thoughts, anyone? Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, I've gone and made the change, with an article from the reputable Sydney Morning Herald detailing the meaning behind her coordinates tattoos. I checked the history, and the original claim appears to be an unsourced addition that somehow managed to stay in the article for five years. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's avoid an edit war about a photo (!)

I added this picture to the article. Prayer for the wild at heart (whom I think is Wildhartlivie under a new identity) apparently does not like it, and wants it removed. No valid reason is given for that. Personnally, I do not want to enter an edit war about a photo, but I see no reason whatsoever for not including this photo, which gives a good view of Ms Jolie's appearance at the height of her career. The current "controversy" looks like the crudest possible form of WP:OWN, and I don't think we need that. I'd really like to avoid discussing this further. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't attack me by claiming I must be a sockpuppet and crying WP:OWN just because we're having a disagreement. It doesn't help your case at all. I do like the image, but that doesn't mean it fits the article. As outlined in WP:Images, all images in this article line up directly with the relevant text, are stacked left-right, face the text properly, and don't sandwich the text. It's not possible to add a left-facing picture from 2007 without violating those guidelines. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 09:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Those arguments do not convince me and I do feel like we're facing a very crude case of WP:OWN. I am actually not interested at all in continuing this discussion, regardless of whether the other user is a sockpuppet or not (and I think she is, but that's not important per se). If someone feels that there are too many images in the article - and I do not think that they sandwich the text - then another one might be removed. But I do not think this is necessary at all. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Age?

The two unsourced edits by User:Subhwiki make Jolie's age to be 46 years old, with a date of birth of 1965. This contradicts several portions of the article (such as the first sentence of the "early work"), as well as other sources, such as [1], [2] or [3]. I would revert it myself, but my account is not confirmed or auto-confirmed (not enough edits). Marzo 14:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marzojr (talk • contribs)

Edit request from , 24 November 2011

Angelina jolie is 36 years old and was born in 1975. Please follow up on this because I have checked every article and website and she is 36. Thank You for reading this letter. From, Anonymous

96.227.62.55 (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done, someone vandalised it, thanks for pointing it out--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Director and writer

Please update Angelina Jolie's occupation. She's also a director and writer since she wrote and directed In the Land of Blood and Honey --Trishstar7 (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)trishstar7--Trishstar7 (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)